'Because of the importance of pedagogic work, pedagogic action takes time
and requires consistency, distinguishing it from other forms of symbolic
violence (such as, once again, the preaching of the prophet). Pedagogic
agencies are also, therefore, of longer duration and greater stability than
other agencies of symbolic violence' (Jenkins, R, 1992, p. 107) "Pierre
Bordieu" New York: Routledge.
Bordieu, like Marx, is not necessarily deterministic (but can be
interpreted as such). Like Marx, he believes that the system will remain
intact until such time as the relations of reproduction can no longer
sustain the burden of systemic tension, that is, until the necessary
conditions that are indispensible to revolution are present in the system.
Unlike Marx, Bordieu gives little indication as to how this might come
about. As such his notions for social change are axiomatic and not
(explicitly) very helpful. His notion of 'fields' give some hints, but
that's all I know about, someone else prolly knows the stuff better.
Social transformation? My favourites:
Fairclough, D., 1992, Discourse and Social Change.
Lemke, J. 1995. Textual Politics.
Phil
At 12:06 23-11-98 +0800, you wrote:
>Jay and xmca-colleagues,
>
>I have a quick question. I've been drawing on Bourdieu's habitus idea in
>my discussion of Hong Kong teachers' EFL teaching styles/routines in
>working class schools.
>
>My idea is that a certain disposition towards English of teachers leads
>them to reproduce the kind of disposition in their classroom teaching
>practices and in their students, namely, a mechanical relationship with
>English: English not as part of their communicative competence but as a
>learned package of items and structures mainly for exam purposes. So, a
>reproduction of habitus and (lack of) certain dispositions and compentences.
>
>However, I'd also like to talk about the possibility of transformation or
>social change. Bourdieu has been accused of being "determinsitic" and more
>a theorist of reproduction than transformation. In his model, it's not
>clear how social change or change/transformation in habitus is possible (or
>can be initiated) and how change in social practice is possible without
>external imposition of change of circumstances; but agent/actor-initiated
>changes seem impossible in his model. Is that a fair accusation? What
>would be his defenses?
>
>Who would be a good source to turn to for insights on how social change,
>change in practice, and change in habitus is possible? The Critical
>School/Critical Pedagogy? (correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is
>that many of their discussions tend to be miles away from classroom
>PRACTICES; maybe there're things which I've missed and would welcome your
>suggstions.)
>
>Hope to hear from you.
>Thanks a lot.
>
>Angel Lin
>
>
>
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html