I think that, for me, it was the dissection of the mechanism of ambiguity.
But I am on your side, really. Bourdieu (in translation)does have a way
with words (he uses far too many...).
Charles.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Rhoades [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 October 1999 15:59
To: DS LR Surv Lt Col C M St G Kirke
Cc: [log in to unmask]; aaa
Subject: Re: Double Meanings/Ambiguity and language.
Charles:
"Neat" should not be attached to an expression which is so turgid and
opaque. And what is "unneat" about the simple use of the term
"ambiguity"?
John
:::....:..::::...:::..:...:...:.:.::::.::::....::..:....:::::..:...::..:
John Rhoades, Chair "What to do! What to do?" said
Department of Anthropology Confucius. "Indeed I do not know
St. John Fisher College what to do with a man who does not
Rochester, New York 14618 ask himself this."
(716) 385-8211 [log in to unmask]
/\\////\//\////\/\\\\//\/\/\\\\/\\///\/\///\\\\/\\\\\/\/\\////\\\//\\\\/\
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, DS LR Surv Lt Col C M St G Kirke wrote:
> I came across this passage in a book by the anthropologist/sociologist
> Pierre Bourdieu just now (please forgive the translator for preserving the
> rhythm and pace of the text which is highly convoluted):
>
> '... whereas the ordinary practice of euphemization ... substitutes one
word
> for another, or visibly neutralizes the ordinary meaning of an excessively
> marked word by an explicit caution (inverted commas, for instance) or a
> distinctive definition, Heidegger proceeds in a manner that is infinetly
> more complex: by using the ordinary word, but in a network of
> morphologically interconnected words, he invites a philological and
> polyphonic reading that is able to evoke and revoke the ordinary sense
> simultaneiously, able to suggest it while ostensibly repressing it, along
> with its pejorative connotations, into the order of vulgar ...
> understanding'
>
> Language and Symbolic Power (Polity Press, 1991) page 148.
>
> If you can hack through the verdant verbeage, you will see a neat
expression
> of the power of ambiguity without resort to prurience or sniggering.
>
> I could not have put it better myself (but I might perhaps have used fewer
> words)!
>
> Charles.
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|