How exactly is Derluguian’s study sociological in nature? How are the questions he asks (Does globalization breed ethnic violence?), and the methodological means by which he proposes to answer them (a world-system biography), different from that of anthropology? He wants to get at global processes (why the explosion of ‘ethnic violence’ after the collapse of the Soviet regime in the non-Russian states) with a biography of the tumultuous life of Musa Shanib. Is it the world-perspective, his interest in world systems that situate his analysis within sociology? Derluguian also confronts the dilemma of agency vs structure, and the call for a via media through the new social science as espoused by Bourdieu, Tilly and Wallerstein. In order to offer a causal explanation of ‘the darker side of globalization’ he proposes a synthesis of historical sociology, a world-systems perspective and Bordieu’s notion of habitus (83). While I realize their scholarly agendas are completely divergent, I find Yurchak’s approach to ‘the problem of agency’ and how he looks at the creation of agency within specific (limited to both space and time) contexts, a more sophisticated analysis. While I found Derluguian’s explanations of broad historical processes useful to contextualize his approach (for example his discussion of the rise of capitalist and socialist economies as rooted in the mid-nineteenth century) I felt that his object of analysis was sometime too broad to offer meaningful analysis.
I’m also interested in discussing not only the obvious comparison with the Yurchak, but with Tsing as well. Derluguian is also interested an analysis of the ‘marco’ (historical trends and social configurations) through the lens of the ‘micro’ (empirical situations) (10). How does this compare with Tsing’s synthesis of the global/local dichotomy with engaged universality?
Derluguian explicitly addresses his audience in this text, nothing that he wants “to make them [his theories] accessible to readers who are not social scientitsts by vocation” (290). His motivation for doing this likely relates to his impression that “we are facing huge and hugely consequential theoretical, political, and ultimately moral choices” (289). The “we” here can’t just be social scientists, but the public at large. So while his topic is similar to Yurchak’s, I think his approach is more similar to Tsing’s. It has a bit of an “activist” flavor to it…which I mean that in a positive.
I wonder though, in Derluguian’s case, if the text is actually accessible to the general public. While he seems to limit the number of footnotes, (something that seemed odd to me until I considered his intended audience) I wasn’t convinced by the examples he chose to illustrate his assertions. I liked Tsing’s examples much more. Maybe my perception of the relative effectiveness of their examples stems from the problem of working with new theory (Derluguian) versus working with existing theory (Tsing). It’s simplistic, but maybe it’s just that working with existing theories provides more time for choosing examples?
I’m also interested in discussing the differences between Yurchak and Derluguian, particularly what tools they use to illustrate their assertions/reach their conclusions. Maybe I am misunderstanding the timeline of Soviet socialism, but Derluguian discusses how only after Stalin’s death is there “a strong impression that socialism had been actually achieved” (296). I think the later part of this period is what Yurchak calls “late socialism”. Yurchak comes to different conclusions, particularly about the different understandings, communities, and interests that were allowed in this period through hypernormalization. Can we reconcile these two different assertions?
As I read through Derluguian’s text, I constantly found myself asking why this book is categorized as sociology rather than anthropology. He uses an ethnographic methodology, situates himself within the text in a way similar to other anthropological monographs, and uses history as a backbone of his analysis. It seems as though this book could have easily been camouflaged as an anthropological text, if the author had not repeatedly described it as sociological. However, unlike other texts I have read, Derluguian does not seem to hesitate to make generalizations out of his findings. While he work is expressly focused on a specific region, his argument or central question is generalizing in nature. Posing such a daring question, (i.e. does globalization breed ethnic violence?) and using a micro level analysis to reach a macro scale, is not as common of a move in anthropology. His text does not come across as fieldwork done for the sake of broadening knowledge of a particular phenomenon in a region. Rather, he investigates the micro with the intention of furthering knowledge of a global/macro phenomenon.
Perhaps I'm asking a stupid question: How Bourdieu is related to this book, apart from the appearance in the title?
Of course, Derluguian starts with a seemingly paradoxical "situation": Musa Shanib, one center figure of several civic wars and revolutions, and someone who "may be" associated with the certain war crimes, actually reads Pierre Bourdieu.
The self-reflexive introduction, the persistent reminders of "personal ethics", and the deliberate critical-distance between the author and the interlocutors seem to suggest that the author is dealing certain "uncommon men". And those uncommon men are pretty much in the "other" side of the world, namely in the world of wars, fighting, and terrorism. By the same token, the author, implicitedly, puts his subjects into the opposite side of what we call "sociology" today. It is this strange event that a revolutionist actually is a "Bourdieu's secret admirer" creates the title.
This little "paradox" on one hand seems to provide the author a bridge of this two very different worlds, i.e. the world of wars and the world of intellectuals. But can we step back to think about this so-called paradox?
First of all, the relations of this book and Bourdieu, as pointed out by Stephanie, is pretty much a name-dropping. (Though I LOVE to read the author detailed narcissictic description of his correspondence with, in his mind, THE sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu!) The title seems to endorse, rather than to question, the underlying structure of intellectuals should be at the brigher (democratic, humanistic) side of the world. But is it really the case? We should not forget intellect is always the tool of the power. Though the author tries to use the "world-system", or the social situation", to explain certain causual relationships of the "shifting of the self-governance project" (paraphased 287), it seems to me that it is not a satisfactory answer of the failing of certainly originally good-faithed ideals.
4 Comments:
At 4:50 PM,
rheabonita said…
How exactly is Derluguian’s study sociological in nature? How are the questions he asks (Does globalization breed ethnic violence?), and the methodological means by which he proposes to answer them (a world-system biography), different from that of anthropology? He wants to get at global processes (why the explosion of ‘ethnic violence’ after the collapse of the Soviet regime in the non-Russian states) with a biography of the tumultuous life of Musa Shanib. Is it the world-perspective, his interest in world systems that situate his analysis within sociology?
Derluguian also confronts the dilemma of agency vs structure, and the call for a via media through the new social science as espoused by Bourdieu, Tilly and Wallerstein. In order to offer a causal explanation of ‘the darker side of globalization’ he proposes a synthesis of historical sociology, a world-systems perspective and Bordieu’s notion of habitus (83). While I realize their scholarly agendas are completely divergent, I find Yurchak’s approach to ‘the problem of agency’ and how he looks at the creation of agency within specific (limited to both space and time) contexts, a more sophisticated analysis. While I found Derluguian’s explanations of broad historical processes useful to contextualize his approach (for example his discussion of the rise of capitalist and socialist economies as rooted in the mid-nineteenth century) I felt that his object of analysis was sometime too broad to offer meaningful analysis.
I’m also interested in discussing not only the obvious comparison with the Yurchak, but with Tsing as well. Derluguian is also interested an analysis of the ‘marco’ (historical trends and social configurations) through the lens of the ‘micro’ (empirical situations) (10). How does this compare with Tsing’s synthesis of the global/local dichotomy with engaged universality?
At 6:15 PM,
melinda said…
Derluguian explicitly addresses his audience in this text, nothing that he wants “to make them [his theories] accessible to readers who are not social scientitsts by vocation” (290). His motivation for doing this likely relates to his impression that “we are facing huge and hugely consequential theoretical, political, and ultimately moral choices” (289). The “we” here can’t just be social scientists, but the public at large. So while his topic is similar to Yurchak’s, I think his approach is more similar to Tsing’s. It has a bit of an “activist” flavor to it…which I mean that in a positive.
I wonder though, in Derluguian’s case, if the text is actually accessible to the general public. While he seems to limit the number of footnotes, (something that seemed odd to me until I considered his intended audience) I wasn’t convinced by the examples he chose to illustrate his assertions. I liked Tsing’s examples much more. Maybe my perception of the relative effectiveness of their examples stems from the problem of working with new theory (Derluguian) versus working with existing theory (Tsing). It’s simplistic, but maybe it’s just that working with existing theories provides more time for choosing examples?
I’m also interested in discussing the differences between Yurchak and Derluguian, particularly what tools they use to illustrate their assertions/reach their conclusions. Maybe I am misunderstanding the timeline of Soviet socialism, but Derluguian discusses how only after Stalin’s death is there “a strong impression that socialism had been actually achieved” (296). I think the later part of this period is what Yurchak calls “late socialism”. Yurchak comes to different conclusions, particularly about the different understandings, communities, and interests that were allowed in this period through hypernormalization. Can we reconcile these two different assertions?
At 7:56 PM,
Jenny K. said…
As I read through Derluguian’s text, I constantly found myself asking why this book is categorized as sociology rather than anthropology. He uses an ethnographic methodology, situates himself within the text in a way similar to other anthropological monographs, and uses history as a backbone of his analysis. It seems as though this book could have easily been camouflaged as an anthropological text, if the author had not repeatedly described it as sociological. However, unlike other texts I have read, Derluguian does not seem to hesitate to make generalizations out of his findings. While he work is expressly focused on a specific region, his argument or central question is generalizing in nature. Posing such a daring question, (i.e. does globalization breed ethnic violence?) and using a micro level analysis to reach a macro scale, is not as common of a move in anthropology. His text does not come across as fieldwork done for the sake of broadening knowledge of a particular phenomenon in a region. Rather, he investigates the micro with the intention of furthering knowledge of a global/macro phenomenon.
At 2:22 PM,
Jason Lau said…
Perhaps I'm asking a stupid question: How Bourdieu is related to this book, apart from the appearance in the title?
Of course, Derluguian starts with a seemingly paradoxical "situation": Musa Shanib, one center figure of several civic wars and revolutions, and someone who "may be" associated with the certain war crimes, actually reads Pierre Bourdieu.
The self-reflexive introduction, the persistent reminders of "personal ethics", and the deliberate critical-distance between the author and the interlocutors seem to suggest that the author is dealing certain "uncommon men". And those uncommon men are pretty much in the "other" side of the world, namely in the world of wars, fighting, and terrorism. By the same token, the author, implicitedly, puts his subjects into the opposite side of what we call "sociology" today. It is this strange event that a revolutionist actually is a "Bourdieu's secret admirer" creates the title.
This little "paradox" on one hand seems to provide the author a bridge of this two very different worlds, i.e. the world of wars and the world of intellectuals. But can we step back to think about this so-called paradox?
First of all, the relations of this book and Bourdieu, as pointed out by
Stephanie, is pretty much a name-dropping. (Though I LOVE to read the author detailed narcissictic description of his correspondence with, in his mind, THE sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu!) The title seems to endorse, rather than to question, the underlying structure of intellectuals should be at the brigher (democratic, humanistic) side of the world. But is it really the case? We should not forget intellect is always the tool of the power. Though the author tries to use the "world-system", or the social situation", to explain certain causual relationships of the
"shifting of the self-governance project" (paraphased 287), it seems to me that it is not a satisfactory answer of the failing of certainly originally good-faithed ideals.
Post a Comment
<< Home