91 research outputs found
Il senso comune dell’egemonia e dell’habitus. Per un’interazione teorico-concettuale tra Gramsci e Bourdieu
No full textThis article presents some conditions of possibility for a broad and deep Gramsci-Bourdieu interconnection, meaning it is an exploration and reconstruction of the affinities that emerge from their respective approaches to the socio-cultural dynamics of their own times. Some of the terms through which it is possible to formulate complementarities will be shown, in particular through the identification of the links that bind the two authors within an integrable perspective on mass society, common sense and practical sense; on the relations between the high/legitimate sphere and the low/dominated/subaltern sphere of culture; and thus, on the articulation between cultural expressions/practices and social stratification. In this regard, it is emphasized how the points of contact between some couples of interpretative categories of each – habitus and doxa, hegemony and common sense, respectively – might detect some paths of interaction. Essentially, by highlighting the commonalities and shared ground of the two conceptual universes, we seek to understand whether it is possible to refer to them in social research; and whether their intertwining can give rise to reformulations and developments of conceptual and epistemological devices, with a view to their use in social theory
The common dimension of hegemony and habitus. Hints for a theoretical and conceptual interaction between Gramsci and Bourdieu in social research
No full textPierre Bourdieu, Antonio Gramsci and the Social Science. Towards an interaction between conceptual categories and thinking tools
No full textIs a broad and deep Gramsci-Bourdieu comparison plausible, meaning it as an attempt to begin a reconstruction of affinities between epistemological assumptions of the two, and also of resonances between theoretical and methodological perspectives - as they emerge from their respective analyses and interpretations of socio-cultural dynamics and practices of their times?
I argue that some of the terms thereby could be formulate a productive sociological answer are the following: interactions and dialogue must not be limited to the overlap or the similarity between symbolic domination and hegemony, but could equally take the cue, for example, from the “impression of a clear convergence of approach on the themes of popular taste and distinction, or from the references in the Prisons’ Notebooks to the embedded character of class dispositions, in a sense not too distant from the concept of habitus” (Dei 2014; cf. Canclini, 1984; Schaffer, 1995; Jeanpierre, 2011; Jackson, 2017; Keucheyan, 2018; Roger 2021). If, in fact, it is possible to consider Bourdieu's studies as a development of Gramsci's line, modelled, however, on a type of society that has now radically changed with respect to what Gramsci had in mind, it is because there is a knot that binds the two authors in an integrable sociological perspective on mass society, common sense and relations between high/legitimate and popular culture.
I thought it is appropriate to take up these kinds of remarks – some of those expressed by only a few scholars, but in a hastily and unsystematic manner (e.g., Burawoy 2002; 2012; Schubert 2002; Crehan 2011; 2016; Krishnendu G. et alii, 2021) – and beginning a preliminary exploratory attempt at reading and interpretation focused on Bourdieu's and Gramsci's texts. The Aim is trying to understand if and in what way there may exist a perspective for a research programme that leads both these authors to search for the relations between differences in cultural expressions and practices, in social stratification and structuring, and to explore the relations between hegemony-subalternity (and dominant-dominated) – precisely in the most obvious and banal - and therefore deepest - layers of common sense and everyday practices. Especially I think one could try to emphasize how the points of contact and resonance between some fundamental couples of interpretative categories of each - habitus and practical sense / hegemony and common sense, respectively – could detecting and tracing some paths and possibilities of thematic resonance and complementarity, and some conceptual and perspective interactions. Essentially, highlighting links, commonalities and shared ground between the two conceptual universes is intended to discover if it is possible to refer to them in social research, and if their interweaving can give rise to some reformulations and developments of conceptual, epistemological and methodological tools, in view of their use in social theory
On the Production of Common Sense and the Reproduction of the Social Order
No full textGoffman argued the order of interaction pre-exists, insists on and resists all kinds of social-historical structures, insofar as it is only in the dimension of encounter that they show their nature. Consequently, macrosocial structures can only be considered as expressions of a specific order of interaction. Even setting the question in Bourdieu's terms, it is only in “these processing encounters [...] that the quiet sorting can occur which [...] reproduces the social structure” (Goffman 1983, 8).
This stance is closely akin to that of Garfinkel with regard to the priority of the “local production order” (Rawls 1987, 148): “what is at stake is not the theoretical problem of order, but the substantive production of order on singular occasions” (Lynch 2001, 140). While structures are certainly present, then, within local practices and meanings – as it is for Bourdieu – for Garfinkel, the properties and logics of the structures are all embedded on that local level, to the extent that only the proceedings and methods through which we ascribe meaning to the world makes us participating, producing and competent 'members' of a social order (Garfinkel 1988).
Both stances respond to the attempt to establish a research paradigm such that the dimensional substratum inside which any sociological interpretation cannot but move is that of ordinary, everyday practices, taken for granted; and inside spheres of existence, meaning, and of local relations. In short, one cannot do without the experience of everyday life based on common sense knowledge, and it follows analytically that the social reality that counts, the “privileged”/ “dominant”/“par excellence” reality is that of “everyday life” (Berger, Luckmann 1966).
Taking this into account, we will argue the recognition “that there is a primary experience of the social that [...] is based on an immediate belief relation that automatically leads us to accept the world” cannot but “pose the problem of the conditions of possibility of this [...] doxic experience” (Bourdieu 1992, 49). Hence, we discuss some conceptual reference points that allow to approach “common sense as what we do not ask questions about”, but as inseparable from “common sense as a cultural system” (Geertz 1983). This conceptual framework can be usefully integrated by following Bourdieu's indications regarding the doxa as something contiguous to common sense. It represents the accessibility to representations, models, and modes of primary experience of the social world, nevertheless, this accessibility is by no means universal, but structurally bound to class differentiated capabilities: the ways and the access for drawing on symbolic repertoires depend on the social conditions and resources. So, there is a differentiated distribution of legitimate meanings on which the sociological gaze can be placed in terms of an analysis of the hegemonic divisions and classifications that structure the conditions of production of ordinary interactions and situations. It will be shown, then, how the obvious and the taken-for-granted on which common sense insists are produced by hegemonic processes based on the oblivion (and the structural acceptance of this oblivion) of that very common sense, in its historically built nature. The ongoing construction of shared social reality in interactive situations, as in the case of linguistic exchanges and communication, is thus the product of a consensus and involvement of agents, but it cannot but remain implicated in asymmetries and hierarchies linked to the possession of legitimate social and symbolic resources
Criticare il senso comune, passando dal senso pratico, per comprendere il popolare. Alcuni presupposti per usare «egemonia» e «cultura popolare»
No full textWhom the apostates are turning to? Former Muslims and aid groups, from the rejection of Islam to interreligious dialogue
No full textHegemony and Fields. Working with the concepts of Gramsci and Bourdieu
No full textWithin the disciplinary fields of the humanities and social sciences, several well-established and globally flourishing research traditions have produced, and continue to produce, exegetical and theoretical studies on both Antonio Gramsci and Pierre Bourdieu.
Alongside these lines of research, various attempts have been made to extend and empirically apply elements or aspects of each author’s intellectual oeuvre, taken separately. However, the fact is that research practices inspired by the convergence of the two authors have frequently circulated loosely, leading to questionable conflations and parallels between their respective conceptual devices. The two scholars have also been used by researchers attempting to distance themselves from them to promote their own theories.
We now need to move beyond these approaches and create the conditions for a structured epistemological, theoretical and methodological dialogue. This certainly means systematically identifying points of convergence and divergence; but not exclusively so.
This conference is, therefore, an opportunity to outline a dialogic space between Italian and French scholars, and between France and Italy as the national fields that produced Gramsci and Bourdieu as intellectuals of their times, but whose social trajectories and histories of critical reception and circulation display significant connections and homologies.
The primary aim of this initiative is to illustrate the operativity and the potential uses in the social sciences of certain nodes, conceptual tools, epistemological and methodological perspectives drawn from a close dialogue and interaction, not so much between Gramsci and Bourdieu’s works (opus operatum), but more specifically between their respective modus operandi – that is, their thought styles and interpretative and analytical perspectives on the production and reproduction of the multiple articulations of what we call society, culture, and power – mainly through a discussion of the complementarity between the epistemological framework of Hegemony and the analytical infrastructure of the Field.
To this end it is vital, due to the very nature of the two authors’ methods of conducting social and cultural analysis, to contextualize the resources and lessons drawn from their respective experiences and test them in specific cases and historical conjunctures, with a view to devising a conceptual toolbox of “thinking tools” that are concretely useful only if placed within a precise and circumstantial heuristic framewor
PURISMO, CLASSICISMO E ILLUMINISMO NELLA PEDAGOGIA LINGUISTICA DI BASILIO PUOTI
No full textIl contributo richiama l’attenzione sui principi ispiratori e i metodi didattici della celebre scuola di lingua italiana fondata a Napoli nel 1825 da Basilio Puoti. Nonostante le affinità del puotismo con l’indirizzo arcaizzante e normativo imposto dal capofila del purismo ottocentesco, il p. Antonio Cesari, una rilettura delle opere di Puoti e delle testimonianze lasciateci dai suoi allievi diretti fanno emergere la rilevanza dei tratti distintivi del suo insegnamento, riassumibili nell’etica civile, di ascendenza illuministica, e nell’orientamento retorico, di stampo classicista, che lo improntarono. L’educazione al dialogo e al lavoro in comune, l’allargamento del canone degli scrittori da proporre ai giovani (non solo letterati, ma scienziati, storici, filosofi, giuristi) e le cure rivolte all’insegnamento della scrittura come allenamento all’esercizio della chiarezza e dell’efficacia espressive – per l’indissolubile rapporto che lega parola e pensiero – fanno di Puoti un autore su cui tornare a riflettere e a discutere.
Purism, classicism and illuminism in the language teaching of Basilio Puoti
This paper draws attention to the principles and teaching methods of the famous Italian language school founded in Naples in 1825 by Basilio Puoti. Despite the similarities between “Puotismo” with the archaic, regulatory guidelines of the nineteenth-century purism leader, Antonio Cesari, re-reading Puoti’s works and the testimonies left by his students bring out the relevance of the hallmarks of his teaching: civil ethics, derived from the Enlightenment, and a Classical orientation. Focused on dialogue and group work, the broadening of the canon of writers to propose to students (not only authors of literary texts, but scientists, historians, philosophers, jurists) and the care given to the teaching of writing to practice expressive clarity and effectiveness – due to the indissoluble relationship between speech and thought – make Puoti an author to go back to, reflect on and discuss
Antologia di prose italiane /
No full textMode of access: Internet.Library's copy has stamp in blue ink on end-paper: Biblioteca di Matteo Della Corte
- …
