Comments on: The true paternity of the habitus /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:00:10 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1 By: Kerim /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/comment-page-1/#comment-234808 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:54:11 +0000 /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/#comment-234808 @Bookbinder:

Orz

]]> By: Bookbinder /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/comment-page-1/#comment-234502 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:08:37 +0000 /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/#comment-234502 I’m late to this discussion, but I don’t understand what the point of Kerim’s post was, especially since the link between Bourdieu’s notion of the habitus and Panofsky’s work was first identified by Bourdieu himself, in his 1967 “postface” to Panofsky’s Architecture gothique et pensée scholastic, Bourdieu repeated this in at least two subsequent publications in the 1990s, and Reed-Danahay discussed it in her book Locating Bourdieu. It’s useful of Bill Hanks to spell it out in detail, but the connection is hardly a discovery. Is Kerim simply commenting that his belief was false? The failure of Omniscience?

]]> By: Adam Kucharski /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/comment-page-1/#comment-230839 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:52:06 +0000 /2008/02/29/the-true-paternity-of-the-habitus/#comment-230839 Marvelous catch Kerim! I actually think that the postface to the Panofksy translation was Bourdieu’s first published use of the word Habitus. It was also one of Bourdieu’s only engagements (however indirect) with architecture, other than his essay on the Kabyle house, which was still pretty hardcore structuralist. Thanks!

]]>