Ciaran Cronin
Philosophy & Social Criticism, Nov 1996; vol. 22: pp. 55 - 85.
It can be accessed through Sage Journals Online.
The main differences are summarised in the abstract:
Both theories are based on cri tiques of subject-centered analyses of power and offer original accounts of modern social institutions. But Foucault's critique of the subject is so radical that it makes it impossible to identify any determinate social location of the exercise of power or of resistance to its operations. Bourdieu's theory of practice in terms of the symbolically mediated interaction between the habitus and social structure avoids these problems by connecting relations of domination both to identi fiable social agents and to the institutions of the modern state. However, Bourdieu's strategic model of social action remains too narrow to allow for the possibility of autonomous agency and an emancipatory political praxis.
4 comments:
I completely disagree with this analysis, which falls into the trap of thinking that Bourdieu can be dismissed as a structuralist, because he wants to retain a conception of the power of strutured social relations. Bourdieu's use of terms like strategy and play serve to indicate that there is a major role for adaptation and resistance withini his model. To use his analogy, a football player works within the rules of the game, but also has a 'feel' for the game which informs his creativity. Much like a improvisation within Jazz. Crtitics seem determined to make bourdieu and foucault fight, like an ivory tower harry hill show.
Fuckin hell James. I just read this comment...great stuff! Sorry, I've been a bit busy with bits and bobs. Keep visiting though - we could really do with a few more intellectuals around here...Charles
There is a merit to both of you charles and james. While Bourdieu allows for resistance, via strategies, the agential capacity is however geared towards adjustment to the field. It would be "social death" says Bourdieu to radically alter the field from outside. And his play of power is mostly focused on those with capital (whether social, cultural or economic) and concerns with the conversion to one form of capital to another, and which type is dominant. Those without capital, workers, peasants, sublaterns, etc. are within Bourdieu facing extreme challenges as most reforms are conservation. Using the football metaphor, one plays the game, indeed with a feel for it, only in implicit competition for the valued capital and in agreement with its rules. The question of agency from those with very limited capital, in my view, are faced with almost insurmountable challenges, within Bourdieu... If Foucault informs Bourdieu, the insurrection of subjugated knowledges and habitus of subaltern and the contradictions with capitalist fields(in my view going back to the parallelism of Marx's use vs exchange value) in consonance with collective movements and subaltern sociality may have hope for radical change.
The number of blatant misreadings Cronin is making... it's like playing air hockey with yourself: own goal.
Post a Comment