What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞
丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 賲鬲乇爻賾禺丞 賮賷 賱丕賵毓賷賳丕 丨鬲賶 兀賳賳丕 賱賲 賳毓丿 賳毓賯賱賴丕貙 賵賴賷 賲鬲賵丕賮賯丞 賲毓 丕賳鬲馗丕乇丕鬲賳丕 丨鬲賶 兀賳賳丕 賳氐丕亘 亘賲乇丕乇丞 賱丿賶 賵囟毓賴丕 賲賵囟毓 鬲爻丕丐賱.
廿賳 丕賱賵氐賮 丕賱廿孬賳賵睾乇丕賮賷 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱賷貙 賵賴賵 賰賵賳爻乇賮丕鬲賵丕乇 丨賯賷賯賷 賱賱賱丕賵毓賷 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤賷貙 賷賵賮賾乇 兀丿丕丞 賮毓賾丕賱丞 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賱丨賱賾 丕賱亘丿丕賴丕鬲 賵賱丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賱匕賱賰 丕賱賱丕賵毓賷 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 丕賱匕賷 賷毓賷卮 毓賳丿 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 丕賱賷賵賲.
賱賰賳 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 兀賵噩賴 丕賱丿賵丕賲 賷購噩亘賽乇 毓賱賶 賯賱亘 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿丞 賮賷 胤乇丨 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞: 賰賷賮 賷鬲賲 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱丕賳鬲夭丕毓 丕賱賱丕鬲丕乇賷禺丕賳賷丞責 賵賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丌賱賷賾丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丐爻賾爻丕鬲貙 賲孬賱 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賵丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賵丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賲賱 毓賲賱 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩責 賵賴賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲丨賷賷丿賴丕 賱鬲丨乇賷乇 賯賵賶 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賵賯 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕責
廿賳 丕賱賵氐賮 丕賱廿孬賳賵睾乇丕賮賷 賱賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賯亘丕卅賱賷貙 賵賴賵 賰賵賳爻乇賮丕鬲賵丕乇 丨賯賷賯賷 賱賱賱丕賵毓賷 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤賷貙 賷賵賮賾乇 兀丿丕丞 賮毓賾丕賱丞 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賱丨賱賾 丕賱亘丿丕賴丕鬲 賵賱丕爻鬲賰卮丕賮 丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賱匕賱賰 丕賱賱丕賵毓賷 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 丕賱匕賷 賷毓賷卮 毓賳丿 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 丕賱賷賵賲.
賱賰賳 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 兀賵噩賴 丕賱丿賵丕賲 賷購噩亘賽乇 毓賱賶 賯賱亘 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱賲毓鬲丕丿丞 賮賷 胤乇丨 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞: 賰賷賮 賷鬲賲 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱丕賳鬲夭丕毓 丕賱賱丕鬲丕乇賷禺丕賳賷丞責 賵賲丕 賴賷 丕賱丌賱賷賾丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丐爻賾爻丕鬲貙 賲孬賱 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賵丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 賵丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 賵丕賱丿賵賱丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰賲賱 毓賲賱 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳鬲丕噩責 賵賴賱 賷賲賰賳 鬲丨賷賷丿賴丕 賱鬲丨乇賷乇 賯賵賶 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賵賯 鬲丨賯賷賯賴丕責
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
317 people are currently reading
7,154 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Bourdieu
337听books1,201听followersBourdieu pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the concepts of habitus, field or location, and symbolic violence to reveal the dynamics of power relations in social life. His work emphasized the role of practice and embodiment or forms in social dynamics and worldview construction, often in opposition to universalized Western philosophical traditions. He built upon the theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Georges Canguilhem, Karl Marx, Gaston Bachelard, Max Weber, 脡mile Durkheim, Erwin Panofsky, and Marcel Mauss. A notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations.
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 221 reviews
Read
December 24, 2022Con la profondit脿 di sguardo che gli permette di anticipare qualsiasi contro argomentazione alle sue tesi, Bourdieu analizza le differenze tra ordine naturale e ordine culturale che genera disposizioni e condizionamenti nella percezione dei sessi e dei ruoli di genere. Non poteva mancare nella sua riflessione sulla societ脿 e la violenza simbolica che trasforma e prescrive comportamenti e credenze, uno studio sulla discriminazione di genere che attraversa tutti i paesi del mondo e tutte le culture. La visione androcentrica 鈥� perpetrata da chiesa, scuola e stato 鈥� 猫 aspramente criticata e vilipesa nei suoi paradossi e nelle sue storture con una logica inoppugnabile. Non 猫 invecchiato di una pagina.
October 13, 2014
This is the third time I have started this review. The problem is that mostly I write reviews without really thinking too much about what other people might think of them. Look, that鈥檚 only ever partly true, as I guess one never writes purely for one鈥檚 self 鈥� but in my reviews I just like chat about books 鈥� pretty much to say, I read this, this is what I thought of it. The problem is that with some books it is harder to just 鈥榳rite鈥� about them. Over the last week or so I鈥檝e been corresponding with someone off-line here on Good Reads about the nature of gender and to what extent this is based in our genes or is socially determined. So, that makes writing this review a bit harder than normal, as it will look to the person I鈥檝e been corresponding with like I鈥檓 continuing that conversation here. That isn鈥檛 really my intention, but it is impossible not to do that too, in a way. Or, at least, it is impossible to pretend that the fact of that other conversation isn鈥檛 going to colour what I鈥檓 going to say here. Oddly enough, needing to write this review has also stopped me replying to that conversation 鈥� strange how these things get in the way of each other.
But that isn鈥檛 the only reason why writing this review has been difficult for me. The other reason is that one of my three female PhD supervisors has repeatedly said to me about Bourdieu, 鈥榟e鈥檚 good on class, but he tried to be a gender theorist and he doesn鈥檛 know what he鈥檚 talking about.鈥� In fact, I attended a conference thing in my first year that Raewyn Connell attended and my associate supervisor asked her about Bourdieu on gender and she agreed that he (as the Irish like to say) didn鈥檛 really know his arse from his elbow when it came to gender.
Now, this causes me lots and lots of trouble. Not least because after having read this, I quite like what Bourdieu has to say about gender and, having read other stuff by him, can鈥檛 imagine how he could really have said anything else. That is, what he has pretty much done here is the same thing he did with class, but he has applied it to gender. If he is okay with class, I think you need to start by explaining why he is so crap with gender. That is, if ideas like habitus and symbolic violence work when you are talking about class, why don鈥檛 they work when you are talking about gender?
So, what is it that he says about gender? In some ways I think the real question here is what is it that he is trying to counter about gender. In part what he is saying is to counter two notions 鈥� one is that gender is something that is determined biologically, and the other that gender is a performance (in Judith Butler鈥檚 sense) and that it can be put on or taken off much like a garment. Let me say this in a way that makes clear what could be seen as a paradox of Bourdieu鈥檚 point of view. He doesn鈥檛 want gender to be 鈥榠n our genes鈥� but he certainly does want it to be embodied. For Bourdieu, how attributes become embodied is through our social habitus 鈥� and our social habitus is the dispositions that we acquire over a lifetime. These dispositions are reinforced by the social interactions we have until they become both automatic and 鈥榥atural鈥�. We rarely question these dispositions because the people around us that we interact with both share these with us and reinforce them in their interactions with us. This makes it sound like change is impossible, but that is only because we often overly stress the 鈥榗losed system鈥� nature of our interactions. However, change occurs when someone who has a different habitus from the standard habitus and moves into a particular field and so disrupts what is otherwise considered 鈥榥ormal鈥�. There is always resistance to such change, and not only because those with power in a particular situation are likely to loose some or all of that power if there is change, but also because the people who have been interacting according to the old rules don鈥檛 see those old rules as arbitrary or conditional 鈥� they seem them as natural, common sense and right. These rules are seen as an expression of natural law 鈥� rather than what they really are, what Bourdieu calls the 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥�.
Now, 鈥榓rbitrary鈥� sounds much more random than Bourdieu actually means. The stuff that is arbitrary in cultural interactions is, say, one class of people鈥檚 preference for ballet over, say, plays. In certain cultures ballet may be considered the highest of the arts, while in another it might be regarded as 鈥榡ust dancing鈥� and plays would be more highly regarded. This bit is arbitrary. But what isn鈥檛 arbitrary, and what all societies do once they have decided on a 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥� is to make an appreciation of a particular cultural activity depend on a deep understanding of that activity. Someone acquires social distinction by having this deep understanding, and acquiring such an understanding involves having particular quantities of cultural capital. In much the same way that appreciating music is made easier of you have learnt to play an instrument, and that learning to play an instrument is made easier the more money your family has: so as to buy the instrument in the first place, to get musical tuition, spend time practicing, to have a parent that has the time to sit with you and to offer encouragement, discipline and guidance 鈥� and so on. Now, despite what people might say, learning to play a musical instrument isn鈥檛 really a completely natural thing to do, but once you have learnt to play, it feels completely natural. And then, once you are confronted with someone who cannot play they seem like barbarians. To give a case in point, I went to a friend鈥檚 house once in high school and his mother had just bought a new piano. She asked me to play. I told her I couldn鈥檛 play. She told me I could. I looked at her uncomprehending 鈥� I wasn鈥檛 being polite or shy or something 鈥� and it wasn鈥檛 that I didn鈥檛 know what I was talking about, I had sat at a piano before, I knew that my touching the keys was not going to make music come out. However, she played and her son played 鈥� it was incomprehensible to her that someone wouldn鈥檛 be able to make some sort of music come from the instrument. She said to me that her son had also never learnt to play the piano either, but could play basic twelve-bar blues on it.
So, after a lifetime of learning we become embodied to be what we are and after that lifetime we believe that we could have become nothing other than what we have become. But what about the fact that certain groups in society are clearly much worse off than other groups? There has been lots of discussion, for example, about the raising levels of inequality in society, with the poor getting much less since the 1970s and the rich getting so very much more. Naturally, the same can also be said for women in our society. In the early 1970s in Australia the government passed legislation to make it the law that men and women doing the same work be paid the same amount. This year, since records of the disparity between the wages of men and women have been measured, the gap in earnings in Australia is the worst ever recorded. If women (and poor people) are so clearly disadvantaged in our society 鈥� and it is probably easier to see this with women in some ways, given they are paid less for doing 鈥榯he same鈥� work 鈥� then why do they put up with it? This isn鈥檛 about blaming the victim 鈥� but it is something that needs to be explained. Bourdieu鈥檚 answer is 鈥榮ymbolic violence鈥�.
Symbolic violence is a bit like the 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥� 鈥� another term that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean what you might think it means. Whenever I hear it I think of that Monty Python sketch The Spanish Inquisition where they start poking people with cushions as a way to torture them. This isn鈥檛 quite what he means. For someone to have more and someone to have less in society implies that some sort of violence has been applied so that that imbalance can be maintained. But a society that depends on the literal application of violence to maintain all inequities would not really last very long. So, society needs to impose 鈥榮ymbolic violence鈥� 鈥� that is, it needs to be able to convince some people that they are worse off, but for a really good reason. That is, that they deserve to be worse off. The mistake, again, is to assume that this kind of symbolic violence involves some sort of conspiracy with the people having the power somehow pulling the wool over the eyes of those without the power. Such a conspiracy isn鈥檛 necessary, because these inequities have been going on for such a long time, they are 鈥榟ow we understand鈥� the world. Up until very recently women鈥檚 inferiority simply wasn鈥檛 questioned. That they received less than men not only wasn鈥檛 questioned, it was perceived by the whole of society as natural. As Bourdieu points out here, it is very hard to fight against something that appears completely natural. It isn鈥檛 just a matter of 鈥榬aising consciousness鈥� 鈥� we can be aware of injustice and yet be part of the problem ourselves. We can 鈥榞et it鈥�, but still help to perpetuate it. And this isn鈥檛 just a matter of 鈥榖ad faith鈥� 鈥� it is, again, habitus. We have been so programmed to behave in certain ways over a lifetime that these ways of being seem natural 鈥� and they seem natural because those ways of behaving are 鈥榮econd nature鈥� in the sense we have been programmed throughout a lifetime of experience to automatically respond in certain ways. Rational debate about these responces is not enough. Bourdieu isn鈥檛 saying that change is impossible 鈥� but rather that we need to know what it is that we are seeking to change. And if it is the habits and ways of being of an entire culture 鈥� habits and ways of being that are 鈥榥on-rational鈥� in that they are our programmed responses to life in general. That is going to take much more effort than just convincing people that what we have been doing up until now isn鈥檛 nice. It means literally finding ways to change our ways of being in the world.
Bourdieu spends a lot of the start of this book discussing the Kabyle 鈥� the people of Algeria that he studied as an anthropologist in the 1950s. This book is, in part, a kind of quick and dirty summary of his Outline of a Theory of Practice. What is particularly interesting in this is his reliance on binaries. There has been a strong movement away from binaries in modern (or post-modern) theory. But Bourdieu strongly defends them and goes so far as to say that such a movement away from binaries is a mistake. His point is that a lot of how we 鈥榰nderstand鈥� the world is through these binaries and how they link up with other binaries we take equally for granted 鈥� not just male/female, but a series of other binaries that end up getting linked to these and which then 鈥榚xplain鈥� the differences between men and women. So that, in our culture, men are associated with the sun and women with the moon 鈥� which also then links men to reason and women to intuition, and men to technology and women to technique. The point isn鈥檛 that we need to stress the binary nature of the world, rather that we need to know that sexism runs deep not just in how we understand men and women, but in how we understand 鈥榯he world鈥�. All binaries have some form of connection between male and female and thinking you can 鈥榠gnore鈥� binaries doesn鈥檛 diminish their power, but rather reinforces it by making that power invisible.
There is a really interesting aside here about how American rich people name their sons with long-standing family names, while their daughters are often given French girl鈥檚 names, as France is associated with fashion and seduction.
Like I said, what I liked about this was that Bourdieu is seeking to answer a fairly fundamental question 鈥� how is it that male domination goes mostly unchallenged in society, even after it has been acknowledged as both bad and unfair 鈥� but he is also seeking to show that if one where to challenge male domination, it is not going to be enough to prove it is irrational or unfair 鈥� too many of the 鈥榯aken for granted鈥� structures of our society make the reproduction of gender differences appear natural 鈥� even genetic. Change needs to change what will we know from what parts of our bodies feel like, and not just in ways of thinking about the world. So, change isn鈥檛 impossible, but it isn鈥檛 at all easy either.
But that isn鈥檛 the only reason why writing this review has been difficult for me. The other reason is that one of my three female PhD supervisors has repeatedly said to me about Bourdieu, 鈥榟e鈥檚 good on class, but he tried to be a gender theorist and he doesn鈥檛 know what he鈥檚 talking about.鈥� In fact, I attended a conference thing in my first year that Raewyn Connell attended and my associate supervisor asked her about Bourdieu on gender and she agreed that he (as the Irish like to say) didn鈥檛 really know his arse from his elbow when it came to gender.
Now, this causes me lots and lots of trouble. Not least because after having read this, I quite like what Bourdieu has to say about gender and, having read other stuff by him, can鈥檛 imagine how he could really have said anything else. That is, what he has pretty much done here is the same thing he did with class, but he has applied it to gender. If he is okay with class, I think you need to start by explaining why he is so crap with gender. That is, if ideas like habitus and symbolic violence work when you are talking about class, why don鈥檛 they work when you are talking about gender?
So, what is it that he says about gender? In some ways I think the real question here is what is it that he is trying to counter about gender. In part what he is saying is to counter two notions 鈥� one is that gender is something that is determined biologically, and the other that gender is a performance (in Judith Butler鈥檚 sense) and that it can be put on or taken off much like a garment. Let me say this in a way that makes clear what could be seen as a paradox of Bourdieu鈥檚 point of view. He doesn鈥檛 want gender to be 鈥榠n our genes鈥� but he certainly does want it to be embodied. For Bourdieu, how attributes become embodied is through our social habitus 鈥� and our social habitus is the dispositions that we acquire over a lifetime. These dispositions are reinforced by the social interactions we have until they become both automatic and 鈥榥atural鈥�. We rarely question these dispositions because the people around us that we interact with both share these with us and reinforce them in their interactions with us. This makes it sound like change is impossible, but that is only because we often overly stress the 鈥榗losed system鈥� nature of our interactions. However, change occurs when someone who has a different habitus from the standard habitus and moves into a particular field and so disrupts what is otherwise considered 鈥榥ormal鈥�. There is always resistance to such change, and not only because those with power in a particular situation are likely to loose some or all of that power if there is change, but also because the people who have been interacting according to the old rules don鈥檛 see those old rules as arbitrary or conditional 鈥� they seem them as natural, common sense and right. These rules are seen as an expression of natural law 鈥� rather than what they really are, what Bourdieu calls the 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥�.
Now, 鈥榓rbitrary鈥� sounds much more random than Bourdieu actually means. The stuff that is arbitrary in cultural interactions is, say, one class of people鈥檚 preference for ballet over, say, plays. In certain cultures ballet may be considered the highest of the arts, while in another it might be regarded as 鈥榡ust dancing鈥� and plays would be more highly regarded. This bit is arbitrary. But what isn鈥檛 arbitrary, and what all societies do once they have decided on a 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥� is to make an appreciation of a particular cultural activity depend on a deep understanding of that activity. Someone acquires social distinction by having this deep understanding, and acquiring such an understanding involves having particular quantities of cultural capital. In much the same way that appreciating music is made easier of you have learnt to play an instrument, and that learning to play an instrument is made easier the more money your family has: so as to buy the instrument in the first place, to get musical tuition, spend time practicing, to have a parent that has the time to sit with you and to offer encouragement, discipline and guidance 鈥� and so on. Now, despite what people might say, learning to play a musical instrument isn鈥檛 really a completely natural thing to do, but once you have learnt to play, it feels completely natural. And then, once you are confronted with someone who cannot play they seem like barbarians. To give a case in point, I went to a friend鈥檚 house once in high school and his mother had just bought a new piano. She asked me to play. I told her I couldn鈥檛 play. She told me I could. I looked at her uncomprehending 鈥� I wasn鈥檛 being polite or shy or something 鈥� and it wasn鈥檛 that I didn鈥檛 know what I was talking about, I had sat at a piano before, I knew that my touching the keys was not going to make music come out. However, she played and her son played 鈥� it was incomprehensible to her that someone wouldn鈥檛 be able to make some sort of music come from the instrument. She said to me that her son had also never learnt to play the piano either, but could play basic twelve-bar blues on it.
So, after a lifetime of learning we become embodied to be what we are and after that lifetime we believe that we could have become nothing other than what we have become. But what about the fact that certain groups in society are clearly much worse off than other groups? There has been lots of discussion, for example, about the raising levels of inequality in society, with the poor getting much less since the 1970s and the rich getting so very much more. Naturally, the same can also be said for women in our society. In the early 1970s in Australia the government passed legislation to make it the law that men and women doing the same work be paid the same amount. This year, since records of the disparity between the wages of men and women have been measured, the gap in earnings in Australia is the worst ever recorded. If women (and poor people) are so clearly disadvantaged in our society 鈥� and it is probably easier to see this with women in some ways, given they are paid less for doing 鈥榯he same鈥� work 鈥� then why do they put up with it? This isn鈥檛 about blaming the victim 鈥� but it is something that needs to be explained. Bourdieu鈥檚 answer is 鈥榮ymbolic violence鈥�.
Symbolic violence is a bit like the 鈥榗ultural arbitrary鈥� 鈥� another term that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean what you might think it means. Whenever I hear it I think of that Monty Python sketch The Spanish Inquisition where they start poking people with cushions as a way to torture them. This isn鈥檛 quite what he means. For someone to have more and someone to have less in society implies that some sort of violence has been applied so that that imbalance can be maintained. But a society that depends on the literal application of violence to maintain all inequities would not really last very long. So, society needs to impose 鈥榮ymbolic violence鈥� 鈥� that is, it needs to be able to convince some people that they are worse off, but for a really good reason. That is, that they deserve to be worse off. The mistake, again, is to assume that this kind of symbolic violence involves some sort of conspiracy with the people having the power somehow pulling the wool over the eyes of those without the power. Such a conspiracy isn鈥檛 necessary, because these inequities have been going on for such a long time, they are 鈥榟ow we understand鈥� the world. Up until very recently women鈥檚 inferiority simply wasn鈥檛 questioned. That they received less than men not only wasn鈥檛 questioned, it was perceived by the whole of society as natural. As Bourdieu points out here, it is very hard to fight against something that appears completely natural. It isn鈥檛 just a matter of 鈥榬aising consciousness鈥� 鈥� we can be aware of injustice and yet be part of the problem ourselves. We can 鈥榞et it鈥�, but still help to perpetuate it. And this isn鈥檛 just a matter of 鈥榖ad faith鈥� 鈥� it is, again, habitus. We have been so programmed to behave in certain ways over a lifetime that these ways of being seem natural 鈥� and they seem natural because those ways of behaving are 鈥榮econd nature鈥� in the sense we have been programmed throughout a lifetime of experience to automatically respond in certain ways. Rational debate about these responces is not enough. Bourdieu isn鈥檛 saying that change is impossible 鈥� but rather that we need to know what it is that we are seeking to change. And if it is the habits and ways of being of an entire culture 鈥� habits and ways of being that are 鈥榥on-rational鈥� in that they are our programmed responses to life in general. That is going to take much more effort than just convincing people that what we have been doing up until now isn鈥檛 nice. It means literally finding ways to change our ways of being in the world.
Bourdieu spends a lot of the start of this book discussing the Kabyle 鈥� the people of Algeria that he studied as an anthropologist in the 1950s. This book is, in part, a kind of quick and dirty summary of his Outline of a Theory of Practice. What is particularly interesting in this is his reliance on binaries. There has been a strong movement away from binaries in modern (or post-modern) theory. But Bourdieu strongly defends them and goes so far as to say that such a movement away from binaries is a mistake. His point is that a lot of how we 鈥榰nderstand鈥� the world is through these binaries and how they link up with other binaries we take equally for granted 鈥� not just male/female, but a series of other binaries that end up getting linked to these and which then 鈥榚xplain鈥� the differences between men and women. So that, in our culture, men are associated with the sun and women with the moon 鈥� which also then links men to reason and women to intuition, and men to technology and women to technique. The point isn鈥檛 that we need to stress the binary nature of the world, rather that we need to know that sexism runs deep not just in how we understand men and women, but in how we understand 鈥榯he world鈥�. All binaries have some form of connection between male and female and thinking you can 鈥榠gnore鈥� binaries doesn鈥檛 diminish their power, but rather reinforces it by making that power invisible.
There is a really interesting aside here about how American rich people name their sons with long-standing family names, while their daughters are often given French girl鈥檚 names, as France is associated with fashion and seduction.
Like I said, what I liked about this was that Bourdieu is seeking to answer a fairly fundamental question 鈥� how is it that male domination goes mostly unchallenged in society, even after it has been acknowledged as both bad and unfair 鈥� but he is also seeking to show that if one where to challenge male domination, it is not going to be enough to prove it is irrational or unfair 鈥� too many of the 鈥榯aken for granted鈥� structures of our society make the reproduction of gender differences appear natural 鈥� even genetic. Change needs to change what will we know from what parts of our bodies feel like, and not just in ways of thinking about the world. So, change isn鈥檛 impossible, but it isn鈥檛 at all easy either.
September 21, 2022
丕賲乇賵夭 丕賳诏丕乇 賲乇夭賴丕蹖 丿賯蹖賯 賵 亘乇噩爻鬲賴 爻賱胤賴 賲匕讴乇 乇賵 賳賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 讴賴 丿乇 賴乇 賲蹖丿賵賳貙 賴乇 讴賵趩賴 賵 禺蹖丕亘賵賳 賵 噩賱賵蹖 賴乇 丕蹖爻鬲诏丕賴 賲鬲乇賵貙 鬲賵蹖 賵賳鈥屬囏й� 诏卮鬲 丕乇卮丕丿 賲蹖鈥屫促� 丿蹖丿. 丕賲丕 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 丕蹖賳 爻賱胤賴貙 賲卮鬲 诏乇賴 讴乇丿賴鈥屰� 夭賳蹖賴 讴賴 丕夭 丕蹖賳 爻賱胤賴 亘賴 鬲賳诏 丕賵賲丿賴. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賴賲賴 賲乇丿爻丕賱丕乇蹖貙 丕夭 賲睾夭賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖鬲鈥屫藏囏� 丕夭 鬲賮讴蹖讴 卮丿賳 亘賴 夭賳丕賳賴 賵 賲乇丿丕賳賴. 賲丕 夭賳鈥屬囏й� 丕蹖乇丕賳 禺賵丿賲賵賳 蹖賴 讴鬲丕亘 賯胤賵乇蹖賲 讴賴 賲胤賲卅賳賲 丕诏賴 倬蹖鈥屰屫� 亘賵乇丿蹖賵 丕夭 爻乇诏匕卮鬲賲賵賳 禺亘乇 丿丕卮鬲 丿蹖诏賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 爻乇丕睾 賯亘蹖賱賴 讴丕亘蹖賱蹖. 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賲丕 禺賵丿卮 賳卮賵賳鈥屫囐嗀団€屰� 鬲賲丕賲 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏ж� 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 賵 丕賱诏賵蹖 賲卮禺氐 爻賱胤賴鈥屰� 賲匕讴乇賴.
*丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕賲丕 亘禺賵賳蹖丿貨 禺蹖賱蹖 诏乇賴鈥屭簇ж池�.
*丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕賲丕 亘禺賵賳蹖丿貨 禺蹖賱蹖 诏乇賴鈥屭簇ж池�.
June 6, 2018
Before saying anything else, I'd like to mention that the Romanian translation of this book is terrible. I think that there are a few Romanians out there who believe you must Work Hard in order to gain Access To Culture, and they do their best to discourage all those who are unworthy from reading.
The English translation is actually comprehensible, so I switched to that one.
But what about the contents of the book in itself, right?
"Masculine Domination" is a non-fiction book written by French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu. The topic should be immediately obvious from the title - but unfortunately, the context of the book is not. As I was reading, I realized Bourdieu had decided to apply some of his older theories in a new context, which means I had to google some terms and ideas to figure out what he was going on about.
The basic points are thus:
1. It's pretty difficult to understand something that you yourself are part of. As everyone is part of the "what gender are you?" game, understanding genders is pretty damned hard.
2. There are things we take for granted and which we perceive as natural, because we project our beliefs regarding them on nature, then draw on nature (now infused with our beliefs) to reinforce those ideas. Traits that we associate with genders tend to go through such a process.
3. Our view of the world will often be in line with the dominant view of the world, even if we are dominated. Women perceive the world through the lens of men, for example - if 'decisiveness' is male and 'nurturing' is female, and men see the first as more valuable than the latter, women will borrow that, too - and they may value decisiveness in women more than they value nurturing in women.
4. This view of the world informs the way people act, including the dominated, including in the absence of legal constraints. Back to the 'decisiveness' example: women can shy away from that trait because it's not for them, it's not feminine.
5. We haven't come as far as we think we have from a feminist point of view, because these internalized mechanisms still guide us.
The book is interesting, but I have a few issues with it:
- Bourdieu talks about Kabyle society for a large part of this book, because it's traditional Mediterranean, but he often switches back to Western society - I feel that the connection doesn't follow (especially since he doesn't motivate it much).
- he doesn't touch on the obvious objection that some traits might really be innate and natural, rather than accepted at such a deep level that they seem to be that way (I mean it: it's an obvious objection, people make it, Bourdieu doesn't discuss it).
- it feels a bit incomplete, especially on its own.
Maybe the book made more sense the way it is when it was published 20 years ago, or maybe it was never meant to be a larger, deeper work. Either way, it's food for thought, but not as good as I'd hoped.
The English translation is actually comprehensible, so I switched to that one.
But what about the contents of the book in itself, right?
"Masculine Domination" is a non-fiction book written by French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu. The topic should be immediately obvious from the title - but unfortunately, the context of the book is not. As I was reading, I realized Bourdieu had decided to apply some of his older theories in a new context, which means I had to google some terms and ideas to figure out what he was going on about.
The basic points are thus:
1. It's pretty difficult to understand something that you yourself are part of. As everyone is part of the "what gender are you?" game, understanding genders is pretty damned hard.
2. There are things we take for granted and which we perceive as natural, because we project our beliefs regarding them on nature, then draw on nature (now infused with our beliefs) to reinforce those ideas. Traits that we associate with genders tend to go through such a process.
3. Our view of the world will often be in line with the dominant view of the world, even if we are dominated. Women perceive the world through the lens of men, for example - if 'decisiveness' is male and 'nurturing' is female, and men see the first as more valuable than the latter, women will borrow that, too - and they may value decisiveness in women more than they value nurturing in women.
4. This view of the world informs the way people act, including the dominated, including in the absence of legal constraints. Back to the 'decisiveness' example: women can shy away from that trait because it's not for them, it's not feminine.
5. We haven't come as far as we think we have from a feminist point of view, because these internalized mechanisms still guide us.
The book is interesting, but I have a few issues with it:
- Bourdieu talks about Kabyle society for a large part of this book, because it's traditional Mediterranean, but he often switches back to Western society - I feel that the connection doesn't follow (especially since he doesn't motivate it much).
- he doesn't touch on the obvious objection that some traits might really be innate and natural, rather than accepted at such a deep level that they seem to be that way (I mean it: it's an obvious objection, people make it, Bourdieu doesn't discuss it).
- it feels a bit incomplete, especially on its own.
Maybe the book made more sense the way it is when it was published 20 years ago, or maybe it was never meant to be a larger, deeper work. Either way, it's food for thought, but not as good as I'd hoped.
June 22, 2019
螠蔚蟿维 伪蟺蠈 蟿蠈蟽蔚蟼 蠁蔚渭喂谓喂蟽蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽慰蠉蟺蔚蟼, 伪魏蟻蠈蟿畏蟿蔚蟼 魏伪喂 伪蟻位慰蠉渭蟺蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蠅 未喂伪尾维蟽蔚喂, 畏 纬蟻伪蠁萎 蟿慰蠀 Bourdieu 鈥撓€伪蟻蠈蟿喂 蟿蔚委谓蔚喂 蔚谓委慰蟿蔚 谓伪 慰未畏纬蔚委 蟽蟿伪 维魏蟻伪 蟿畏 未喂伪谓慰畏蟿喂魏萎 伪谓蟿慰蠂萎 蟿慰蠀 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏鈥� 萎蟻胃蔚 谓伪 渭蔚 伪蟺慰味畏渭蔚喂蠋蟽蔚喂.
October 22, 2017
J'ai choisi de lire Bourdieu apr猫s en avoir longtemps entendu parler dans les cercles f茅ministes. Comme je d茅teste ne pas savoir de quoi on parle, je m'茅tais promis de me pencher s茅rieusement sur la question, d'autant plus que j'ai fait le choix de diversifier mes lectures en 2017, et de commencer 脿 m'int茅resser un peu plus aux livres qui expliquent.
Honn锚tement, j'ai cru ne jamais en voir le bout, et pourtant le livre est court. Le premier chapitre m'a pris des jours, je le trouvais infernal et surtout incompr茅hensible. Je ne sais pas pourquoi, mais hormis deux ou trois phrases qui attiraient mon attention et me confirmaient que je lisais bien en fran莽ais, tout le reste m'a fait passer un sale quart d'heure, au point de douter r茅ellement de mon intelligence et de ma capacit茅 de compr茅hension.
C'est donc avec beaucoup de n艙uds au cerveau, et en m'arr锚tant quasiment 脿 chaque page, que j'ai enfin pu laisser le premier chapitre derri猫re moi.
J'ai entam茅 le deuxi猫me chapitre avec appr茅hension, en voyant anxieusement le nombre de pages qu'il me restait 脿 lire et 脿 moiti茅 convaincue que je ne pourrais pas le finir avant la fin du mois d'octobre. Mais heureusement pour moi, ce deuxi猫me chapitre s'est r茅v茅l茅 bien plus facile, et surtout beaucoup plus compr茅hensible et int茅ressant, 脿 l'instar des suivants.
J'ai donc d茅couvert les travaux de M. Bourdieu, et son explication de la domination masculine. Je ne sais pas si c'est parce que je tra卯ne d茅j脿 mes gu锚tres dans les milieux f茅ministes depuis plusieurs ann茅es, mais les notions pr茅sent茅es ne m'茅taient du coup pas du tout 茅trang猫res, et si j'ai pu comprendre un peu plus profond茅ment le m茅canisme de certains comportements, il n'y avait pour moi aucune surprise ni d茅couverte fondamentale dans cet essai.
J'ai aussi bien moins appr茅ci茅 certaines prises de position de l'auteur concernant les mouvements f茅ministes et concernant sa propre position 脿 lui dans l'茅chiquier de la domination masculine et de la l茅gitimit茅 脿 en parler, que ce soit pour l'une ou pour l'autre des parties. Certains propos ont eu du mal 脿 passer sur le moment de la lecture, et ne m'ont pas laiss茅 une opinion vraiment favorable.
Du coup, dans la lign茅e du premier chapitre, je continue de penser que je suis certainement trop b锚te pour prendre la mesure enti猫re de cet ouvrage, mais il m'aura au moins donn茅 envie de continuer 脿 en apprendre plus sur les m茅canismes de notre soci茅t茅.
Et en plus, il m'a donn茅 envie de lire Virginia Woolf.
Honn锚tement, j'ai cru ne jamais en voir le bout, et pourtant le livre est court. Le premier chapitre m'a pris des jours, je le trouvais infernal et surtout incompr茅hensible. Je ne sais pas pourquoi, mais hormis deux ou trois phrases qui attiraient mon attention et me confirmaient que je lisais bien en fran莽ais, tout le reste m'a fait passer un sale quart d'heure, au point de douter r茅ellement de mon intelligence et de ma capacit茅 de compr茅hension.
C'est donc avec beaucoup de n艙uds au cerveau, et en m'arr锚tant quasiment 脿 chaque page, que j'ai enfin pu laisser le premier chapitre derri猫re moi.
J'ai entam茅 le deuxi猫me chapitre avec appr茅hension, en voyant anxieusement le nombre de pages qu'il me restait 脿 lire et 脿 moiti茅 convaincue que je ne pourrais pas le finir avant la fin du mois d'octobre. Mais heureusement pour moi, ce deuxi猫me chapitre s'est r茅v茅l茅 bien plus facile, et surtout beaucoup plus compr茅hensible et int茅ressant, 脿 l'instar des suivants.
J'ai donc d茅couvert les travaux de M. Bourdieu, et son explication de la domination masculine. Je ne sais pas si c'est parce que je tra卯ne d茅j脿 mes gu锚tres dans les milieux f茅ministes depuis plusieurs ann茅es, mais les notions pr茅sent茅es ne m'茅taient du coup pas du tout 茅trang猫res, et si j'ai pu comprendre un peu plus profond茅ment le m茅canisme de certains comportements, il n'y avait pour moi aucune surprise ni d茅couverte fondamentale dans cet essai.
J'ai aussi bien moins appr茅ci茅 certaines prises de position de l'auteur concernant les mouvements f茅ministes et concernant sa propre position 脿 lui dans l'茅chiquier de la domination masculine et de la l茅gitimit茅 脿 en parler, que ce soit pour l'une ou pour l'autre des parties. Certains propos ont eu du mal 脿 passer sur le moment de la lecture, et ne m'ont pas laiss茅 une opinion vraiment favorable.
Du coup, dans la lign茅e du premier chapitre, je continue de penser que je suis certainement trop b锚te pour prendre la mesure enti猫re de cet ouvrage, mais il m'aura au moins donn茅 envie de continuer 脿 en apprendre plus sur les m茅canismes de notre soci茅t茅.
Et en plus, il m'a donn茅 envie de lire Virginia Woolf.
August 26, 2013
Se eu continuar a ler esses livros de sociologia que me arrebatam tanto vou acabar abandonando Jung lindamente para me dedicar 脿 psicologia social. R谩!
Ter baseado boa parte do livro em cita莽玫es de obras de Virginia Woolf, sobretudo Rumo ao Farol, ajudou muito ao Bourdieu a me ganhar e pautar a domina莽茫o simb贸lica a partir de um inconsciente androc锚ntrico fechou para meu encantamento.
Ter baseado boa parte do livro em cita莽玫es de obras de Virginia Woolf, sobretudo Rumo ao Farol, ajudou muito ao Bourdieu a me ganhar e pautar a domina莽茫o simb贸lica a partir de um inconsciente androc锚ntrico fechou para meu encantamento.
December 20, 2021
Eril tahakk眉m nas谋l in艧a ediliyor? Kad谋nlar谋n ve erkeklerin bedenlerine nas谋l kaz谋l谋yor? Erkekli臒in 枚yle 莽ok da g枚ze batmayan, a莽谋k olmayan 艧iddeti nerelerde nas谋l kendini g枚steriyor? Bu kitap Virginia Woolf鈥檜n Deniz Fener鈥檌ni de yeniden okuma arzusu yaratt谋 bende. Yazar谋n, roman karakteri Mr. Ramsay 眉zerinden erkeklik ve babal谋臒谋n bir aile ya艧ant谋s谋ndaki rol眉 ve etkileri 眉zerine yapt谋臒谋 okuma 莽ok ilgi 莽ekiciydi. Toplumsal cinsiyet okumas谋 yapanlar谋n, erkeklik ve iktidar meselelerine kafa yorumlar谋n ilk s谋raya almas谋 gereken bir kitap.
June 12, 2009
La domination masculine est int茅ressante dans le fait que c'est un livre de 168 pages, qui se lit donc en environ deux heures, tout en contenant n茅anmoins un bon nombre de points qui font r茅fl茅chir. Je ne lui donne cependant que quatre 茅toiles, car certains points avaient d茅j脿 茅t茅 propos茅s par d'autres chercheurs ou f茅ministes.
L'argument principal du livre est que la patriarchie et la domination de l'homme sur la femme sont tellement vieilles, que m锚me ceux qui rejettent cet 茅tat de fait raisonnent en fonction de ces donn茅es. Il semble donc impossible de se sortir du point de vue masculin sur lequel notre soci茅t茅 est bas茅e. Pour paraphraser John Stuart Mill, comment peut-on savoir que notre syst猫me est le bon (l'homme sup茅rieur 脿 la femme, le blanc sup茅rieur 脿 l'homme de couleur etc) dans la mesure o霉 nous n'avons jamais connu d'autre syst猫me que celui-ci? Bourdieu d茅montre que - et je prends un raccourci - l'茅tat de l'homme est vu comme une force alors que celui de la femme est regard茅 comme une faiblesse. Il incite aussi les femmes 脿 ne pas entrer dans le cercle vicieux de l'acceptation, et 脿 continuellement remettre en question la vision que la soci茅t茅 patriarchale se fait d'elles.
Si 莽a ne tenait qu'脿 moi, ce genre d'ouvrage - moins imposant que de , par exemple, tout en reprenant un certain nombre d'arguments similaires - devrait faire partie des programmes du coll猫ge et du lyc茅e, car nous avons tendance 脿 r茅gresser et 脿 accepter les insultes faites aux filles ou aux professeures un peu trop facilement. Nous retournons 脿 la passivit茅 face 脿 cette violence verbale, comme si nous avions 茅t茅 anesth茅si茅s, et ce genre de comportement n'aidera qu'脿 faire empirer les choses.
L'argument principal du livre est que la patriarchie et la domination de l'homme sur la femme sont tellement vieilles, que m锚me ceux qui rejettent cet 茅tat de fait raisonnent en fonction de ces donn茅es. Il semble donc impossible de se sortir du point de vue masculin sur lequel notre soci茅t茅 est bas茅e. Pour paraphraser John Stuart Mill, comment peut-on savoir que notre syst猫me est le bon (l'homme sup茅rieur 脿 la femme, le blanc sup茅rieur 脿 l'homme de couleur etc) dans la mesure o霉 nous n'avons jamais connu d'autre syst猫me que celui-ci? Bourdieu d茅montre que - et je prends un raccourci - l'茅tat de l'homme est vu comme une force alors que celui de la femme est regard茅 comme une faiblesse. Il incite aussi les femmes 脿 ne pas entrer dans le cercle vicieux de l'acceptation, et 脿 continuellement remettre en question la vision que la soci茅t茅 patriarchale se fait d'elles.
Si 莽a ne tenait qu'脿 moi, ce genre d'ouvrage - moins imposant que de , par exemple, tout en reprenant un certain nombre d'arguments similaires - devrait faire partie des programmes du coll猫ge et du lyc茅e, car nous avons tendance 脿 r茅gresser et 脿 accepter les insultes faites aux filles ou aux professeures un peu trop facilement. Nous retournons 脿 la passivit茅 face 脿 cette violence verbale, comme si nous avions 茅t茅 anesth茅si茅s, et ce genre de comportement n'aidera qu'脿 faire empirer les choses.
November 1, 2017
脟eviri m眉kemmel. Yine de Bourdieu'nun uzun c眉mleleri ile 莽ok kolay okunan bir metin de臒il.
Kitap temel olarak cinsiyet ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋n谋n bireysel varolu艧a oldu臒u kadar toplumsal varolu艧a da nak艧edildi臒ini s枚yl眉yor. Bu da kurumlarla m眉mk眉n k谋l谋n谋yor ve davran谋艧lardaki yatk谋nl谋klar谋 belirliyor.
Bunun politik imas谋 艧udur; ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋 if艧a etmek, iradi politik m眉dahaleler ve bilin莽 y眉kseltme ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋 yok etmeye yeterli olmayacakt谋r. 脟眉nk眉 ayr谋mc谋l谋k bedenlere nak艧edilmi艧tir (yarg谋lara, jestlere, se莽imlere, bak谋艧a vb). Bu g枚r眉nmez, s枚zel olan / olmayan ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋n yok edilmesi i莽in daha k枚kten bir de臒i艧iklik gereklidir.
Kitapta 艧u 枚rnek gibi i莽 g枚r眉 g眉c眉 y眉ksek de臒erlendirmeler var;
Rakamlar erkeklerin nitelikli i艧lerde daha fazla yer ald谋臒谋n谋 s枚yl眉yor ancak bu de臒erlendirme ayn谋 zamanda erke臒in olmad谋臒谋 i艧lerin de臒ersiz k谋l谋nmas谋 ile de m眉mk眉n olabilmi艧tir. (Bourdieu "metin d眉zeltmesi yapan erkeklerin kendilerine m眉sahhih, kad谋nlara daktilocu demeleri" 枚rne臒ini veriyor.)
Bourdieu sosyal bilimlerin ikiliklerle d眉艧眉nmeme 枚nerisini "ikiliklerle d眉艧眉nme"nin sadece bir adland谋rma meselesi olmad谋臒谋n谋, bunun bedenlere ve 莽evreye nak艧edildi臒i cevab谋 ile ele艧tiriyor.
Cinsiyet meselesini 莽al谋艧anlar i莽in dip notlarda 莽ok ilgin莽 ba艧ka 莽al谋艧malara referans verdi臒inden ilham verici olacakt谋r.
Bourdieu sosyoloji ile b眉y眉 bozumundan al谋nan hazz谋n ger莽ek bir aray谋c谋s谋.
Kitap temel olarak cinsiyet ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋n谋n bireysel varolu艧a oldu臒u kadar toplumsal varolu艧a da nak艧edildi臒ini s枚yl眉yor. Bu da kurumlarla m眉mk眉n k谋l谋n谋yor ve davran谋艧lardaki yatk谋nl谋klar谋 belirliyor.
Bunun politik imas谋 艧udur; ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋 if艧a etmek, iradi politik m眉dahaleler ve bilin莽 y眉kseltme ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋 yok etmeye yeterli olmayacakt谋r. 脟眉nk眉 ayr谋mc谋l谋k bedenlere nak艧edilmi艧tir (yarg谋lara, jestlere, se莽imlere, bak谋艧a vb). Bu g枚r眉nmez, s枚zel olan / olmayan ayr谋mc谋l谋臒谋n yok edilmesi i莽in daha k枚kten bir de臒i艧iklik gereklidir.
Kitapta 艧u 枚rnek gibi i莽 g枚r眉 g眉c眉 y眉ksek de臒erlendirmeler var;
Rakamlar erkeklerin nitelikli i艧lerde daha fazla yer ald谋臒谋n谋 s枚yl眉yor ancak bu de臒erlendirme ayn谋 zamanda erke臒in olmad谋臒谋 i艧lerin de臒ersiz k谋l谋nmas谋 ile de m眉mk眉n olabilmi艧tir. (Bourdieu "metin d眉zeltmesi yapan erkeklerin kendilerine m眉sahhih, kad谋nlara daktilocu demeleri" 枚rne臒ini veriyor.)
Bourdieu sosyal bilimlerin ikiliklerle d眉艧眉nmeme 枚nerisini "ikiliklerle d眉艧眉nme"nin sadece bir adland谋rma meselesi olmad谋臒谋n谋, bunun bedenlere ve 莽evreye nak艧edildi臒i cevab谋 ile ele艧tiriyor.
Cinsiyet meselesini 莽al谋艧anlar i莽in dip notlarda 莽ok ilgin莽 ba艧ka 莽al谋艧malara referans verdi臒inden ilham verici olacakt谋r.
Bourdieu sosyoloji ile b眉y眉 bozumundan al谋nan hazz谋n ger莽ek bir aray谋c谋s谋.
February 27, 2019
Avrei voluto dargli 6 stelle, semplicemente perch茅 alcuni dei temi affrontati sono talmente necessari e fondamentali, che lascia un po' di amarezza vedere che erano attuali e attuabili nel 1998 come oggi. Ma infondo non ci si pu貌 aspettare che un'intera societ脿 si rivoluzioni in vent'anni (o s矛?).
Questo 猫 un libro che tutti, nel 2019, dovrebbero leggere. Ma non leggere tanto per fare, leggere per capire, per aprire occhi e testa, per rivoluzionare una societ脿 soffocante e soffocata dai suoi stessi tentacolari vincoli. Da sempre viviamo in una societ脿 maschilista, di cui siamo tutti vittime; sia uomini che donne. Sarebbe il caso di iniziare a provare a guardare le cose da una prospettiva differente.
Uno dei punti pi霉 importanti toccati da Bourdieu 猫 secondo me l'intangibilit脿 di quella che lui chiama "violenza simbolica". Il problema principale infatti 猫 che siamo abituati a pensare secondo schemi e modelli che sono propri di una cultura maschilista, sia uomini che donne applicano queste disposizioni cognitive e per questo non si riesce a liberarsi di questa struttura sociale paralizzante. 脠 quello che porta a vedere come naturale la figura maschile associata a certi atteggiamenti e comportamenti e la figura femminile ad altri, quando non c'猫 nulla di naturale (o biologicamente intrinseco nel sesso della persona), e tutto di culturale.
Questo 猫 un libro che tutti, nel 2019, dovrebbero leggere. Ma non leggere tanto per fare, leggere per capire, per aprire occhi e testa, per rivoluzionare una societ脿 soffocante e soffocata dai suoi stessi tentacolari vincoli. Da sempre viviamo in una societ脿 maschilista, di cui siamo tutti vittime; sia uomini che donne. Sarebbe il caso di iniziare a provare a guardare le cose da una prospettiva differente.
Uno dei punti pi霉 importanti toccati da Bourdieu 猫 secondo me l'intangibilit脿 di quella che lui chiama "violenza simbolica". Il problema principale infatti 猫 che siamo abituati a pensare secondo schemi e modelli che sono propri di una cultura maschilista, sia uomini che donne applicano queste disposizioni cognitive e per questo non si riesce a liberarsi di questa struttura sociale paralizzante. 脠 quello che porta a vedere come naturale la figura maschile associata a certi atteggiamenti e comportamenti e la figura femminile ad altri, quando non c'猫 nulla di naturale (o biologicamente intrinseco nel sesso della persona), e tutto di culturale.
October 18, 2016
Why do men always seem to have the upper hand over women? What is it that keeps them in this position of power over centuries? These are questions Bourdieu pours over in Masculine Domination. I found his argument very interesting, because he seeks his answers beyond qualities in "women" and "men". What we need to focus on, he argues, is how assumptions become seen as fact, or "natural". I admire his broad analysis that touches on everything from honour, chastity, passive and active sexuality, men and women in the work force, fashion, cosmetics, etcetera.
Bourdieu is not an easy-to-read author, especially because of his perchance for lengthy sentences. The content of Masculine Domination is worth the occasional rereading of sections to fully understand his point.
Bourdieu is not an easy-to-read author, especially because of his perchance for lengthy sentences. The content of Masculine Domination is worth the occasional rereading of sections to fully understand his point.
October 14, 2016
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 丕賱賲丨鬲賵賶 賯賷賲賸丕 賱賰賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮丕卮賱丞 亘賰賱 丕賱賲賯丕賷賷爻.
爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 兀囟丕毓 賲毓馗賲 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 廿賷氐丕賱賴丕 賵賱賱兀爻賮 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 爻賷賯囟賷 噩賱 賵賯鬲賴 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賳氐 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 賰賷 賷氐賱 廿賱賶 乇亘胤 賲賮賴賵賲 賱賱噩購賲賻賱 (廿賳 丕爻鬲胤丕毓!).
兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 賲賳 丕賱賲亘賰乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賲丕丿丞 鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 "丕賱賳爻賵賷丞" 亘丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賱兀賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲毓噩夭 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賳 廿賷囟丕丨 賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀噩賳亘賷丞 賰孬賷乇丞. (賲孬賱 丕賱賴丕亘鬲賵爻)
賴賳丕賰 禺賱丕氐丞 亘爻賷胤丞 賵賴賷 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 賱賵賲賸丕 禺賮賷賸賾丕 賱賱兀賳孬賶 賮賷 賯囟賷丞 賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰乇 毓賱賷賴丕. 賴賳丕賰 卮乇丨 胤賵賷賱 毓賳 鬲亘乇賷乇丕鬲 鬲乇丕賰賲賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賵毓賷 賱賰賳 胤睾賶 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丕丿丞 毓賲賵賲丕 丕賱丨卮賵 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴.
爻賵亍 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 兀囟丕毓 賲毓馗賲 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 兀乇丕丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 廿賷氐丕賱賴丕 賵賱賱兀爻賮 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 爻賷賯囟賷 噩賱 賵賯鬲賴 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賳氐 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞 賰賷 賷氐賱 廿賱賶 乇亘胤 賲賮賴賵賲 賱賱噩購賲賻賱 (廿賳 丕爻鬲胤丕毓!).
兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 賲賳 丕賱賲亘賰乇 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 賯乇丕亍丞 賲丕丿丞 鬲鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 "丕賱賳爻賵賷丞" 亘丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賱兀賳 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 鬲毓噩夭 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賳 廿賷囟丕丨 賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀噩賳亘賷丞 賰孬賷乇丞. (賲孬賱 丕賱賴丕亘鬲賵爻)
賴賳丕賰 禺賱丕氐丞 亘爻賷胤丞 賵賴賷 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 賱賵賲賸丕 禺賮賷賸賾丕 賱賱兀賳孬賶 賮賷 賯囟賷丞 賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰乇 毓賱賷賴丕. 賴賳丕賰 卮乇丨 胤賵賷賱 毓賳 鬲亘乇賷乇丕鬲 鬲乇丕賰賲賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賱丕賵毓賷 賱賰賳 胤睾賶 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丕丿丞 毓賲賵賲丕 丕賱丨卮賵 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴.
June 11, 2012
賲丕 丕卮賵賮 丕賳賷 胤賱毓鬲 亘賮丕卅丿丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
賮賷 賮氐賵賱 毓噩亘鬲賳賷 賵賮氐賵賱 賰賳鬲 丕賯賱亘 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 賮賯胤
賮賷 賮氐賵賱 毓噩亘鬲賳賷 賵賮氐賵賱 賰賳鬲 丕賯賱亘 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 賮賯胤
May 4, 2020
Este es un libro corto pero algo complejo, que no recomendar铆a como introducci贸n pero s铆 como punto medio para afianzar conocimientos sobre el g茅nero como estructura sociohist贸rica. Bourdieu, en menos p谩ginas, creo que ofrece una visi贸n mucho m谩s clara de lo que es la dominaci贸n masculina que Connell (y sus jerarqu铆as internas de la masculinidad -para m铆 inexistentes-). A trav茅s de un proceso de historizaci贸n de lo naturalizado del g茅nero se pretende dar armas para comprender el funcionamiento de la estructura desde la inscripci贸n en los cuerpos del sistema de dominaci贸n que produce y reproduce estas ideas. El concepto de -habitus- (o predisposiciones) est谩 en el centro de esta idea: las inercias que contraemos a la largo de un condicionamiento social.
A su vez, es una estupenda cr铆tica de la comprensi贸n posmoderna de la preeminencia de la performatividad y la palabra antes que la estructura. Bourdieu admite que la estructura objetivada en el cuerpo precede a las conductas y que cualquier intento de "voluntarismo subversivo" est谩 vac铆o. Para cambiar la conducta primero hay que cambiar las estructuras que naturalizan nuestras formas de actuar en la sociedad, nuestro espacio en ella. Tambi茅n es una cr铆tica a la pretensi贸n de percibirnos como seres individuales que siguen una voluntad propia "porque queremos", nos habla de la determinaci贸n social de cada uno de nuestros movimientos, posturas y caminos (que parece obvio pero no lo es).
Movi茅ndose de lo general a lo particular, da buena cuenta de cu谩les son las estructuras que perpet煤an estas conductas (Estado / familia, iglesia (o religi贸n) y sistema educativo). No creo que se quede corto en el desarrollo porque la explicaci贸n de estas da a entender su codependencia.
El intento de historizar lo des-historizado es funcional y comprensible, es una haza帽a en menos de 150 p谩ginas.
A su vez, es una estupenda cr铆tica de la comprensi贸n posmoderna de la preeminencia de la performatividad y la palabra antes que la estructura. Bourdieu admite que la estructura objetivada en el cuerpo precede a las conductas y que cualquier intento de "voluntarismo subversivo" est谩 vac铆o. Para cambiar la conducta primero hay que cambiar las estructuras que naturalizan nuestras formas de actuar en la sociedad, nuestro espacio en ella. Tambi茅n es una cr铆tica a la pretensi贸n de percibirnos como seres individuales que siguen una voluntad propia "porque queremos", nos habla de la determinaci贸n social de cada uno de nuestros movimientos, posturas y caminos (que parece obvio pero no lo es).
Movi茅ndose de lo general a lo particular, da buena cuenta de cu谩les son las estructuras que perpet煤an estas conductas (Estado / familia, iglesia (o religi贸n) y sistema educativo). No creo que se quede corto en el desarrollo porque la explicaci贸n de estas da a entender su codependencia.
El intento de historizar lo des-historizado es funcional y comprensible, es una haza帽a en menos de 150 p谩ginas.
February 17, 2023
Esta 茅 a segunda vez que leio este livro e, desta vez, ele me pareceu mais 贸bvio. Obviamente porque eu j谩 havia lido ele. Na minha resenha anterior, eu havia lido a partir de uma edi莽茫o mais recente, um PDF, que eu gostei tanto do que li que resolvi comprar a edi莽茫o f铆sica, que 茅 uma vers茫o anterior. Veja como a diagrama莽茫o de um livro 茅 importante para nossa aprecia莽茫o dele: na vers茫o que eu li em PDF, por mais que eu prefira ler com um livro na m茫o, eu apreendi muito mais coisa do conte煤do porque seu design era mais agrad谩vel do que o do livro que li fisicamente, que usa de uma maneira de composi莽茫o do livro que 茅 bastante antiga, por mais que o livro n茫o seja t茫o antigo. Se na outra leitura havia me chamado aten莽茫o a quest茫o do capital simb贸lico, que estava estudando no mestrado, desta vez me chamou aten莽茫o como Bourdieu se debru莽a nos aspectos sociol贸gicos, da organiza莽茫o do trabalho entre os g锚neros e como essa segunda parte do livro 茅 mais extenuante de se ler porque 茅 muito repetitiva. Mas, claro, muito dessa minha segunda ideia da leitura pode ter vindo com o aspecto do design do livro. Bourdieu explica.
July 7, 2017
Wenig Neues 眉ber die androzentrtierte westliche Gesellschaft. Bourdieu verbindet in diesem Sp盲twerk Herrschaftstheorien einer androzentrierten Gesellschaft mit seinem eigenen Werk und Begriffen wie soziales Feld, Habitus oder sozialen und symbolischen Kapital. Zun盲chst beginnend mit einem ethnographischen Teil 眉ber die Geschlechtsunterschiede bei den Kabylen geht er flie脽end 眉ber in Produktions- und Reproduktionsmechanismen der Dominanz einer m盲nnlichen Herrschaft.
Das Werk ist an sich nicht uninteressant, allerdings erschien das franz枚sische Original 1998, die deutsche Erstausgabe 2005. Und damit eigentlich zu sp盲t, um wirklich relevant zu sein. Der Inhalt passt, wirkt aber wie eine Wiederholung bekannter Themen, so etwa der sozialen Konstruktion des Geschlechts in Judith Butlers Gender Trouble (1990 erschienen).
Da das gebotene auch nicht wirklich mit Verve verfasst/眉bersetzt ist (aber nicht unleserlich ist) reicht es nur f眉r drei Sterne.
Das Werk ist an sich nicht uninteressant, allerdings erschien das franz枚sische Original 1998, die deutsche Erstausgabe 2005. Und damit eigentlich zu sp盲t, um wirklich relevant zu sein. Der Inhalt passt, wirkt aber wie eine Wiederholung bekannter Themen, so etwa der sozialen Konstruktion des Geschlechts in Judith Butlers Gender Trouble (1990 erschienen).
Da das gebotene auch nicht wirklich mit Verve verfasst/眉bersetzt ist (aber nicht unleserlich ist) reicht es nur f眉r drei Sterne.
January 2, 2018
脟ok bilgilendirici bir kitapt谋, tekrar okumak istiyorum. ^^
March 10, 2019
兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲賲丕爻賰丞 賵賲毓乇賵囟丞 亘卮賰賱 賯賵賷 賵毓賱賲賷貙 丨賷孬 賵囟丨 賲賳 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 兀賳 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賷噩丕丿 賲毓乇賮丞 鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 禺賱賯 孬賵乇丞 賱賴丕 賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕 毓賱賶 氐毓賷丿 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 囟丿 賰賱 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞貙 賵賯丿 丕鬲亘毓 丕爻鬲乇丕鬲賷噩賷丞 毓賲賱賷丞 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賱丕賵毓賷 丕賱鬲賲乇賰夭 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷 賵丕賱亘丨孬 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賳賲丕胤 賲賳 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賷賲賳丞 賵爻亘亘 鬲兀氐賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓.
"廿賳 賯賵丞 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷 鬲鬲乇丕亍賶 賮賷賴 兀賲乇丕 賷爻鬲睾賳賷 毓賳 丕賱鬲亘乇賷乇貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 鬲賮乇囟 賳賮爻賴丕 賰兀賳賴丕 賲丨丕賷丿丞"
賳丕賯卮 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘賳丕亍 賳馗丕賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賮賷 丕賱賯丿賲貙 賵胤乇賷賯丞 賴賷賰賱丞 丕賱賲禺 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 賵丕賱兀賳賵孬丞貙 賮丕賱乇賮毓丞 賵丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱丕賯丿丕賲 賱賱匕賰乇貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍 賵丕賱囟毓賮 賵丕賱禺賲賵賱 賱賱丕賳丕孬貙 匕丕賰乇丕 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷丨賷 賵兀孬乇賴 毓賱賶 鬲賵夭賷毓 丕賱賵馗丕卅賮貙 孬賲 鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賶 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐氐賱 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 賱賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱禺囟賵毓 賱賱兀賳孬賶貙 賵匕賰乇 兀賷囟丕 丕賱禺賷丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲丕丨丞 賱賱兀賳孬賶 賮賷 馗賱 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞.
賵丕賮乇丿 亘丕亘丕 賰丕賲賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱乇賲夭賷貙 賵賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴 亘兀賳 賷氐亘丨 毓賳賮丕 乇賵丨賷丕 禺丕賱氐丕 賱賴 丌孬丕乇賴 丕賱禺胤賷乇丞 賮賷 毓賯賱 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿丞 賰兀賳 鬲賳馗乇 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賳賮爻賴丕 賰卮賷亍 賲賳賯賵氐 亘卮毓貙 賵賷夭丿丕丿 丕賱囟乇乇 亘兀賳 鬲禺鬲丕乇 丕賰孬乇 丕賱賳賲丕匕噩 鬲丨賯賷賯丕 賱賱賴賷賲賳丞 毓賱賷賴丕 賱鬲氐亘丨 "丕賱賲乇兀丞 兀卮丿 毓丿賵 賱賳賮爻賴丕"貙 賵毓丿賲 廿丿乇丕賰賳丕 賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 賯丿 賷賵賯毓 丕賱賳丕馗乇 賱兀賳 賷賱賯賷 丕賱賱賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿丞 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 賮賴賲 賲丕 噩乇賶.
賵匕賰乇 丕賱毓賳賮 賵丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 亘丕賱乇噩賵賱丞貙 丨賷孬 賷賵賱丿 丕賱匕賰乇 亘丕賲鬲賷丕夭 丨賯 賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱氐乇丕毓 賵丕賱孬兀乇 賵丕孬亘丕鬲 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 賳賯賷囟 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵賱丿 亘鬲噩爻賷丿 丕賱賴卮丕卮丞 賵丕賱廿賴丕賳丞貙 賵賲丕 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴 賲賳 賯賱賯 丕孬亘丕鬲 丕賱匕丕鬲 賱賳賷賱 丕爻鬲丨爻丕賳 噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵賲丕 賷賳鬲噩 毓賳 匕賱賰 賲賳 兀賮毓丕賱 賯爻賵丞 賵丕匕賶.
鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 毓賳 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 丕賱賳爻丕亍 亘兀賳 賷亘丿兀賳 亘鬲賲噩賷丿 丕賱噩爻丿 賵兀孬乇賴 亘鬲賯丿賷乇 匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賵囟毓賴賳 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 丿丕卅賲丞 賲賳 毓丿賲 丕賱丕賲丕賳貙 亘兀賳 賷賵噩丿賳 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賵賲賳 兀噩賱 賳馗乇丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳.
賵丕賳鬲賴賶 亘匕賰乇 亘丕亘 亘毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賵丕賱丨亘 賵兀賳 丕賱丨亘 丕賱氐丕賮賷 賷鬲賲孬賱 亘丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 丕賱賲鬲亘丕丿賱 亘賷賳 丕賱孬賳丕卅賷貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丨丕賱賷丕 賵賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賱賱賲爻丕賴賲丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賮賵賱 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 賱賱賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞.
賱賵賱丕 氐毓賵亘丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵賰孬乇丞 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賱賰丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀賴賲 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷鬲賲 鬲丿丕賵賱賴 亘丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 爻賵丕亍 賱賱丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賵 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮.
"廿賳 賯賵丞 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷 鬲鬲乇丕亍賶 賮賷賴 兀賲乇丕 賷爻鬲睾賳賷 毓賳 丕賱鬲亘乇賷乇貙 匕賱賰 兀賳 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 鬲賮乇囟 賳賮爻賴丕 賰兀賳賴丕 賲丨丕賷丿丞"
賳丕賯卮 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘賳丕亍 賳馗丕賲 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賮賷 丕賱賯丿賲貙 賵胤乇賷賯丞 賴賷賰賱丞 丕賱賲禺 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 賵丕賱兀賳賵孬丞貙 賮丕賱乇賮毓丞 賵丕賱賯賵丞 賵丕賱丕賯丿丕賲 賱賱匕賰乇貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱丕禺鬲賮丕亍 賵丕賱囟毓賮 賵丕賱禺賲賵賱 賱賱丕賳丕孬貙 匕丕賰乇丕 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷 賵丕賱鬲卮乇賷丨賷 賵兀孬乇賴 毓賱賶 鬲賵夭賷毓 丕賱賵馗丕卅賮貙 孬賲 鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賶 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賳爻賷賳 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐氐賱 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 賱賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱禺囟賵毓 賱賱兀賳孬賶貙 賵匕賰乇 兀賷囟丕 丕賱禺賷丕乇丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲丕丨丞 賱賱兀賳孬賶 賮賷 馗賱 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞.
賵丕賮乇丿 亘丕亘丕 賰丕賲賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱乇賲夭賷貙 賵賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴 亘兀賳 賷氐亘丨 毓賳賮丕 乇賵丨賷丕 禺丕賱氐丕 賱賴 丌孬丕乇賴 丕賱禺胤賷乇丞 賮賷 毓賯賱 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿丞 賰兀賳 鬲賳馗乇 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賳賮爻賴丕 賰卮賷亍 賲賳賯賵氐 亘卮毓貙 賵賷夭丿丕丿 丕賱囟乇乇 亘兀賳 鬲禺鬲丕乇 丕賰孬乇 丕賱賳賲丕匕噩 鬲丨賯賷賯丕 賱賱賴賷賲賳丞 毓賱賷賴丕 賱鬲氐亘丨 "丕賱賲乇兀丞 兀卮丿 毓丿賵 賱賳賮爻賴丕"貙 賵毓丿賲 廿丿乇丕賰賳丕 賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 賯丿 賷賵賯毓 丕賱賳丕馗乇 賱兀賳 賷賱賯賷 丕賱賱賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲囟胤賴丿丞 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 賮賴賲 賲丕 噩乇賶.
賵匕賰乇 丕賱毓賳賮 賵丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 亘丕賱乇噩賵賱丞貙 丨賷孬 賷賵賱丿 丕賱匕賰乇 亘丕賲鬲賷丕夭 丨賯 賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱氐乇丕毓 賵丕賱孬兀乇 賵丕孬亘丕鬲 賳賮爻賴 毓賱賶 賳賯賷囟 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵賱丿 亘鬲噩爻賷丿 丕賱賴卮丕卮丞 賵丕賱廿賴丕賳丞貙 賵賲丕 賷鬲乇鬲亘 毓賱賷賴 賲賳 賯賱賯 丕孬亘丕鬲 丕賱匕丕鬲 賱賳賷賱 丕爻鬲丨爻丕賳 噩賲丕毓丞 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賵賲丕 賷賳鬲噩 毓賳 匕賱賰 賲賳 兀賮毓丕賱 賯爻賵丞 賵丕匕賶.
鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 毓賳 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 丕賱賳爻丕亍 亘兀賳 賷亘丿兀賳 亘鬲賲噩賷丿 丕賱噩爻丿 賵兀孬乇賴 亘鬲賯丿賷乇 匕丕鬲賴丕貙 賵賵囟毓賴賳 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 丿丕卅賲丞 賲賳 毓丿賲 丕賱丕賲丕賳貙 亘兀賳 賷賵噩丿賳 亘賵丕爻胤丞 賵賲賳 兀噩賱 賳馗乇丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳.
賵丕賳鬲賴賶 亘匕賰乇 亘丕亘 亘毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賵丕賱丨亘 賵兀賳 丕賱丨亘 丕賱氐丕賮賷 賷鬲賲孬賱 亘丕賱丕毓鬲乇丕賮 丕賱賲鬲亘丕丿賱 亘賷賳 丕賱孬賳丕卅賷貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丨丕賱賷丕 賵賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賱賱賲爻丕賴賲丞 賮賷 丕賱兀賮賵賱 丕賱鬲丿乇賷噩賷 賱賱賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞.
賱賵賱丕 氐毓賵亘丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵賰孬乇丞 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 賱賰丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 兀賴賲 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷鬲賲 鬲丿丕賵賱賴 亘丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 爻賵丕亍 賱賱丕鬲賮丕賯 丕賵 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮.
February 5, 2017
丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞
亘賷賷乇 亘乇賵丿賷賵
賷毓丕賱噩 亘賷賷乇 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 丕賱賲賳噩夭丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷乇丕賴丕 賲賳 夭丕賵賷丞 賴賷賲賳鬲賴丕 毓賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱丨賯賵賱 貙 賮賴賷 賳鬲丕噩 爻賷乇賵乇丕鬲 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賷鬲賲 鬲丨賵賷賱賴丕 丕賱賶 鬲乇爻賷賲丕鬲 胤亘賷毓賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞 貙 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱賶 鬲兀亘賷丿 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賲丕賷夭 賮賯丿 丕爻鬲賮丕丿鬲 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 賲賳 鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賱鬲毓夭賷夭 賴賷賲賳鬲賴丕 賵賮乇囟 廿乇丕丿鬲賴丕 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賵丕賯毓 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 賲賳 賳鬲丕噩賴丕 .
賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀亘賷丿 丕賱丕 丕毓鬲亘丕胤賷丕賸 賱丕 賷賲賱賰 賲亘乇乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 丕賱丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷爻毓賮賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲賰賵賳丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賵丨鬲賶 毓賯賱丕賳賷鬲賴 鬲鬲兀鬲賶 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱乇賲夭賷 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻 囟丿 丕賱賲乇兀丞 貙 賮賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱賲鬲丕毓 丕賱乇賲夭賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱賶 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賲爻賱賷 賵丕賱賲賲鬲毓 賵鬲丿禺賱 賰賱 鬲乇爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 賲賵囟毓丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 貙 兀毓賱賶/ 兀爻賮賱 貙 賮賵賯/鬲丨鬲 貙 噩丕賮/乇胤亘 乇丕爻賲丞 丕賱丿賱丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲兀亘賾丿 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 貙 賵賮賷 賲噩丕賱 鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱 賷賯丿賲 丕賱賲賵乇賵孬 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 賱賱賲乇兀丞 丕賳 鬲毓賲賱 賮賷賴丕 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱賷爻鬲 兀賴賱丕賸 賱賴丕 囟賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱亘賳賷丞 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 貙 賵乇睾賲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賵丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱匕賷 胤丕賱 賲乇丕賰夭 賳卮丕胤丕鬲 賵毓賲賱 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱爻丕亘賯 丕賱丕 丕賳 丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 丿丕卅賲丕 鬲毓賷丿 廿賳鬲丕噩 賳賮爻賴丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 鬲睾賷賷乇 賵馗賷賮鬲賴丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘卮賰賱 睾賷乇 賲乇卅賷 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳 丕賵 亘氐賵乇丞 睾賷乇 賵丕毓賷丞 毓賱賶 兀賮囟賱 丕賱丨丕賱丕鬲 貙 賮毓賳丿賲丕 禺乇噩鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賱毓賲賱 賵賲卮丕乇賰丞 丕賱乇噩賱 鬲賲 鬲賵馗賷賮賴丕 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 鬲賲 鬲氐賲賷賲賴丕 賲爻亘賯丕賸 賱鬲賰賵賳 乇兀爻 賲丕賱 乇賲夭賷 賵賲丕丿賷 賱賲囟丕毓賮丞 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞
亘賷賷乇 亘乇賵丿賷賵
賷毓丕賱噩 亘賷賷乇 賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 丕賱賲賳噩夭丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賷乇丕賴丕 賲賳 夭丕賵賷丞 賴賷賲賳鬲賴丕 毓賱賶 噩賲賷毓 丕賱丨賯賵賱 貙 賮賴賷 賳鬲丕噩 爻賷乇賵乇丕鬲 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賷鬲賲 鬲丨賵賷賱賴丕 丕賱賶 鬲乇爻賷賲丕鬲 胤亘賷毓賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞 貙 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱賶 鬲兀亘賷丿 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賲丕賷夭 賮賯丿 丕爻鬲賮丕丿鬲 丕賱匕賰賵乇賷丞 賲賳 鬲乇賰賷亘 丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賱鬲毓夭賷夭 賴賷賲賳鬲賴丕 賵賮乇囟 廿乇丕丿鬲賴丕 丕賱噩賳爻賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賵丕賯毓 丕賱匕賷 賴賵 賲賳 賳鬲丕噩賴丕 .
賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀亘賷丿 丕賱丕 丕毓鬲亘丕胤賷丕賸 賱丕 賷賲賱賰 賲亘乇乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷丞 丕賱丕 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賷爻毓賮賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賵丕賱亘賳賶 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱賲鬲賰賵賳丞 賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賵丨鬲賶 毓賯賱丕賳賷鬲賴 鬲鬲兀鬲賶 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱乇賲夭賷 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻 囟丿 丕賱賲乇兀丞 貙 賮賮賷 賲噩丕賱 丕賱賲鬲丕毓 丕賱乇賲夭賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱賶 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賲爻賱賷 賵丕賱賲賲鬲毓 賵鬲丿禺賱 賰賱 鬲乇爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 賮賷 賲賵囟毓丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇丞 貙 兀毓賱賶/ 兀爻賮賱 貙 賮賵賯/鬲丨鬲 貙 噩丕賮/乇胤亘 乇丕爻賲丞 丕賱丿賱丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲兀亘賾丿 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 貙 賵賮賷 賲噩丕賱 鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲 丕賱毓賲賱 賷賯丿賲 丕賱賲賵乇賵孬 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 賱賱賲乇兀丞 丕賳 鬲毓賲賱 賮賷賴丕 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱賷爻鬲 兀賴賱丕賸 賱賴丕 囟賲賳 丕爻鬲禺丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賱亘賳賷丞 丕賱亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 貙 賵乇睾賲 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賵丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱匕賷 胤丕賱 賲乇丕賰夭 賳卮丕胤丕鬲 賵毓賲賱 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘丕賱毓賴丿 丕賱爻丕亘賯 丕賱丕 丕賳 丌賱賷丕鬲 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 丿丕卅賲丕 鬲毓賷丿 廿賳鬲丕噩 賳賮爻賴丕 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 鬲睾賷賷乇 賵馗賷賮鬲賴丕 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘卮賰賱 睾賷乇 賲乇卅賷 賮賷 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賷丕賳 丕賵 亘氐賵乇丞 睾賷乇 賵丕毓賷丞 毓賱賶 兀賮囟賱 丕賱丨丕賱丕鬲 貙 賮毓賳丿賲丕 禺乇噩鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賱毓賲賱 賵賲卮丕乇賰丞 丕賱乇噩賱 鬲賲 鬲賵馗賷賮賴丕 賮賷 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 鬲賲 鬲氐賲賷賲賴丕 賲爻亘賯丕賸 賱鬲賰賵賳 乇兀爻 賲丕賱 乇賲夭賷 賵賲丕丿賷 賱賲囟丕毓賮丞 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞
April 22, 2019
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 乇睾賲 丨丿丕孬鬲賴 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賲賵乇 兀賰賱 丕賱夭賲丕賳 毓賱賷賴丕 賵卮乇亘 ! 賵丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳卮睾賱 亘卮丿丞 亘丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 乇賲夭賷丞 丕賱賴賷賲賳丞 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞 賵兀賮乇睾 賲賳 兀噩賱 匕賱賰 氐賮丨丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 賲鬲賳丕爻賷丕 丕賳 丕賱鬲匕賰賷乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賳賷孬 賷禺鬲賱賮 賲賳 賱睾丞 賱兀禺乇賶 賲賲丕 噩毓賱 賳馗乇賷鬲賴 丨賵賱 毓丿賲 丕毓鬲亘丕胤賷丞 丕賱鬲爻賲賷丕鬲 丕毓鬲亘丕胤賷丞 鬲賲丕賲丕 賵爻丕匕噩丞 !
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 爻賵賶 毓賳 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 鬲丕乇賰丕 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵賴賷 賲丕 賷賴賲 賮毓賱丕 .. 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵囟賵毓 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲卮丿賯賷丞 賱丕 鬲胤乇丨 賲卮賰賱丞 亘毓賷賳賴丕 賵賱丕 鬲丨賱賴丕
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰匕賱賰 賱丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 爻賵賶 毓賳 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 鬲丕乇賰丕 丕賱丕賮毓丕賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賵賴賷 賲丕 賷賴賲 賮毓賱丕 .. 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 賱匕賱賰 賮廿賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵囟賵毓 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲卮丿賯賷丞 賱丕 鬲胤乇丨 賲卮賰賱丞 亘毓賷賳賴丕 賵賱丕 鬲丨賱賴丕
June 6, 2021
Un po' di appunti sparsi su questo saggio, che teorizza come il dominio maschile 猫 inscritto ed embodied nei rapporti sociali fatti da individui che non creano individualmente, ma apprendono e riproducono strutture (relazionali ma anche proprio di pensiero) di dominio, anche e soprattutto simbolico (e per questo intangibile e inattaccabile), in modo storicamente definito - e non naturalmente.
Un buon libro per una chiarificazione concettuale e analitica, soprattutto in seno a lessico di social theory che un po' ancora mi 猫 sfuggente; rimane una trattazione comunque scientifico-descrittiva, anche se la carica politica e sovversiva 猫 abbastanza dichiaramente infusa all'interno del libro. Ma in qualit脿 di scienziato Bourdieu non mi pare si sia spinto esplicitamente da nessuna altra parte.
Rispetto a La distinction 猫 decisamente pi霉 di facile lettura. Non parla di gender theory e gender gap, ma specificamente di strutture di dominio (maschile) e di come si perpetuano; non fa nemmeno una trattazione genealogica di come si siano formate strutture e dualismi sessual-sessuanti e di come si siano inscritti nei corpi e da l矛 nell'habitus perpetuante e generante pratiche e modi di pensare - l'appoggio etnografico sulla societ脿 cabila dell'Algeria settentrionale serve a mo di anamnesi, di storia filogenetica della costruzione simbolica che ha portato a concepire tutto in seno al dominio maschile istituendo un sistema che si impone alle coscienze individuali. Quindi insomma, abbiamo un saggio breve su un argomento immenso.
La nozione pi霉 citata e pi霉 ripresa dalla teorizzazione di Bourdieu 猫 la violenza simbolica, e direi giustamente, e la stoccata fenomenologica alle pretese di classificazione naturalistica del mondo sociale ("le differenze sono naturali e rispecchiano l'ordine delle cose"), che secondo Bourdieu 猫 frutto di un rovesciamento completo di causa ed effetti, come costruzione arbitraria del biologico; in questo senso trovo le prime 60-70 pagine le pi霉 dense e interessanti, anche se avrei preferito un'argomentazione un po' pi霉 incisiva e filosoficamente convincente, invece di limitarsi a chiamare in causa Husserl e l'esperienza dossica del mondo sociale (ma probabilmente soverchiando i propositi del saggio). "Il mondo sociale costruisce il corpo come realt脿 sessuata e come depositario di principi di visione e di divisione sessuanti. Questo programma sociale di percezione incorporato si applica a tutte le cose del mondo, e in primo luogo al corpo stesso" sfruttando le opposizioni omologhe che sono i filtri attraverso cui percepiamo e pensiamo alle cose, in primis ai corpi. E sono opposizioni omologhe che si rifanno alla principale, maschile e femminile, tutte frutto di una visione sociale che costruisce le differenze, diventando il fondamento e l'avallo della visione sociale che la fonda e ratificandolo, perch茅 poi queste differenze sembrano naturalmente naturali; il nomos sociale diviene physis, necessit脿 naturale, self-evident. Cos矛 i rapporti di dominio inscritti a quelle opposizioni omologhe che abbiamo cos矛 tanto incorporato soggettivamente (sotto forma di schemi cognitivi, anche questi che ci paiono naturali, come se fosse impossibile pensare la realt脿 fenomenica diversamente) si nascondono e si perpetuano mistificati per ovvi e naturali.
Seguono esempi in particolare sulla definizione sociale dei corpi (sessuati) e soprattutto degli organi sessuali, le cui differenze e descrizioni "lungi dall'essere una semplice registrazione delle propriet脿 naturali, direttamente offerte alla percezione, 猫 il prodotto di una costruzione operata a costo di una serie di scelte orientate, o meglio, attraverso l'accentuazione di certe differenze o la scotomizzazione di talune similitudini". Seguono esempi di come vengono percepiti gli organi sessuali e i corpi sessuati - e gli atti sessuali - sempre in dicotomie omologhe, e dunque in relazioni (una propriet脿 essenziale a cui riferirsi nella descrizione dei corpi non esiste senza fare il riferimento ad un'altra, pi霉 alta/bassa, superiore/inferiore - peraltro questo tipo di lettura degli schemi cognitivi di dominati e dominanti 猫 pervasiva in tutta l'opera di Bourdieu).
Tornando invece alla violenza simbolica, essa 猫 insidiosa ed efficace proprio perch茅 猫 un trascendentale storico imposto come universale trascendente, perci貌, a parte non essere evidente, fa s矛 che il dominato non possa non soggiacervi, accettarla; ma non per cattiva coscienza o peggio responsabilit脿 individuale (e Bourdieu per fortuna 猫 perentorio su questo aspetto!), bens矛 perch茅 il rapporto di dominio 猫 una disposizione che apprendiamo, incorporiamo e perpetuamo assolutamente in modo - possiamo dire forse - meccanico. Anzi, come dice il nostro, 猫 una disposizione contemporaneamente "spontanea ed estorta contemporaneamente senza contraddizione" perch茅 猫 stata costruita praticamente nel corso di tutta la vita delle dominate in modo durevole dall'ordine sociale - e quindi, di nuovo, non dal singolo uomo pi霉 o meno consapevole, peraltro non pre-disposto ma attivamente disposto sempre dall'ordine sociale a ratificare sulle donne questa violenza simbolica. E quindi non scagionabile nel suo ruolo comunque attivo (rimane pur sempre il dominatore), per貌 frutto - spesso senza cattiva coscienza - di una societ脿 che nel complesso, nella totalit脿, 猫 strutturata secondo rapporti di forza di dominazione.
Ultima considerazione anche perch茅 poi senn貌 riporto tutto il libro (purtroppo con Bourdieu mi viene da fare cos矛): proprio contro il linguaggio della volont脿 e della buona coscienza additato a Marx e seguaci, in particolare da Luk脿cs in poi, Bourdieu si scaglia: le disposizioni sono talmente tanto inscritte in noi, nei nostri corpi e nel nostro modo di pensare, che non possono essere scardinate da un atto di volont脿 o di presa di coscienza. E' proprio quello il potere della violenza simbolica, che non si impone come un'ideologia, una rappresentazione mistificatoria e di comodo, ma proprio un sistema di strutture durevoli. Non sono i singoli a poter essere illuminati, ma - e alla fine 猫 questo il messaggio che si evince dalla lettura, come al solito s矛 incisivo ma hopeless - si tratta della necessit脿 di trasformare radicalmente le condizioni sociali di poduzione delle disposizioni che portano i dominati ad assumere sui dominanti e su se stessi il punto di vista dei dominanti.
Ultimissimo punto che mi son segnata 猫 la critica alla concezione essenzialistica del potere universale e astratto e appunto essenzialmente violento dell'oggettivazione (di tutto, e in particolare del corpo); il fatto che il corpo delle donne 猫 un corpo sostanzialmente da vedere per gli uomini (e giudicato da esse stesse in base a questo sguardo esterno che diventa per貌 incorporato, di nuovo) in base a schemi percettivi che sono sempre frutto di una produzione sociale situata storicamente ("la cui efficacia dipende dalla posizione relativa di colui che percepisce e colui che 猫 percepito, nonch茅 dal grado al quale gli schemi di percezione e di valutazione attivati sono consciuti e riconosciuti da colui al quale si applicano" in un'alienazione simbolica che per貌 non ha nulla di essenziale e universale).
Insomma tante cose.
Un buon libro per una chiarificazione concettuale e analitica, soprattutto in seno a lessico di social theory che un po' ancora mi 猫 sfuggente; rimane una trattazione comunque scientifico-descrittiva, anche se la carica politica e sovversiva 猫 abbastanza dichiaramente infusa all'interno del libro. Ma in qualit脿 di scienziato Bourdieu non mi pare si sia spinto esplicitamente da nessuna altra parte.
Rispetto a La distinction 猫 decisamente pi霉 di facile lettura. Non parla di gender theory e gender gap, ma specificamente di strutture di dominio (maschile) e di come si perpetuano; non fa nemmeno una trattazione genealogica di come si siano formate strutture e dualismi sessual-sessuanti e di come si siano inscritti nei corpi e da l矛 nell'habitus perpetuante e generante pratiche e modi di pensare - l'appoggio etnografico sulla societ脿 cabila dell'Algeria settentrionale serve a mo di anamnesi, di storia filogenetica della costruzione simbolica che ha portato a concepire tutto in seno al dominio maschile istituendo un sistema che si impone alle coscienze individuali. Quindi insomma, abbiamo un saggio breve su un argomento immenso.
La nozione pi霉 citata e pi霉 ripresa dalla teorizzazione di Bourdieu 猫 la violenza simbolica, e direi giustamente, e la stoccata fenomenologica alle pretese di classificazione naturalistica del mondo sociale ("le differenze sono naturali e rispecchiano l'ordine delle cose"), che secondo Bourdieu 猫 frutto di un rovesciamento completo di causa ed effetti, come costruzione arbitraria del biologico; in questo senso trovo le prime 60-70 pagine le pi霉 dense e interessanti, anche se avrei preferito un'argomentazione un po' pi霉 incisiva e filosoficamente convincente, invece di limitarsi a chiamare in causa Husserl e l'esperienza dossica del mondo sociale (ma probabilmente soverchiando i propositi del saggio). "Il mondo sociale costruisce il corpo come realt脿 sessuata e come depositario di principi di visione e di divisione sessuanti. Questo programma sociale di percezione incorporato si applica a tutte le cose del mondo, e in primo luogo al corpo stesso" sfruttando le opposizioni omologhe che sono i filtri attraverso cui percepiamo e pensiamo alle cose, in primis ai corpi. E sono opposizioni omologhe che si rifanno alla principale, maschile e femminile, tutte frutto di una visione sociale che costruisce le differenze, diventando il fondamento e l'avallo della visione sociale che la fonda e ratificandolo, perch茅 poi queste differenze sembrano naturalmente naturali; il nomos sociale diviene physis, necessit脿 naturale, self-evident. Cos矛 i rapporti di dominio inscritti a quelle opposizioni omologhe che abbiamo cos矛 tanto incorporato soggettivamente (sotto forma di schemi cognitivi, anche questi che ci paiono naturali, come se fosse impossibile pensare la realt脿 fenomenica diversamente) si nascondono e si perpetuano mistificati per ovvi e naturali.
Seguono esempi in particolare sulla definizione sociale dei corpi (sessuati) e soprattutto degli organi sessuali, le cui differenze e descrizioni "lungi dall'essere una semplice registrazione delle propriet脿 naturali, direttamente offerte alla percezione, 猫 il prodotto di una costruzione operata a costo di una serie di scelte orientate, o meglio, attraverso l'accentuazione di certe differenze o la scotomizzazione di talune similitudini". Seguono esempi di come vengono percepiti gli organi sessuali e i corpi sessuati - e gli atti sessuali - sempre in dicotomie omologhe, e dunque in relazioni (una propriet脿 essenziale a cui riferirsi nella descrizione dei corpi non esiste senza fare il riferimento ad un'altra, pi霉 alta/bassa, superiore/inferiore - peraltro questo tipo di lettura degli schemi cognitivi di dominati e dominanti 猫 pervasiva in tutta l'opera di Bourdieu).
Tornando invece alla violenza simbolica, essa 猫 insidiosa ed efficace proprio perch茅 猫 un trascendentale storico imposto come universale trascendente, perci貌, a parte non essere evidente, fa s矛 che il dominato non possa non soggiacervi, accettarla; ma non per cattiva coscienza o peggio responsabilit脿 individuale (e Bourdieu per fortuna 猫 perentorio su questo aspetto!), bens矛 perch茅 il rapporto di dominio 猫 una disposizione che apprendiamo, incorporiamo e perpetuamo assolutamente in modo - possiamo dire forse - meccanico. Anzi, come dice il nostro, 猫 una disposizione contemporaneamente "spontanea ed estorta contemporaneamente senza contraddizione" perch茅 猫 stata costruita praticamente nel corso di tutta la vita delle dominate in modo durevole dall'ordine sociale - e quindi, di nuovo, non dal singolo uomo pi霉 o meno consapevole, peraltro non pre-disposto ma attivamente disposto sempre dall'ordine sociale a ratificare sulle donne questa violenza simbolica. E quindi non scagionabile nel suo ruolo comunque attivo (rimane pur sempre il dominatore), per貌 frutto - spesso senza cattiva coscienza - di una societ脿 che nel complesso, nella totalit脿, 猫 strutturata secondo rapporti di forza di dominazione.
Ultima considerazione anche perch茅 poi senn貌 riporto tutto il libro (purtroppo con Bourdieu mi viene da fare cos矛): proprio contro il linguaggio della volont脿 e della buona coscienza additato a Marx e seguaci, in particolare da Luk脿cs in poi, Bourdieu si scaglia: le disposizioni sono talmente tanto inscritte in noi, nei nostri corpi e nel nostro modo di pensare, che non possono essere scardinate da un atto di volont脿 o di presa di coscienza. E' proprio quello il potere della violenza simbolica, che non si impone come un'ideologia, una rappresentazione mistificatoria e di comodo, ma proprio un sistema di strutture durevoli. Non sono i singoli a poter essere illuminati, ma - e alla fine 猫 questo il messaggio che si evince dalla lettura, come al solito s矛 incisivo ma hopeless - si tratta della necessit脿 di trasformare radicalmente le condizioni sociali di poduzione delle disposizioni che portano i dominati ad assumere sui dominanti e su se stessi il punto di vista dei dominanti.
Ultimissimo punto che mi son segnata 猫 la critica alla concezione essenzialistica del potere universale e astratto e appunto essenzialmente violento dell'oggettivazione (di tutto, e in particolare del corpo); il fatto che il corpo delle donne 猫 un corpo sostanzialmente da vedere per gli uomini (e giudicato da esse stesse in base a questo sguardo esterno che diventa per貌 incorporato, di nuovo) in base a schemi percettivi che sono sempre frutto di una produzione sociale situata storicamente ("la cui efficacia dipende dalla posizione relativa di colui che percepisce e colui che 猫 percepito, nonch茅 dal grado al quale gli schemi di percezione e di valutazione attivati sono consciuti e riconosciuti da colui al quale si applicano" in un'alienazione simbolica che per貌 non ha nulla di essenziale e universale).
Insomma tante cose.
July 22, 2024
賱丕 兀毓賱賲 廿賳 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賲卮賰賱丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 兀賵 賮賷 賱睾丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱兀氐賱賷丞 賱賰賳 賲毓馗賲 丕賱噩賲賱 睾乇賷亘丞 丕賱鬲乇賰賷亘 賵賷氐毓亘 鬲鬲亘毓賴丕貙 乇睾賲 匕賱賰 賰丕賳 賰鬲丕亘丕賸 賲賴賲丕賸貙 賱賷爻 亘廿囟丕賮丞 卮賷亍 噩丿賷丿 賰賱賷丕賸 賱賰賳賴 賷囟賷亍 亘毓囟 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱賮丕乇賯丞 賮賷 丕賱賮賴賲.
May 21, 2012
Como j谩 comentado, Bourdieu chegou um pouco tarde nos debates sobre feminismo, mas seguiu a m谩xima "se n茫o fez primeiro, fa莽a melhor". Ao utilizar um detalhado m茅todo de an谩lise social, tendo como objeto uma sociedade fortemente machista, Bourdieu consegue identificar os principais m茅todos de coer莽茫o social que visam a constru莽茫o de uma doxa, da naturalidade forjada da domina莽茫o masculina, tida como biologicamente expontanea. Ele pontua e ilustra como essa coer莽茫o vai se dando na forma莽茫o do individuo dentro das principais institui莽玫es sociais (familia, igreja e escola), da constru莽茫o desse habitus e do pre莽o que se cobra por sua "quebra". Pode-se observar que Bourdieu leu v谩rios te贸ricos sobre o feminismo visto as notas de rodap茅 ao longo do texto, contudo, n茫o sou conhecedor do movimento para dizer algo sobre a relev芒ncia desses autores.
Entretanto, Bourdieu n茫o consegue levar suas an谩lises para o particular das rela莽玫es sociais. Seu ensaio sobre o amor 茅 superficial, e ele n茫o se posiciona sobre a forma莽茫o da subjetividade masculina/feminina na forma莽茫o familiar e na rela莽茫o pai/m茫e e demais membros. Tamb茅m n茫o desenvolve muito sobre como se d谩 a erotiza莽茫o dos corpos na sociedade, deixando de fora toda uma poss铆vel discuss茫o mais aprofundada sobre prostitui莽茫o, pornografia, fetiches, virgindade, tabus e recalques.
Entretanto, Bourdieu n茫o consegue levar suas an谩lises para o particular das rela莽玫es sociais. Seu ensaio sobre o amor 茅 superficial, e ele n茫o se posiciona sobre a forma莽茫o da subjetividade masculina/feminina na forma莽茫o familiar e na rela莽茫o pai/m茫e e demais membros. Tamb茅m n茫o desenvolve muito sobre como se d谩 a erotiza莽茫o dos corpos na sociedade, deixando de fora toda uma poss铆vel discuss茫o mais aprofundada sobre prostitui莽茫o, pornografia, fetiches, virgindade, tabus e recalques.
April 25, 2019
賱賰鬲丕亘 睾匕丕亍 賱賱賮賰乇貙 賱賰賳賴 賱賷爻 噩賷丿賸丕 賰賲丕 賰賳鬲 兀鬲賲賳賶. 賳馗乇賷丕鬲賴 鬲賷爻鬲 賲賯賳毓丞. 賱賯丿 賵噩丿鬲 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 噩賷乇丿丕 賱賷乇賳乇 兀賰孬乇 毓賲賯丕 . 賮賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴丕 "賳卮兀丞 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷" 鬲鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賮賷 賮鬲乇丕鬲 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞. 賵賴賷 鬲噩丕丿賱 亘兀賳 賴賷賲賳丞 丕賱匕賰賵乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賳爻丕亍 賱賷爻鬲 "胤亘賷毓賷丞" 兀賵 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 貙 賵賱賰賳賴丕 賳鬲丕噩 鬲胤賵乇 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 亘丿兀 賮賷 丕賱兀賱賮賷丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 賯亘賱 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿. 賮賷 丕賱卮乇賯 丕賱兀丿賳賶 丕賱賯丿賷賲. 賵亘賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷 賰賳馗丕賲 賱鬲賳馗賷賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賯丿 鬲兀爻爻 鬲丕乇賷禺賷丕 貙 賮廿賳賴丕 鬲賯賵賱 兀賳賴 賷賲賰賳 兀賷囟丕 兀賳 賷賳鬲賴賷 亘丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷
兀毓噩亘賳賶 賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賮賷 丌禺乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘: "廿賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷 亘賳丕亍 鬲丕乇賷禺賷貨 賱賴 亘丿丕賷丞貨 賵爻鬲賰賵賳 賱賴 賳賴丕賷丞. 賷亘丿賵 兀賳 夭賲賳賴 賵氐賱 廿賱賶 賳賴丕賷丞 賲噩乇丕賴貙 賮賴賵 賱賲 賷毓丿 賷禺丿賲 丨丕噩丕鬲 丕賱乇噩丕賱 兀賵 丕賱賳爻丕亍貙 賵亘爻亘亘 丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賮賰賾賴 亘丕賱賳夭毓丞 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞 丕賱賴乇賲賷丞 賵丕賱毓乇賯賷丞貙 賮廿賳賴 賷賴丿賾丿 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丨賷丕丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟
兀毓噩亘賳賶 賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘丞 賮賷 丌禺乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘: "廿賳 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱兀亘賵賷 亘賳丕亍 鬲丕乇賷禺賷貨 賱賴 亘丿丕賷丞貨 賵爻鬲賰賵賳 賱賴 賳賴丕賷丞. 賷亘丿賵 兀賳 夭賲賳賴 賵氐賱 廿賱賶 賳賴丕賷丞 賲噩乇丕賴貙 賮賴賵 賱賲 賷毓丿 賷禺丿賲 丨丕噩丕鬲 丕賱乇噩丕賱 兀賵 丕賱賳爻丕亍貙 賵亘爻亘亘 丕乇鬲亘丕胤賴 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賮賰賾賴 亘丕賱賳夭毓丞 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷丞 丕賱賴乇賲賷丞 賵丕賱毓乇賯賷丞貙 賮廿賳賴 賷賴丿賾丿 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丨賷丕丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟
January 18, 2023
鈥濪ie soziale Welt funktioniert (in einem je nach Bereich unterschiedlichen Ausma脽) wie ein von der m盲nnlichen Sicht dominierter Markt der symbolischen G眉ter. Wie wir gesehen haben, ist Sein, wenn es sich um Frauen handelt, Wahrgenommenwerden, und zwar von einem m盲nnlichen Auge, das von m盲nnlichen Kategorien beherrscht wird. Kategorien, die man, ohne da脽 man sie explizit zu formulieren verm枚chte, verwendet, wenn man das Werk einer Frau lobt, weil es so 禄weiblich芦 oder, im Gegenteil, 禄眉berhaupt nicht weiblich芦 ist.鈥�
May 3, 2017
La 煤ltima parte del libro es apenas un esbozo. Por lo dem谩s, un texto que explica c贸mo incluso el hecho de que una mujer hable por tel茅fono es parte de la dominaci贸n heteropatriarcal merece ser le铆do. Muy especialmente por los seres cis con pene.
October 4, 2018
Que le gusta escribir en complicado a este we贸n. Igual le compro caleta.
November 17, 2017
笔艡铆箩别尘苍茅.
Kr谩tk谩 kniha s hutn媒m jazykem. Ale p艡i znalosti autora (zoufal谩 snaha vyhnout se sklo艌ov谩n铆 jeho jm茅na) nezabere mnoho 膷asu. A ta znalost je 苍耻迟苍谩, proto啪e text p艡edpokl谩d谩 pon臎t铆 o symbolick茅m kapit谩lu, habitu... prost臎 o Pierrov媒ch pojmech. A taky schopnost nuancovan茅ho uva啪ov谩n铆. Nic pro easily triggered lidi.
Ono je to jasn茅 u啪 z n谩zvu.
膶lov臎k, co se hur贸nsky sm臎je, 啪e mu啪i p艡eci 啪谩dnou moc nemaj铆, proto啪e jen pln铆 rozkazy man啪elek, by po knize ani nes谩hl. Ohro啪en媒 b铆l媒 t艡icetilet媒 mu啪 by u n铆 nevydr啪el, proto啪e jej铆 p艡edpoklad ur谩啪铆 jeho neschopnost k... 膷emukoliv, k 膷emu je zrovna neschopn媒. Ale ona to nen铆 nadvl谩da n臎jak茅ho ur膷it茅ho mu啪e, n臎jak茅 skupiny nejmocn臎j拧铆ch, nebo testosteronu. It's complicated. Ka啪dop谩dn臎 ovliv艌uje tak茅 mu啪e a vl谩dne jim stejnou m臎rou jako 啪en谩m (s odli拧n媒mi d暖sledky).
Na druhou stranu... Pierre v jednu chv铆li 艡铆k谩, 啪e gender zdaleka nen铆 jen prost谩 role, kterou lze hr谩t podle libosti, co啪 je vzhledem k sou膷asn茅mu proudu internetov茅ho feminismu docela konzervativn铆, ale text toto stanovisko dok谩啪e, mysl铆m, dob艡e 'ospravedlnit' (j谩 se tomu ale vyhnu, proto啪e a) se mi nechce, b) by to beztak byla jen moje intelektu谩ln铆 masturbace, c) by to byl spoiler).
Kr谩tk谩 kniha s hutn媒m jazykem. Ale p艡i znalosti autora (zoufal谩 snaha vyhnout se sklo艌ov谩n铆 jeho jm茅na) nezabere mnoho 膷asu. A ta znalost je 苍耻迟苍谩, proto啪e text p艡edpokl谩d谩 pon臎t铆 o symbolick茅m kapit谩lu, habitu... prost臎 o Pierrov媒ch pojmech. A taky schopnost nuancovan茅ho uva啪ov谩n铆. Nic pro easily triggered lidi.
Ono je to jasn茅 u啪 z n谩zvu.
膶lov臎k, co se hur贸nsky sm臎je, 啪e mu啪i p艡eci 啪谩dnou moc nemaj铆, proto啪e jen pln铆 rozkazy man啪elek, by po knize ani nes谩hl. Ohro啪en媒 b铆l媒 t艡icetilet媒 mu啪 by u n铆 nevydr啪el, proto啪e jej铆 p艡edpoklad ur谩啪铆 jeho neschopnost k... 膷emukoliv, k 膷emu je zrovna neschopn媒. Ale ona to nen铆 nadvl谩da n臎jak茅ho ur膷it茅ho mu啪e, n臎jak茅 skupiny nejmocn臎j拧铆ch, nebo testosteronu. It's complicated. Ka啪dop谩dn臎 ovliv艌uje tak茅 mu啪e a vl谩dne jim stejnou m臎rou jako 啪en谩m (s odli拧n媒mi d暖sledky).
Na druhou stranu... Pierre v jednu chv铆li 艡铆k谩, 啪e gender zdaleka nen铆 jen prost谩 role, kterou lze hr谩t podle libosti, co啪 je vzhledem k sou膷asn茅mu proudu internetov茅ho feminismu docela konzervativn铆, ale text toto stanovisko dok谩啪e, mysl铆m, dob艡e 'ospravedlnit' (j谩 se tomu ale vyhnu, proto啪e a) se mi nechce, b) by to beztak byla jen moje intelektu谩ln铆 masturbace, c) by to byl spoiler).
November 5, 2024
Mdrrr imagines tu f un livre sur la domination masculine mais tu parles a aucun moment du viol et des violences conjugales et ta seule source c鈥檈st un livre de woolf et genre tu fais des hommes de pauvres victimes qui participent inconsciemment au patriarcat sans en profiter consciemment鈥�.ce serait fou non ?
Pire att imagine ecrire que la solution 脿 la domination masculine c l鈥檃mour h茅t茅rosexuel parce que qd on aime on oppresse pas鈥�
C鈥檈st b锚te pcq y鈥檃 des micro analyses pertinentes mais c vraiment incomplet et bacl茅, il a juste voulu faire rentrer la domination masculine dans son syst猫me sans prendre en compte les conditions concr猫tes et mat茅rielles de la domination
Pire att imagine ecrire que la solution 脿 la domination masculine c l鈥檃mour h茅t茅rosexuel parce que qd on aime on oppresse pas鈥�
C鈥檈st b锚te pcq y鈥檃 des micro analyses pertinentes mais c vraiment incomplet et bacl茅, il a juste voulu faire rentrer la domination masculine dans son syst猫me sans prendre en compte les conditions concr猫tes et mat茅rielles de la domination
Displaying 1 - 30 of 221 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.