Response to throop and murphy (Pierre Bourdieu)

Anthropological Theory DOI: 10.1177/14634990222228998 2002; 2; 209 Anthropological Theory Pierre Bourdieu Response to Throop and Murphy http://ant.sagepub.com The online version of

Trang 1

Anthropological Theory

DOI: 10.1177/14634990222228998

2002; 2; 209

Anthropological Theory

Pierre Bourdieu

Response to Throop and Murphy

http://ant.sagepub.com

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:

Anthropological Theory

Additional services and information for

http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://ant.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

at SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV on February 19, 2008

Downloaded from

Trang 2

Anthropological Theory

and New Delhi) Vol 2(2): 209 [1463-4996(200206)2:2;209;024463]

209

Response to Throop

and Murphy

Pierre Bourdieu

Collège de France

Editor’s Note This response was written by Pierre Bourdieu at the end of 2001, shortly

before he passed away in January 2002

While thanking the authors for their very serious and thorough work, I would like to raise some questions as to their intentions themselves I see in fact a contradiction in reproaching me at once (1) for failing to do justice to phenomenology, to which it would

seem I am more beholden than I am willing to acknowledge (p 197: ‘Here, as elsewhere, Bourdieu seems to be merely rephrasing some of Schultz’s premises in his own idiosyncratic and overly deterministic vocabulary so as to make them sound new, when in

reality they are not’; or p 203: ‘[Pierre Bourdieu] fails to acknowledge the positive

influence that Husserl’s thinking has had upon his own theoretical formulations’), and (2) for having misunderstood, misinterpreted and misconstrued the ideas of Husserl and

the phenomenologists (e.g p 198: ‘his very phenomenological naivety that has led him

to mistakenly characterize all non-representational states as necessarily “non-conscious”

.’ or p 203: ‘he often mischaracterizes Husserl’s ideas’).

In short, it is not possible to claim, without serious inconsistencies, that what I say about Husserl is true and therefore that I am a quasi-plagiarist dissimulating his bor-rowings (whereas I have often declared my indebtedness to phenomenology, which I practiced for some time in my youth), and that what I say about Husserl is false and that my criticisms or reservations are unfair

It seems to me that I do indeed do justice to Husserl, Schutz and a few more But it was

not my intention either to rephrase them in one of those commentaries which, to sound like Mallarmé, ‘forms a pleonasm’ with the work, nor to refute them It is my aim to

integrate phenomenological analysis into a global approach of which it is one phase (the

first, subjective phase), the second being the objectivist analysis This integration is in

no way an eclectic compilation since the effect is to pass beyond the limits (which I recall

in my critique) inherent in each approach, while retaining their essential contributions But I think that the misreading of my ideas is rooted in the fact that the authors forget that, in my intent, the theoretical ideas which they treat in isolation, separately, in and for themselves, are designed to guide empirical research and to solve specific problems

of anthropology and sociology such as the problem of gift-exchange or that of work,

for which I proposed, in Pascalian Meditations, an analysis integrating the subjectivist

and objectivist views, as well as many others over the course of my research career

05 Bourdieu (JB/D) 30/4/02 10:15 am Page 209

at SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV on February 19, 2008

Downloaded from

Định dạng
Số trang	2
Dung lượng	45,23 KB