Scan barcode
weasleyoswald's review against another edition
3.0
Je mets 3 parce que le travail de Bourdieu qui a pour but d'expliquer le système inconscient de comment la domination masculine fonctionne et se répète est vraiment intéressant mais certaines références à d'autres systèmes de domination comme la suprématie blanche par exemple est je trouve vachement laissée de côté et a pourtant un impact énorme sur la domination masculine.
+ l'annexe sur le mouvement LGBTI+ est vraiment condescendante et ici ne juge pas la valeur que la communauté a eue dans le fait de déconstruire la domination masculine (et comment elle est aussi présente à l'intérieur du mouvement) mais plutôt vise à critiquer le fait que la communauté n'est pas vraiment en état de demander des droits à être visibles si ce qu'elle cherche est en fait d'être indifferenciée des autres et donc que c'est une utopie/stupide communautarisation...
Bref le boug passe à côté des questions des relations lesbiennes, d'échanges de dominations opérées dans la transidentité qui seraient grave intéressants d'étudier pour déconstruire le thème de la domination masculine.
+ l'annexe sur le mouvement LGBTI+ est vraiment condescendante et ici ne juge pas la valeur que la communauté a eue dans le fait de déconstruire la domination masculine (et comment elle est aussi présente à l'intérieur du mouvement) mais plutôt vise à critiquer le fait que la communauté n'est pas vraiment en état de demander des droits à être visibles si ce qu'elle cherche est en fait d'être indifferenciée des autres et donc que c'est une utopie/stupide communautarisation...
Bref le boug passe à côté des questions des relations lesbiennes, d'échanges de dominations opérées dans la transidentité qui seraient grave intéressants d'étudier pour déconstruire le thème de la domination masculine.
takeruoji's review against another edition
3.0
Wenig Neues über die androzentrtierte westliche Gesellschaft. Bourdieu verbindet in diesem Spätwerk Herrschaftstheorien einer androzentrierten Gesellschaft mit seinem eigenen Werk und Begriffen wie soziales Feld, Habitus oder sozialen und symbolischen Kapital. Zunächst beginnend mit einem ethnographischen Teil über die Geschlechtsunterschiede bei den Kabylen geht er fließend über in Produktions- und Reproduktionsmechanismen der Dominanz einer männlichen Herrschaft.
Das Werk ist an sich nicht uninteressant, allerdings erschien das französische Original 1998, die deutsche Erstausgabe 2005. Und damit eigentlich zu spät, um wirklich relevant zu sein. Der Inhalt passt, wirkt aber wie eine Wiederholung bekannter Themen, so etwa der sozialen Konstruktion des Geschlechts in Judith Butlers Gender Trouble (1990 erschienen).
Da das gebotene auch nicht wirklich mit Verve verfasst/übersetzt ist (aber nicht unleserlich ist) reicht es nur für drei Sterne.
Das Werk ist an sich nicht uninteressant, allerdings erschien das französische Original 1998, die deutsche Erstausgabe 2005. Und damit eigentlich zu spät, um wirklich relevant zu sein. Der Inhalt passt, wirkt aber wie eine Wiederholung bekannter Themen, so etwa der sozialen Konstruktion des Geschlechts in Judith Butlers Gender Trouble (1990 erschienen).
Da das gebotene auch nicht wirklich mit Verve verfasst/übersetzt ist (aber nicht unleserlich ist) reicht es nur für drei Sterne.
roxanamalinachirila's review against another edition
3.0
Before saying anything else, I'd like to mention that the Romanian translation of this book is terrible. I think that there are a few Romanians out there who believe you must Work Hard in order to gain Access To Culture, and they do their best to discourage all those who are unworthy from reading.
The English translation is actually comprehensible, so I switched to that one.
But what about the contents of the book in itself, right?
"Masculine Domination" is a non-fiction book written by French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu. The topic should be immediately obvious from the title - but unfortunately, the context of the book is not. As I was reading, I realized Bourdieu had decided to apply some of his older theories in a new context, which means I had to google some terms and ideas to figure out what he was going on about.
The basic points are thus:
1. It's pretty difficult to understand something that you yourself are part of. As everyone is part of the "what gender are you?" game, understanding genders is pretty damned hard.
2. There are things we take for granted and which we perceive as natural, because we project our beliefs regarding them on nature, then draw on nature (now infused with our beliefs) to reinforce those ideas. Traits that we associate with genders tend to go through such a process.
3. Our view of the world will often be in line with the dominant view of the world, even if we are dominated. Women perceive the world through the lens of men, for example - if 'decisiveness' is male and 'nurturing' is female, and men see the first as more valuable than the latter, women will borrow that, too - and they may value decisiveness in women more than they value nurturing in women.
4. This view of the world informs the way people act, including the dominated, including in the absence of legal constraints. Back to the 'decisiveness' example: women can shy away from that trait because it's not for them, it's not feminine.
5. We haven't come as far as we think we have from a feminist point of view, because these internalized mechanisms still guide us.
The book is interesting, but I have a few issues with it:
- Bourdieu talks about Kabyle society for a large part of this book, because it's traditional Mediterranean, but he often switches back to Western society - I feel that the connection doesn't follow (especially since he doesn't motivate it much).
- he doesn't touch on the obvious objection that some traits might really be innate and natural, rather than accepted at such a deep level that they seem to be that way (I mean it: it's an obvious objection, people make it, Bourdieu doesn't discuss it).
- it feels a bit incomplete, especially on its own.
Maybe the book made more sense the way it is when it was published 20 years ago, or maybe it was never meant to be a larger, deeper work. Either way, it's food for thought, but not as good as I'd hoped.
The English translation is actually comprehensible, so I switched to that one.
But what about the contents of the book in itself, right?
"Masculine Domination" is a non-fiction book written by French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu. The topic should be immediately obvious from the title - but unfortunately, the context of the book is not. As I was reading, I realized Bourdieu had decided to apply some of his older theories in a new context, which means I had to google some terms and ideas to figure out what he was going on about.
The basic points are thus:
1. It's pretty difficult to understand something that you yourself are part of. As everyone is part of the "what gender are you?" game, understanding genders is pretty damned hard.
2. There are things we take for granted and which we perceive as natural, because we project our beliefs regarding them on nature, then draw on nature (now infused with our beliefs) to reinforce those ideas. Traits that we associate with genders tend to go through such a process.
3. Our view of the world will often be in line with the dominant view of the world, even if we are dominated. Women perceive the world through the lens of men, for example - if 'decisiveness' is male and 'nurturing' is female, and men see the first as more valuable than the latter, women will borrow that, too - and they may value decisiveness in women more than they value nurturing in women.
4. This view of the world informs the way people act, including the dominated, including in the absence of legal constraints. Back to the 'decisiveness' example: women can shy away from that trait because it's not for them, it's not feminine.
5. We haven't come as far as we think we have from a feminist point of view, because these internalized mechanisms still guide us.
The book is interesting, but I have a few issues with it:
- Bourdieu talks about Kabyle society for a large part of this book, because it's traditional Mediterranean, but he often switches back to Western society - I feel that the connection doesn't follow (especially since he doesn't motivate it much).
- he doesn't touch on the obvious objection that some traits might really be innate and natural, rather than accepted at such a deep level that they seem to be that way (I mean it: it's an obvious objection, people make it, Bourdieu doesn't discuss it).
- it feels a bit incomplete, especially on its own.
Maybe the book made more sense the way it is when it was published 20 years ago, or maybe it was never meant to be a larger, deeper work. Either way, it's food for thought, but not as good as I'd hoped.