Re: structural theory
Charles Bazerman (bazerman who-is-at humanitas.ucsb.edu)
Tue, 26 Dec 1995 14:22:49 -0800 (PST)
To explain my asides about "agonistic power orientation" and "traditional
structural conflict theory" in characterizing Bourdieu:
Bourdieu invariably explains participation in any particular
field as a competitive struggle for the aggregation of power.
Cooperative enterprises, actions directed toward any accomplishment that
does not bear on power vis-a-vis other players, actions based on communal
cosciousness or attachment, and other non-competitve motivations and
accomplishments are invisible to B's analysis. Although I think much
surprising can be made visible and explained by B's system, IMO it leaves
much out. In any event the such a relentless view of social competition
does turn off readers who have commitment to other characterizations of
human motivation and action, and I wanted to present some warning.
Further B's ideas of power seem rather general,
unoperationalized, and abstract. He seems to assume that society is
robustly organized around abstract power, distribnuted heirarchically,
but sought by all. I tend to see power as more particular and loical
abilities to gewt particular things accomplished by specific actions,
tools, relationships, resources, etc. I find it hard to understand power
in the abstract, although obviously I know the sort of thing B is talking
about--obviously some people in some favored social positions have a lot
more ability to get things done than others who are more the victims of
others' desires. I just think we need to get a much more precise handle
on what we mean by power in each instance and how it is enacted--and also
top not assume a kind of generally translatability of all forms of
getting things done into a universal notion of power.
Concerning structural theories, I am in general a fan of them,
originally having learned my sociology from Merton, and as a teacher of
writing constantly aware of the different institutional and social
arrangements within which people write. Again, as with power, however,
institutions and structures only exist in the concrete (and even abstract
beliefs about sturctures and powers exist only concretely in individual
minds and perceptions)--so every structural account needs a concrete
micro realization--thus I favor structurationist accounts or other
accounts that ground structures in concrete behaviors and individual
beliefs (which is one of the key roles of habitus in B's system).
However, for the reasons given above, I think structural accounts
that rely only on conflict as their structuring principle miss
substantial parts of social behavior. On the other hand, my picture of
B's system became clearer once I realized that it was a structural
conflict account.
So these are explanations of my comments and not any clearly
marked path to something better.
Chuck
On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Angel M.Y. Lin wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> I found your messages on Bourdieu's thoughts on classroom cultures very
> helpful and interesting...
>
> And when you wrote about B's Reproduction book, you say,"... if you don't
> get put off by theagonistic power orientation--in some ways B seems to be
> a traditional structural conflict theory...."
>
> Looks like you would have comments on the limitations of tradtional
> structural conflict theory... can you elaborate on some of these limitations?
>
> I also find it necessary to explore alternative ways of thinking about
> and talking about power issues. However, structural conflict theories
> seem to be the only widely avialable tools we have now... Bourdieu's
> thoughts and research are definitely different from Marx..., and perhaps
> he might offer an alternative to structural conflict theroy?
>
>
> Educational research would be impotent and pure academese
> if it avoids issues of power and
> social inequalities... and yet, obviously, we are still in search of ways
> that can better capture the issues and offer channels for communication
> between people of different political orientations.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on these...
>
> Thanks, and cheers,
> Angel
>
>