The honest-to-God first sentence of the book: "The practical privilege in which all scientific activity arises never more subtly governs that activity (insofar as science presupposes not only an epistemological break but also a social separation) than when, unrecognised as privilege, it leads to an implicit theory of practice which is the corollary of neglect of the social conditions in which science is possible."
Fuck. French. Theorists.
I'm starting to wonder if this assignment is itself a test--this prof (Cultural Theory in Education) had us read a decent book last week about discipline and punishment, and is all about viva la revolucion. Maybe we're suppose to revolt against this directive, which seems to clearly a waste of time. No idea. All I know is when on page 4 I came across the phrase "a theory of theory," I got a little teary.
Perhaps a beer would make this easier.
More things coming soon--been living it up with an old friend over the weekend and am now dealing with the subsequent game of catch-up.
6 comments:
I sense sentences the size of paragraphs punctuated by around 20 commas.
Those books drive me insane. There's good ideas behind them, but they're articulated in a way which makes your brain vomit and swear.
I haven't read that book, but have read an article or two by him. didn't make me suicidal but did make me feel as if I were breaking boulders with my forehead. Perhaps it is the translation. My brother in law, a translation junkie, says that french translates badly because of the nature of French. I have to trust him on that one.
I ran across this today and I thought of you; I think it fits more with your class. sorry for the length.
Habitus is defined by Bourdieu as a socialized subjectivity which defines a middle ground between individual agency and structural ideology. Thus, habitus guides the individual in making language choices. Bourdieu asserts that cognitive structures are constructed through social origins. Individuals acquire habitus in their primary socialization as a process reflecting social structures conceived in relation to a larger referential group. This socialization process embeds in individuals a system of predispositions and manners of viewing, organizing, and responding to the world. Habitus is then manifested in embodied actions such as manners of speech production, and these actions may be enacted by the speaker at a conscious or subconscious level. However, it is important to note that Bourdieu did not think of habitus as deterministic with individuals only passively responding to conditions and stimuli. While he sees habitus as framing human action, he is always careful to uphold individual human agency in any situation (Bourdieu, 1991).
Couched in this examination of habitus is Bourdieu's examination of the linguistic marketplace. Bourdieu wrote extensively about how language controls exchanges among individuals as if the speakers were taking part in a linguistic market where certain languages are more valued than others. In this case, Standard English is certainly more valued in mainstream culture than AAVE. Bourdieu claims that this hierarchical language system comprises a type of symbolic domination which perpetuates hegemony within the culture in an often unconscious manipulation of responses by those involved in the exchanges. According to Bourdieu , " 'Symbolic domination' is the ability of certain social groups to exercise control over others by establishing their view of reality, their norms - both cultural and linguistic, and their cultural practices - as the most valued ones" (Bourdieu, 1991). Additionally Bourdieu asserts that educational systems controlled by the mainstream government seek to perpetuate and legitimate the social system as it is through a leveraging of linguistic legitimacy.
Bourdieu felt that individuals unable to produce the standard language due to their socialization into a habitus not aligned with mainstream culture may experience a type of linguistic insecurity when called upon to use formal language. In Bourdieu's view linguistic insecurity represents a type of linguistic legitimacy as conceived by the standard language speakers of the socially dominant groups. While Bourdieu describes a system where language and inequity are intertwined in a unified marketplace controlled by mainstream culture, he does not give much voice to those in the culture who continue to use non-standard varieties of the language – such as AAVE. Thus the hegemonic principles in play actually meet resistance by those who refuse to take up the mainstream language creating a type of linguistic black market. Labov and other linguists hone in on this phenomenon by linking language production to issues of identity where non-standard language production carries a different symbolic value for the speakers to the extent that rejection of the mainstream language is worth the capital lost in making that decision (Bourdieu, 1991, Reagan, 1997).
Kelly, you know I didn't read all that. :) Thanks, though. I guess. By the way, this prof told us to discuss the book on our own for the first half of class and then he'd show up, but when he didn't show for 15 minutes we left a note and took off. I still think the whole thing is a big test--do we assign him the authority to make us read this shit or do we reclaim our own power and do what's better for us (which is go watch the debate)?
You should assert what little agency any of us have and make a space to create your own 'habitus." I just want to talk normal, and leave the academic discourse behind like an old snake skin. Sadly I think that once you have entered an affinity group (to go with Gee), one can never completely rinse yourself free of the stench. Lately as I've been with my mom more than I have in thirty years, I see aspects of her, which I don't really like, manifest themselves in odd ways in me. Both good and bad. We are all just axe handles. Sorry about your friend.
Just reading that part you quoted made my brain bleed.
Post a Comment