Pierre Bourdieu on forms of capital
Maitre penseur, recently died
Our last major conflict theorist
Rejects Marxist approaches, hopes to be rid of them once and for all
Did early research on Kabyle tribe in
Used quantitative techniques, highly professional as a sociologist.
Politically active: spoke out often against ‘neo-liberalism’
Ideas of:
“Social space” and “power field”
Forms of Capital and their Transformation
Habitus: bio-cognitive imprint of the social environment
Economic capital
Social capital
Cultural Capital
Transformation (conversion) of these
Position in social field/space is relative
Predicts tastes, likes and dislikes: e.g. size and position of TV in house
Habitus: why working-class men don’t like keyboard work, stockbrokers
Pierre Bourdieu, Snobs, and Omnivores
Distinction (excerpt)
Pierre Bourdieu is perhaps the most influential sociologist alive today. Like Foucault before him, in
For the purposes of this course, we’ll cover some of his work on Structure, Habitus, and Social Space, and then we’ll move on to Michele Lamont’s revision and extension of his ideas.
Social Space and Social Classes.
Bourdieu's Opponents:
(1) A break with Marxists: (I.e. 'objective' reality). Bourdieu is interested in RELATIONSHIPS, on more levels than just the economic, and argues that how people
interpret and make sense of their relations matters (this is the subjective element).
He also has s definite focus on POWER STRUGGLES.
Social Space: A geographic/mathematical metaphor for how people are arranged in society. Bourdieu defines social space as:
"a (multi-dimensional) space constructed on the basis of principles of differentiation or distribution constituted by the set of properties active in the social
universe under consideration, that is, able to confer force or power on their possessor in that universe." (p.229).
The points to keep in mind with this def:
(1) Social space has multiple dimensions (ex economic, educational, cultural, etc.: n dimensions) These dimensions can usually be categorized as a form of
Capital.
(2) "...constructed on the basis of principles of differentiation or distribution..." This mean that how
much and what kind of the particular capital one has is the basis for sorting along the dimensions.
(3) "...by the set of properties active in the social universe under consideration, that is, able to confer
force or power on their possessor in that universe." The quantity or quality (i.e. point 2) of a given good only matters to the extent that the good in question
is 'active' in the social world of interest. This part of the definition implies an element of contextual specificity. Two groups' relative position depend on the
particular 'field' that is active. If we're dealing in the economic field, then the relative position of $$ matters, if we're dealing with the educational, then
that's what matters. [note, that this discussion is about one dimension at a time, Bourdieu does not think that way - this is for illustration only, the point is that in
some struggles, the relative value of a given dimension will change.].
Power follows from the ability to mobilize capital.
The social space is a field of forces -- the system of relations, alliances, and power struggles. His vision of social space is NOT one that is (necessarily)
static, but instead constantly infused with power struggles. Thus we see the world as a system of 'objective power relations.'
Is this paranoid? Overdramatic??
This allows us to see the social world in two ways, as the positions themselves thusly: (take culture and econ as examples)
Hi Culture
|
| A
|
|
Poor ---------------------------- Rich
|
| B
c |
|
Low Culture
In this picture, the three groups are arrayed on these two dimensions (thus C is poor and holds mainly 'low culture' values, A is rich with 'high culture' , etc).
Because these positions are at the same time relations, because domination follows from the ability to utilize this capital, we could instead view this picture
as:
A -> B-----> C
\ _____/
Where A dominates (a little) B, and both B and A dominate C. What Bourdieu wants to claim is that these systems of relations are in constant contest -- not ONLY
in who gets to be WHERE, but what having a certain quantity/distribution of a good GIVES you, ie what it MEANS.
The dimensions are the elements that give power (education, money, social contacts, etc) in general, these elements form types of CAPITAL. The four
general types of capital for Bourdieu are:
1.Economic Capital: How much money one has.
2.Cultural Capital: The systems of value and meaning a person can draw on, what counts as 'good' for a group. (the main distinction is between
high and low culture for Bourdieu, thus the difference between a person who listens to Garth brooks and goes to the bowling alley every weekend versus a
person who reads Shakespeare, drinks fine wine, and goes to the museum all the time).
3.Social Capital: The set of relations one can draw on: who you know that MATTERS.
4.Symbolic Capital. : the extent to which one has the power to institute, to NAME, to define who is who. Symbolic power rests on RECOGNITION, i.e., give or take, legitimacy (Weber).
Bourdieu argues that each of these types of capital is transformable (to some extent), i.e. able to be converted and reconverted, one to the other. Thus if you have enough money you might get to know a new
set of important people, etc.
The two dimensions along which each type of capital are arrayed is Volume and composition. Thus the AMOUNT of money one has, and the TYPE of
money matter (i.e. cash vs stocks vs gold vs land).
Classes on Paper:
On the basis of the distribution of the various forms of capital, we can find groups of people who have 'similar' distributions. These are 'classes' in the
logical sense -- people who occupy the same cell in a cross-tabulation. BUT, we can't necessarily assume that these classes are self-recognized. This is the
long standing differentiation between classes in-themselves vs. classes for themselves.
What exists is a space of relations, out of which may or may not emerge a class per se.
We can compare this to Marx’s theories of class, in which he assumes that groups form from similarity, but it does not explain how the groups form. Instead, through a theoretical ‘slight of hand’, the
essential questions are spirited away:
We don’t ask about the political work needed to organize and created a self-recognized, mobilized class
Don’t explain how the formal ‘classes’ of social scientists are related to the actual, living classes in society.
Classes and class fragments develop “habituses”—roughly but not quite subcultures
The Perception of the social world and political struggle.
One must account for how actors see the world to make sense of how they act. That is, we ned to look to the social construction of identity.
One's perspective in the world is due to two things:
1) 'Objective': People see the world differently because they occupy a different space in the world.
2) 'subjective': The tools brought to bear, the language used, are all the products of previous struggles, and influence the meaning of the very dimensions
that people array themselves along.
Thus, not only are people seeing the world from different spaces, but the very view of that space, the relevant value of any given quantity/quality
distribution is different depending on a group's past history of struggle.
While Bourdieu argues that people TEND to accept the position they find themselves in, there is social change, and it comes from struggles for power related
to (1) and (2).
in an earlier essay, Bourdieu writes
“Knowledge of the social world and, more precisely, the categories which make it possible, are the stake par excellence of the political struggle, a struggle
which is inseparably theoretical and practical, over the power of preserving or transforming the social world by preserving or transforming the categories of
perception of that world.”
These are social categories: racial, social class, economic categories, that change over time
So being able to define the dimensions of status, to identify the subject of political debate and shape the way issues are seen to be related are all symbolic actions,
and they are the means through which politics are carried out. Thus, being able to control these means gives one control of political outcomes. The power of
naming is crucial.
Examples:
? Political rhetoric about abortion: proponents use ‘right-to-choose’ language, opponents use ‘rights-to-life’ language.
? Use of the word ‘Liberal’ in presidential campaigns
Symbolic Capital: Any capital when it is perceived by an agent as self-recognized power to name, to make distinctions.
It follows that objective power relations reproduce themselves in symbolic power.
The power to create titles
Citizenship is bestowed by the government,
The definition of ‘adult’ or ‘graduate’
“It is the most visible agents, from the point of view of the prevailing categories of perception, who are the best placed to change the vision by changing the
categories of perceptions. But they are also, with a few exceptions, the least inclined to do so.”
Why? Because they benefit from the current arrangement. That those in power control the means to power creates a cycle, whereby they reenforce the power
that they have. Bourdieu refers to this as the “circle of symbolic reproduction”.
Symbolic power rests on legitimate recognition your brother-in-law can’t declare you a graduate of the university. The title ‘graduate’ can only be made by
those with legitimate control of symbolic power.
Symbolic order and the power of naming.
Symbolic power can be arrayed along a dimension of intensity/legitimacy:
Insult Official Naming
I-----------------------------------------------I
Low power High Power
We can think about the proliferation of titles in current work and occupations. This rise (sanitary engineer, executive assistant, vice president, e.g.) follows FROM the
desire of groups to NAME THEMSELVES, and thus make their own distinction. The move in contemporary society to provide all with a new name, is a struggle for legitimate power. Racial epithets are the imposition of place by a ruling class on a
ruled class, and when the POWER associated with those epithets can be reversed, then the group has gained the symbolic upper hand.
e.g. minority groups referring to themselves in terms of racial “slurs”—not just the N word—Chinese, Jews, immigrants in
Bourdieu points out that rewards separate a title from a task. Thus, a part-time person doing the same work as a full time person will likely be paid less (even by the
hour) than the person who officially occupies the position. Or, for example, a nurse and a doctor often do exactly the same things, but the doctor will make
more.
Because symbolic power is a useful power, something that can be used to gain resources in multiple dimensions, it is clearly the subject of controversy.
Groups fight over the right to control the naming process.
“Every field is the site of a more or less openly declared struggle for the definition of the legitimate principles of division of the field.” (p.242)
Alliances in the Political Field
Those who occupy similar, but distinct social spaces (or who are in similar, but distinct patterns of social relations) tend to form alliances (though, again,
not necessarily).
How do people at the bottom of a symbolic power system gain capital to change the present point of view?
Bourdieu says it happens through alliances with those who have the ability to control symbols. For example, the intellectuals will ‘embezzle’ symbolic power for
the workers. These alliances occur where there is a similarity in their position in the structure, across dimensions of the structure. Thus, workers are the
dominated group in the production/economic realm, while intellectuals are the dominated group in the cultural realm. The one helps the other because of the
similarity of their situation. For Bourdieu, this was Marx’s error: to look only within the economic realm for the emergence of classes.
Critiques of Bourdieu (general)
too agonistic, too focused on struggle and competition
isn’t Bourdieu himself an example of why he is wrong?
too Parisian, too French, and perhaps too old
Weber’s sociology of religion/culture
Religious cultures provide comprehensible ideas of theodicy and salvation for laypeople
Why did these societies become more rationalized than others? Why did they develop industry, capitalism, democratic governments, corporations, factories, and high technology earlier than the rest of the world?
Why not the
These were all massive, powerful empires. Before the early 19th century, these areas were much more powerful than
Marx does not have a strong answer to this question, but Weber does.
Weber argues that rationalization is associated with capitalism. It is important to keep in mind that capitalism is different from buying and selling things to make a profit. How is it different?
It is different because in capitalism, the money you make is saved up and then invested in new business ventures. This money that is saved and invested is called capital. Since money was invented in Mesopotamia and
Weber’s answer lies in Protestant Christianity, specifically Calvinism, a sect of Protestantism. Weber’s mother was a devout Calvinist, so naturally he knew a lot about this religion.
Most religions in the world at this time were other-worldly
Good moral behavior in this world is rewarded by going to heaven when you die.
For example, in Catholicism, if you paid enough money to the Church, you would be allowed to go to heaven.
Or if you gave money to poor people, you would make God happy.
Or in Hinduism, by having a good reincarnation.
Calvinism was founded by the 16th-century writer and preacher John Calvin. It is different from most religions because in Calvinism, God is all-powerful. Humans cannot change their fate by changing their behavior or paying money to the Church. God decides what will happen to you. You cannot change your fate.
This idea is called predestination. Your destiny is preordained. This is a bit tough on people, because they have no way of knowing whether they will go to heaven or hell. And even if they knew, there would be nothing they could do about it.
So people wanted to know whether they would go to heaven or hell. And they came to believe that an individual’s material success in this world was a sign from God. God must have made some people rich because those people were chosen to go to heaven. So making money became a sign of being chosen by God.
What about poor people?
They are poor because God has not chosen them.
So rich Calvinists did not give their money to the poor. It’s not because they were mean or greedy. They thought God would not want them to give money to people he had chosen to go to hell. It would be a sin to give money to the poor.
It would also be a sin to be self-indulgent, to live a life of luxury. One’s life should be devoted to God, not to oneself.
1) So early Calvinists became very good at making money, because they saw it as a sign of being chosen by God.
2) They did not share their money with the church or with poor people.
3) They did not spend their money on luxuries.
4) They accumulated money and reinvested it in their businesses. And they kept careful accounts of their money, because they believed that making money was a holy endeavour. They made money the way an Imam reads the Koran or a Jewish Rabbi reads the Torah. With total religious intensity.
5) Later generations of Calvinists lost the old religion as they encountered science and modern thought (
They lost their Protestant Ethic, but kept a strong work ethic.
So capitalists were really good at making money, saving money, and doing accounting.
This led to a general rationalization of society in Protestant countries. After all, Calvinists were so good at making money that they ended up owning lots of factories and businesses. And they became powerful in politics. They were in charge.
They owned factories and integrated them, creating large-scale organizations that were independent of the Catholic Church. In
Calvinists encourage personal discipline among all workers. Individuals should be disciplined internally, not by force.
Calvinists encourage precise time scheduling.
They encourage technical competence.
They encourage impersonality in business. Social connections are less important than individual discipline and technical competence.
Keep in mind how different this argument is from Marx’s understanding of society, where religion is an effect of economic processes, not a cause of economic processes.
Emile Durkheim, the father of French sociology, explained religion sociologically. All societies and all religions, he thought, divided the world between the sacred and the profane
The Sacred The Profane (in Latin, profane means “outside the temple”)
Pure Things that are normal
Magical, have special powers Everyday things
Holy Nothing special
Clean Can be dirty; doesn’t matter
Set apart
Contagious—makes you sacred Contagious—makes you unholy if you tough it
Inspires awe, fear, reverence Boring or disgusting
e.g. in Hinduism, cows are sacred; Brahmins are more sacred than untouchables, who are profane and dirty
in Judaism and Islam, pigs are profane
The Koran and the Torah are sacred
Mosques and Synagogues are sacred
Communities, not individuals, draw lines between what’s sacred and what’s profane
These lines are social and cultural
Different communities draw different lines
Communities do rituals so that they can show themselves what is sacred and what is profane
e.g. Baptists, who are a Christian sect in
Hindus bathe in the
Muslims go to
Christians drink the wine and eat the wafer, which symbolize the body and blood of Christ
Durkheim’s functionalism
Durkheim defined totems as objects a community defines as sacred
They can be anything: a piece of wood, a book, a place, a mountain, a building, an animal, a word, even a person
Religions are based on totems, rituals, and on the distinction between the sacred and the profane
Together, these things create a religion, and religions have several functions for society. Religion turns individuals into a community.
1. Social cohesion
religion unites people
defines what is ethical, defines the rules of the game of life
religion channels our emotions (love, hatred)
2. Social control
Elites can control people through religion
Religion encourages conformity
Religion makes the political system seem legitimate
3. Meaning and purpose
For individuals, religion makes life meaningful
We are all going to die, and we are all going to suffer many times in our live, even the lucky ones like us; religion makes death and suffering meaningful and thus less painful
For Durkheim, “God” is another word for “society”
