When I heard the twitter of @ PierreLouisR was that Jamel Debbouze sociologist knighted by the institution that is undeniable Telerama, I told myself "I must make a note over there." But it is a little young in the world of blogs - which still writing the second book of sociology that I read in my life - who beat me: Mercklé Pierre said in his blog, pretty almost everything I wanted to say about it . Probably better than me and more, since it has the good taste to pay Maffesoli in stride. So I take this opportunity for him to advertise: that he is joining your RSS feeds!
A little quote anyway to make you want to highlight and I agree:
It should be emphasized that this is the problem: being a sociologist, is a profession, but too often it is seen as a wave sensitivity, a tendency or something not really rationalizable. The former problem is: in his Invitation to Sociology addressed just that in 1963, Peter Berger devotes the first pages to say what is not the sociologist. And he said first that it is not a "friend of mankind" sensitive to the pain of others and willing to help them, nor even a reformer ready to improve society and the plight of the weakest. Sociologists may also be that, but they are not all - some have been or are staunch conservatives - and this is not what makes them sociologists.
However, it must be clear: this does not mean what it says and Jamel Debbouze, who may not have asked for this adhesive label, is without merit. What can be said of the suburbs is not necessarily wrong - I admit, not very sensitive to the humor of "comedians", I have a very vague idea of what it can tell much about this subject here or on other . his speech or his experience is not "wrong" per se. Simply be a sociologist, is to do a little more than say something relevant: it is trying to prove that they are. Sociology I love reading - I hope to one day say "I did" - do not just say things that seem relevant but also tries to prove that they are.
The speech of a comedian or any other artist has a value in itself: he calls it mobilizes, it puts people face their contradictions. Consider the first sketch Coluche: saying "is the story of a guy ... a normal guy ... white, what, what was he doing if we put our face everyday racism that makes us think a "normal" man is always white and that blacks have enough features to change the meaning of a joke? Especially by adding thereafter "y 'stories, it's more fun if he is a Jew ... and y' has other it's more fun is a Belgian Sir" ...
It did not work in sociology. But his remarks had an eigenvalue in the way he could and still can denounce a situation or an attitude, perhaps a more effective and more widespread than could a work of sociology. This is perhaps Jamel Debbouze: one wonders what interest there is to fold a type of speech very respectable on another. And why we have so much trouble recognizing the intrinsic value of humor.
A little quote anyway to make you want to highlight and I agree:
So first a "coup" Telerama, a hook in brush cover to the core of their readership in the grain. It is then perhaps there is another possible use of the term, that such maneuvers can only encourage journalistic: to be "sociologist" is not a profession (doing investigations, publish books and articles, teaching ...) is to be endowed with certain qualities, sensitivity ... the same way that being "philosopher" also means being able into perspective, to separate things, or be "psychologist" is to understand the thinking of others, then be "sociologist" that would be sensitive to the plight of others, and be prepared to be indignant, to borrow a word in vogue ...
It should be emphasized that this is the problem: being a sociologist, is a profession, but too often it is seen as a wave sensitivity, a tendency or something not really rationalizable. The former problem is: in his Invitation to Sociology addressed just that in 1963, Peter Berger devotes the first pages to say what is not the sociologist. And he said first that it is not a "friend of mankind" sensitive to the pain of others and willing to help them, nor even a reformer ready to improve society and the plight of the weakest. Sociologists may also be that, but they are not all - some have been or are staunch conservatives - and this is not what makes them sociologists.
However, it must be clear: this does not mean what it says and Jamel Debbouze, who may not have asked for this adhesive label, is without merit. What can be said of the suburbs is not necessarily wrong - I admit, not very sensitive to the humor of "comedians", I have a very vague idea of what it can tell much about this subject here or on other . his speech or his experience is not "wrong" per se. Simply be a sociologist, is to do a little more than say something relevant: it is trying to prove that they are. Sociology I love reading - I hope to one day say "I did" - do not just say things that seem relevant but also tries to prove that they are.
The speech of a comedian or any other artist has a value in itself: he calls it mobilizes, it puts people face their contradictions. Consider the first sketch Coluche: saying "is the story of a guy ... a normal guy ... white, what, what was he doing if we put our face everyday racism that makes us think a "normal" man is always white and that blacks have enough features to change the meaning of a joke? Especially by adding thereafter "y 'stories, it's more fun if he is a Jew ... and y' has other it's more fun is a Belgian Sir" ...
It did not work in sociology. But his remarks had an eigenvalue in the way he could and still can denounce a situation or an attitude, perhaps a more effective and more widespread than could a work of sociology. This is perhaps Jamel Debbouze: one wonders what interest there is to fold a type of speech very respectable on another. And why we have so much trouble recognizing the intrinsic value of humor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment