So, do you believe in the individual -- she who can free her mind from all learned restraints and strike out on her own original course? In other words, do you believe in autonomous human beings? I'll bet you don't. No more so than I do. I'll bet you believe that we're all so goddam trapped in the web of our social connections that it's impossible to think for one's self -- that such an expression is meaningless. I'll bet that you agree that even the most private thinking is an historically-dependent event -- every step of the way having been laid by progenitors. You say that Torture Field is speaking to issues of autonomy beyond being the property of individuals or the property of acts. OK. So what the hell is he speaking about? Some perifery issue? Torture seems more radical to me than that. But I don't know. He's philosophical too, and you know how worrisome they can be. Is autonomy possible? That's what I want to know and I say it isn't though I'd love to be contradicted convincingly.
You can counter that I misunderstand the whole tete-a-tete, but I'll just come back with a Cheney jeer.
Mike Geary Memphis----- Original Message ----- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:52 PMSubject: [lit-ideas] Re: Kinds of autonomy (was Kant: Ethnic Pride, Black Truck Style)
On 8/22/07, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Torture Field writes: >>Put more simply, it is because _fields_ are relatively autonomous that>>those in dominant positions may impose its necessity on the dominated. >><<What I deny is the very notion of "autonomy". It simply doesn't exist,hasn't ever, will never. That said, "autonomy" is an attractive idea. It'ssuggests an area of expertise."Expertise" is too intellectual, too entangled with the notion that autonomy is a property of individuals. As Torgeir observes, Bourdieu treats autonomy neither as a property of individuals nor as property of acts. Instead he talks about the (always relative) autonomy of social fields. Here "social field" refers to a zone of life in which particular rules, distinct at least partially from those of other social fields, apply. The easiest way to get a handle on this is to use one of Bourdieu's own examples, a soccer field. To be part of the game, players must accept rules specific to the game. The specificity of the rules, in combination with differences in talent, training, and the accidents of play make it possible, for example, for someone who has a brilliant soccer career to be a lousy businessman and of no consequence whatsoever as an artist or air conditioning specialist. It is, however, characteristic of complex societies that narrow fields, like soccer or air conditioning repair, may overlap with or even wholly embedded in other fields, creating opportunities for individuals to exchange the cultural capital (including expertise) acquired in one field into higher status in another, a process in which many other agents besides the individual in question may also be involved. Consider, for example, David Beckham, whose stellar performance as a soccer player in Europe and marriage to one of the Spice Girls made him a global fashion icon used, for example, to advertise cell phones in Japan. Given the relative autonomy of the fields we call art, politics and law, he is, nonetheless, unlikely to have paintings appear beside the Picassos or Rothkos at the Philipps collection, be seen as a viable political candidate, or become a famous trial lawyer or judge. Arguably it is in precisely those cases where the rules are most taken for granted that the individual appears most autonomous. Since neither Jeeves nor Bertie Wooster aspires to be the other and both accept the rules that govern their relative status, each appears free to focus on choices within the spheres available to them. When we foreground their eccentricities, we tacitly accept the rules of their game, leaving them blurred in the background. We may even discover, as Bourdieu does, that the rules only set the stage. They do not determine the performance or, reverting to the sport metaphor, how the game plays out. John -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN Tel. +81-45-314-9324 http://www.wordworks.jp/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
