Bourdieu (1930-2002) PDF

Bourdieu (1930-2002)  Main ideas Theory as mirror image of Marx; The economy and class are two of the most important structures of society; Like Marx: Bourdieu defines the social world as the place where the competition for scarce resources takes place. The result of t...

Bourdieu (1930-2002)  Main ideas Theory as mirror image of Marx; The economy and class are two of the most important structures of society; Like Marx: Bourdieu defines the social world as the place where the competition for scarce resources takes place. The result of this competition is an unequal distribution of economic capital. Unlike Marx: Bourdieu sees much of this competition as taking place in a symbolic realm that produces an unequal distribution of four different kinds of capital: economic, social, cultural, and symbolic.  Economic capital Economic capital is generally determined by one’s wealth and income. Like Marx: economic capital as fundamental. Unlike Marx: the importance of economic capital is that it strongly influences an individual’s level of the other capitals, which have their own independent effects. economic capital starts the ball rolling, but once things are in motion, other issues may have stronger influences on the perpetuation of class inequalities.  Social capital Social capital refers to the kind of social network an individual is set within. It refers to the people you know and how they are situated in society. Social capital can be captured in the saying, “It isn’t what you know but who you know that counts.” The distribution of social capital is associated with class. For example, if you are a member of an elite class, you will attend elite schools such as Yale, and Harvard - you would be afforded the opportunity to make social connections with powerful people; Economic capital doesn’t exclusively determine social capital. We can build our social networks intentionally, or sometimes through happenstance  Symbolic capital (I) Symbolic capital is the capacity to use symbols to create or solidify physical and social realities. Bourdieu begins to open our eyes to the symbolic nature of class divisions. Social groups don’t exist simply because people decide to gather together. Max Weber recognized that there are technical conditions that must be met for a loose collection of people to form a social group: People must be able to communicate and meet with one another, there must be recognized leadership, and a group needs clearly articulated goals to organize. However, even meeting those conditions doesn’t alone create a social group. Groups must be symbolically recognized as well.  Symbolic capital (II) Human relationships are created symbolically, and not all people have equal symbolic power. For example, I write a number of letters of recommendation for students. Every form I fill out asks the same question: “Relationship to applicant?” And I always put “professor.” The meaning of the professor–student relationship emerges out of my interactions with my students, and my student–professor relationships are probably somewhat different from some of my colleagues as a result. Neither my students nor I created the student–professor relationship. Objective categories and structures, such as class, race, and gender, are generated through the use of symbolic capital: “Symbolic power is a power of constructing reality”  Symbolic capital (III) the use of symbolic capital as both the power of constitution and the power of revelation —it is the power of world-making... the power to make groups.... The power to impose and to inculcate a vision of divisions, that is, the power to make visible and explicit social divisions that are implicit, is political power par excellence. (1989,p. 23)  The power of world making First, the group must be recognized and symbolically labeled by a person or group that is officially recognized as having the ability to symbolically impart identity (scientists, legislators, or sociologists). Institutional accreditation, particularly in the form of an educational credential (school in this sense operates as a representative of the state), “frees its holder from the symbolic struggle of all against all by imposing the universally approved perspective” (p. 22).  The power of world made (II) The second element needed to world-make is some relation to a reality: “Symbolic efficacy depends on the degree to which the vision proposed is founded in reality” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 23). it’s best to see this as a variable. The more that social or physical reality is already present, the greater will be the effectiveness of symbolic capital. This is the sense in which symbolic capital is the power to consecrate or reveal. Symbolic power is the power to reveal the substance of an already occupied social space. granting a group symbolic life “brings into existence in an instituted, constituted form... what existed up until then only as... a collection of varied persons, a purely additive series of merely juxtaposed individuals” (p.23). Because legitimated existence is dependent upon symbolic capacity, an extremely important conflict in society is the struggle over symbols and classifications. The heated debate over race classification in the 2000 U.S. census is a good example.  Cultural capital There is a relationship between symbolic and cultural capital. The use of symbolic capital creates the symbolic field wherein cultural capital exists. Cultural capital refers to the informal social skills, habits, linguistic styles, and tastes that a person garners as a result of his or her economic resources. It is the different ways we talk, act, and make distinctions that are the result of our class.  3 kinds of cultural capital Objectified cultural capital refers to the material goods (such as books, computers, and paintings) that are associated with cultural capital. Institutionalized cultural capital alludes to the certifications (like degrees and diplomas) that give official acknowledgment to the possession of knowledge and abilities. Embodied cultural capital is the most important in Bourdieu’s scheme. It is part of what makes up an individual’s habitus, and it refers to the cultural capital that lives in and is expressed through the body. This function of cultural capital manifests itself as taste.  Embodied cultural capital Taste refers to an individual preference or fondness for something, such as “he has developed a taste for expensive wine.” our tastes aren’t really individual; they are strongly influenced by our social class—our tastes are embodied cultural capital. a particular taste is legitimated, exhibited, and recognized by only those who have the proper cultural code, which is class specific. To hear a piece of music and classify it as baroque implies an entire world of understandings and classification. when individuals express a preference for something or classify an object in a particular way, they are simultaneously classifying themselves. Taste may appear as an innocent and natural phenomenon, but it is an insidious revealer of position. “Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier” (1979/1984 p. 6). The issue of taste is “one of the most vital stakes in the struggles fought in the field of the dominant class and the field of cultural production” (p. 11).  Habitus (I) Taste is part of habitus, and habitus is embodied cultural capital. Class isn’t simply an economic classification (one that exists because of symbolic capital), nor is it merely a set of life circumstances of which people may become aware (class consciousness). Class is inscribed in our bodies. Habitus is the durable organization of one’s body and its deployment in the world. It is found in our posture and our way of walking, speaking, eating, and laughing; it is found in every way we use our body. Habitus is both a system whereby people organize their own behavior and a system through which people perceive and appreciate the behavior of others. This system of organization and appreciation is felt in our bodies. We physically feel how we should act; we physically sense what the actions of others mean, and we approve of or censure them physically (we are comfortable or uncomfortable); we physically respond to different food; is not found in just our cognitions and mental capacity; it is in our very bodies. Ex,: Volley ball team  Habitus (II) Habitus works below the level of conscious thought and outside the control of the will. It is the embodied, nonconscious enactment of cultural capital that gives habitus its specific power, Beyond the reach of introspective scrutiny or control by the will... In the most automatic gestures or the apparently most insignificant techniques of the body... [it engages] the most fundamental principles of construction and evaluation of the social world, those which most directly express the division of labour... or the division of the work of domination. (Bourdieu, 1979/1984, p. 466) Our mannerisms, speech, tastes, and so on are written on our bodies beginning the day we are born.  Distance from necessity There are two factors important in the production of habitus: education and distance from necessity. In distance from necessity, “necessity” speaks of sustenance, the things necessary for biological existence. Distance from the necessities of life enables the upper classes to experience a world that is free from urgency vs the poor must always worry about their daily existence. As humans move away from that essential existence, they are freed from the constant worry, and they are free to practice activities that constitute an end in themselves. For example, you probably have hobbies. Perhaps you like to paint, act, or play guitar as I do. There is a sense of intrinsic enjoyment that comes with those kinds of activities; they are ends in themselves. The poorer classes struggle for survival and the emotional toll it brings are paramount in their lives, leaving no time or resources for pursuing hobbies and “getting the most out of life.”  Distance from necessity (II) the further removed we are from necessity, the more we can be concerned with abstract rather than essential issues. This ability to conceive of form rather than function—aesthetics—is dependent upon “a generalized capacity to neutralize ordinary urgencies and to bracket off practical ends, a durable inclination and aptitude for practice without a practical function” (Bourdieu, 1979/1984, p. 54).  Education The education system channels individuals toward prestigious or devalued positions. In doing so, education manipulates subjective aspirations (self- image) and demands (self-esteem). Another essential difference in educational experience has to do with the amount of rudimentary scholastics required—the simple knowing and recognizing of facts versus more sophisticated knowledge. Education also influences the kind of language we use to think and through which we see the world. We can conceive of language as varying from complex to simple. More complex language forms have more extensive and intricate syntactical elements. Language is made up of more than words; it also has structure.  In habitus, class is structured but it isn’t completely objective—it doesn’t merely exist outside of the individual because it’s asignificant part of his or her subjective experience. In habitus, class is structured but not structuring—because, as with high-caliber athletes and experts, habitus is intuitive. The idea of habitus, then, shows us how class is replicated subjectively and in daily life, and it introduces the potential for inspired behaviors above and beyond one’s class position Field  Concepts Economic capital’ Social capital; Symbolic capital; Cultural capital; Taste; Habitus; Distance from necessity; Education; Field; Linquistic market;