Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Bourdieu The Logic Of Practice Notes

PPE Notes > Sociological Theory Notes

This is an extract of our Bourdieu The Logic Of Practice document, which we sell as part of our Sociological Theory Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Sociological Theory Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Pierre Bourdieu - The Logic of Practice Introduction
* The opposition between subjectivism and objectivism is artificial, and divides the social sciences
* we must identify the presuppositions they share as theoretical modes of knowledge
# theoretical as opposed to the practical mode of knowledge of ordinary experience
# hence we must objectify the epistemological and social conditions of both subjective and objective experience
* phenomenological knowledge can teach us with perfect certainty the truth of the primary relationship of familiarity with the familiar environment
# but it cannot go beyond description - it takes the world as self-evident, without asking why experience is as it is (doesn't ask what the conditions of possibility of such experience are)
* phenomenology doesn't take into account the coincidence of objective structures and internalized structures that give the illusion of immediate understanding
* objectivism sets out to establish objective regularities - structures, laws, systems of relationships - introduces a radical discontinuity between practical and theoretical knowledge
# explicit representations of practical knowledge are seen as ideologies
# it challenges the project of reducing social science to constructs of the constructs made by actors (as phenomenologists do)
* or accounts of the accounts of agents, which are seen to produce the meaning of the social world
# Saussurian semiology claims that immediate understanding presupposes that agents are 'objectively attuned so as to associate the same meaning with the same sign' (i.e. share precisely the same language)
# BUT objectivism forgets that primary experience is the condition and product of its objectification
* hence it fails to objectify its own objectifying relationship
* it doesn't explore the conditions that allow it to 'take for granted the meaning objectified in institutions'
* So to move beyond this antagonism we must explore the conditions of all theoretical knowledge
* we must not only break with native experience, but also break with the position of the objective observer, who brings into the object the principles of his relation to the object
# knowledge is not only relative to viewpoint - the very taking up of a viewpoint on a practice constitutes it as an object
* Philosophy has tended to reject practice as uncomtemplative, and reify contemplation as providing true, objective knowledge, without questioning its presuppositions
* a big factor in this has been the tendency of scientists to see the knowledge of their science as superior to all else, rather than exploring its limits
* The subjective relation of theorist to the social world, and the objective relation presupposed by this, is the unanalysed element of every theoretical analysis
* where the relation of the observer to the social world is made the basis of the practice analysed, scientific error occurs

Chapter One: Objectification Objectified
* We need to understand the epistemological/sociological presuppositions of objectivism
* Saussure claims that the true medium of communication is not speech - rather it is language, a system of objective relations
# this subordinates the material of communication to the pure construct of theory
# he recognises that speech has chronological priority, but claims that language has priority in the logical conditions of decoding i.e. is the condition of the intelligibility of speech
* hence to make speech the product of the language, one has to situate oneself in the logical order of intelligibility
* We could critique this as being synchronic, and ignoring the origin/history of language
* instead let's concentrate on the viewpoint itself and its relation to the object of observation
* To locate oneself in the order of intelligibility, one must take the position of an impartial spectator, who seeks understanding for its own sake
* you must take language as an object of study, not as a tool
* without a theory of the difference between his position and that of the language user, the grammarian treats language as an autonomous object - purposefulness without purpose
# hence he adopts a scholastic, formal relation to all language, popular or formal
# the problem of the scholastic approach is that language is seen as a dead intellectual instrument, stripped of its functions and appropriate usage
* The problems in structuralism derive from this: its division between language and its realization in speech (its practice, and history), and its understanding the relation between the two as that between model and execution (essence and existence)
* this means the reduction of all individual practice to the actualization of 'a kind of ahistorical essence, in short, nothing'
* Anthropology exhibits these problems in a magnified form
* there is a tendency towards intellectualism in seeing language from the standpoint of listener rather than speaker - to decode rather than to act/express
# hence we can understand the observer as representing both an epistemological and a social break with practical, everyday action/knowledge/meaning
# participation shows the influence of the subject in the object, because he plays the game (object) before reporting it
* the inadequacy of scholarly discourse derives from its inability to see how its theory of the object derives from its theoretical relation to the object
* intellectualism simply substitutes one observer's relation to practice for the practical relation to practice
* In the case of kinship, the anthropologist, who is only interested in cognitive uses, sees kinship as a coherent system of logically necessary relations, and considers symbolic effects that create belief and so on
* this focus on cognitive uses brackets all other uses that may be made in practice of kinship relations
* in showing the whole system of logical relations, the structural anthropologist conceals the fact that those relationships that function do so because they fulfil practical functions
- the economy and so on
# an objectification of the objective relation would show us the gap between the

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Sociological Theory Notes.