Is 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.
Pierre Bourdieu, Antonio Gramsci and the Social Science. Towards an interaction between conceptual categories and thinking tools / Puoti, Matteo. - (2023). (Intervento presentato al convegno Theorising from the Margins - Midterm Conference of the European Sociological Association-Social Theory Research Network tenutosi a Paris Lodron University of Salzburg).
Pierre Bourdieu, Antonio Gramsci and the Social Science. Towards an interaction between conceptual categories and thinking tools
Matteo Puoti
2023
Abstract
Is 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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
