Re: [Critical-Realism] Neologisms in Critical Realism

[Karl Maton <matonianuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hiya,

I'd suggest the system has relatively strong internal grammar, but 
relatively weaker external grammar at times.  It tends to be 
characterised by weaker semantic gravity, though the use of conceptual 
frameworks in practical social theorising that are compatible with its 
tenets enables it to reach down again to various contexts.  Of course, 
we're talking here about a long, much developed and elaborated system of 
ideas that have then been used by others in a variety of contexts, so it 
does vary across the whole corpus. 

But I wonder whether it's this weaker semantic gravity that causes some 
to experience a certain light-headedness, a certain feeling of being far 
from the ground of what they would normally study (I'm thinking here of 
non-philosophers). 

On Bourdieu - as an aside - there's a magnificent sentence in Homo 
Academicus, comprising numerous subclauses, of over 70 words in length 
that effectively says: 'If you want academic status, write in obscure, 
convoluted ways'.  I imagine he had his tongue firmly in cheek with that 
one. 

Karl


Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

>Hi Karl
>
>Interesting.
>
>For what it's worth, I'd say the Bhaskarian system has strong internal and
>external grammars and balanced semantic gravity - applicability to a wide
>range of contexts but in the last resort historically relative...
>
>Primal squeezes to all,
>
>Mervyn 
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl
>Maton
>Sent: 01 December 2007 02:53
>To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Neologisms in Critical Realism
>
>Hi all,
>
>Just a quick one, as at conference, but surely the question isn't 
>whether concepts are neologisms but their structure.  For anyone 
>interested in the form taken by concepts, and the work they do in 
>theories, there's some work in systemic functional linguistics that 
>looks at the role of what they call 'grammatical metaphor' in the 
>technicalisation of a discourse, such as in science.  And there's work 
>in the sociology of knowledge developing Bernstein that explores 
>concepts in terms of what he termed their 'internal grammar' (degree of 
>interrelatedness) and 'external grammar' (relation to correlates beyond 
>the theory), as well as what's known as their 'semantic gravity' (or 
>degree of context-dependency).  Many theories in sociology, for example, 
>have a strong internal grammar but weak external grammar, making it 
>problematic when one tries to use them in practical social research.  
>They can often either exhibit overly strong semantic gravity, locking 
>them into a context such as a particular object of study, or overly weak 
>gravity, making them unrelated to anything beyond the theory.  
>
>Whether something is a neologism or not is, I'd suggest, not the central 
>issue, though it may be initially daunting to a reader.  .... of course, 
>another issue that I think is jumbled up in this debate is the question 
>of the style of writing deployed. 
>
>  
>

-- 
With best wishes,

Karl

----

Dr Karl Maton
Department of Sociology & Social Policy
Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney

http://www.KarlMaton.com

Editorial Board, Journal of Critical Realism
General Secretary, Australasian Association for Critical Realism

'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time'

_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism