Sobre a subjetividade e a objetividade na obra de Pierre Bourdieu: uma investigação conceitual
Carregando...
Data
2021-09-10
Autores
Seabra Santos, Bruno Vinícius Borges de
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
A obra de Pierre Bourdieu tem sido amplamente estudada em diversas áreas do conhecimento. Encontramos, de maneira recorrente, pesquisas na Pedagogia, História, Psicologia, entre outras, que procuram relacionar as observações, empíricas e teóricas, com as propostas descritas por esse autor ao longo de sua trajetória. Sua teoria instiga o debate multidisciplinar, pois, além de vasta, abarca inúmeras possibilidades de articulação. Seus principais conceitos – habitus, campo social e capital – ensejam complexidades que demandam a ampliação das discussões acerca da constituição do homem no mundo. Para além disso, permitem pensar a relação que o autor propõe entre a objetividade e a subjetividade, desde seus primeiros trabalhos. De início, o autor determina uma relação entre o estruturalismo e a fenomenologia, tendo a praxiologia como resultado, para dar conta desse problema. Porém, notamos, ao longo dessa dissertação, que conforme sua carreira avançou, o autor expandiu o debate acerca dos condicionantes para a formação do habitus. Bourdieu acreditava que os campos sociais funcionam em uma lógica de jogo, de competição, em que o agente busca ascender em suas posições, procurando sair da condição de dominado, ou se mantendo enquanto dominante. O que ocorre é que o autor percebeu que esse jogo abarca tensões e angústias para aqueles que disputam mas, mesmo assim, consegue fazer com que haja aceitação e interesse tácito em participar. Esse interesse é um dos problemas que procuramos investigar. Ele passa por uma via que Bourdieu chamou de inconsciente, ou aquilo que ele entendeu como a “história social esquecida”, internalizada e objetivada, porém recalcada. Na medida em que avançou nessa pesquisa, o sociólogo percebeu que a menção à ideia de “interesse” se torna um problema, pois parece conceder um sentido puramente racional à ação. Por esse motivo, esse conceito é abandonado e substituído pela illusio. Acreditamos que essa menção representa uma revolução metateórica na obra do autor, o que nos distanciou da percepção inicial que previa o agente como mero reprodutor das disposições idiossincráticas dos campos. Não podemos afirmar que os indivíduos são “marionetes” do contexto, da estrutura, uma vez que o desejo de participar do jogo social não se apresenta como simples fator da vontade individual, mas da relação subjetiva com a história objetificada do meio, responsável por imputar, por via da violência simbólica, o desejo constante por reconhecimento. A partir dessas observações, notamos maior abertura do autor à incorporação do conceito de “sujeito” em sua obra, bem como de relações com algumas proposições bastante presentes nos meios psicológicos e psicanalíticos, sobretudo nos seus escritos finais. Por esse motivo, procuramos organizar o texto de maneira cronológica para compreendermos o desapego crescente do autor, ao longo dos anos, do estruturalismo ortodoxo. Nesse sentido, defendemos que Bourdieu é um autor importante para o conhecimento da Psicologia, pois não concedeu maior importância às questões objetivas ou subjetivas de constituição do sujeito. Entendemos que ele procurou, em realidade, compreender essa tênue e conflituosa relação.
Pierre Bourdieu's work has been widely studied in several areas of knowledge. We find, recurrently, researches in Pedagogy, History, Psychology, among others, which seek to relate empirical and theoretical observations with the proposals described by this author throughout his career. His theory instigates multidisciplinary debate, as, in addition to being vast, it encompasses countless possibilities for articulation. Its main concepts – habitus, social field and capital – give rise to complexities that demand the expansion of discussions about the constitution of the human in the world. Furthermore, they allow us to think about the relationship that the author proposes between objectivity and subjectivity, since his first works. Initially, the author determines a relationship between structuralism and phenomenology, with praxeology as a result, to deal with this problem. However, we noted, throughout this dissertation, that as his career progressed, the author expanded the debate about the conditions for the formation of the habitus. Bourdieu believed that the social fields work in a game logic, of competition, in which the agent seeks to ascend in their positions, trying to get out of the condition of being dominated, or remaining as dominant. What happens is that the author realized that this game encompasses tensions and anxieties for those who compete, but even so, it manages to ensure that there is acceptance and a tacit interest in participating. This interest is one of the problems we seek to investigate. He goes through a path that Bourdieu called the unconscious, or what he understood as the “forgotten social history”, internalized and objectified, but repressed. As he advanced in this research, the sociologist realized that the mention of the idea of “interest” becomes a problem, as it seems to give a purely rational meaning to the action. For this reason, this concept is abandoned and replaced by illusio. We believe that this mention represents a metatheoretical revolution in the author's work, which distanced us from the initial perception that saw the agent as a mere reproducer of the idiosyncratic dispositions of the fields. We cannot say that individuals are "puppets" of the context, of the structure, since the desire to participate in the social game is not presented as a simple factor of individual will, but of the subjective relationship with the objectified history of the environment, responsible for imputing, through symbolic violence, the constant desire for recognition. Based on these observations, we noticed that the author started a dialogue that allowed the incorporation of the concept of “subject” in his work, as well as to relations with some propositions that are very present in psychological and psychoanalytic means, especially in his final writings. For this reason, we tried to organize the text in a chronological way in order to understand the author's growing detachment, over the years, from orthodox structuralism. In this sense, we defend that Bourdieu is an important author for the knowledge of Psychology, as he did not give greater importance to objective or subjective issues of subject constitution. We understand that he actually tried to understand this tenuous and conflicting relationship.
Pierre Bourdieu's work has been widely studied in several areas of knowledge. We find, recurrently, researches in Pedagogy, History, Psychology, among others, which seek to relate empirical and theoretical observations with the proposals described by this author throughout his career. His theory instigates multidisciplinary debate, as, in addition to being vast, it encompasses countless possibilities for articulation. Its main concepts – habitus, social field and capital – give rise to complexities that demand the expansion of discussions about the constitution of the human in the world. Furthermore, they allow us to think about the relationship that the author proposes between objectivity and subjectivity, since his first works. Initially, the author determines a relationship between structuralism and phenomenology, with praxeology as a result, to deal with this problem. However, we noted, throughout this dissertation, that as his career progressed, the author expanded the debate about the conditions for the formation of the habitus. Bourdieu believed that the social fields work in a game logic, of competition, in which the agent seeks to ascend in their positions, trying to get out of the condition of being dominated, or remaining as dominant. What happens is that the author realized that this game encompasses tensions and anxieties for those who compete, but even so, it manages to ensure that there is acceptance and a tacit interest in participating. This interest is one of the problems we seek to investigate. He goes through a path that Bourdieu called the unconscious, or what he understood as the “forgotten social history”, internalized and objectified, but repressed. As he advanced in this research, the sociologist realized that the mention of the idea of “interest” becomes a problem, as it seems to give a purely rational meaning to the action. For this reason, this concept is abandoned and replaced by illusio. We believe that this mention represents a metatheoretical revolution in the author's work, which distanced us from the initial perception that saw the agent as a mere reproducer of the idiosyncratic dispositions of the fields. We cannot say that individuals are "puppets" of the context, of the structure, since the desire to participate in the social game is not presented as a simple factor of individual will, but of the subjective relationship with the objectified history of the environment, responsible for imputing, through symbolic violence, the constant desire for recognition. Based on these observations, we noticed that the author started a dialogue that allowed the incorporation of the concept of “subject” in his work, as well as to relations with some propositions that are very present in psychological and psychoanalytic means, especially in his final writings. For this reason, we tried to organize the text in a chronological way in order to understand the author's growing detachment, over the years, from orthodox structuralism. In this sense, we defend that Bourdieu is an important author for the knowledge of Psychology, as he did not give greater importance to objective or subjective issues of subject constitution. We understand that he actually tried to understand this tenuous and conflicting relationship.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Bourdieu, Pierre, Subjetividade, Habitus, Illusio, Psicologia