Bourdieusian Reflections on Language: Unavoidable Conditions of the Real Speech Situation

Susen, Simon

doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.818733

Cited by 44 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…for use in strategies” (Bourdieu, 1977b, p. 646). Against Habermas’ desired “ideal speech situation” (Susen, 2013, p. 200), Bourdieu contends that language is never exclusively a neutral instrument for the progressive discernment of “truth” but rather a medium that both reflects, and reproduces, relations of domination (Bourdieu, 1991). Snook (1990, pp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The audience for any form of communication needs to be understood as embedded within the moment of verbal or literary expression. Bourdieu (1991, p. 77 see also Snook, 1990) contends that “on the basis of a practical anticipation of the laws of the market concerned, [ …] authors [ … ] try to maximize the symbolic profit they can obtain from practices which are, inseparably, oriented towards communication and exposed to evaluation” (see also Susen, 2013, pp. 213–214).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Storying Bourdieu

Barrett

2015

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the conceptual system developed by Pierre Bourdieu has been sporadically employed within the context of life history research, the complexity of this task has often not been appreciated. This article offers a provisional attempt to explore how Bourdieusian sociology might approach life history material, focusing specifically on conceptual interpretation rather than data collection or the practicalities of data analysis. This article is self-consciously not forwarded as a coherent or finalized ''Bourdieusian theory of the life history''; rather, I offer a series of fragmented insights that may be useful to future scholars working in this context. In particular, I note the importance of methodological eclecticism to Bourdieu, the concept of the ''social trajectory,'' the consideration of self-narrative as strategy, the interrogation of habituated assumptions, the role of symbolic violence, and the notion of the ''cleft habitus.'' I conclude by contending for the importance of capturing the complexity of life history material using multiple, overlapping, and potentially conflicting heuristic paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Storying Bourdieu

Barrett

2015

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this statement, which echoes the DHA’s general stance, needs to be seen in relation to another claim: ‘distorted communication is not ultimate; it has its basis in the logic of undistorted language communication’ (Habermas, 1974: 17). Taking up Susen’s (2013) separation of Bourdieu’s real-speech situation from Habermas’ ISS, we thus argue that there is no real-speech situation that has no trace of ‘idealising presuppositions’. Habermas (1990) can therefore argue for institutional measures which ‘sufficiently neutralise empirical limitations and avoidable internal and external interference so that the idealised conditions pragmatically presupposed by participants in argumentation can at least be adequately approximated’ (p. 92).…”

Section: Habermas the Dha And Bourdieumentioning

confidence: 88%

Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, Habermas and critical discourse studies

Forchtner

Schneickert

2016

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As societies have become increasingly differentiated and discourses have turned increasingly heterogeneous, field theory and critical discourse studies (CDS) have become ever more popular in the social sciences. Responding to this development, we propose a synthesis of Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and theories of collective learning inspired by Jürgen Habermas. Embedding this exploration within the framework of the discourse-historical approach (DHA) in CDS, we elaborate on how such a synthesis might look like by discussing the two traditions both vis-a-vis each other and vis-a-vis their current reception in the DHA. This synthesis is, finally, illustrated through the analysis of four types of blocked learning, four ways in which actual semiosis might block collective learning processes.

show abstract

“…Moreover, he is right to imply that I could have given empirical examples to demonstrate their relevance to the sociological examination of communicative processes. I must emphasize, however, that my article is not an empirical study but a theoretical attempt to shed light on the "unavoidable conditions of real speech" 277 .…”

Section: Michael Grenfellmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps, I should write a second article with abundant empirical examples to illustrate not only the in-built existence but also the sociological relevance of the "unavoidable conditions of real speech" 278 .…”

Section: Grenfell Does Not Give a Single Theoretical Let Alone Empirmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reply to My Critics: The Critical Spirit of Bourdieusian Language

Susen

2013

Social Epistemology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Turner. The main purpose of this "Reply to my critics" is to reflect upon the most important issues raised by these commentators and thereby contribute to a more nuanced understanding of key questions arising from Bourdieu's analysis of language. Permanent repository link: KEYWORDS:Adkins; Bourdieu; Communication; Fowler; Grenfell; Inglis; Kögler; Language; Lawler; Outhwaite; Robbins; Susen; Symbolic Power; Turner First of all, I would like to thank the commentators--Lisa Adkins, Bridget Fowler, Michael Grenfell, David Inglis, Hans-Herbert Kögler, Steph Lawler, William Outhwaite, Derek Robbins and Bryan S. Turner--for contributing to this Special Issue on "Bourdieu and Language". I am infinitely grateful for their detailed and insightful commentaries, in which they raise numerous important points and examine the weaknesses and limitations of the argument developed in my article "Bourdieusian reflections on language: Unavoidable conditions of the real speech situation" 1 . Inevitably, my paper gives a partial account of what I consider to be the principal elements of a Bourdieusian philosophy of language. The shortcomings of my outline, which have been skilfully identified by the commentators on the basis of their perceptive engagement with my analysis, need to be addressed in order to push the discussion forward and thereby avoid falling into the trap of intellectual dogmatism. After all, Bourdieu was deeply suspicious of theoreticism, and the last thing he sought to achieve was to invent static conceptual templates for an unreflexive sociology. The discussions sparked by this Special Issue have been intensely illuminating to me. In fact, it seems to me that the critical and eclectic spirit in which the commentaries are written illustrates, once more, that it would be erroneous to suggest that anyone possesses an epistemic monopoly on the interpretation of Bourdieu's oeuvre. In this "Reply to my critics", I will try to address the key issues raised by the commentators. William OuthwaiteWilliam Outhwaite's commentary--entitled "Bourdieu and Habermas: 'Linguistic exchange' versus 'communicative action'? A reply to Simon Susen" 2 --conveys an important message: useful lessons can be learned from cross-fertilizing the works of seemingly opposed thinkers, such as Bourdieu and Habermas. I share Outhwaite's view that their approaches should be regarded as complementary, rather than as antithetical; and I am flattered by his suggestion that I have "provided such a comprehensive and illuminating analysis that it is hard to know what to add" 3 . To my mind, this comment reflects both a vital strength and a significant weakness of my study. On the one hand, it may well be true that my account is sufficiently wide-ranging and insightful to come to the conclusion that it covers almost every fundamental aspect of what I consider to be a Bourdieusian philosophy of language. On the other hand, it is precisely i...

show abstract

Bourdieusian Reflections on Language: Unavoidable Conditions of the Real Speech Situation

Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to shed light on

Cited by 44 publications

References 64 publications

Storying Bourdieu

Storying Bourdieu

Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, Habermas and critical discourse studies

A Reply to My Critics: The Critical Spirit of Bourdieusian Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About