Sharon and I concur: Bourdieu's "habitus" is just a fancy made-up word for culture, which I'm guessing he preferred not to use as such because it's an overloaded term and would have had to contest with the anthropologists' use of it. Better to coin a new term.
Btw, "hysteresis of the habitus"? That's traditional Freudian psychoanalysis straight up, not really a distinct "practice" process. If the habitus effects its influence through hysteresis, what's uniquely practical about it? And how does the practice theory account for individual choice/will, the way that individuals deal with the habitus-induced hysteresis/hysteria? Shouldn't that also be part of a theory of practice? The theoretical/explanatory mechanism behind the theory of practice seems to be a psychological one. Which might be just as well, since what "practice theory" seems to counteract is ideological and structural accounts of social behavior.
On to the "archeology of knowledge"... another psychoanalytic-heavy social theory text.
A lot of social theory seems to be psychological accounts dressing up as sociology. What is sociology anyway? How is it different from social theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment