Last year was the commemoration
of the tenth anniversary of Pierre Bourdieu's death, considered the last great
French sociologist, worthy continuer, critic and heterodox, of a tradition that
goes back to Auguste Comte, founder of the Sociology as a science, and even
more, continuer of illustrious representatives such as Durkheim or Marcel
Mauss, going through Marx or Max Weber among others. My personal encounter with
the figure of Pierre Bourdieu was disappointing at first, when I read, in a
rushed manner and skimming though it, his book The Political Ontology of
Martin Heidegger (1988). It was not until later on when my interest was
deeply awaken by his sociological work. This took place, however, in an indirect
manner, when driven by my philosophical investigations about the course that
contemporary philosophy was taking from the times of Kant, going from Modern
Philosophy's Idea of the I to the postmodern Idea of the Body (See my book Del Yo al Cuerpo), I found out that in the discussions opened in the field of
the denominated Philosophy of Mind in the USA the so-called tendency of
the Embodied Mind was working strongly its way, through figures like
Lakoff & Johnson, E. Thompson, Gallagher, Zahavi, etc, who returned to the
work of phenomenologist and existentialist Maurice Merleau-Ponty to find a
philosophy that would analyze the relation between body and mind more deeply
than neopositivism did, dominant until then in the philosophy of Russell,
Wittgenstein, Quine, Searle, etc. Reading the Phenomenology of Perception
of the French philosopher I ran into his use of the bodily abilities (Habitude)
to phenomenologically found our relation with the world (See in this Blog,
“Hand and ability (Habitude) in Merleau-Ponty” 4-2-2013).
A quick search in the Internet of
the word “Habitude” took me to Pierre Bourdieu's concept of Habitus. The
French Sociologist, influenced in his youth by the lecture of Merleau-Ponty's
work, had seen in his philosophical project, which tried to open the way to a
new philosophical position that would be able to overcome the Sartrean dualism
of the “in itself” and the “for itself”, by then dominant in the French
Philosophy, a decisive help to overcome the sociological dualism that also counterposed
the marxian reductionist materialism and the individualist reductionism of the
North America positivist sociology called rational agent. Pierre
Bourdieu talked about directing the sociological gaze, and even the
ethnological, to the bodily abilities (Habitus) as a guideline that
would allow us to discover the unconscious key to many human behaviors.
Vindicating a conception of the human subject as a bodily operatory subject
that, although it only makes sense understood in the framework of structures and
laws given over its will, such as Marx's economic structures or Levi-Strauss'
cultural structures of kinship, it is not reduced to them in the sense that it
doesn't only suffer them but that it itself generates them, not in a merely
mental or conscious way as the rational subject of the North American
sociology, yet in a not less rational way but unconscious. This
generative-structutal character of the social subject provided with “bodily
schemes of action” that acted as dispositions or capacities (habitus)
which allow to reconstruct from them the most basic social structures that
explain the rational behavior of individuals, took me immediately, because of
my acquaintance with it, to relate this with Piaget's Genetic Epistemology.
My surprise didn't cease to
increase when, continuing my inquiries about Bourdieu's concept of Habitus,
I found some interpreters who vindicated Piaget's influence as essential to
understand this important aspect of the French sociologist's work. It is the
case of the North American sociologist Omar Lizardo, who in his article “The cognitive origins of Bourdieu’s Habitus” (2009) highlights how such concept has to do
with the Piagetean genetic-cognitive version of French structuralism. Specially
with the schemes of action and the bodily operations that Piaget used to
explain knowledge in children. And this not in a lateral way, as if it were one
influence more in Bourdieu, similar to the usually cited, in regard to this
aspect, of Durkheim, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty (See a good exposition of it in
Spanish in Francisco Vázquez García, Pierre Bourdieu: la sociología
como crítica de la razón, 2002, p. cap. II) but as a basic influence, as
sort of primitive foundational bricks in the construction of the Habitus.
Omar Lizardo points to the article “Pierre Bourdieu-Jean Piaget. Habitus,
Schemes Et Construction Du Psychologique." (1999) by J.P.Bronckart and
Marie-Noëlle Schurmans, who originally posed this connection between Bourdieu's
Habitus and Piaget's operational cognitive abilities.
In such a sense, I seems to me
that the work of the Swiss psychologist should be considered, because of its
transcendence to the now called Cognitive Sociology, which continues the before
called Sociology of Knowledge or Sociology of Culture, an epistemologically
foundational work in so far as its methodological procedures and research
approach affect the new scientific fields as the one opened by Pierre Bourdieu
in his influencing and novel analyses of sociological fields like Education (Homo
Academicus) or Art (The Distinction, The Rules of Art). For,
so much Piaget as Bourdieu represent, from this point of view, a positive and
brilliant exercise of what we have been calling an Skillfull (hábil) way of
thinking, a decisive step in the contemporary advance of the task of overcoming
modernity's idealism without relapsing in a new version of the materialist
realism, as happened to the so-called classical Marxism. Not in vain did
Bourdieu decide to overcome Marxism's economicist sociology without having to
pay the high price of mentalism and idealism of the subject understood as
individual rational agent and used, as an alternative to Marxism, in the
American sociological positivism based in Artificial Intelligence and Game
Theory. To achieve such overcoming one couldn't resort to any inversion
mechanism, such as Marx did with Hegel, transforming his idealist philosophy in
a materialist philosophy, but proceeding through an intermediate path, trying
to avoid skillfully both extremes, looking for a new principle
that would be in media res, such as the Habitus or bodily
abilities, in so far as they are an “in-between two” as Merleau-Ponty would
say, because of their being in an irreducible position in respect to
physiological-mechanistic explanations as to any formalist logical reductionism.
Manuel F. Lorenzo
(Translated into English by Luis Fernández Pontón)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario