Cultural Theories of Bourdieu and Morris - Essay Example

?In relation to analysing cultural texts what connections exist between the theories of Bourdieu and Morris? Social issues have confronted humanity from its very start. It was only recently that human beings began to analyse their social problems in the light of rationally developed theories. In terms of humanity’s overall timeline, the works of sociologists such as Durkheim, Weber and Marx are relatively new and open to interpretation. In addition, as society evolves, so do its social problems. The explanations provided by sociologists in the past may have been fit for their times but today presents its own problems and demands its own solutions. In the modern era, sociologists such as Pierre Bourdieu and Meaghan Morris have contributed widely to enhance sociological understanding of populist issues. Essentially Bourdieu bases his theoretical framework of cultural symbolism on the works of Weber and Marx while Morris bases her populist work on the ideas presented by Bourdieu. Pierre Bourdieu is a renowned social theorist, who is widely celebrated for his empirical researches in the discipline of contemporary sociology. Bourdieu addresses the crucial subjects concerning culture, power, and segmentation by proposing sociology of figurative power under his symbolic culture framework (Bourdieu, 1980). He debates how striving for attaining social recognition is the cornerstone of an individual’s social life. Cultural resources, systems, and organisations serve to segregate individuals and parties in aggressive and self-perpetuating hierarchical structures of dominance. Bourdieu argues that cultural symbols; practices such as fashionably dressing, eating habits, philosophy, artistic tastes, scientific progress and even language help in creating social distinctions (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). According to Bourdieu, symbolic classifications aggravate social struggles such that culture places people into social hierarchies. Consequently, autonomous fields lead individuals to fight over valuable resources. This is comparable to Marx’s work in the conflict theory regime where he proposes class conflict. However, Marx is limited in his analysis unlike Bourdieu since Marx is restricted to theoretical creations alone (Bourdieu, 1977). Under his cultural symbolism framework, Bourdieu advances this argument by arguing how actors use manipulative strategies to accomplish their purpose oriented goals. Unfortunately, by doing so, actors inadvertently reemphasize social stratification. Hence, culture does not lack politics; in fact it solely revolves around politics. Bourdieu introduces a conflict perspective in the area of religion too. He accentuates the downside of the power dimension in spiritual life and bodies. Bourdieu tends to hold that religion is equally blameworthy as culture in the battle of social conflict. Like other resources, it offers power to control others; hence, religion serves political function. Furthermore, the battle to legitimize religion produces social hierarchies of domination (Swartz, 1997). Another interesting aspect of Bourdieu’s work is his reliance on economic determinism to expound the various forms of capital in society. Sociologists before Bourdieu relied on economic capital alone to expound class differentiation and conflict. However, Bourdieu expands the concept of capital to cultural, social and symbolic ends as well (Swartz, 1997). These forms of capital are used much like economic capital to allow various different classes to dominate each other in the overall social context. When Morris is compared to Bourdieu, initially there seems to be little connection between their works. However, it must be realised that Morris like Bourdieu is essentially a conflict theorist though she is not as vocal or outspoken over conventional areas that make up conflict theory perspectives. Morris is far more subtle in bringing about the effects of struggle in society and can be seen as more of a feminist in this regard (Lewis, 2004). One of Morris’ more favourite areas for discussion is dealing with the urban landscape and for considering why it has evolved in such a manner. Morris argues that most essentially, in spite of the contemporary effects of uniformity, it is imperative to consider that not every day life is the same everywhere (Morris, 1998). For instance, the experience of walking in Paris will be categorically different from talking a walk in downtown Detroit. Likewise, the experience shall differ by gender, sexual orientation, time and the like factors. Therefore, everyday is the result of the intersection of various fields by different individuals. Morris’s essay is an integral reminder as she accentuates that her text is not based on a single piece of history. Instead, it revolves around multiple histories, most of which are quite dissimilar to the historical contexts remembered. This merges cultural studies with histories (Morris, 1998). This could be compared to Bourdieu’s scheme of using multiple forms of capital to describe the social experience which merges various disciplines into the study of sociology. Given the fact that Bourdieu’s work has been applied to various fields such as media studies (Hesmondhalgh, 2006), it makes sense if Bourdieu’s work is applied to the evolution of urban landmarks such as shopping malls in the manner done by Morris (1998). Morris’s essays also focus on production and reception, recapping that the authoress is a shopper herself. These ideas can be seen as pro-feminist and theoretical on the part of Morris. Hence, such ideas presented by Morris ignore practical considerations as such. Thereby, such ideas are not aimed at ordinary women who Morris considers to be only a figment of our social imagination. This does not imply, however, that it does not condescend to theorist shoppers or the readership comprises of only exceptional individuals. Morris also does not offer a fascinating perspective about how theory cannot be confined to everyday life nor can it unchain itself from it. She is of the opinion that even those who create, manage, and promote shopping centres are actually theorists. Undeniably, they are supreme in their knowledge about women who comprise a major part of the custom. Thus, this fact cannot be simply deplored, and is what makes shopping centres not only useful but also “loveable.” Due to a plethora of information on shopping centres, the architectural role of information systems in managing consumption, Morris is unable to restrict her text to “shopping in a shopping centre” that would revolve around individual pleasure (Morris, 1998). Rather she quotes actual shopping centre sites. Morris’ use of agents in order to delineate the causation behind shopping malls connects seamlessly with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus whereby the agents are acted upon by external influences and the agents themselves shape external influence (Bourdieu, 1990). However, it is arguable that Morris’ work is based more on theoretical grounds compared to Bourdieu’s work since Bourdieu backs up his sociological claims with hardcore scientific sociological practice (Bourdieu, 2000). Morris’ framework is comparable to Bourdieu’s ideas on people who create stratification in society. Bordieu argues that these people tend to act in manners that create social stratification such as by providing preference to a certain form of aesthetic tastes, clothes, language delivery and other such distinctions (Hebdige, 1996) In a similar manner, Morris contends that shopping centres are a creation of certain people who hold knowledge and power over shoppers. In creating various forms of shopping centres, the focus of such people is to wield influence on shoppers (Lewis, 2004). Morris argues that in the modern world, shopping centres serve as a place of common economic desires and depict aesthetics that denotes local conditions. However, this economic rationale is inadequate to precisely delineate the functions of shopping’s centres, people’s reactions or even the cultural outcomes in the surroundings produced by them. Moreover, shopping centres are not permanent; rather they are like humans also get facelifts by altering their image. This has accelerated the trend towards changing classic structures (Morris, 1998). In a comparable fashion, Bourdieu argues that people are subject to change over time and this change is bound to produce changes in their capital outlooks for economics, society, culture and symbolism. These changes proposed by Bourdieu can be seen as the reasons behind Morris’ change in shopping centre structures. Morris steps away from the prevalent opinion on shopping centres. Without denying certain similarities and common readability, Morris analyses the shopping centre by taking its unique historical background and geographical location into account. For her, these factors contribute immensely towards making every shoppers experience distinct. In plain terms, rather than critically examining the abstract notion, she considers the semiotics underlying the particular locations that offer a distinct sense of place. Morris’ use of semiotic for looking into shopping malls can be compared to Bourdieu’s concept of field whereby he contends that semiotic descriptions that create space also tend to create social division (Grenfell, 2008). For example, more affluent neighbourhoods would house personalised shopping malls where clients are dealt with personally while middle class and lower class neighbourhoods would have shopping malls where the agents help themselves. Morris contends that shopping centres are not less than a paradox. Shopping centres are always monolithically present; however, the innumerable uses and reactions to it are not conclusively defined. She deems this dual attribute as deliberate to serve to lure in customers. The rousing pressure between the colossal structure and the incessantly shifting, continual spectacle inside and outside the centre adds to their appeal amongst shoppers. Despite this, shopping centres management strategies are focused on uniformity of administrative charge, aesthetic ambience through regulation of advertising modes, common decorations, tenant mix, and the like. Nevertheless, this effort directed at uniformity of spectacle fails as people’s actions and responses vary. The various factors considered by Morris for shopping centre management strategies can be compared to Bourdieu’s ideas on capital of various forms that forms distinction. Hence, if different capital in society produces different groups in society, then different management strategies in shopping centres would appeal to different shoppers (Steinmetz, 2011). On one hand, examining shopping centres revolves around mutual sensations, notions, and sentimental state provoked by them whether positive, negative, or delusional. On the other hand, it is aimed at fighting against these notions and emotional states to overthrow the state of a fascinated describer. The analysis of crossroads of magic to be centred in a shopping centre will undoubtedly trigger social experiences that are more complicated than the wide-eyes presentation. For feminists, this in turn shall elicit a response that is more critical than presentation. In other words, feminist analysis of malls will be directed towards ambivalence of objects instead of a mere amazement. Ambivalence encourages pondering about the relations between opposed states. Additionally, it also serves as a pose appropriate to routine practice of visiting the same shopping centres for various factors. Most essentially, it does not counter daily-disgruntled feelings such as fury, gloom, annoyance, tedium, fatigue. The wide-eyed presentations to describe things the way they actually are rouse a feminist movement based on discontent. Although feminist theorists also taking into account the grave realities of the contemporary world; however, it encompasses the option of declining what is visible and rejects the option to accept it as given. Feminism is synonymous to effectively shopping since both are based on narrowed vision, scepticism, and sharpened focus according to Morris (1998). In a similar manner, Bourdieu can be seen as describing the origination of society though he uses far larger perspectives than Morris’ narrow feminist perspective alone (Hebdige, 1996). Morris takes a different stance in contrast to the conventional sociological and ethnic standpoints regarding shopping centres. She adopts an ordinary woman’s status and textualizes based on her experience. In her perspective, shopping centres are a place of intersecting systems; the heterogeneous crowds make this a place of byzantine and unusual experiences. Morris’ work can be seen as connected to Bourdieu’s except that the latter tends to describe the entire society while the former restricts herself to certain large symbols in Bourdieu’s social system. References Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P., 1980. The production of belief: contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture and Society, 2, pp.261-93. Bourdieu, P., 1990. Structures, habitus, practices. In The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp.52-79. Bourdieu, P., 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.J.D., 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grenfell, M., 2008. Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. London: Acumen Press. Hebdige, D., 1996. The impossible object: towards a sociology of the sublime. In Cultural studies and communication. London: Arnold. Hesmondhalgh, D., 2006. Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media Culture & Society, 28(2), p.211–231. Lewis, T., 2004. Meaghan Morris and the Formation of Australian Cultural Studies: a Narrative of Intellectual Exchange and Local Transnationalism. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 4(45-70). Morris, M., 1998. Things to do with shopping centers. In Too soon too late: history in popular culture. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Steinmetz, G., 2011. Bourdieu, Historicity, and Historical Sociology. Cultural Sociology, 11, pp.45-61. Swartz, D., 1997. Bourdieu's Political Economy of Symbolic Power. In Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago. Read More