This is a Special Issue of the journal "Cultural Sociology", published by Sage on behalf of the British Sociological Association (http://cus.sagepub.com/content/5/1.toc). My objective in inviting, selecting and reviewing the papers included in the special issue was not to produce a final picture of what I think is the ‘right’ or even the ‘best’ Bourdieu, but to provide a venue for debating and confronting different approaches to a corpus that is extremely rich but also complex, not always consistent, and with inevitable limits. Understanding the limits of Bourdieu’s oeuvre – sometimes also the limits of his interpreters – is one of the objectives of this special issue, as is making some steps along the path of reason that Bourdieu constantly advocated. The papers collected here represent a wide and diverse spectrum of intellectual positions, modes of reception, and general attitudes toward Bourdieu’s legacy. We can say that Bourdieu’s impact on current social research, both in theory and empirical investigations, has generated an array of intellectual positions which can be summarized as being of at least five types: total endorsement, selective appropriation, constructive criticism, critical rejection, and negation.9 Incorporation through obliteration (Merton, 1975) should be distinguished from negation as a form of hidden or disclosed reception. True negation means to act as if Bourdieu had never existed and had never produced anything worthwhile. The following papers could be read in general as representative of the second and third positions, the two attitudes that better fit the aims of this special issue.

On the Shoulder of Bourdieu. A Contemporary Master in chiaroscuro, in “Cultural Sociology” V, 1 (with articles by M.S., O. Lizardo, G. Steinmetz, R. Swedberg, S. Sismondo, N. Prior, W. Bottero and N. Crossley).

SANTORO, MARCO
2011

Abstract

This is a Special Issue of the journal "Cultural Sociology", published by Sage on behalf of the British Sociological Association (http://cus.sagepub.com/content/5/1.toc). My objective in inviting, selecting and reviewing the papers included in the special issue was not to produce a final picture of what I think is the ‘right’ or even the ‘best’ Bourdieu, but to provide a venue for debating and confronting different approaches to a corpus that is extremely rich but also complex, not always consistent, and with inevitable limits. Understanding the limits of Bourdieu’s oeuvre – sometimes also the limits of his interpreters – is one of the objectives of this special issue, as is making some steps along the path of reason that Bourdieu constantly advocated. The papers collected here represent a wide and diverse spectrum of intellectual positions, modes of reception, and general attitudes toward Bourdieu’s legacy. We can say that Bourdieu’s impact on current social research, both in theory and empirical investigations, has generated an array of intellectual positions which can be summarized as being of at least five types: total endorsement, selective appropriation, constructive criticism, critical rejection, and negation.9 Incorporation through obliteration (Merton, 1975) should be distinguished from negation as a form of hidden or disclosed reception. True negation means to act as if Bourdieu had never existed and had never produced anything worthwhile. The following papers could be read in general as representative of the second and third positions, the two attitudes that better fit the aims of this special issue.
2011
135
SANTORO M.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/125165
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact