Home > network sociology > Sociologia, Apropriação e Emergência

Sociologia, Apropriação e Emergência

Esse post é UMA RESPOSTA SEM NECESSIDADE A: BOURDIEU, Pierre. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Sobre  Distinction – uma entrevista com Bourdieu.

Texto Base dessa rápida reflexão: Those Things That Hold Us Together: Taste and Sociology
Publicado em 2007.
Autor: Antoine Hennion – École des Mines de Paris, France.
Referência: HENNION, Antoinne. Those things that hold us together: taste and sociology. Cultural Sociology. London: Sage. n. 1, p. 97-114, 2007.

“There is co-formation. Differences emerge, multiply and are projected. The ‘object’ is not an immobile mass against which our goals are thrown. (…) Taste is not an attribute, it is not a property (of thing or of a person), it is an activity. Tastes are not given or determined, and their objects are not either; (…) The meticulous activity of  amateurs is a machinery to bring forth through contact and feel differences infinitely multiplying, multiplying indissociably ‘within’ the objects tasted and ‘within’ the taster’s sensitivity. These differences ar not ‘already there’. (…) to taste is to make feel, and to make oneself feel, and so, by the sensations of the body, exactly like the climber, to feel oneself doing.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 101).

“We cannot continue to oscillate indefinitely between linear interpretations, that is, ‘natural’ ones – taste comes from things themselves – and circular interpretations, that is ‘cultural’ ones – objects are what we make tham – in this strange zero sum equation between objects and society. By showing how taste comes to things thanks to the amateurs, we fully rejoin pragmatism. Pragmatism made us give up the dual world – things on one side autonomous but inert, things on the other side, pure social signs – so as to enter a world of mediations and effects, in which the body that tastes and the taste of the object, the group that loves it and the range of things they love, are produced together, one by the other. The attachments link all these heterogeneuos elements, at once determinant and determined, that carry constraints and make the course of things rebound.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 112-114).

O texto que menciono aqui, de Antoine Hennion, trata de um assunto que despertou meu interesse de imediato. Há poucos meses havia acrescentado ao meu del.icio.us um post que fazia comentários sobre o livro de Pierre Bourdieu. Achei muito espirituosa a questão de gosto ser determinado por categorias, condições, regiões, classes sociais e outros ‘containers’.

Breve tempo depois me deparei com o texto de Hennion que também tratava do gosto, mas de maneira mais geral, através de uma visão ‘dessas coisas todas que nos cercam’ e apresentado o ponto de vista dos amadores, ou seja pessoas cuja atenção é absorvida por aquilo que lhes desperta, de alguma forma, a paixão. A idéia da paixão, da experimentação e principalmente da relação como algo capaz de despertar preferências a respeito do que nos cerca pareceu-me bem mais interessante que o julgamento do gosto como deferido pela condição histórica ou social em que nos encontramos.

Especialmente a questão dos amadores e aqui a palavra permanece no seu original em francês ‘amateurs’ que vai além do sentido de observar pessoas que não são profissionais em suas atividades, mas abrange aqueles que lidam com determinado tema ou domínio sob diferentes graus de entendimento e sensibilidade. O texto de Hennion passou a ser interessante por tratar do gosto através de que ele é, um movimento de experimentação e reflexão, cuja ação parte do ponto zero, sem hierarquias, nem pré-determinações. Essa ação se encontra subjugada por uma repetição intríseca ao ator, que não poderia nunca ser socialmente generalizada. Uma repetição cujas condições, na verdade, são bem ‘gostos’ pessoais.

Exemplo: “- Você curte algum tipo de esporte?”

“- Sim, gosto de correr.”

“- Como vc pratica essa atividade, ou melhor, como vc curte praticar essa atividade? ”

“- Gosto de correr, de preferência, de madrugada lá pelas 5:30 da manhã,  no percurso que eu planejei que termina no bosque. E gosto sobretudo de correr em madrugadas de dias nos quais o tempo será bom e sem muito vento;  pois, gosto de ver o sol nascendo ao final da corrida”.

Para os amadores a questão do processo pelo qual a experimentação acontece é extremamente importante, é a repetição ideal que faz a experiência interessante. Sem o processo não ocorre absorção da atenção.

Outro ponto relevante na construção de Hennion é a reflexividade e participação dos objetos no processo de construção do gosto. É como se eles quase não existissem antes de nossa experimentação e, na verdade, realmente não existem para nós, apenas fazem parte de um repertório geral de nosso conhecimento. Mas o gosto vem de uma interação entre o objeto e o ator sem distinção ou privilégios de posição.

A questão dos amadores a meu ver é fundamental para o estudo das novas tecnologias e o seu constante processo de inovação. Fico pensando nas possibilidades geradas por nossa realidade comunicacional proveniente de ferramentas da web 2.0 e observo que, nesse caso, somos todos amadores, apaixonados pelos temas ou idéias que ‘curtimos’ e na Internet emergimos enquanto grupos e atores capazes de apropriar das ferramentas disponíveis, organizando e  compartilhando seus  ‘gostos’. Sem as fronteiras da nacionalidade ou condição social.

Acho que aqui está uma inovação e uma tendência, de que o gosto se movimente para além de suas antigas identidades nacionais e seja móvel na rede. A rede, como sempre, trouxe muitos espaços para que nós amadores pudéssemos extrapolar…

Segue abaixo um trecho do filme Le Fabuleux Destin de Amélie Poulain (2001),  a parte em que o narrador descreve o gosto de cada personagem, (isso é muito interessante!):

Breve resumo do texto de Hennion com alguns excertos, para quem não tiver acesso:

Abstract: The idea of reflexivity has much to offer to the analysis of taste – but reflexivity in its ancient sense, a form neither active nor passive, pointing to an originary state where things, persons, and events have just arrived, with no action, subject or objects yet decided. Objects of taste are not present, inert, available and at our service. They give themselves up, they shy away, they impose themselves. ‘Amateurs’ do not believe things have taste. On the contrary, they make themselves detect taste is no longer considered ( as with so-called ‘critical’ sociology) an arbitrary election which has to be explained by hidden social causes. Rather, it is a collective technique, whose analysis helps us to understand the ways we make ourselves sensitized, to things, to ourselves, to situations and to moments, while simultaneously controlling how those feelings might be shared and discussed with others.

“Although amateurs sopposedly feel a natural affinity towards the objects of their passion, sociology has persisted in showing that this relationship is actually socially constructed through the categories employed, the authority of leaders, the imitation of intimates, institutions and frames of appreciations, as well as through the social game of identity making and differentiation.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 97).

“In fact, ‘amateurs’ do no believe things have taste. To the contrary, they bring themselves to detect the taste of things through a continuour elaboration of prcedures that put taste to the test. (…) What could be simpler?” (HENNION, 2007, p. 98).

“(…) the only important thing for a moment, for humans thogether like this, is common practice. (…) – it is the activity that defines, not the inverse. (…) For everuthing which the theory of action emphasizes – the subject, the goal, the plan – is of no importance. All that matters, to the contrary, is precisely what theory of action places in aninstrumental position: gestures, holds, movements, passages – all the words between the two, (…) A ‘movement’ (…)” (HENNION, 2007, p. 99).

“There is co-formation. Differences emerge, multiply and are projected. The ‘object’ is not an immobile mass against which our goals are thrown. (…) Taste is not an attribute, it is not a property (of thing or of a person), it is an activity. Tastes are not given or determined, and their objects are not either; (…) The meticulous activity of amateurs is a machinery to bring forth through contact and feel differences infinitely multiplying, multiplying indissociably ‘within’ the objects tasted and ‘within’ the taster’s sensitivity. These differences ar not ‘already there’. (…) to taste is to make feel, and to make oneself feel, and so, by the sensations of the body, exactly like the climber, to feel oneself doing.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 101).

“Taste as a situated activity is not so pre- established: it points tword the contact, a situation of ‘between-the-two’, the place and the moment of the uncertain upsurge of sensation.”(HENNION, 2007, p. 101).

“Amateurs do not struggle against determinisms that the sociologist unveils despite their resistance. Amateurs cope with determinisms. (…) amateurs do not deny social determinisms, they rather rely on them, as they do masterpieces or on the tastes of others, to ‘determine’ their own tastes. (…) Otherwise stated, the more determinants there are, the more preferences exist, and not the inverse.” (HENNION, 2007, 102 e 103).

” This moment marks itself by the surge of an intensified contact, provoking a shift between the self towards the object, and a shift of the object towards the self. What the minimal word ‘attention’ express so lightly and so well – in a single movement, like the taster’s gesture – these two displacements which make contact, grant attention to, capture the attention of.
Yet, this minimum implies such a great  deal. In ther first place, reflexivity on the part of the taster. (…) And, on the part of objects, it implies a capacity to interrupt, to surprise or to respond. This right to advance, this is their reflexivity, their power to make themselves more present. Objects ar not already there, inert and avaiable at our service. They deliver themselves, unrobe themselves, impose themselves on us. (…) beautiful things only offer themselves to those who offer themselves to beautiful things.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 105-106).

“We cannot continue to oscillate indefinitely between linear interpretations, that is, ‘natural’ ones – taste comes from things themselves – and circular interpretations, that is ‘cultural’ ones – objects are what we make tham – in this strange zero sum equation between objects and society. By showing how taste comes to things thanks to the amateurs, we fully rejoin pragmatism. Pragmatism made us give up the dual world – things on one side autonomous but inert, things on the other side, pure social signs – so as to enter a world of mediations and effects, in which the body that tastes and the taste of the object, the group that loves it and the range of things they love, are produced together, one by the other. The attachments link all these heterogeneuos elements, at once determinant and determined, that carry constraints and make the course of things rebound.” (HENNION, 2007, p. 112-114).

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: