Mary, Judy, and Kathie made the suggestion "a week-long discussion of our
practice/ our processes would be useful. "
I thought that perhaps one way to start doing this, a way that would
decenter the discussion and thereby lessen the chance that it will create
the kind of muddle it should be meant to clarify, would be to look at an
exchange taken from another mailing list, similar in many respects though
without the dense off-list linkages between the participants that exist
between the a subset of active members of xmca. Perhaps this uniqueness of
xmca is really an important issue. I am unaware of any list that has quite
the same closely knit core membership. But . . .
To this end I am posting the following message taken from a list devoted to
Bourdieu. What interests me here is how interested xmca-ites perceive the
message writer's style/practice. S/he clearly and directly contradicts the
person to whom the message was directed and also asks "rhetorical" questions
that perhaps could be glossed as "what you're saying doesn't make any sense
and is just plain wrong!" In spite of this confrontation between positions,
I find nothing personally offensive in the message. I'm wondering how
others see it.
As is usual in "reply" email, the carets indicate previous steps in the
thread; the sections with double and no carets being written by the same
person.
BEGIN TEXT
###########################################################################
> >Even then, let us take Bourdieu's 'habitus'. The same concept can be
> >found all over the place, such as in Elias.
>
> Yes, but does it have the same meaning? My point is surely not very
> controversial. Until recently, theories have always been taken as
> incompatible, perhaps even incommensurable. (This is certainly the case in
> physics.)
This is not the case. Theories are not incommensurable in physics.
They have the intransitive dimension, the world, against which they may
be ultimately compared and evaluated. What you seem to be doing here is
to redescribe a series of perspectives as incommensurable paradigms.
>And, as a matter of fact, we don't find all sorts of unlikely
> hybrids, genetically modified theory combinations. The 'melting pot'
version
> of theory ("Take a drop of Husserl. Add a drop of Foucault ...") fits
nicely
> with packaged theory production, in which industry Bourdieu's doxosophers
> play the role of the marketing department. Whatever the commodity, a good
> way to increase sales is to extend the product range. Another of course is
> to rebrand an existing line: New Bourdieu Plus! Now with added
reflexivity!
I've lost you here. I did emphasise not doing pick/n/mix theory.
> >There is no necessity to theories having to be defined in opposition to
> >other theories. This is the case for much sociology, but it doesn't
> >have to be so.
>
> The necessity is logical. This is the nature of theory. They don't so much
> define themselves in opposition to other theories as are intrinsically
> opposed to them -- in so far as no-one has yet worked out how to support
> theory pluralism without falling into the self-defeating and
> self-contradictory position of a Richard Rorty.
There is no necessity, 'logical' or otherwise, for theories being in
opposition. You'll have to explain what you mean by 'This is the nature
of theory'.
How are the theories of chemistry and physics, for example, in
opposition?
With best wishes,
############################################################################
#
END TEXT
Any thoughts?
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:02 PST