As much as I adore most of the social sciences, probably more so than any of the "hard sciences", I still have to cringe when the word science is usedAs much as I adore most of the social sciences, probably more so than any of the "hard sciences", I still have to cringe when the word science is used to describe any writer's methodology of sociology, anthropology, or western philosophy. Sociology is a particularly interesting case and point because arbitrary results can occasionally be justified as those of a reliable series of analysis and survey. In other words, scientific method seems based on more reliable and empirical tests and experiments, while sociological method seems to yield less reliable results. Of course, this brings up an entire discussion dealing more with the philosophy of science, and I'm hardly the sort of mind capable of distinguishing or explaining the difference between the two (or three, or four, or five, and so on) here. However, I can appreciate a tone of intellectual honesty when it comes to sociology. It's not so much that I'm expecting these writers to confess to this discipline essentially being a bunch of disreputable guesswork, but for sociologists to at least admit that sociological research is not essentially a science.
Bourdieu still seems to bandy about the word science as if sociology truly was one. Yet his awareness of both what the sociologist means when they say this, as well as the weaknesses of certain influences of his (Levi-Strauss, Durkheim, Weber, Merleau-Ponty, etc) motivates his ideas to step back from themselves and reflect on what sort of foundation of logic and method might stengthen their results. He seems to strive toward this goal by forcing the sociologist to reflect on their respective academic/financial positions (reflexive sociology). In this sense, Bourdieu also wants to bridge the gap between schools of thought such as phenomenology and structuralism. Which essentially means that he intends to utilize a method largely influenced by Levi-Strauss, one that approaches anthropology from a linguistic, structural, objective, and systematic perspective, while keeping in mind the sociologist/anthropologist as individual, one who's subjective perception tends to get in the way of an objective analysis of culture and social organization.
As I've mentioned, this involves a lot of philosophy of scientific method, or philosophy of research methods in general. Which is nice because it distances Bourdieu from influences such as Karl Marx, and brings him closer to the more rational approach of someone such as Max Weber. So Bourdieu is more or less talking about a "sociology of sociology", which so articulately calls for a reassessment of sociological methods of the past while addressing their respective strengths at the same time.
In Other Words is also what seems like a great introduction to Bourdieu's thought. Through the few interviews contained in this volume, he discusses his own academic career and the influences that have contributed to molding what now stands as his own quite inimitable approach. Included in this collection are also a couple of essays in which he discusses the concepts that he is famous for, such as habitus and codification. It's all very illuminating, and very much helpful for those interested in reading some of his more ambitious projects such as Distinction and Homo Acedemicus. In other words, it would be ideal if most great thinkers had a collection as brutally honest and articulate as this one. ...more
Who's intellectually well-equipped enough to define poverty? The answer is; no one. Who should we consult when this question begs at all of us, even tWho's intellectually well-equipped enough to define poverty? The answer is; no one. Who should we consult when this question begs at all of us, even the most reasonable? Maybe William T. Vollmann? Maybe base curiosity is the best sensibility to have when asking this question? So many questions arise. The symptoms, according to Vollmann, seem to be invisibility, deformity, "unwantedness", dependence, accident-prone-ness, pain, numbness, estrangement, and amortization. And how poetically defined these poverty stricken maladies are. Organized throughout a sociological survey of what poverty essentially entails, and more importantly means, Vollmann seeks, if nothing else, to comment on the how and why of people living hand-to-mouth. Montaigne opines, Agee opines, Orwell opines, etc. All of them, in their own way, have mentioned the problem, sought to analyze it, and have ultimately failed in their self-assured assessments. And so, but Vollmann achieves profound insight in paradoxical commentary; something that he's notoriously well known for.
Sunnee's plight strikes the reader with an almost immediate sense of conviction. She is the most obvious example of one who struggles, lives cognizant of her struggle, and basically cannot change. Surely it's the cheap Thai whiskey that aids her rest every evening. It's possibly because she can't read or write (her own name if nothing else). It's also possibly because her day-to-day existence is only perpetuated, and entirely dependent upon, her depraved desire to continue living. What of her daughter, the beautiful and hopeful Vimonrat? Will Vimonrat suffer the same series of ups and downs and disappointments of her mother? It's possible, almost apparently inevitable, taking into consideration her plight, and the plight of her family and lineage. Yet Sunnee isn't really poor, especially when her situation is comparatively assessed by her contemporaries; she has furniture at all. This is Vollmann's most powerful human study in the book, and they only get worse, or better as the case may be in context.
And Natalia. Such a sad Soviet case, mirroring Dostoevsky's Prince Mishkin in her unavoidable depravity. Then again, what if no police officer or local were to acknowledge her epileptic condition? Bad things happened to her as well. So many unfortunate tragedies, that to list them all, would be utterly tragic in itself. She's a bit more aware than Sunnee seems, albeit seemingly incapable of doing anything about it, her problem that is, the difficulty of not being able to adequately explain her illness.
Also ...
"If you hadn't gone to Chernobyl, what would your life be like today? I would continue building houses, he shrugged. I would be able to have a decent job, and enough money."
If I hadn't been thrown into this horrible situation, one which seems to perpetuate itself in such an effortless manner, then maybe I could live well, be happier, eventually accomplish something, etc.
This in mind, Vollmann risks sounding like an overzealous bleeding heart; a privileged journalist merely snacking on the destitution of his subjects. But, as is the case with most of Vollmann's non-fiction, he manages to lacerate himself in the most naked, Bourdieuian sense. He offers meager financial aid, as he admits in a majority of the vignettes of Poor People, subsequently realizing that his help is frustratingly ineffectual. If he offers Sunnee money, then she will spend all of it on drink, even if the intention is to help Vimonrat with her education, even if Sunnee understands this. Which also seems like the typical Vollmann anti-solution; to comment upon a paradoxically convoluted social problem, offering, not answers and solutions, but useful commentary.
Both Sunnee and Natalia's predicaments stand as the strongest examples of poverty in the book. Vollmann proceeds to explore a world full of marginal fringe-dwellers and hopeless cases. He's sympathetic for sure, and his sympathy is honest, in that it confronts the impossibility of potential solutions. Capitalism never bodes well for a Vollmann subject, then again, neither does communism, or for that matter, unfortunate circumstances that can only be evaluated on ambiguous terms. Which works so well for a book that addresses such a difficult topic.
Poverty has so many dimensions of understanding. There is no universal definition that does it justice. Like so many of the world's ills and woes, it's a social malady that can, if nothing else, merely be reflected upon by some of the great thinkers of time. Vollman is one of them, traditionally and otherwise. Someone bold enough to address such complicated problems, yet honest enough to admit that he's not going to come up with a solution anytime soon. Who really has though? Appropriately enough, he cites Orwell in his introduction, and he definitely has his affinities with such morally upright thinkers such as Agee and Steinbeck, so is it really any wonder that Vollmann, much like his predecessors can merely offer helpful thoughts on the subject? Not really, because the joy in reading his books is in acquiring insight from a writer who has no delusions about what he is capable of when it comes to saving the world. ...more
It's one of my pet peeves...I always hate to put a book down, but seeing as how I do not actually own this one (it being a library copy and all), I amIt's one of my pet peeves...I always hate to put a book down, but seeing as how I do not actually own this one (it being a library copy and all), I am restricted from annotating it. I will return when I have a personal copy that I can abuse. That is when I have enough money to buy a brand new fucking copy of this book...fuck....more
This is, basically, budget Marxism. Or is it? I suppose that it is a version of class criticism which I thought I would essentially appreciate. It's tThis is, basically, budget Marxism. Or is it? I suppose that it is a version of class criticism which I thought I would essentially appreciate. It's that too. But I have problems with this text. Deep problems that essentially stem from my own personal conflict between a love of the possibilities of good sociological theory, and an utter lack of respect for social criticism that seems to lack anything resembling a scientific approach. Basically, I like my sociology with a healthy methodology, which Theory of the Leisure Class lacks demonstrably. Also, I don't mind technical jargon, but I can't say that I have much of an opinion about what is to be said for a prose style that "emulates" an inappropriate style in the context of subject matter that is probably a good analogy for Veblen's very heated opinions about the nature of class distinction. What am I talking about? Well, I used to know...that is before Veblen's vulgar idea of writing entered my consciousness.
The Leisure Class?...well, they're basically the most wealthy people that one can come across. Most definitely in the wake of the industrial revolution. They are the exploiters exploiting the exploited. The industrious class is maybe best exemplified by the sort of poor souls that were working in the Chicago Stock Yard in the early twentieth century. And you know something? Said leisure class does not like looking, acting, seeming, or basically, living like their exploited "lesser thans". Every single, solid, existential choice that the wealthy make in their lives is motivated by concepts such as "emulation", "invidious comparison", "conspicuous consumption", wastefulness, etc. If it's utilitarian, then those capitalist pigs want nothing to do with it. Ok, fair enough. I mean, it does seem like that, but whereas someone like Weber might employ historical comparison (well, to be fair, Veblen sort of does that), Veblen utilizes what is, in my opinion, the laziest sociological methodology. His opinions and ideas, are presumptuous at best. They are interesting ideas to think about. Aside from the fact that they mostly entail leftist fallacies, and quite possibly make most revolutionaries seem cogent in comparison.
Wait a second. My biggest issue with this book was Veblen's style. Seriously it's insufferable. Imagine Marcel Proust trying to write a pastiche of Durkheim (and that is a horrible thing to imagine). It's not even chalk full of technical, academic jargon. It's just bursting at the ideological seams with superfluous verbosity. And social Darwinism? Fuck that! Veblen just gives cultural critique/classic sociology a bad name through his attempt at applying approaches of feminist studies, anthropology, Marxism, etc, to a subject matter that he has an obvious personal conflict with. I do too, but I'd rather reserve those sort of meandering outbursts for moments of sublime drunkenness. I guess that it's too late for Veblen to do the same....more
I remember feeling completely overwhelmed. I hadn't even read the Protestant Ethic yet. Hopefully, I will have enough time this summer. I find Weber bI remember feeling completely overwhelmed. I hadn't even read the Protestant Ethic yet. Hopefully, I will have enough time this summer. I find Weber brilliant and engaging....more
Loading...
