Re: [xmca] ego, self, etc.

From: Martin Packer <packer who-is-at>
Date: Sat Feb 02 2008 - 11:06:33 PST

On 2/2/08 4:04 AM, "Steve Gabosch" <> wrote:

> the Kantian view is it is based on what I would call a
> mechanical notion of a rigid boundary existing between the subjective
> and objective, in contrast to a dialectical notion of ongoing, complex
> inter-transformations between the two interpenetrating ³realms.²


It's hard to find good ways to talk about these things, but my own view is
that once we start to talk about two 'realms,' the game is lost. As Andy has
pointed out we experience dualism every day, but the task of a social
analysis is to explain where and how these dualisms arise, and how we may
overcome them, and we can't do this is there is a dichotomy built into our

I think Andy was correct to say that Kant's model, of perception and
cognition working together to form mental models of the world based on
sensory information, introduced not just one by *multiple* dualisms. Thought
& action, fact & value, science & ethics, natural & social, individual &
society - all are divided. And all this continues in mainstream social
science. I admire Bourdieu's atempt to avoid these contradictions.
> On the issue of creating an
> alternative, is there a way that you might modify the habitus/field
> concept so it could be the basis of a genuine alternative to the
> Kantian perspective?

The point where I have the most difficulty with Bourdieu is when he claims
that science is able to generate knowledge that is able to transcend the
conditions of its own production; that by objectifying our techniques of
objectification we can obtain a "sovereign, absolute view" of the 'game' we
are studying. Seems to me that science itself is a game (multiple games)
that we need to reflect on, for sure, but which cannot provide absolute
knowledge. A very Hegelian place for him to end, no?!


xmca mailing list
Received on Sat Feb 2 11:08 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:37:02 PST