College of Chemistry Scotland

Inglis, John A.

doi:10.1093/nq/s11-x.251.317c

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Owing to his fallacy of conflating the "cultural turn" with the "linguistic turn", Inglis commits the mistake of identifying all language-theoretic and communication-theoretic approaches with the constructivist view that the social world is a realm composed by "a multiplicity of cultural arbitraries" 422 and "specific assemblages" 423 and that, in this sense, culture can be regarded as "the driver of all things" 424 . This argument, however appealing it may seem in light of Inglis's legitimate misgivings about the relativistic implications of social and cultural constructivism, is based on a gross misrepresentation of "the club of the linguistic-turninspired poets"; the early Wittgenstein, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Habermas and probably even the scientistically inclined Bourdieu would find it difficult to subscribe to such a one-sided--that is, constructivist--account of language.…”

Section: David Inglismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Susen

2013

Social Epistemology

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

Section: David Inglismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inglis's unwillingness to distinguish between the "cultural turn" and the "linguistic turn" prevents him from accounting for the presuppositional differences between realist, constructivist and subjectivist accounts of language. Far from being reducible to "peas in a pod" 427 , these approaches are embedded in separate "pods with peas".…”

Section: David Inglismentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Susen

2013

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

College of Chemistry Scotland

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About