Re: [Critical-Realism] Neologisms in Critical Realism

[Karl Maton <matonianuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's 3.30am so I should run off to bed but quickly....

I agree with pretty much everything you said, Mervyn.  The 'context' is 
more the concrete, but as I should have said or take for granted anyway, 
that's not a criticism at all - it is a much needed meta-theory.  So I'm 
on the same page on this front. 

I was trying to wonder what was causing people problems, rather than 
criticising the theory for any particular characteristics, just to see 
whether perhaps some were criticising it for attributes it wouldn't have 
because of its role and nature.

The Bourdieu quote (which I'll dig out when I get back from holiday... 
tomorrow night I'm off) was merely a sidebar to the whole thing - 
following the earlier thread title.  I have my own take on how people 
write - Bourdieu, for one thing, wrote as if he was paid by the word. 

Cheers all,
Karl

Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

>Hi Karl
>
>If semantic gravity is defined in terms of context, it's important to
>remember that there are many different levels of context, ranging from the
>highly abstract to the specific and concrete. As a highly abstract
>philosophical meta-theory the Bhaskarian system has strong semantic gravity
>in relation to other meta-theories of modernity (e.g. positivist philosophy,
>analytical philosophy) - but much weaker, as you say, in relation to a
>concrete piece of substantive research. 
>
>It doesn't of course aspire to anything else: it's agenda, already announced
>in RTS (195), is to contribute to the development of 'an adequate general
>conceptual scheme' for the social sciences, which they presently lack and
>sorely need.  It definitely needs supplementing by less abstract theories
>and research programmes - Bhaskar doesn't of course by and large do this
>(although he does develop some socio-substantive concepts), nor of course
>should we expect him to as a philosopher (although we regularly do).  If
>people (understandably) feel light-headed in the rarified atmosphere of the
>Bhaskarian system, the remedy is to deploy such theories within its
>framework and get on with practical research as much as possible, thereby
>strengthening semantic gravity at that level, as you imply.
>
>Actually, for me it has wonderful purchase on the overall process of
>geo-history, and meshes in well with a range of research programmes, so I
>miss out on the light-headedness.
>
>Re the anecdote from Bourdieu: obscure in my view Bhaskar most definitely is
>not, so I don't get the point. Complex, difficult, yes, but nothing to do
>with status, making an impression. The main CR people who seem to be playing
>that game are Bhaskar's detractors, who puff themselves up by putting
>Bhaskar down (this is your true homo academicus). The latest libel that DPF
>is "appallingly badly written" comes from Sean Creaven, Emergentist Marxism:
>Dialectical Philosophy and Social Theory (London: Routledge, 2007), 42. It
>shouldn't surprise us that Sean's own style leaves a lot to be desired,
>peppered as it is with such phrases as 'rips into', 'a bit rich' and
>'Bhaskar needs to do better'.
>
>Mervyn 
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl
>Maton
>Sent: 02 December 2007 11:30
>To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
>Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Neologisms in Critical Realism
>
>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