tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post2536728753556146449..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: A Day With BourdieuPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-60289726675084415072008-06-28T15:40:00.000+01:002008-06-28T15:40:00.000+01:00Well yes John, obviously social theory can be disp...Well yes John, obviously social theory can be disproved, otherwise we'd be stuck with the same kind of functionalist orthodoxy that settled over the discipline in the immediate post-war period. It originally gave way because the Marxist, feminist and psychoanalytic perspectives that broke through offered more convincing explanations of social phenomena as well as attacking functionalist theorising as having the effect of offering a sophisticated apologia for the prevailing system.<BR/><BR/>And so it it with Bourdieu's work with habitus, fields and capital. If you have to do real violence to empirical material for it to fit your framework, then there's something wrong. It means either modifying the theory or disregarding it completely. Bourdieu's methodology is flexible enough to model convincing explanations about a hell of a lot of stuff. There are issues as Coatesy's pointed out but as far as I'm concerned, no materialist analysis can do without the weapons he's produced.<BR/><BR/>As for Occam's razor, well we can see straight away how applying it to social relations leads to ideological conclusions. The 'truth' of economics is not innocent. Yes, like all disciplines it has truth effects but it is bound up in a network of power relations that place it close to where those relations are concentrated. Because of the role economics play in reproducing the class relations of capitalist society, its truths are privileged over those provided by sociology.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-41779962484697635342008-06-28T10:21:00.000+01:002008-06-28T10:21:00.000+01:00I really question if interest in Bourdieu heralds ...I really question if interest in Bourdieu heralds a return of Marxist influence in sociology. For the simple reason that Bourdieu was not a Marxist. His concepts of Habitus, and his take on structuration, have a strong functionalist element - as was pointed out by Ranciere and the collective of Revoltes Logiques in the 1980s. The journal he most associated with, Acts de Recherche etc was also stunningly boring. Very conventional sociology in fact. <BR/><BR/>His political past was always marked by his infantile support for the Coluche (France's largely unfunny Clown) candidature for French President in 1981. His collection, Raisons d'agir did publish some interesting stuff in the 1990s and he did stand up for strikers and left causes. But I think, and I really really hate to admit this, that Callinicos summed up rightly in more details along the lines I have just written.<BR/><BR/>Another case of anglo-saxon academics wholly misreading French intellectuals say I. <BR/><BR/>Coatesy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-54142907314015531232008-06-26T09:31:00.000+01:002008-06-26T09:31:00.000+01:00"Where sociological explanation is concerned, conc..."Where sociological explanation is concerned, concepts and models ultimately rest on the empirical study of social phenomena. "<BR/><BR/>You are right of course, but thinkers like Bourdieu are not helped, are they? What observed conditions or relations or actions would serve to falsify any of his theses? They are so plastic as to be beyond falsification. And there is always a simpler explanation on offer for any of the phenomena Bourdieu studies, which Occam would have us prefer. Why does economics attract so much funding? The simple explanation is that economics is right, or closer to right than other sociological explanations. Without experimental evidence to the contrary, wOccam has us prefer that reasonable explanation to complexities such as Bourdieuian field theories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-36902277983036372492008-06-26T01:28:00.000+01:002008-06-26T01:28:00.000+01:00Why does no one give a monkey's about poor old Jea...<I>Why does no one give a monkey's about poor old Jean-Paul anymore?</I><BR/>I do. JPS is more of an existentialist theorician among Camus, but he had a great impact I'd say against the words of Heidegger and national's selfishdom. He has been forgotten for his marxist views.<BR/>Visit my friend's blog (De Dieguez as mentionned above), he was the friend of Jean-Paul Sartre and Heidegger.steven rixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154964357134050639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87281056797581758492008-06-25T19:07:00.000+01:002008-06-25T19:07:00.000+01:00You're working with a very naturalistic definition...You're working with a very naturalistic definition of science, John. That of course is fine for the physical sciences but not for the social sciences. Where sociological explanation is concerned, concepts and models ultimately rest on the empirical study of social phenomena. The scientific validity of these concepts and models depend on how closely they approximate the phenomena observed, on their ability to describe and explain the operations and outcomes of social relations.<BR/><BR/>For those of us who use social theory as a guide to action (Marxists, feminists, greens, anarchists etc.) the ultimate criterion of validity is practice. I would write more, but I have to dash out!Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-72858532117999869712008-06-25T14:57:00.000+01:002008-06-25T14:57:00.000+01:00"Is it because of his adherence to Marxism? "I thi..."Is it because of his adherence to Marxism? "<BR/><BR/>I think you mean 'Stalinism'. That sort of thing puts a lot of people off, it's true.<BR/><BR/>The trouble with all this fun stuff about Bourdieu and pals is that the word 'science' gets bandies about. But in what way is what Bourdieu does or did 'science'. How can his theories be put to the test through experiment? Without that, it is so much hot air, isn't it? Easily refuted by simply saying 'no'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90588827825934398582008-06-24T22:33:00.000+01:002008-06-24T22:33:00.000+01:00No need to miss them, Politiques. They're still fa...No need to miss them, Politiques. They're still fashionable, with the exception of Sartre of course. Why does no one give a monkey's about poor old Jean-Paul anymore? Is it because of his adherence to Marxism? Or his criminally unhip Hegelianism?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-29935770380832322832008-06-24T01:47:00.000+01:002008-06-24T01:47:00.000+01:00I miss all these guys: Foucault, Derrida, Bataille...I miss all these guys: Foucault, Derrida, Bataille, Lacan, Bourdieu, Sartre, Camus, oh man the list is exhaustive :)<BR/>I've seen you also wrote about Zizek. I know this guy and he makes me laugh when he says "We, leftists should ... blah blah". Zizek is more specialized in the oeuvre of Lacan if I have a good memory (psycho-analysis).<BR/><BR/>Here is a good friend of mine, that I know personally:<BR/><BR/>http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2004/06/24/the_religious_american_unconscious_caught_in_the_trap_of_torture.php<BR/><BR/>Read his article, it's great.<BR/><BR/>He's a french philosopher, he's now 87 y/o I believe.<BR/><BR/>Here is his website:<BR/>http://dieguez-philosophe.com/<BR/><BR/>Gotta pick up da wife, I'll come back later. On Wed. nite I go back to work, so I won't be that much online, but I'll still stop by on yar blog.steven rixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154964357134050639noreply@blogger.com