Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neil McLaughlin <nmclaugh-AT-mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Re: [FRA:] sociology, philosophy and art



>
>
> I do agree that we have disciplinary borders or boundaries everywhere. The
> question is about their meanings, if we could confront it or not, and why. I
> think that one of the most chalenging questions we see at Adorno's
> philosophy is the need to think philosophically about those borderes and
> boundaries, and even to try somehow to overcome them when it seems
> necessary, if it is possible. Of course sociological research shread some
> light on that too. I would add a Bourdie's disciple, Charles Soulie
> -Anatomie du Gout Philosophique (Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales,
> Iss.109, 1995)- as a very interesting empirical research about it. Bourdieu
> himlself has made some works about it, like his book on Heidegger, which is
> actually a philosophical-sociological mix.


I agree for sure, that Bourdieu and his followers have made important
contributions in thinking about borders and boundaries.
There is a whole literature in sociology now on "symbolic boundaries" that
address questions Bourdieu helped put on the table.
I am interested in hearing what Adorno adds to this.


>
> > A useful version of this discussion is not likely to be undertaken on this
> > list (for a variety of sociological reasons, actually), so best focus on
> > things that might be useful.
>
> Useful for what? Useful for who? Why it has to be so? What kind of
> sociological reasons? What kind of sociological evidence do you have to say
> that?
>

My sense is this group is so diverse, in and out of philosophy, and
out
of
sociology, ect, that a further dialogue of boundaries of this nature would
not be so productive. We have certainly had an interesting discussion of
empirical issues, philosophy and sociology. If you have further things to
say about the issue Filipe, be my guest.  Others should also feel free to
do so. Myself, I would rather discuss other issues now.
Moreover, generally, groups have trouble talking about their own
boundaries, for obvious sociological reasons, it seems to me.
So talking about what is and should clasify as "critical theory" might not
be that productive. Again, I have no evidence for this, nor strong
feelings. Just my opinion. But again, if someone else frames the issue, an
interesting conversation might happen.


Myself, I was struck by the important issues of how the world sees
america, as well as the state of contemporary art, raised by the whitney
show. And wonder if critical theory has things to say about this?
They were, after all, an example of Europeans looking at America from
afar, then there for awhile, and then from afar again..
The Nazi experience clouded their judgement about America, in my view, but
that is certainly understandable.
And today, the view of America from outside Europe is perhaps more
important morally and politically, than critical theory has given weight
to.  Anyone have thoughts on these issues, from a Frankfurt School angle?