Die politische Ontologie Martin Heideggers

by Pierre Bourdieu

Rare book

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Sociology, Nonfiction, Academic, Social Science

156 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

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

[imaculata form]

Freilich ist das so einfach nicht; die Strategie der radikalen Überwindung führt denn auch zu höchst zwieschlächtigen oder, genauer, reversiblen Positionen (was die späteren Kehrtwendungen ohne Lossagung von früher Vertretenem ebenso erleichtern wird wie die Doppelspiele, mit denen Doppelsinnigkeit und doppelzüngiges Einverständnis begünstigt werden). Die Geschichte dem Sein einschreiben, die eigentliche Subjektivität zur auf sich genommenen und damit absoluten Endlichkeit erheben, mitten ins konstituierende »Ich denke« eine ontologische und konstituierende, das heißt dekonstituierende Zeit einführen, bedeutet, den kantischen Umsturz der Metaphysik seinerseits Umstürzen, die metaphysische Kritik einer jeden Kritik der Metaphysik vornehmen, heißt im Klartext: die konservative Revolution in der Philosophie vollziehen. Und dies anhand einer für die »konservativen Revolutionäre« (insbesondere Jünger) beispielhaften Strategie: sich gleichsam ins Feuer zu werfen, um sich nicht zu verbrennen, alles zu verändern, um nichts zu verändern - mittels eines jener heroischen Extremakte, die in der Bewegung des permanenten Überschreitens eines Jenseitigen verbal, in paradoxen und magischen Sätzen, die Gegensätze vereinigen und miteinander versöhnen. So die These, daß die Metaphysik nur eine Metaphysik der Endlichkeit sein könne und nur die Endlichkeit zum Unbedingten führe; oder daß das Seiende nicht zeitlich sei, weil historisch, vielmehr historisch, weil zeitlich.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pierre Bourdieu examines Martin Heidegger's philosophical works and argues that Heidegger, although nowadays usually appropriated and appreciated by left-wing folk, was actually a right-wing ideologue. I liked the book fine, but it suffered from a lack of direct quotation and some unnecessarily obscure terminology. One of the ways Bourdeiu pegs Heidegger as both expressing a philosophical perspective and a political perspective simultaneously is in Heidegger's use of choice words that would have been familiar to everybody in their ordinary usage and using them in a particularly philosophical sense. For example, Heidegger claims that two 'modes' of human existence are 'authentic' and 'inauthentic.' 'Inauthentic' existence is when one goes about one's day as everybody else does: one chats, one eats, one sleeps, one goes to work, and so forth. 'Authentic' existence is when a person realizes her finitude and decides to do things for herself, disregarding what 'one does.' Heidegger writes that the terms 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' are not normative or judgmental terms; they are instead just descriptors for two ways in which human beings exist in the world. But in spite of this admonition, the reader cannot help but think of the terms in their ordinary usage, and so this is a way that Heidegger can trade on their ordinary meanings and philosophical meanings. Here's an analogy: Suppose I say I am only being descriptive. You have two groups: Group A and Group B. Let's call Group A the Disgusting People. Let's call Group B the Beautiful People. I explain that the Disgusting People group is defined, in my terminology, as the people who wear blue shirts on Friday, and the Beautiful People group, of which I am one, do not wear blue shirts on Friday. And those are the two groups: the Beautiful People and the Disgusting People. Even though I invite you to think of the terms 'Disgusting People' and 'Beautiful People' as mere labels for whether or not one is or is not wearing a blue shirt on Friday, the terms have all their ordinary connotations that people would relate to when seeing the words 'beautiful' and 'disgusting.' Heidegger's works are fraught with this kind of thing: he appropriates ordinary terms for philosophical purposes, and if ever in his life anyone could have accused him of describing human beings in ultimately judgmental terms related to a right-wing ideology, he always could have resorted to the defense of, "I'm being misunderstood. I'm using the words differently. I'm using 'fate' and 'destiny' differently. I'm using 'tradition' differently, etc." (all terms he used with his own special meanings, by the way). I would recommend reading this work and also Michael Gelvin's commentary on Being and Time for a pretty good understanding of Heidegger's philosophy. Whereas Gelvin's commentary considers the work absent its political subtext, this work considers it with the political subtext.

[Lalax · Rating 3 out of 5]

Toujours du mal avec l'idée de "sociologue roi" qui se trouve derrière la critique faite par Bourdieu de la philosophie/ des champs philosophiques. En rejetant l'analyse logique de la philosophie heideggerienne, il laisse place à une forme de relativisme. L'analyse des propositions ne peut pas se faire seulement par d'autres propositions. Et en tant que je suis persuadé de l'existence du vrai , le moyen de parvenir au vrai se fait par la raison à travers une analyse syntaxique pure.
Cela ne veut pas dire que je rejette l'analyse sociologique de Bourdieu loin de là, mais disons plutôt que je cherche à voir plus loin. Bourdieu nous permet de voir ce qu'il se passe sous le voile du social mais quelle solution sa sociologie nous offre quant à la recherche de la vérité?

[Quiique · Rating 3 out of 5]

No sabía si ponerle dos o tres estrellas, finalmente tres: «Los profesores de filosofía han interiorizado tan profundamente la definición que excluye de la filosofía toda referencia abierta a la política que acabaron por olvidar que la filosofía de Heidegger es de parte a parte política»

[Fadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bourdieu concludes by suggesting that Heidegger should not be considered as a Nazi ideologist, that there is no place in Heidegger's philosophical ideas for a racist conception of the human being. Rather, he sees Heidegger's thought as a structural equivalent in the field of philosophy of the "conservative revolution," of which Nazism is but one manifestation.

[Genjiro]

So far, Bourdieu brings the most even-handed account of this continuously debated controversy over Heidegger’s association with National Socialism.

[Minäpäminä · Rating 2 out of 5]

An extremely reductionist (and I suspect consciously provocative) marxist interpretation of Martin Heidegger's philosophy. It started off well, situating Heidegger in the politico-intellectual milieu of his time (Spengler, Jünger, etc.), and I'm always down for some ideological analysis, but when Bourdieu writes things like ”Heidegger's philosophy is political from beginning to end”, he just comes off as ridiculous.

Bourdieu did have some astute observations but on the whole it's much too long (the point was well made in the first half) and simplistic.

[Teodora Lovin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pare că Bourdieu încearcă să justifice, printr-o viziune sociologică care, punctează noțiunea de Habitus și Câmp (champ), aderarea lui Heidegger la partidul national-socialist.

[Monokl Kitap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bourdieu'nun Heidegger'in görüşlerini dile getirdiği bu kitap felsefeyi ve düşünmeyi sevenler için bir başucu kitabı.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger," written by the influential French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, presents a critical examination of the philosophical and political dimensions of Martin Heidegger's thought. Published in 1991, Bourdieu's work delves into the intricate relationship between Heidegger's ontology and his political engagements, particularly his involvement with National Socialism.

Bourdieu's approach in this book is characterized by his unique blend of sociological analysis and philosophical inquiry. He meticulously dissects Heidegger's philosophical framework, focusing on the concepts of being, time, and Dasein, and scrutinizes their potential implications for and intersections with political ideology. This methodology enables Bourdieu to uncover the subtle yet profound ways in which Heidegger's philosophical positions might reflect and even support certain political stances.

A significant strength of the book is Bourdieu's application of his own sociological theories, particularly the concepts of habitus, field, and symbolic power, to understand Heidegger's philosophical journey. This perspective offers a refreshing and insightful analysis that extends beyond traditional philosophical critique, grounding Heidegger's work within a broader socio-historical context.

However, Bourdieu's critique has been a subject of contention among Heidegger scholars and philosophers. Some argue that Bourdieu's sociological lens may oversimplify or misinterpret the complexities and nuances of Heidegger's philosophical ideas. The risk is that the unique profundity and existential concerns of Heidegger's thought might be reduced to mere reflections of his political affiliations and the sociopolitical milieu of his time.

Additionally, the book's dense and challenging nature, typical of Bourdieu's style, may pose difficulties for readers who are not well-versed in both Heideggerian philosophy and Bourdieu's sociological theories. The nuanced and complex arguments require careful and engaged reading, potentially limiting the book's accessibility to a broader audience.

“The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger" by Pierre Bourdieu is a thought-provoking and scholarly critique that contributes significantly to the discourse surrounding Heidegger's philosophy and its political implications. Bourdieu's unique sociological approach enriches the understanding of Heidegger's work, though it may also invite criticism regarding its interpretation and breadth. The book is an essential read for those interested in the intersection of philosophy, sociology, and political theory, offering deep insights into the complex relationship between a thinker's philosophical and political convictions.

GPT

[Vip Vinyaratn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although reading Bourdieu is not the easiest thing. This is one of the best and the most accesible of all his works, espeacially if you, like myself, have familarised with his main theoretical concept: habitus, field, capital.