|
he
movements against neoliberal globalization and global militarism have
had, so far, two extraordinary figures of contemporary thought - Pierre
Bourdieu and Noam Chomsky; Bourdieu, the French sociologist and the
heir to German philosophical tradition, probably the greatest sociologist
of the second half of the 20th century; Chomsky, American linguist,
the determined Cartesian , particularly sensitive to methodological
misuses in the social sciences. Both these men were the representatives
of specific intellectual atmosphere - European and Anglo-American.
Many renowned scientists, like Jean Bricmont, have dreamed of the
potential dialogue between these two scientists and engaged intellectuals
and of their possible mutual work. However, the cultural distance
between them allowed only for their joint participation in various
petitions.
Today,
the progressive world is an orphan, after Pierre Bourdieu died of
cancer in his 71st year of age. Sensitive to the injustice of all
the systems based on domination and social repression, which he used
to expose in his work on both national and international scale, Bourdieu
did not hesitate to devote himself to engaging on various fronts.
Palestine cause was the last of these, where he tried to contribute
to the cause by putting his signature to the appeal sent to the "Bisar
Committee", aiming at liberating of Azmi Bisara.
His
engagement at the Balkans has been under the sign of the petition
known as the "Brussels Appeal" which he signed, together with Noam
Chomsky in April 2000, surrounded by dissatisfaction of those left
wing representatives who considered this document "too much inclined
to Belgrade" on one hand, and on the other hand by others who asked
for his resolute support to Belgrade politics of the time. Bourdieu,
however, as a witness of the leftist movement's superficial dogmatism
of the 60s of the previous century, and as an acquaintance of former
radicals who are today the intellectual managers of the neo-liberal
globalization, abhorred hasty judgments and injudicious support. As
for the topics such as Yugoslavia, Bourdieu left the talk to those
much better acquainted with the subject, helping them only when his
influence was needed. His sociological method detached him from the
abstract Leninist-type explicative patterns, allowing him to encompass,
by the viewpoint of an "scientific intellectual", the underlying structural
processes, identifying the causes and limitations of emancipation,
so as to be able to use them more effectively.
Pierre
Bourdieu has refined the tastes of thousands of people regarding critical
reflection, rejection of fatalism, adhering to the progressive enlightenment
values, as opposed to current post-modernistic intellectual trends.
On
the other end of the empty homage to the "great deceased professor",
bestowed to him by the institutional structures he had despised, and
which despised him in turn, there remains now and for a long time
to come, Pierre Bourdieu's intellectual and political message, readily
accepted and passed on by many people, with the same enthusiasm and
scientific eagerness he himself had had. There also remain his books
and essays, waiting to be translated, as the cornerstones of the international
collective project. These are the works that are never to be sacralized,
but studied over again and adjusted, with a critical perspective,
to new situations.
|
|