Bourdieu and the Society of Aesthetics

“Mirror Neurons,” Collective Objects and the Problem of Transmission: Reconsidering Stephen Turner's Critique of Practice Theory

“…For Turner, many arguments for the existence of shared practices or “collective logics” take this neo‐Kantian form, albeit sometimes in a sociologized manner, in particular for those practice theorists who draw inspiration from the Durkheim‐Mauss (1963) line of French sociological thinking such as Pierre Bourdieu (1990). In this respect it is important to remember that two major classics of French sociology, Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1995) and Bourdieu's Distinction (1984) are sociologizations of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Judgment (Rawls 1996; Loesberg 1993) respectively. Turner (2002: 11) summarizes this style of argumentation as going along the following demonstrative logic: “people do something, such as communicate; they could not communicate unless they shared the same framework; therefore they share the same framework.”…”

Between Repression and Anamnesis: Pierre Bourdieu and the Vicissitudes of Literary Form

“…6 As Jonathan Loesberg was the first to point out, habitus and practice are figured at such moments as being strictly analogous to the Kantian aesthetic object, 'read as that most familiar of literary objects, the organic whole that operates purposively without purpose'. 7 To return to Sentimental Education, Bourdieu's point is that if this novel both reveals and conceals objective social structures, this is because it re-naturalizes the objective structures it reveals through the workings of a literary form that re-aestheticizes those structures in a manner that is strictly analogous to the workings of the habitus. By dint of its literary form, the novel presents the structures it reveals both in the form of a logical temporal order or chronology that naturalizes those events and in an aesthetic form that appeals to the embodied sentiments and affects that are at the core of the habitus.…”

Sociology of domination of Pierre Bourdieu

“…Losberg smatra da ovde nastaje preokret u Burdijeovom shvatanju polja, zato što, umesto da simboliĉki kapital bude specijalizovana metaforiĉka verzija ekonomskog kapitala, on postaje glavna kategorija i konstitutivni strukturirajući ĉinilac. Za pomenutog autora najzanimljiviji je naĉin na koji Burdije najpre sociologizuje pristup umetnosti i kulturi (uvodeći kao jednu od centralnih kategorija kategoriju interesa), da bi neposredno potom estetizovao svoju sociologiju (istiĉući znaĉaj simboliĉkog kapitala za istoriju polja) (Loesberg 1993(Loesberg : 1047(Loesberg -1048. I dok u drugim poljima društvenog prostora zauzimanje pozicije na dominantnom polu, koje podrazumeva sticanje tzv.…”