Bourdieu is recognized as a master of the 20th century French sociology most internationally influential, compared to the 19 century, Durkheim and Marx · Weber, the traditional sociological research method, Bourdieu put forward a comprehensive sociological method rule on the basis of the two, this rule can be simply expressed as: “In Durkheim method holism The rules of direct experience of neglected individual actors are introduced on the basis of this. “” Obviously, Bourdieu’s method rules are a new synthesis of sociological methodological holism and methodological individualism. In this synthesis, Individuals (actors) and society (structures) are equally important, and individuals and society are not simply pieced together, thus successfully avoiding the reefs of methodological eclecticism. “Bourdieu’s methodological principles bridge the holistic weight” The gap between “reality”, “objectivity” and individualism emphasizes “individual” and “subjective”, eliminating the second part of the traditional sociological methodology Opposition, which will study sociological shift from “individual social action,” Emile Durkheim “social facts” and Max Weber’s research into the study of the “field” of.
His efforts in sociology methodology to “bridge” the contradiction of the traditional “dualism” also extended to his research purpose of literary and artistic works. In the foreword of “The Law of Art”, Bourdieu very decisively and clearly put forward his research purpose: to give literary works a scientific and rational analysis, so that “the emotional love of works can be Perfection is achieved in love. “Bourdieu believes that too many critics, writers and even philosophers have given the extraordinary sanctification of works of art, and most of them have avoided rational understanding of works of art. For example, Gadamer once said:” Art works The argument of “escape infinitely from all interpretations” elevates the status of art to a near-religious sacred position. Bourdieu deeply rejects this view that art is infinitely perceptual or indescribable, so he began to use himself Sociological methodology has attacked this theory of art criticism. On the surface, Bourdieu is trying to bridge the duality of “rational” and “perceptual” in art criticism theory or to balance each other. A scientific analysis of “perceptual” literary and artistic works, but it is interesting to note that Bourdieu’s efforts on himself Without doing so, he thought that his scientific and rational analysis of works of art using sociological methodological principles did not return to the ancient antithesis of “mind” and “feeling”. Bourdieu believed that The relationship between scientific interpretation and perceptual experience is not absolutely contradictory, but rather complementary. Scientific analysis does not damage the artistry of literary and artistic works. Instead, it can provide a verification of the artisticity of literary and artistic works from the perspective of reason and science. Persuasive arguments. Bourdieu’s research method of analyzing works of art from a sociological perspective shows that literary and artistic works can have not only aesthetic significance but also pluralistic values of sociological significance. On the other hand, Bourdieu uses sociology The methodological efforts in art criticism are trying to solve a long-standing traditional “dualism” problem. Since the time of Cartesian rationalism, bridging the gap between “rational” and “perceptual” in the field of human cognition, or There has always been a problem of discussing who is the better of the two. Bourdieu’s “Old Questions and New Solutions” efforts in the book “The Law of Art” are very worthy of confirmation, but it turns out that in In the process of actual research, it is very difficult to perfectly balance the relationship between the two. In the book “The Law of Art”, Bourdieu allows “the emotional love of works to be achieved in a kind of mental love. Whether the goal of “perfect” is achieved,
in the “art of the law,” a book, Bourdieu to Flaubert’s novel “emotional education” for the study, presented his famous concept of “field”, Bourdieu believe that it was the social context The constant struggles and changes between the political, literary, artistic, and commercial fields of the country have contributed to the fate changes of the characters in the novel. Each person in the novel has to be controlled by these external field changes, and is thus controlled by Pushed into different fate choices.
Bourdieu used the concept of “field” to make a rational interpretation of Frederick’s fate in a sociological sense. This analysis method provides readers with a better understanding of the fate of the hero in the novel. Grab your hand, but Bourdieu ignores one of the most important keywords “emotion” when explaining “Emotional Education” in a sociological way. Bourdieu can explain Frederick’s fate in every time through the concept of field. The sociological motivation behind the choices he made in key places, but he ignored the biggest, but most important factor behind Frederick’s choices, is the emotional source of Frederick-Arnu Mrs. Bourdieu was unable to use his calm and objective sociological scalpel to dissect the reason for the irrational and romantic feelings of Mrs. Arnu to Mrs. Arnu. “Emotion” is exactly a literary and artistic work The most important factor that proves its own value. From ancient times to the present, all art theories cannot deny that place in literary and artistic works. Move people, thus there is a glimpse of the reason is that artistic expression for mankind “emotion” in the spirit of humanity in the river. As the British scholar Collingwood put forward in his later book “Principles of Art”: “Nothing is more ordinary than saying that an artist expresses emotions. This concept is familiar to every artist, and it is also a bit Anyone who knows art is familiar. “Then the characteristic of art with emotional expression determines that art must be emotional or irrational to a certain extent. This is from the father of aesthetics, who named aesthetics as” “Perceptual science” has obtained potential proof. For so many years, there has been a clear line between art and science that is separated by sensibility and reason. Non-mathematicians are lingering on the edge of this line, trying to make the two better integrate each other’s three major criticisms of Kant. It seems to clear up the relationship between the two, but since Kant, in the field of art criticism, the debate on perceptual cognition and rational analysis is still very lively.
Since entering modern society, the reflection on the spirit of rational instrumentalism has led to a series of theories that countered modernity by aestheticism, such as Kant, Hegel, Schiller, Marx Weber, and Marcuse in the field of sociology. They believe that only art can free human beings from the shackles of reason. If the rationality is still to be used for analysis and interpretation in the field of art, then the value and vitality of art itself will cease to exist under the trample of rationalism. The author believes that the two are different in function and not incompatible. The real question is not whether the relationship between perceptual and rational is contradictory. The real question is in the literary and artistic works. This species is closer to its core value.
Bourdieu as a sociologist, is obviously well versed in the advantages of scientific analysis, but he is also very clear that the analysis of literary and artistic works must not open around the end of one of the most important topic that is, “What is art art”? This is the key to affirming the core value of a literary and artistic work. Although he used his concept of “field” to scientifically analyze Flaubert’s ingenuity in organizing the story structure of the novel “Emotional Education”, but in the final analysis Flaubert did not leave his name in history as a sociologist, but in the history of literature as a writer. So what made Emotional Education a great work? That is to say, what made language become literature, what made art become art instead of other things? Eventually this problem was unfolded in front of Bourdieu, so in the last part of the book “The Law of Art”, he deliberately took out a chapter to discuss it.
Bourdieu first put forward a view that in a long historical period, philosophers, linguists, semanticians, and art historians caused the “literary nature” of literature or the “poetic nature” of poetry. The discussion of the aesthetic issues of the United States, the answers are placed on such attributes as non-motivation, non-function, or form is higher than function, regardless of interests, etc. He believes that these answers have been committed in order to turn the experience of artworks into a universal nature. The non-historical errors of evaluating works and works, those purely aesthetic definitions of “artisticity” of art, that is, purely non-functional and unmotivated attention to works of art, to a certain extent also the history of the emergence of autonomous art fields The result is that Bourdieu successfully put the answer to this question in his sociological system when answering the question of what is the artistry of the work of art, so he said: “The meaning of art and The question of value, like the specificity of aesthetic judgment, can only be found in the social history of the field, which is the society that constitutes conditions with a particular aesthetic configuration In connection, the field requires such a sociological existence in every situation. “Bourdieu questioned the essentialism and universalism of artistic works in art theory, and pulled the core issue back to his own. In the theoretical framework of sociology, this precisely caused the limitation of Bourdieu’s theory. Bourdieu’s criticism based on the theory alone cast away the richness of literary and artistic works, making literary and artistic works become a tool for the theory to prove itself, thereby obscuring the true artistic charm of artworks. As Susan Sontag puts it in her book, “Opposite to Interpretation”, she started from the artistic sensibility and put forward the damage of “interpretation” to the contagious power of art. For cultures in the age-old dilemma of intellectual over-inflation at the expense of vitality and sensation, interpretation is revenge on art. “She believes:” True art can make us uneasy … and interpretation makes art accessible. Control, become obedient. ”
Bourdieu tried to uncover the mysterious veil on the periphery of art with scientific calm analysis, but he also had to face the question from the art ontology when he questioned the mysterious value of art. When it can also be interpreted in a completely scientific way, then art is the core value of art, that is, whether the “aesthetic” value is destroyed by scientific interpretation. This is given by Gegel in the book “The Meaning of Art” For some answers that can be used for reference, Geiger believes that the “aesthetic” value of art is what people feel, experience, and enjoy, and it is the most irrational thing. Obviously, when Bourdieu used scientific rationality to “disenchant” art works, he also made the mistake of traditional rationalists. He ignored the irrational part of the aesthetic value of art works. From this point of view, Bourdieu Dieu’s criticism of literary and artistic works using sociological methods is imperfect, but this does not affect his contribution as a sociologist to literary and artistic criticism. On the other hand, Bourdieu is using scientific rationality In the process of disenchanting art, it contradicts the self-discipline and transcendence of art, and this self-discipline and transcendence is the most indispensable important feature in literary and artistic works.