|—||Ellen Meiksins Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism (via gloomy-planets)|
The Great American City - US Professor of Social Sciences, Robert J Sampson, discusses his landmark research project with Laurie Taylor. Following in the influential tradition of the Chicago School of urban studies, but updating it for the twenty-first century, he argues that communities do still matter because life is decisively shaped by where we live. Neighbourhoods influences a wide variety of phenomena including teen births, altruism and crime. Not even national crisis can destroy the enduring impact of place.
Also, the anthropologist, Anthony Pickles, reveals the significance of pockets for controlling money in Highland Papua New Guinea.
Norbert Elias – The Court Society
Communist ‘utopia’ in a Spanish village. Laurie Taylor talks to the writer, Dan Hancox, about his research into a tiny community in Andalucia which set out to create an egalitarian enclave after the demise of General Franco. Does the reality match the dream? They’re joined by the social geographer, Helen Jarvis. Also, the health researcher, Nicolette Rousseau, discusses the experience and meaning of tooth loss and replacement.
[T]he main obstacle to a more synthetic appropriation of Bourdieu in America may have been that he tends to be judged through the very categories of thought that his theories aim at transcending. For, as Burbaker remarks, ‘the reception of Bourdieu’s work has largely been determined by the same ‘false frontiters’ and ‘artificial divisions’ that his work has repeatedly challenged.’
These divisions are at once objective and subjective. In the realm of objectivity, they take the form of more or less porous disciplinary divides, theoretical niches, methodological specialities, and academic networks and turfs. One major difference between the sending the receiving intellectual universes in this respect is that the borders between sociology, anthropology, history, and philosophy are notably more difficult to cross in the United States. For a variety of reasons (including the legacy of the incomplete institutionalization of sociology under Durkheim, the synthetic ambition and role of the Annales school, the expansion of the Ecoles des hautes Etudes en sciences sociales after World War II, the dominance of the figure of the ‘philosopher-king’ over the intellectual scene until the 1960s, broken only by the revolutionary onslaught of structuralism), sociology is less isolated from its sister disciplines in France. The objective divisions of the field of US social science are particularly tenacious because, like those of any field, they also exist in the minds of its participants as schemata of academic perception and appreciation inculcated through graduate training and durable immersion in the specific universe. And it these schemata which shape the assimilation of foreign intellectual products. Thus the first move of American scholars is often to try to read Bourdieu’s sociology into the dualistic alternatives – micro/macro, agency/structure, interpretive/positivist, structuralist/individualist, normative/rational, function/conflict, and so forth – that structure their national disciplinary space, however ill suited these alternatives might be to apprehending the conceptual economy of Bourdieu’s sociology.
|—||Loic Wacquant – Bourdieu in America|
|—||Robert van Krieken - The Paradox of the Two Sociologies: Hobbes, Latour and the Constitution of Modern Social Theory|