I agree that conflict theories may have the pitfalls that you
mentioned: sometimes making one unable to see things from the
perspective of the other.
However, I think there can be a difference between structural
theory and conflict theory. I think there can be structural
theories that describe the structural constraints on and
resources for social practices and social actors, and structural
theories that need not equate conflict theories, though many of
the available ones seem to be a conflation of the two. I fully
understand what you say about the different parties armed with
different theories fighting each other... i certainly don't want
a theory to become a tool for turf fights. I'd like to use
theories as some of the tools for understanding life, and/or for
practical approaches to improving the life of people (hopefully
including ours, yours, and theirs, and his and hers).
On the other hand, my understanding of Bourdieu's thoughts is
somewhat different from Jay's. I don't think Bourdieu thinks
life is reducible to conflict. Jay says that Bourdieu says
everyone is either the dominator or the dominated and Jay has
problems with this formulation of the social actor.
Interestingly, I feel that Bourdieu may be right, but perhaps not in the
sense interpreted by Jay. I believe that few human beings
intentionally mean harm to, or domination over, others.
Nevertheless, we may be in positions which constrain us in
certain ways that we may not have easily realized ourselves. It
would be good to have someone tell us, or have ourselves
reflect on them... and then we may be able to do something about it.
However, isn't that an idea for
another dissertation? A dissertation on Bourdieu and structural theory,
conflict theory... and the model of the social actor, etc. But
life is so short; one doesn't have all the time for all sorts of
dissertations, interesting as they may be ... :-)
Happy New Year!!
Angel