Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:17:16 +0100
Subject: please repair the automatic sending of emails! I've received






At 17:05 16-07-2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Your question is certainly a valid one, but it is not entirely unlike the 
>earlier posting ["what is Wacquant all about?"] which breezily dismissed 
>not just Wacquant the social analyst, but the work of ethnographic 
>analysis itself. A real  understanding  of the social logic underlying 
>social research (and therefore the motivations motivating various kinds of 
>researchers) cannot be reached by simple speculation, or as a 
>philosophical  problem, but as a sociological one that, in this case, 
>would require the completely valid and important, but systematic 
>theoretical and empirical analysis of academic  scientific practices. It 
>is a valid question, but not one that can be seriously answered in the 
>abstract, nor at the level of the individual.
>
>As an individual, however, I can say that I was motivated to respond to 
>the original posting about Wacquant on boxing, because I found the hardly 
>veiled accusations made ("the air of Fascism" after all??) to be both 
>completely unjust and completely ignorant of the work itself. To actually 
>read this work is to immediately force a confrontation with the very 
>preconception of boxing as a barbaric activity. In relation to the 
>dystopian world of uncontrolled violence, police repression, economic 
>destruction ,social neglect and stigma that fairly characterizes the poor 
>African-American community in which it is located, the boxing gym that he 
>studied, among other things can be seen as a remarkable oasis of 
>solidarity and of mutual respect, where bodily discipline and control is 
>practiced as a craft whose considerable skills are passed down from 
>journeyman to apprentice. The contrast of this institution with the utter 
>breakdown of a market for skilled labor in the poorest black communities 
>of the U.S. is stark. Wacq
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Of course you should feel free to inveigh against intellectuals for using 
>research questions to satisfy psychosexual urges, but please read 
>Wacquant's work on boxing, for it forces all of us to confront the limits 
>to our own selective outrage.
>Rick Fantasia
>
>
>
>
> >>> rdumain-AT-igc.org 07/13/01 05:14PM >>>
>Fair enough!  But my question is a valid one.  Intellectuals love
>violence--in theory and from a safe distance in most cases--so one must
>always be suspicious until one gets the scoop.  The lesson the 20th century
>is how millions of people get psychologically primed for fascism.  Blood
>sports is one of them, and the intellectuals' fascination with boxing
>reveals their own sadomasochistic lust for power and their predisposition
>to submit their own intellectual gifts to naked power.  Hence I think you
>need to direct your concern over what is inflammatory to the real purveyors
>of barbarism.  Academics love getting angry in theory, but when somebody
>gets angry for real they shit they pants.
>
>At 04:19 PM 7/13/01 -0400, Elaine Power wrote:
> >Please don't grind your personal ax against boxing on Wacquant's back. Read
> >some of his work instead.
> >
> >Elaine Power
>
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu