“[...] natural conditions are not experienced. Furthermore, they don’t exist on their own because they are a function of the technique and lifestyle of the population that defines them and makes sense out of them, using them in a given direction. […] humans’ relationships with the natural environment play the role of objects of thought: humans don’t perceive them passively, they grind them after reducing them to concepts, in order to extract a system that is never predetermined: assuming the situation to be the same, it always allows for many possible systematizations”. Lévi-Strauss Claude, El pensamiento salvaje, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, p. 142; and Hubert Henri and Marcel Mauss, “Esquisse d’une théorie générale de la magie”, L’Année Sociologique, V. 7, 1902-1903, pp. 1-146.
53. Ceballos Gómez, “Quien tal hace, que tal pague”…
54. See Vansina, Jan, Oral Tradition. A Study in Historical Methodology [1961], London, Routledge & Kegan, 1965; Ong Walter, The Presence of the Word. Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History (1st. ed. 1967) Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1986, and Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word, London-New York, Methuen, 1982; Jack Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968; The Domestication of the Savage Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977; “Civilisation de l’écriture et classification ou l’art de jouer sur les tableaux”, in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, Vol. 2, No. 1, February, 1976. pp. 87-101, and Contradicciones y representaciones. La ambivalencia hacia las imágenes, el teatro, la ficción, las reliquias y la sexualidad, Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1999; Prins Gwyn, “Historia oral”, in Burke Peter (Comp.), Formas de hacer Historia, pp. 144-176.
55. Ceballos Gómez, Diana Luz, Hechicería, brujería…
56. Ginzburg Carlo, El queso y los gusanos. El cosmos según un molinero del siglo XVI, 2nd. ed. Barcelona, Muchnik, 1982.
57. Burke Peter, Popular Culture...; Warneken Bernd Jürgen, Die Ethnographie popularer Kulturen. Eine Einführung, Wien-Köln-Weimar, Böhlau, 2006; Chartier Roger, „‘Cultura popular’: retorno a un concepto historiográfico”, in Manuscrits, No. 12, January, 1994, pp. 43-62; Kelley Donald, „The Old Cultural History“, in History and the Human Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1996, pp. 101-126; Schröder Gerhart and Helga Breuninger (ed.), Kulturtheorien der Gegenwart. Ansätze und Positionen, Frankfurt am Main-New York, Campus Verlag, 2001; Hobsbawm Eric and Terence Ranger (ed.), The Invention of Tradition [1983], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000; Ginzburg Carlo, Religioni delle classi popolari, Ancona, Quaderni Storici, No. 41, 1979.
58. For the case of the ruling cadres and classifications, cf.: Boltanski Luc, “Les cadres autodidactes», in Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Vol. 22 (Bureaucratie d’État et pouvoir des intellectuels), No. 1, 1978, pp. 3-23”; «Les systèmes de représentation d’un groupe social: les ‘cadres’», Revue française de sociologie, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 631-667; «Taxinomies sociales et luttes de classes [La mobilisation de «la classe moyenne» et l’invention des «cadres»]», in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, Vol. 29 [Les classes-enjeux], September, 1979, pp. 75-106; «Taxinomies populaires, taxinomies savantes: les objets de consommation et leur classement».
59. The works of Bourdieu and Chartier are strongly influenced by German traditions, and in them both payed tribute to Elias. The first French translation of the first volume of Über den Prozess der Zivilisation by Norbert Elias was done in 1973 under the name La civilisation des mœurs (a title reminiscent of Voltaire? Paris, Calmann-Lévy) from the second German edition, published in Germany by Suhrkamp in 1969 (the French edition closes with a section of “Critiques et commentaires” by diverse authors and an interview of Elias, pp. 393-447). It is with this German 1969 edition that an appropriation of this work really begins. The first edition was published by Haus zum Falken of Basel Publishing House (Switzerland) in 1939. Roger Chartier, who wrote prologues for several translations of Elias’ texts into French, tells us in a special issue of the Vingtième Siècle Magazine [“Pour un usage libre et respectueux de Norbert Elias”, in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire, No. 106, february 2010 (Spécial: Norbert Elias et le 20e siècle. Le processus de civilisation à l’épreuve), pp. 37-52], that the first text in French by this author was published by Bourdieu in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales in 1976 [Norbert Elias, «Sport et violence», Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1976, pp. 2-21] and that the first encounter of certain French historians (François Furet, Georges Vigarello, André Burguière, Jean-Louis Flandrin, Chartier…) with Elias was organized in Göttingen by Professor Rudolf von Thadden –Professor at the city University– in 1979. Elias was initially linked to the history of mentalities, but soon claimed his own place and was appropriated by historians such as the ones previously mentioned or such as Jacques Revel and Bernard Lacroix. Bourdieu shares the theory of habitus and field with Elias and also the idea that sociology “is characterized by a form of interpretation and not by the chronology of its objects…, mostly with the intention to define social spaces incorporated by individuals; individuals that act in the same social spaces” (p. 12, which is reminiscent of Mannheim, for whom the second worked as an assistant). His proposal restores the importance of politics, “it binds singular works to the habitus, without which they could not have been conceived, within the frame, this time, of an intellectual or aesthetic history” (p. 20).
60. Ricœur Paul, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986; Educación y política. De la historia personal a la comunión de libertades, 2nd. ed., Buenos Aires, Prometeo Libros, 2009. Both La ideología alemana and Las tesis sobre Feuerbach were written by Marx and Engels around 1846, and we can’t forget that the notion of practice, of action, is restored in the second text. See also: Althousser Louis, Idéologie et appareils idéologiques d’État (Notes pour une recherche), Paris, La Pensée 15, 1970; Eagleton Terry, Ideology. An introduction, London, Verso, 1991, y After Theory, New York, Penguin, 2004; Dijk Teun A. van, Ideology. A multidisciplinary approach, London, Sage, 1998, y Bourdieu Pierre and Luc Boltanski, «La production de l’idéologie dominante», in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, Vol. 2, No. 2-3, June, 1976, pp. 3-73.
61. «Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, V. 6, No. 3, May, 1898, pp. 273-302; Durkheim Émile and Marcel Mauss, «De quelques formes de classification. Contribution à l’étude des représentations collectives” [1901-1902], in L’Année Sociologique, 6, 1901-1902, pp.1-72, in http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/zone30/Classiques_des_sciences_sociales/index.html, retrieved in may 2004. We can’t forget to note Durkheim’s neokantian roots, evident in the notion of representation. By Henri Lefebvre see: La presencia y la ausencia. Contribución a la teoría de las representaciones [1980], México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1983. As well as: Durand, Gilbert, Las estructuras antropológicas de lo imaginario. Introducción a la arquetipología general [1960], Madrid, Taurus, 1981; La imaginación simbólica [1964], Buenos Aires, Amorrortu, 1971; L’Imaginaire. Essai sur les sciences et la philosophie de l’image, Paris, Hatier, 1994; Certeau Michel de, La Culture au Pluriel, Paris Union Générale d’Éditions, 1974; La faiblesse de croire, Paris, Seuil, 1987; La possession de Loudun [1978], Paris, Gallimard-Folio, 2005; L’invention du quotidien. 1 Arts de faire, Paris, Gallimard-Folio, 1980; Delacampagne Christian, “La sociedad, lo simbólico y lo sagrado”, in Psiquiatría y opresión, Barcelona, Destino, 1978, pp. 165-191; Douglas,
