5 ms·

I'm looking for the paper called something like "TLDR Bourdieu Goffman Webber: How Social system of fame, status, reputation work?" ;-) any reco? ;-)) btw, I

I'm looking for the paper called something like "TLDR Bourdieu Goffman Webber: How Social system of fame, status, reputation work?" ;-) any reco? ;-)) btw, I found "The Prince" by Machiavelli very telling on social dynamics: basic you will say, but that kind of fits my TLDR needs ;-)

xoac 3y ago
Usually the TLDR for any philo/sociology/theory text is it’s introduction as authors tend to expose their argument there so: try the introduction to Distinction for Bourdieu.
throwaway173738 3y ago
The Prince was a satire of the political dynamics of the time.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  What makes you think it is a satire?
  - rdevsrex 3y ago
    Exactly, it seems like a clear eyed instruction manual for the time.
  - mikrl 3y ago
    I don’t necessarily think it is an obvious satire, but IIRC, at the time he wrote it he was a persona non grata at the Florentine court and was attempting to curry favour. It was most definitely written to confirm the Medici’s biases and stroke some egos.
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      > It was most definitely written to confirm the Medici’s biases and stroke some egos Yes, that is the opposite of satire.
      - mikrl 3y ago
        Not necessarily. Machiavelli certainly seems the type to play to the Medicis while simultaneously showing them up in a subtle manner. Did he believe what he wrote in the Prince was noble or just? Probably not, based on his democratic tendencies. Imagine if you wrote a send-up of Silicon Valley VCs (for example) and tried to be subtly ridiculous about it, but they took your work extremely well and even applied it. Is that not the most successful and hilarious satire of all?
- spicymapotofu 3y ago
  This idea is popular, but controversial. After looking into it a bit with the help of historians on reddit, I no longer believe this conclusion, but I recommend everyone curious looks for themselves.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  The Prince was a hardheaded analysis of governance that was sponsored by a prince, so had to pretend that the prince was the hero. I think the same about Hobbes (or Spinoza or Descartes); with Protestantism came a huge and multiplying number of heresies from Catholic orthodoxy, and materialist atheists could write about rationality through extremely abstract metaphors that they referred to with Christian labels. The same applied to royalty, who were the intermediaries between God and man, and often the patrons of these secular scholars. i.e. don't deny God, don't deny the King, and you can finally write about reality.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    The Prince wasn't sponsored by anyone. Machiavelli wrote the manuscript on his own initiative as a gift to a prince, with the hope of being given a job. It was basically his (unsuccessful) application letter. The same motivation for flattery remains in both cases, however.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

xoac 3y ago

Usually the TLDR for any philo/sociology/theory text is it’s introduction as authors tend to expose their argument there so: try the introduction to Distinction for Bourdieu.

throwaway173738 3y ago

The Prince was a satire of the political dynamics of the time.

bazoom42 3y ago
What makes you think it is a satire?
- rdevsrex 3y ago
  Exactly, it seems like a clear eyed instruction manual for the time.
- mikrl 3y ago
  I don’t necessarily think it is an obvious satire, but IIRC, at the time he wrote it he was a persona non grata at the Florentine court and was attempting to curry favour. It was most definitely written to confirm the Medici’s biases and stroke some egos.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    > It was most definitely written to confirm the Medici’s biases and stroke some egos Yes, that is the opposite of satire.
    - mikrl 3y ago
      Not necessarily. Machiavelli certainly seems the type to play to the Medicis while simultaneously showing them up in a subtle manner. Did he believe what he wrote in the Prince was noble or just? Probably not, based on his democratic tendencies. Imagine if you wrote a send-up of Silicon Valley VCs (for example) and tried to be subtly ridiculous about it, but they took your work extremely well and even applied it. Is that not the most successful and hilarious satire of all?
spicymapotofu 3y ago
This idea is popular, but controversial. After looking into it a bit with the help of historians on reddit, I no longer believe this conclusion, but I recommend everyone curious looks for themselves.
pessimizer 3y ago
The Prince was a hardheaded analysis of governance that was sponsored by a prince, so had to pretend that the prince was the hero. I think the same about Hobbes (or Spinoza or Descartes); with Protestantism came a huge and multiplying number of heresies from Catholic orthodoxy, and materialist atheists could write about rationality through extremely abstract metaphors that they referred to with Christian labels. The same applied to royalty, who were the intermediaries between God and man, and often the patrons of these secular scholars. i.e. don't deny God, don't deny the King, and you can finally write about reality.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  The Prince wasn't sponsored by anyone. Machiavelli wrote the manuscript on his own initiative as a gift to a prince, with the hope of being given a job. It was basically his (unsuccessful) application letter. The same motivation for flattery remains in both cases, however.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]