From: amd <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Event, Habitus and Jon
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 21:27:35 +0000



 12/23/98 -0500, Jon wrote:
>I've always been interested in overlappings between Deleuze and 
>Bourdieu.  

After a short absence, and due to some continuous interest in the discussion
regarding Deleuze and Bourdieu, I shall try to specify more than what I have
previously stipulated about the differences.  However, I shall not do it in
this email. It is too late for me after a long day. What is important Jon is
to initiate you yourself pointing out where are the insterstices of these
overlappings. Otherwise, I consider that the previous email to Paul Kala (in
short:) about the difference between Deleuze and Bourdieu was not read
carefully as (perhaps) your concern for the overlappings was stronger. Your
expression is too general to provide with a motivation to respond more in
details about the object of concern.  


>But I'd like to ask, in this context, what is meant by Deleuze' notion of 
>structure?

I guess the notion of structure was discussed in various emails. Worthwhile
to go back to the list archive or at least to return to LS and DR and
Deleuze's article about structure in Stivale's book The Two fold Thought of
Deleuze and Guattari. I know you are familiar with them. To respond to your
question you need to specify more? 
I can list other articles specifically dealing with the issue of structure.
But for the time being this is enough:) 
>
>I'd have thought that Deleuze's concept of image of thought is very 
>similar to Bourdieu's analysis of doxa, and that habitus is indeed a 
>description of social mechanisms as they function in immanence.

Well I cannot respond now. But what I will point out, the image of thought
is not Bourdieu's analysis of doxa though it might include it. The image of
thought is a concept that has various types of modalities. When it becomes
'dominant', the modality might turn out to be doxa as Bourdieu articulates.
One can say, the image of thought in one respect is doxa but in another
respect is `meta- doxa' (that is an archaeology). "It is a system of
coordinates , dynamics, and orientations' which defines what it means to
think at a certain time.Deleuze's negotatiation, p 148). And in another
place, i guess in Logic and sense, the image of thought is measured by
height, depth and surface. 

Bourdieu's attitude towards doxa has to be sociologised, that is, contesting
the acceptance of the phenomenological daily lifeworld. The first modality
of image of thought is displaced through the ungrounding the conditions of
facticity (common sense). At the first reading, Bourdieu has a position of
displacing the first modality of image of thought with another image, what
deleuze calls it, the good sense. (Watch it... Bourdieu has more complex
position than that!!:). This is not enough for Deleuze. There has to be a
thought without an image (which is an image of an empty image), the non
sense. This 'thought without an image' is not existing in Bourdieu though he
ironically always seems to bounce on it. The study of these various
modalities of images of thought is called the Deleuzeguattarian 'Noology'.     


amd