Re: [xmca] homo academicus

the price of a truly reflexive sociology, psychology, etc should be
at least one part doubt and one part humbleness.
An incomplete recipe
mike

PS-- I was sort of puzzled by the directionality in the quoted statement
from
bourdieu's causal links between academic ideas and politics. They
run/leak/dribble only in
one direction?

On 10/24/07, Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
> In some ways the social habitus is a prison, but
> of course it is also a resource. It allows us to
> do some things, and perhaps do them as "second
> nature", but then it also limits what we are
> likely to do and we tend to do it. The habitus
> for ideas and values lets us live together and
> cooperate, but it may also limit our imaginations
> for alternatives. It leads us to accept many
> things that perhaps we should not accept, or to
> not even see them, but it also then lets us get on with other business.
>
> We do not often enough examine our political
> positions within the academic field and how our
> positions there set up relationships also outside
> the field. Bourdieu became quite unpopular with
> many of his academic colleagues in France for
> making such a public examination in his published work.
>
> The price of a truly reflexive sociology?
>
> JAY.
>
> At 12:01 AM 10/23/2007, you wrote:
> >I think so. The inquisitorial accusations against one of the earlier
> >metioned "real heroes", Giordano Bruno, never mentioned his defense of
> >Copernican heliocentrism, but focused on his theological writings. The
> >animistic occultist Bruno didn't die a martyr
> >for the cause of modern science.
> >Of course, Francis Bacon was also interested in
> >magic and milenarianism; Tycho
> >Brahe's vast collection of observations was made primarily for
> astrological
> >purposes, Kepler believed that the universe was
> >constructed around geometrical
> >forms and musical harmonies, fellows of the Royal Society defended the
> >existence of witches and Newton was a devoted alchemist.
> >
> >Bourdieu, earlier mentioned by Paul D., referred
> >to "the universe of prejudice,
> >repression, and omission that everyday successful education makes you
> accept,
> >and makes you remain unaware of, tracing out that magic circle of
> powerless
> >complacency in which the elite schools imprison their elect" (Bourdieu
> quoted
> >in Reed-Danahay, Deborah. Locating Bourdieu. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
> >University Press, 2004:51).
> >
> >Bourdieu echoed the Durkheimian sense of
> >"mechanical solidarity" in traditional
> >society, in that a shared body of knowledge, including ways of moving,
> slang,
> >and jokes, was transmitted as a secondary habitus. He termed this
> community
> >a "magical prison" of which the teachers were "ostensibly the guards",
> even
> >though they were themselves prisoners/products of this same system. The
> >teachers exert their influence through the "charisma of office"
> >and "consecrate" the students by awarding prizes, titles, and
> certificates."
> >
> >In Homo Academicus, he wrote that "it is not, as
> >is usually thought, political
> >stances that separate people's stances on
> >things academic, but their positions
> >in the academic field which inform the stances that they adopt on
> political
> >issues in general as well as on academic problems."
> >
> >E.
> >
> >On 2007-10-23, at 05:40, Jay Lemke wrote:
> > >
> > > "Unscientific" viewpoints will necessarily play a
> > > role in whatever cultural advances humanity
> > > manages in the future to move beyond science,
> > > just as "un-religious" viewpoints were in the
> > > development of what passes today for (sometimes) more enlightened
> thought..
> > >
> > > No?
> > >
> > > JAY.
> > >
> > > At 08:03 PM 10/22/2007, you wrote:
> > >>David P,
> > >>
> > >>It remains diffuse to me what you mean by "doing science." The Steve
> Connor
> > >>comment says a lot of things (as already mentioned: representing a
> more
> > >>balanced view). The issue here (as far as I am
> > >>concerned) is not to decide "who
> > >>is right" (that would be outside the scope of my
> > >>competence, anyway) but rather
> > >>to emphasize the scholarly legitimacy or value of conflicting views,
> of
> > >>multivocal/polyphonic (or, perhaps, cacophonic) discourses. The papers
> you
> > >>referred to earlier, seem to me to represent that kind of "cacophony."
> > >>
> > >>Eirik.
> > >>
> > >>On 2007-10-22, at 22:08, David Preiss wrote:
> > >> > Eirik,
> > >> >
> > >> > The Steve Connor comment you send us (second link below) tells
> > >> > exactly why JW was not doing science at all. Particularly, why you
> > >> > can't infer from an heritability ratio a conclusion about the
> > >> > intelligence of people that works with you (as Watson say). On the
> > >> > other hand, something can be statistically heritable and not
> genetic
> > >> > at all. A nice explanation is in the Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd
> > >> > paper I sent before.
> > >> > David
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > David
> > >> >
> > >> > On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:16 PM, E. Knutsson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Amanda,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> JW's comment (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/
> > >> >> article3075642.ece)
> > >> >> concludes with this request: "[W]e as scientists, wherever we wish
> > >> >> to place
> > >> >> ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what
> are
> > >> >> unarguable truths without the support of evidence."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Some of the other comments also seem to give a more balanced view:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3070538.ece
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3075640.ece
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Curtailing free debate is almost always a mistake. Allowing
> > >> >> scientists and
> > >> >> individuals to air their theories openly does not validate them.
> On
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> contrary it allows them to be refuted."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Eirik.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 2007-10-21, at 01:26, Amanda Brovold wrote:
> > >> >>> Just for the record, it sounds to me as if Watson has suggested
> he
> > >> >>> may have
> > >> >>> been misquoted. In the article linked to 3 messages below he
> > >> >>> says: "I can
> > >> >>> understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was
> quoted as
> > >> >>> saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To
> > >> >>> those who have
> > >> >>> drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is
> > >> >>> somehow
> > >> >>> genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. This is
> > >> >>> not what I
> > >> >>> meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no
> > >> >>> scientific basis
> > >> >>> for such a belief." I am not sure why the first two sentences of
> > >> >>> this quote
> > >> >>> are generally left off when it is repeated. Such common
> > >> >>> occurrences though
> > >> >>> (even on this very list) lead me to believe it is plausible that
> > >> >>> what Watson
> > >> >>> said my not have been as appalling as what has been passed around
> > >> >>> makes it
> > >> >>> seem. I agree that it seems certain he has a view I very much
> > >> >>> disagree with
> > >> >>> and seems to be contradicted by the preponderance of evidence.
> > >> >>> However, I
> > >> >>> find un-thoughtful knee-jerk responses to such views to be at
> > >> >>> least as
> > >> >>> dangerous as the views themselves. I have heard people stress
> > >> >>> that it is
> > >> >>> important for academics to respond appropriately to events such
> as
> > >> >>> these. I
> > >> >>> very much agree, it is important for experts in the relevant
> > >> >>> fields to
> > >> >>> correct any misunderstandings that stories like this are likely
> to
> > >> >>> perpetuate. It is also extremely important though for the
> academy to
> > >> >>> remember that academic freedom is absolutely vital. As appalling
> > >> >>> as views
> > >> >>> expressed by one academic may be, the expression of controversial
> > >> >>> view
> > >> >>> points simply cannot be allowed to threaten the protections
> > >> >>> necessary for
> > >> >>> inquiry to be carried out.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Something else to consider, phrased a different way, I feel
> > >> >>> confident that
> > >> >>> many people outraged by Watson's remarks would agree that in fact
> > >> >>> there are
> > >> >>> differences in the intelligences of different people, often
> > >> >>> correlated with
> > >> >>> differences in culture. These are not differences in terms of
> one
> > >> >>> being
> > >> >>> overall superior to another, but I do not think that reading is
> > >> >>> forced by
> > >> >>> the words that have been quoted without context, even if they are
> > >> >>> accurate.
> > >> >>> It is at least possible that Watson, as he now seems to claim,
> > >> >>> really meant
> > >> >>> to refer to differences without evaluating them. And isn't the
> > >> >>> recognition
> > >> >>> of the complexity of intelligence one of the things that makes
> > >> >>> many of the
> > >> >>> outraged so upset about IQ testing?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -Amanda
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> xmca mailing list
> > >> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >> >
> > >> > David Preiss, Ph.D.
> > >> > Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
> > >> > Escuela de Psicología
> > >> > Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> > >> > Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
> > >> > Macul, Santiago
> > >> > Chile
> > >> >
> > >> > Fono: 3544605
> > >> > Fax: 3544844
> > >> > e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> > >> > web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> > >> > web institucional: http://www.epuc.cl/profesores/dpreiss
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > xmca mailing list
> > >> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>xmca mailing list
> > >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > > Jay Lemke
> > > Professor
> > > University of Michigan
> > > School of Education
> > > 610 East University
> > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> > >
> > > Tel. 734-763-9276
> > > Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> > > Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor
> University of Michigan
> School of Education
> 610 East University
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>
> Tel. 734-763-9276
> Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
> Website. <http://www.umich.edu/~jaylemke%A0>www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Oct 24 14:11 PDT 2007