in reply to Bryan's discovery. I do not know how Bourdieu's habitus
could weaken D&G's arguemnts. After all, D&G say that they themselves
are nothing but habits. The second chapter of D&R , "Repetition for
itself," has quite a bit on habit and contraction. I do not know anything
of Bourdieu's habitus, so i do not know if it is compossible with
Deleuze's habitus or not. Could you elucidate on this? Have you read
Deleuze on habit? If so, what does Bourdieu offer beyond Deleuze?
in reply to Jon on Bourdieu too. It seems that Bourdieu has equated
habit and ideology in a way that drastically chages the meaning of ideology
and removes it from, say, D&G's critique of Althusserian ideology. If
this is the case, if 'ideology' for Bourdieu is not representational
but habitual, then it is probably compossible with Deleuze's concept
of habit. Even so, i still prefer to not use the word ideology. i read
a little Bourdieu in a sociology class as an undergrad. My sense is that
he is using ideology in a representational way, but i don't know. Again,
substituting ideology for habit so you can hang on to the term 'ideology'
appears to me as an attempt to prioritize and valorize 'thought". this
is, i think, why D&G simply will not have any of it. Even as habit.
But i'm interested to hear what Bourdieu's concept of habit does that
weakens nomadology. Repetition , habit, contraction, etc, are so integral
to Deleuze's philosophy that it seems unlikely that this is the case. But
i've made no secret that i really like Deleuze, so let me know.
chris
------------------