Heidegger ala Bourdieu

On 5/18/95, Jonathan Maskit wrote:

>I agree with Chris that these two books are "worth taking a look at". But
>while Zimmerman's is quite good, I cannot say the same of Bourdieu's.
>Bourdieu begins with the assumption that philosophy can be explained
>sociologically (this is not unique to this book) and then proceeds to
>recast Heidegger's confrontation with the neo-Kantians as one which is
>rooted in Heidegger's class background. We can explain his insistence on
>such things Bodenstaendigkeit and Eigentlichkeit (autochthony/rootednes and
>authenticity) by means of his upbringing and his failure to feel "at home"
>in academic culture.

I don't see Bourdieu assuming that philosophy can be FULLY explained
sociologically. The issue is not whether philosophy can be ultimately
collapsed into sociology, but whether it can claim discursive autonomy. One
of Bourdieu's operating assumptions, I think, is that if philosophy is a
discursive practice that both issues from and reflects particular
cultural/historical contexts, then it should be possible to uncover traces
of these historical/cultural contexts. In part, Bourdieu's treatment of
Heidegger is an attempt to track down the discursive moves that Heidegger
makes to give his discourse the illusion of autonomy.

Chris Hargens

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: