گفتارهایی درباره‌ی ایستادگی در برابر نئولیبرالیسم

by Pierre Bourdieu, علی‌رضا پلاسید (translator)

A devastating critique of free-market politics from distinguished sociologist Pierre Bourdieu.

Genres: Sociology, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, Theory, Essays

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

Bourdieu pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the concepts of habitus, field or location, and symbolic violence to reveal the dynamics of power relations in social life. His work emphasized the role of practice and embodiment or forms in social dynamics and worldview construction, often in opposition to universalized Western philosophical traditions. He built upon the theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Georges Canguilhem, Karl Marx, Gaston Bachelard, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Erwin Panofsky, and Marcel Mauss. A notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations.

Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the paper this morning a guy with a doctorate (probably in economics), in fact, the guy who is head of our Department of Treasury told The Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (Who are these people, exactly) that Australia will need to make some harsh choices, that we can’t have it all, that with a reducing tax base and an aging population certain popular government measures are simply no longer affordable. Is there a country in the world where such received wisdom could not be trotted out in this morning’s newspaper?

This series of essays covers a very broad range of topics – but the most impressive group are those which take to task this form of received wisdom and plots ways to ‘change the game’ out of the ‘scientific’ sounding pronouncements of neoliberal extremist free market ideological revolutionary conservativism.

I’m going straight to his solutions, rather than wallowing in the joy of endlessly restating the problem, a problem so obvious it hardly needs restating, anyone been watching Greece lately, or Spain, or Italy, or England? And that solution is, according to Bourdieu, an ending of the economic unity of Europe and the rushing forward of the political unity of Europe – and this in 1996... It is only through the political unity of Europe that the people of Europe will be able to protect themselves from the near infinite power of European banks and the irresistible logic of neoliberal ‘solutions’. It is only through effective political unity that there is any hope of defending our hard won rights and save them from being reframed as ‘privileges’ that need to be traded or simply taken away from us for our own good. The withering away of the state is no longer a Marxist fantasy, it is a neoliberal reality.

Want a slogan for our times? End Flexploitation.

We live in a world without fundamental security – ironic then that our masters are obsessed with symbolic security against a non-existent enemy – I think following a decade since 9/11 perhaps it is time to start looking at the real enemies to our collective security – our job security, our cultural security, our security of health provision, our security of information and our other essential democratic rights. That we are prepared to trade all this just because someone yells ‘Islam’ or ‘Jihad’ – oh dear God, just how pathetic are we?

Marx called on workers of the world to unite – Bourdieu points out that such internationalism (the bread and butter of the new international ruling class to whom the nation state has long been dead in all but name save for its ability to distract entire populations with racist delusions) was killed off by Soviet imperialism seeking ways to justify itself. He hopes trade unions will provide the basis for a new internationalism. I worked in a trade union for nearly a decade – I have no such hopes and share no such illusions. But that some form of resistance is necessary is beyond question. That this resistance requires international unity is also blindingly obvious.

I often find it amusing to hear people complain that Marx referred to his view as ‘scientific socialism’ – today it is neoliberal extremism that clothes its ideology in the garb of science. The dismal science of normative ‘rational economics’.

We need to find ways of changing behaviour – of fundamentally changing the way we relate, economically as well as socially. In a week where it looks like Australia is to lose its only serious newspapers, in fact, in a week where it is clear we have already lost them, behaving in the same way is quickly no longer becoming an option.

Unlike Bourdieu, I can propose no solutions – other than to say that acts of resistance should not be done alone or in private.

[Eli Za · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب شامل مجموعه مقالات عمدتا کوتاهی است که هر کدام به نوعی به بنیادگرایی بازار و راه‌های مقاومت در برابر آن بازمی‌گردد.

از میان همه مقالات مقاله Job insecurity is everywhere now چنان مرا به وجد آورد که صفحه تلگرامم پر از اسم کسانی شد که بخش‌هایی از این مقاله را برای آن‌ها فرستادم. بوردیو در این مقاله از تبعات موقتی شدن قراردادهای کار در اقتصادهای نولیبرال سخن می‌گوید. در شرایطی که قراردادهای کار موقتی شده‌اند و بواسطه افزایش اقشار تحصیلکرده بیکار، ارتش ذخیره کار نه فقط در مشاغل مربوط به کارگردان یدی، بلکه در همه مشاغل افزایش یافته است، عدم امنیت شغلی جغد شومی است که بالای سر همه ما آواز می‌خواند. چنین عدم امنیتی نفس اشتغال را فارغ از شرایط آن به یک امتیاز مبدل می‌کند. امتیاز شاغلان، در برابر بیکاران. این وضعیت سد راه مطالبه برای بهبود شرایط کار می‌شود و امکان بیشترین بهره‌کشی از جانب کارفرما را فراهم می‌کند. در نتیجه ما با شکاف میان شاغلینی مواجهیم که بیش از حد کار می‌کنند و استثمار می‌شوند و بیکارانی که در انتظار به دست آوردن موقعیت شغلی همان استثمارشدگان هستند. وضعیتی که همراه با غلبه منفعت‌طلبی، محاسبه‌گری اقتصادی و به حداکثر رساندن سود شخصی، با ایجاد شکاف میان کارگران از تشکیل جمع و مطالبه جمعی، جلوگیری می‌کند. وضعیت جنگ همه، علیه همه!

سویه دیگر ماجرا این است که با آزادسازی تجارت در ابعاد بین‌المللی و رفع موانع دولتی در برابر ورود و خروج سرمایه به کشورها، صنایع و شرکت‌های بزرگ می‌توانند در زمان احساس خطر از جانب اتحادیه‌های کارگری و نیروی کار، کارخانه‌های خود را به کشورهایی با نیروی کار ارزان‌تر، درصد بیکاری بیشتر و موانع قانونی کمتر، انتقال دهند. در نتیجه رقابت نه تنها میان کارگران درون مرزهای یک کشور، برای کسب فرصت شغلی است، بلکه امروزه بواسطه جهانی شدن اقتصاد، کارگران هر کشور باید با کارگران سایر کشورها نیز رقابت کنند. همین امر لزوم ایجاد همبستگی فراتر از مرزهای یک کشور میان نیروهای مبارز علیه استبداد بازار را نشان می‌دهد.

نکته جالب دیگری که بوردیو در این مقاله به آن اشاره می‌کند، این است که عدم امنیت شغلی امکان پیش‌بینی آینده بر مبنای معادلات منطقی و عقلانی را سلب می‌کند. این ابهام در وضعیت، باور و امید فرد به آینده را که پایه هرگونه آرمان‌خواهی و شورش علیه وضع موجود است، نابود می‌کند. به تعبیر بوردیو، هر فرد برای تصور آینده‌ باید چیزی برای چنگ زدن در زمان حال داشته باشد. حتی کارگرانی که در شرایط سخت کار می‌کنند، کار خود را و بهبود شرایط کار را دستمایه مطالبه برای تغییر قرار می‌دهند. اما خیل عظیم بیکاران طبقه پایین‌تر از پرولتاریا که شغل و عزت نفس خود را از دست داده‌اند، از چُنان دستاویزی برای به تصور درآوردن آینده بهتر و مبارزه برای آن بی‌بهره‌اند. از جمله راه‌حل‌های بوردیو برای مقابله با این وضعیت فعالیت خیریه است. اینکه با کمک به یکدیگر نه تنها در برابر غلبه ارزش‌های فردگرایانه نظام اقتصادی و به حداکثر رساندن منفعت شخصی مقابله کنیم و ارزش‌های جمع گرایانه و در نتیجه امکان مطالبه جمعی را احیا کنیم، بلکه با ایجاد نهادهایی برای کمک مالی به بیکاران و کارگران، جلوی بهره‌کشی کارفرما از آن‌ها را بگیریم و اجازه ندهیم که شکاف میان شاغلان و افراد بیکار امکان استثمار هرچه بیشتر کارگران را فراهم کند. از این راه و با ایجاد اتحاد میان شاغلان در وضعیت عدم امنیت شغلی و بیکاران، طبقات تحت سلطه خواهند توانست نیروی مقاومت خود را بازیابی کنند. از نظر بوردیو، مطالبه در این شرایط، نباید فقط حول مطالبه سنتی بهبود شرایط کار و افزایش دستمزد شکل گیرد، بلکه مطالبه بازتوزیع فرصت‌های شغلی و نیز کاهش ساعات کار باید در فهرست مطالبات جای گیرد. تصور کار به عنوان یک «ضرورت» غیرقابل پرسش، افسانه دیگری است که به تعبیر بوردیو، نظام اقتصادی برای افزایش بهره‌وری خود به ما القا کرده است! کاهش ساعات کار، باید یکی از مطالبات نیروهای پیشرو باشد.

[Çetin Balanuye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Andy Merrifield, Bourdieu'yu haklı gerekçelerle, düşüncenin "namuslu bir amatörü" olarak selamlar. Bourdieu'nun Karşı Ateşler'de yaptığı tam da budur: Namuslu bir amatörün keskin dikkati, tahakküme dönüşmüş her türden "normal" karşısında dürüstçe dikilir ve şöyle der: Hayır! Bize dayatılan bu yaşam zehirlidir!

19 kısa pasajın toplantığı Karşı Ateşler'de neo-liberal piyasa tahakkümünün giderek pek gizlemeye de gerek duymadığı kitlesel soykırıma tam bir suçüstü yapılıyor. "Kamu yararı" kavramı çarpıcı bir dille yeniden çağrılıyor ve "... bireysel çıkar arayışı ve kâr hırsının tek yasa olmadığı" anımsatılıyor.

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like Bourdieu, and only gave this a three because it is a slim volume with short essays that, thought provoking as they might be, don't really have space to develop any ideas in depth...this is much better as a companion volume to everything else written by him, I would certainly say it can't stand on its own.

That said, the pieces on job insecurity and Ne-liberalism were fascinating I thought...it's rare to find someone who rolls so much that I agree with together with so much I object to, I rather like that...though I violently disagree that minor state nobility might ever play a role in the creation of any new world I'd like to live in.

[Tarmo Jüristo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish there was a way to award half-stars, as I was really thorn between three and four. The fact that I finally settled for three is mostly due to the brevity rather than the intrinsic quality of the argument that Bourdieu puts forth in the book. Most of it comes across as a journalism (not at all bad at that), or perhaps a manifesto. Perfectly good at what it is - an expression of personal rage, as Bourdieu puts it in his introduction - but not much that you could really sink your teeth into. In short - certainly worth a read, but unlikely to blow your socks off.

[Josephine Ensign · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice and compact collection of essays and a good introduction to the work of Bourdieu. My favorite essays are "The Status of Foreigners: Shibboleth," "The Myth of 'Globalization' and the European Welfare State," and "Job Insecurity is Everywhere Now."

[Marc ZEIMET · Rating 5 out of 5]

Le célèbre sociologue français Pierre Bourdieu se révèle ici presque prophète.
Les émeutes qui ont suivi la mort du jeune Nahel M à Nanterre auraient pu être considérées comme possibles par Bourdieu il y a 25 ans déjà, on peut avoir cette prémonition en lisant les essais et les textes critiques choisis par l'auteur sous un certain angle de compréhension.
La société française est profondément divisée. Et cette ségrégation fait système, pour ne pas dire qu'elle est entretenue, renforcée en permanence par certaines couches (supérieures) de la population. Il est fès lors toujours possible qu'une étincelle fasse exploser le tonneau, et il arrive parfois qu'une telle catastrophe (comme celle de ces jours) se produise et que toute la frustration, la colère, le mépris et la haine pour certains aspects de la culture du pouvoir d'une société dite "libérale" se déchaînent sans retenue.
Bourdieu voit déjà dans les années 1990, date à laquelle la plupart de ces textes ont été rédigés et édités dans le Tome I de Contre-Feux, le néo-libéralisme débridé, qui n'est rien d'autre qu'ultra-conservateur dans sa nature.
Le livre présenté apparaît très engagé sur de longues distances, sert avec de nombreux arguments contre un ordre capitaliste imposé par la dictature du monde financier, individualiste et matérialiste dans sa nature profonde.
Il est agréable de constater que Bourdieu ne tombe jamais dans un fatalisme défaitiste. Si ses textes, dans leurs analyses profondes, constatent que notre société est malade, les points d'achoppement sont clairement désignés et ces mêmes points ont été correctement identifiés par Bourdieu.
La lutte sociale en cours devrait briser les dictatures actuelles, notamment celles du monde de la finance et de l'idéologie néolibérale, les démystifier, enlever leur masque de la mascarade.
Lire Bourdieu fait toujours du bien.
Même si ses textes ne sont pas toujours faciles à déchiffrer au premier abord, on ne peut que s'incliner avec respect devant cet intellect. Dans ce volume particulier, ce qui frappe le plus, c'est le développement et l'évocation par Bourdieu de théories innovantes pour identifier les failles du néo-libéralisme depuis plus de deux décennies déjà.

[Terry Clague · Rating 3 out of 5]

How does one review Pierre Bourdieu, he asked poetically?

Well, one doesn't except to say that this book - acquired in Boston's Brattle Book Shop for a song - is a collection of interviews, and short articles originally published in the late 90s. The title is great, but one can imagine it being monographed away into "Resistance and the Tyranny of the Market" for discoverability if being produced in the post-digital transformation era.

In the introduction, the author almost apologises for making "prophetic interventions" in the book, especially where he's in danger of straying beyond the "limits of my competence" out of a sense of solidarity. I appreciated this, because my own forays into writing (LOL) are always driven the the bee in the bonnet syndrome.

Largely having read this during an absolute damp squib of a period of jury service, I now find myself recalling little of the thrust of the essays, except the quotability of the author (and those he himself quotes). Some examples:

"Economic sounding discourse would not be able to circulate beyond the circle of its promotors without the collaboration of a host of people - politicians, journalists, and ordinarily citizens with a tincture of economic culture sufficient to participate in the generalized circulation of the debased words of an economic vulgate."

"To spell it out: abandon *your* benefits today for the sake of the growth it will bring *us* tomorrow. This logic is well known to the workers concerned ... [in other words] 'You give me your watch and I'll give you the time of day.'"

"Split consciousness - very common among the powerful ... it was said that the Roman augurs could not look at each other without laughing - means that you can both condemn the objective description of their practice as a scandalous denunciation or a poisonous pamphlet, and say equivalent things out loud when speaking privately."

[Elena Campo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me lo dejó mi profesor de la universidad y nunca pensé que me cautivaría tanto que acabaría leyéndomelo de una sentada. El libro tiene muchas reflexiones interesantes, sin duda aplicables al contexto actual sobre la erosión del sistema de bienestar y beneficios sociales, y la dominación de las políticas y el pensamiento neoliberal. Me gustan sus propuestas de una política colectiva y de una economía de la felicidad. Y me fascinan sus pensamientos acerca de la justificación de desigualdades y de sistemas de dominación y explotación, particularmente en el apartado laboral, en el que destaca que los jóvenes son normalmente sujetos de inestabilidad e inseguridad. Asimismo aprecio que todos los argumentos que ofrece no se centren exclusivamente en el mundo económico y material, sino que también se dedique a desengranar las consecuencias psico-emocionales de los preceptos neoliberales en las clases más desfavorecidas de la población. Sin duda una lectura que me ha sorprendido y atrapado, y que recomiendo a todo aquel que quiera detenerse a reflexionar sobre los mecanismos políticos y económicos impuestos en nuestras sociedades.

[Hugolane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first time I've read Bourdieu to my knowledge. He is an engaging thinker, and I was not surprised to find myself sympathetic to a lot of what he wrote. Almost 30 years on, a number of his arguments still resonate, even if the pejorative use of "Neo-Liberalism" here has become hackneyed, and all too often used to criticize a conglomeration of things that people on the left are frustrated with. Bourdieu at least has a clear idea of what he means, and I don't think he is wrong to criticize the cult of the market and the way Mitterand, Clinton, and Blair all retreated from more expansive social policies their parties had historically championed. At the same time, having lived through those times, I am acutely aware of how dominant the thinking was, and how difficult it was to frame alternatives in ways that could find resonance in people not already frustrated by austerity etc. The most striking essay for me, however, was "Return to Television," where his analysis of Television seemed particularly insightful. I now want to read his book On Television>.

[Istvan Zoltan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best kind of philosophy: informative, accessible, and informed by economics, politics, history and sociology.

The book unmasks many of the propaganda-panels and slogans that companies, neolib extremist governments, and the newspapers living off them use to delude people into thinking that a less-and-less safe and stable world is their interest.

Exploitation is rife and becoming worse again, and Bourdieu highlights the process, and how some politicians, economists and business folks try to hide this process.

It is a short book, so don't expect a detailed roadmap of how to fix the problem, but there is enough to get one started on thinking in constructive terms, so it is not a one-sided book that only criticises. There are positive proposals here and one can start looking and exploring the more detailed expert literature on what is to be done.

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s interesting to look back on the 90s with Bourdieu. You can see how the neoliberalism of that decade, across all major political parties, in all the largest economies, has gotten us into the hell-scape Age of Crisis we are in now. My favorite pages were about how the media reacted to Bourdieu’s television book. Little did we know how much worse the Internet would be. But overall, most of it is just too obvious in hindsight, the moments when Bourdieu writes something that felt new to me were too few. I guess if you are trying to chart his thinking, or if you are researching a specific political moment, this volume would have some value, but for me it wasn’t worth the effort, except maybe as a German vocabulary builder (I read the German translation.)

[隻眼簽到 · Rating 3 out of 5]

防火牆：抵擋新自由主義的入侵。皮耶‧布赫迪厄著。孫智綺譯。
距離本書寫作時間已二十多年，不知道作者抵擋所謂「新自由主義」的成效如何？那個所謂「在歐洲層次上有關那些被爭取到的社會權益之禁止往後倒退原則」有沒有堅持下去？其實我是絕對悲觀的，當然，我也不太熱衷他們的成功。這次新冠疫情讓我們看到，歐洲那些社會福利國家的死亡率大多名列前茅，而死者泰半出自安養院之類的機構。我們拚命爭取的「生命」，意義何在？我支持進化論，也不反對所謂新自由主義藉優勝劣汰之名行徹底剝削之實。我遺憾的是，人類社會沒有形成一種(或多種)可堪對抗的意識形態，而是跟著資本主義的主流價值愉快徜徉。作者認為國家歷史存在合理性，認為可以依靠國家的左手，即那些社會工作人員，和工會之類人員去抵擋新自由主義對社會權益(福利)的侵奪。但在我看來，國家只在草創時能具有年輕人的激情(理想)，但之後，他們仍是要為資本世界服務的，歐洲能成就如此的社會福利國家，只能說是個奇蹟，難以複制或承續。資本家掌握經濟，讓我們要拚命為之工作。而國家掌握武力，讓我們對此翻不起波浪。資本家形塑的世界很美好，只要順從他們的邏輯，努力就能獲得財富，以及相應的權勢、健康、享樂等等。但這只能成就他們的剝削，永無休止。一輩子為人作嫁，還樂此不疲，引以為傲，悲哀莫甚。對此不滿的人，需要作的，不是去形成社會運動，或「教導」民眾「明白」什麼。這些都是徒勞，也只能作用一時(你與別人玩同樣的遊戲，遵循同樣的規則，而你輸了，別人為什麼要在乎你呢)。我們需要的是一種可堪對抗的意識形態，一種不隨波逐流，由自己反思之後確立的人生觀(不遵循別人的遊戲規則)，讓我們在處境不利的情況下，依然能安之若素，浮雲自由。

[Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great collection of interviews, essays and speeches held at social movements events (some of them institutional, others at strikes) by Bourdieu late in his life. More political than I'm used to in my Bourdieu reading, but, thus, bitingly fresh and witty. I thought some of the entries here might be outdated by now, but most of the topics were still extremely relevant. All in all, a great read and an accessible entry point into Bourdieu's views on politics and - in many ways sadly - still a relevant critique of French politics...

[David C Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short essays, talks, reviews from the 1990s pushing against the “naturalization” of neo liberalism I.e.that it was inevitable and also that all value is economic. Frequently written at a specific moment of crisis, many of the points are still salient eg in the failire of successive Tory governments (incompetence, economism) or the insecurity of work in a globalized “market”. It’s quite good especially on television and media but also on the general corruption of independent, critical thought. What is to be done, however, remains a question.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zoals ik in m'n recensie van Sur la télévision, suivi de L'emprise du journalisme schreef (zie hier), heeft Pierre Bourdieu een niet zo toegankelijke schrijfstijl door z'n woordenschat, maar ook het veelvuldig gebruik van bijzinnen. Dit is hier niet anders.

'Contre-feux I' is een compilatie van interviews, columns, uittreksels van speeches (op bepaalde congressen, betogingen, ...), e.d. meer van de periode december 1991 t.e.m. januari 1998. Ook bevat dit boekje het nawoord van de Engelstalige editie van 'Sur la télévision' en daarop volgend een interview over dit werk. Vreemd dat Raisons d'agir dit niet heeft mee afgedrukt bij de heruitgave die ik gelezen heb.

Reeds in de jaren '90 waarschuwde Bourdieu voor de gevaren van het neo-liberalisme dat beetje bij beetje z'n intrede aan het doen was. Hij verwees ook naar het Engeland onder Tatcher, bijvoorbeeld, alsook de periode van de Wereldoorlogen. Hij was ook sceptisch t.o.v. de euro, kaartte de nationale verschillen aan inzake sociale zekerheid en vangnetten en hoe Europa zich dat niet echt aantrok en de focus legde op de eenheidsmunt.

Bourdieu was een linkse denker en socioloog. Dat zie je ook in deze teksten, waarin hij oproept voor een meer links politiek beleid of in ieder geval een beleid waarin de verworven rechten behouden blijven, waarbij de verzorgingsstaat behouden blijft en niet uitgehold wordt ten voordele van de markten, van de werkgevers, van de globale economie. Bourdieu kaart ook het gegeven aan waarbij "globalisatie" en "individualisering" (elk voor zich, geen cao's, geen collectieve [hoe dan ook] zaken meer, ...) de nieuwe kerngedachte wordt, waarbij plots de (West-)Europese werknemer zich dient aan te passen aan de minder gegoede Oost-Europese of zelfs Aziatische werknemer, omdat daar geen (of minder) sociale vangnetten zijn en de werkgevers minder belastingen moeten betalen, de werknemers lagere lonen krijgen, enz. Daardoor voeren nationale regeringen aanpassingen door (zoals minder belastingen voor bedrijven), zodat die (grote, al dan niet internationale) bedrijven in dit of dat land blijven investeren. M.a.w., deze concurrentie tussen werknemers heeft vooral een impact op de werknemers zelf (vrees voor jobverlies, minder koopkracht, stress, ...) dan op de werkgevers (die door het minder belasting betalen dat geld voor andere doeleinden kunnen gebruiken, waaronder eigen zakken, aandeelhouders, ...).

In deze context zijn, volgens Bourdieu, de vakbonden te laks en te laat geweest om hun standpunten kracht bij te zetten, om de zaken waarvoor men indertijd gevochten heeft, te behouden en zo een tegengewicht te bieden aan het neo-liberalisme. Want voor dit laatste zijn de economie en de markten dé te volgen goden en leiders. Met alle gevolgen van dien, waaronder de overheid uithollen, zoveel mogelijk privatiseren, onafhankelijke banken, en meer. En we weten allemaal waartoe dat al heeft geleid, zoals te lezen is in, onder andere, Martin Vissers De eurocrisis (zie m'n recensie hier) en Joris Luyendijks Dit kan niet waar zijn (zie m'n recensie hier). En zo zijn er nog een hoop andere boeken.

In de teksten m.b.t. zijn eerder werk 'Sur la télévision' duidt Bourdieu er nog eens op dat journalisten op zich wellicht wel integer (kunnen) zijn, maar dat het systeem dat niet (meer) toelaat. Kijkcijfers en winst tellen. Feiten onderzoeken, duiding en achtergrond geven is van minder belang, als het maar kijkers lokt en de mensen laat meeleven. Al duurt dat meeleven vaak niet lang. Tot de volgende crisis. Ook zijn bepaalde onderwerpen gemakkelijk voor televisie: oorlog, natuurrampen, ... waardoor men minder moeite moet doen om dit te onderzoeken. Als je dan kijkt naar vandaag: de situatie met de vluchtelingen (Calais, Hongarije, en elders) blijft men inderdaad dat in beeld brengen, maar degelijke achtergrond krijg je niet. Wel oppervlakkige details als dat ze van Syrië komen, van Afghanistan, van Tunesië, Algerije (Bourdieu was een Algerije-expert), ... Maar waarom en hoe en wat er gedaan wordt om de eventueel de problematiek lokaal aan te pakken? Nada.

Ik ben het niet met alles eens wat Bourdieu te vertellen had, want soms is hij te extreem in z'n gedachten of zelfs te vaag (met moeilijke woordenschat kan je soms intelligent overkomen, maar wat je vertelt kan de luisteraar/lezer dan nog niks wijzer maken).

Op het einde staat een lijstje met de werken waarop Bourdieu zich baseerde voor z'n betogen in deze eerste 'Contre-feux'.

Kortweg: Duidelijk geen voer voor de liberaal-ingestelden, eerder een trap onder de kont van de linkse partijen om terug wakker te worden.

[Xavier · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the most interesting of ironies, Bourdieu approaches Marxist thinking in his boldest castigation of neoliberalism even as he tries to convince the reader that his analysis is somehow "different" and more comprehensive.

The only way this short collection of essays and notes could be improved is if Pierre just leaned into dialectical materialism, elevating it as needed, and incorporated non-Eurocentric thinkers like Walter Rodney and C.L.R. James.

[Matty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Courts et faciles à lire, ce rassemblement de textes permet d'avoir un aperçu clair de ce en quoi nous met en garde Bourdieu.
Exemples : le mythe de "la mondialisation" de l'État social européen, des abus de pouvoirs, de la télévision et d'une certaine pratique du journalisme et l'invisibilisation des chômeurs, pour en fait constituer une critique du néo-libéralisme.

[Derek Baldwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Measured but uncompromising resistance to the world's scummiest science, and least admirable scientists, economics and economists. Which in this day and age means simply bean counters and neoliberals, and other lackeys of the 1%.

[Elzira Rai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Precise and sometimes insightful in its portrayal of neo-liberal ideology and the dangers of monetary unification in Europe, yet not too brilliant in its analysis of media complicity with right-wing discourse.

[Eli Entrenebras · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es el libro más simple & perspicuo de Pierre y sus análisis sobre el abismo neoliberal contemporáneo (de los años 90) me parecen bastante irrefutables, pero también es uno de esos libros que lees más para que te den la razón y para aclararte las ideas que para aprender algo nuevo o profundo.

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Versuch, die Theorie praktisch zu machen. Bleibt zeitgeschichtlich.

[B Frizz · Rating 4 out of 5]

some of these essays were incredibly profound, would definitely recommend reading this right. certainly timely.

[The man on the lion · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ce livre m'a fait tomber amoureux de son auteur même si je le connaissais déjà de loin. Complet, il traite le neo-liberalisme dans tous ses aspects les plus horribles.

[Juliet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shocking that this was written in 1998 clearly warning of the perils of neo - liberalism and also of its non-inevitability. The deliberate destruction of collective organisations leaving only weakened individuals to (not) oppose the rush to consolidating power and money in the hands of the few. Some of this is developed in Naomi Klein's brilliant book This Changes Everything'. On the downside there are parts that were hard to understand partly because I lacked the necessary contextual background and partly due to the language used though whether this is due to the translation or present in the original I cannot tell. Perhaps both.

[Patrick Alix · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well written, although you need to read this more than once to understand Bourdieu's message. French author's have this aspect within themselves to make their books hard to understand. Although, I think it's a good way to weed out those who aren't interested in politics and economics. His book is one of the reason's why I am a socialist. A good read for those who want to see what's wrong with society.

[Andrew]

I do love Pierre Bourdieu dearly, but there isn't much that's new in this slender volume. It's all the same stuff I've been hearing: the need to unify the left, the flexibilization of the economy, the increasing tendency to legitimize neoliberal capitalism as a "natural" ideology. I found myself going "yeah!" every few pages, and it got my blood all angered up, but in the end, nothing original.

[graceofgod · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Bourdieu does provide us with an absolutely superb definition of neo-liberalism, his solution (a supranational organization which would regulate global capital) is absolutely utopian, and to put it frankly, dangerous. Nonetheless, this is still a very interesting book.

[Chris Beiser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe Bourdieu has written other good books. This one is not one of them. Other people have written of the problems with Thatcherism much more eloquently and cleverly; this is instead, the pinnacle of franco-boomerism.

[Eve Mango · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great set of essays by Bourdieu. I learned a lot about globalism and neoliberalism (and how it sucks, lol). I want to re-read it after I have a better understanding of econ and international market systems.