"Revolutions" and "Heterodoxy" in Scientific Fields?

[Gerardo]

I'm concentrated reading about the scientific field. For now I only
ask of you for a provisional orientation while I search deeper into
the subject. It seems to me there's a relation between Bourdieu's
concepts of "revolution" and "heterodoxy", but from what I've read so
far, I feel he only insinuates this relation without making it
explicit. Would you consider it's fair to compare both concepts within
his theories? Would you agree in that he does insinuate a relation
between both of them? Or would you propose that they refer to two
incomparable aspects of the scientific field?

As I said, I only ask for a small orientation that'll help me in my
reading process. In any case, I'm trying to understand the
interrelation between the different elements he proposes through his
different works referent to this particular field.

Thanks for all your help : )

[lucian voinea]

As far as I remember at this very moment, so without doing some
specific research, I can say that you can find some (more) specific
information about this relationship in Bourdieu's works on the
sociology of art/literature. I think that yes, Bourdieu argues there
is a direct relationship between heterodoxy and revolution, connection
which isn't only suggested/insinuated. I think you can use his texts
on the sociology of art, mainly his work "The rules of art" and other
texts of his published on this topic. I have not yet read his text on
Science of science and reflexivity, which I think it is the course he
was lecturing at the university before his death, so I do not know if
he is insisting/expliciting the relationship between the 2 terms/
concepts.

[Gerardo]

THANKS LUCIAN,

First I read a pair of articles translated to spanish: "The Scientific
Field" and "The Cause of Science: How the Social History of Social
Science can Help the Progress of this Science". I felt this two
articles were more explanatory. Then I read "Science of Science and
Reflexivity", which was less explanatory and more prospective I would
say. Specially in the first two articles, I would say he refers to the
"stablished order" and "revolutions" when he speaks of the strategies
of dominant and dominated, but he speaks of heterodoxy and ortodoxy
when he refers to the Doxa. In the same article, he refers to very
different sets of terms in different moments, and although they are
used refering to different aspects, I feel they share a similar theme:
ortodoxy and "stablished order", heterodoxy and "revolution".

So although I didn't feel it so explicit, it seems like Lucian and I
agree in it's conceptual relation. Am I right?

Soon I'll be sharing another doubt, about the heterogeneity -
homogeneity field continuum in the particular case of the social
science field.

Thank you all for reading me : )

[Torgeir Fjeld]

trying to be specific, this has something to do with sedimented, structured capacities of actors in differently structured /and structuring/ social fields. the weight of reproductive practices f is of such an order that change in fields are rare and unexpected.

-tor

--- Den fre 2010-06-18 skrev Gerardo <gacha...@gmail.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "Bourdieu" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bour...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bourdieu+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bourdieu?hl=en.
>
>

[Gerardo]

THANKS TOR,

I identified exactly what you're saying in Bourdieu's texts I
mentioned : )

I would say that, according to Bourdieu, there are two types of
revolutions in a scientific field: inaugural revolutions and permanent
revolutions. Only the first means change in a field to the extent of
even creating a new one, in the second one, the revolution is
contained within the stablished order so it simply becomes part of the
very order. Continuing with his line of argument, the type of
revolution depends of that heterogeneity - homogeneity cotinuum I
mentioned, being a kind of development measurement of the particular
science field: only inagural revolutions would be expected in
heterogeneous (maybe not as mature) scientific fields, but not so much
in homogeneous fields : )

I feel that Bourdieu also implies, and doesn't openly declare, a few
things about the level of homogeneity of the social science field; but
I prefer to ask about it in a second thread during the next days.

Thank you all for taking your time and interest in my doubts!

On Jun 18, 4:35 pm, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fj...@yahoo.no> wrote:
> trying to be specific, this has something to do with sedimented, structured capacities of actors in differently structured /and structuring/ social fields. the weight of reproductive practices f is of such an order that change in fields are rare and unexpected.
>
> -tor
>

> --- Den fre 2010-06-18 skrev Gerardo <gacharna...@gmail.com>: