Für Kai - Bourdieu Reductif?

[Matthew Cissell]

Hallo Kai,

     Danke für deine Antwort. Es freut mich dass Du meine theoretische 
Ausrichtung interessant gefunden hast. However, it seems that we differ in 
regard to Bourdieu's works' usefullness or limitations. 

    First, I think a Bourdieusian approach to literature (this must include 
lectors, reading practices, and a host of other factors) is much more 
illuminating than the psychoanalytic approachs engendered by Freud's work. Here 
at the outset of the 21st century it is easy to see why Deleuze and Guatarri 
rebelled against the tyranny of the Oedipus complex (whether one supports their 
ideas or not). Recent advances in technology and neuroscience have not sustained 
Freud's theories. In fact Emil Kraeplin's own work (which was done at about the 
same time as Freud but was not picked up by artists and intellectuals or the 
wider society) is now seen to provide a more accurate picture of mental activity 
and the psychological dynamics that come with it. Or to paraphrase a friend, 
"Freud was a bit of a genius, but his psychoanalytic theory is not genius."
    I wont bother to try convince anyone of the usefullness of Bourdieu's work 
since i think it can speak for itself.
    I will briefly address the charges of reductiveness and overdetermination. 
First, i don't think Bourdieu tried 'to play down' determinism or reductiveness, 
rather he answered his critics and left their claims ringing hollow. In 
Pascalian Meditations Bourdieu includes a section called "Digression: A critique 
of my critics".  In that section he writes: "The critique of my critics reveals 
in any case how difficult it is to discern, in the misunderstandings one 
observes, the part that is attributable to intentional malevolence, which a 
superficial look would no doubt lead one to overestimate, and the part that is 
due to the tendencies inherent in the logic of competition within the field, or, 
still more strongly, to the tendencies inscribed in the scholastic situation and 
in the deeply buried dispositions of the scholastic worldview. One might 
conclude from this that critical reflexivity can, here too, bring not only 
additional knowledge, but also something like a beginning of wisdom." (PM 64)
     Later in the same book he writes, while dealing with habitus, "Dispositions 
do not lead in a determinate way to a determinate action; they are revealed and 
fulfilled only in appropriate circumstances and in the relationship with a 
situation" (PM 149).
    Additionally the collection of Bourdieu's essays called In Other Words also 
addresses these claims.

    Finally, since it may seem questionable to some to cite Bourdieu in the 
defence of Bourdieu's work, I will point out here how his ideas have been 
employed. Perhaps most notably John Guillory drew heavily on Bourdieu when he 
wrote Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. In the field of 
history Roger Chartier has drawn on Bourdieu to study a number of things (French 
Revolution to reading practices). I won't even try to list sociological or 
anthropological studies that have drawn on Bourdieu.
    I know that numbers don't make for greatness, so i will end this response to 
doubts about Bourdieu with some questions. Why is that so many of Bourdieu's 
contemporaries (Foucault, Derrida, etc) were quickly and readily adopted by and 
adapted to the humanities/ human sciences (literary studies, history, 
psychology, etc) and Bourdieu was not and is still not? What is about Bourdieu's 
work that is so unacceptable or problematic? Or, from another view, why do some 
reject it so? Was it his use of empirical data to guide and support his work? 
Was it his mingling of 'analytic' philosophers (Wittgenstein, Searle, etc) and 
'continental' philosophers (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Cassirrer, etc) that is 
objectionable to some? Answering these questions may help us understand why 
Bourdieu has been so infrequently used in literary studies.

Of course, Kai, I don't mean to convince you of anything, just question the 
questioning.

Tchuss
Matthew Cissell



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20100930/89400193/attachment.html>