adr

• 09:21:35 pm on Noviembre 11, 2009 | # | 0
  

  Glen, i think you are partly right on what you say about Bourdieu. Though i guess that it should be also attended that the main conceptualization that preoccupied Bourdieu was centered in the notion of the field. This means that he would see in further way the case of Brooker, maybe arguing that Brooker was not equipped to contemplate the broken pot, neither with embodied skills or with the specific symbolic capital that circulates inside the field of archeology: that would mean for him nothing to accuse or to regret there, since Brooker is in fact a TV journalist, so it would be just a question of what is expected from a TV journalist. Since Bourdieu was interested in the logic of the practices and their respectively fields of action, he would address his explanation instead to the specialized occupants of the positions and their trajectory stakes that ‘play’ in such disciplinary field. If Brooker would be an archeologist and would still hold such a ironic views, then it would be a socioanalytical case to consider for Bourdieu. Anyway i have to accept that Bourdieu´s its not the panacea, but his concepts are helpful.

  oh well but i am not here to argue against your point, which is a good one. instead i want to underline the beauty implied in the broken pot example. What makes a broken pot to be a broken pot? to be broken or being a pot? The fractured object and its event, what would an archeological expert see through the fracture? is there an event previous to the fracture that is already subjected in the object? if so, what history does that object is telling us? Just to say that the broken pot example is really a good one

  Comentado por Naxos en:

  Contemplating a Crackpot

  November 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm