Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory - Essay Example

School: Topic: Lecturer: presented: Introduction Sociologists study the behaviour of human beings in the society to find out why they behave the way they do and how they relate to their environment. Of interest to sociologists is study of social laws (structure) and individual minds (agency) in which these laws are inscribed. There is always a conflict between use of objectivism and subjectivism in understanding behaviour, but some sociologists such as Bourdieu have managed to avoid this conflict by finding a middle ground between the two. Different sociologists use different approaches to studying the society but most of them incorporate views from their counterparts; for example there are the functionalists who believe in parts that make up a social system and the structuralists who emphasise the social laws. Notable sociologists include Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Anthony Giddens, Merleau-Ponty and Wittgenstein, among others, but our focus for this paper is to evaluate Pierre Bourdieu’s theory in relation to an everyday situation. Case Study Have you ever wondered why you behave the way you do or why you do the things you do? For example, why would one want to visit a fancy restaurant and spend a lot of money when there are a lot more restaurants which charge less for the same type of food? Furthermore, these expensive restaurants offer small servings of food whereas the ordinary restaurants serve large quantity of food at a cheap price. Why do we order different kinds of food in restaurants? Common sense would tell us that the more money you earn, the more you would be inclined to visit fancy restaurants. Those working class individuals with low income are likely to be found at a cheap restaurant so as to save for other necessities of life while the ruling class visits very fancy restaurants as they have more to spend. But is this the case? Are there other reasons why different people visit different kinds of restaurants? Some factors in the environment would also affect the consumption behaviour of individuals. If one is working in an industrial area, it is likely that the restaurants around are cheap for common people. Others go to a restaurant because it is near the working place instead of commuting far, and time is of essence. Still others go to various restaurants because they are accustomed to since childhood, that is, they learnt the behaviour from parents. This is the everyday situation people live in, but Pierre Bourdieu gives us an insight into why people go to certain restaurants and order certain foods. Pierre Bourdieu’s Social Theory Bourdieu was born in 1930 in France. He was a son of a peasant community but in 1955 he was conscripted into the French army to fight in the Algerian War of Independence (Lane, 2000). Before he left France, he was a philosopher but when he came back in 1960, he had transformed into a sociologist after being influenced by people such as Merleau-Ponty and Louis Althusser. His work was inclined into the Marxist thought though his views diverged a little. To him education and cultural tastes were central to understanding the difference between social classes and reproduction of social class difference (Appelrouth, 2008 p. 684). One of his most notable works that have influenced sociology is Distinctions: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Bourdieu, 1984), which focuses on the theory of distinction and emphasises the role of practice and embodiment in worldview construction. His work was influenced by ideas of Max Weber, Karl Marx, Durkheim, and Merleau-Ponty. His theory focuses on consumption, social status and habitus. Just like Giddens, he emphasises social reproduction and a routine structure of behaviour. However, behaviour in this case is the result of cultural codes which the individual or agent is unaware of (Bourdieu, 1990). He uses various concepts in explaining his theory which will be discussed later, such as fields, habitus, cultural, social and symbolic capital, reflexivity and symbolic violence. Bourdieu, just like Marx, believes in the existence of social classes in society as a result of social relationships. However, unlike Marx, Bourdieu (1984) argues that the social classes are not as a result of economic conditions but due to cultural capital. This is reflected in how social classes are maintained across generations (stable social relations) despite the modern society claiming to promote equality of opportunity and high social mobility. Whatever the economic conditions, agents continue portraying similar behaviour over generations because they were socialised into such behaviours while young by their parents. This cultural capital (knowledge, expertise, style etc) helps agents to obtain dominance in their fields. In other words, cultural capital is the main tool for struggle for domination in the cultural field (Grenfell, 2008). According to Appelrouth (2008 p. 687), ‘the individual reasons for acting are of secondary importance as they are held to reflections of underlying cultural codes’. While developing, children learn languages and are able to understand the meanings of various symbols using the language acquired, and this impacts their daily lives unconsciously and inform the decisions they make. Language in this case acts as a power mechanism that enables domination of agents by others in the social space. Bourdieu (1996) also notes that cultural capital develops in opposition to economic capital. It is concerned with individual feelings as opposed to economic gains, thus involving subjects such as art, music, fashion, tastes as opposed to business related fields. Bourdieu (1984) noted four types of capital: cultural, social, economic and symbolic capital. Cultural capital, as discussed above, represents competencies, skills and qualifications. Economic capital is in form of finances or income as envisaged by Marx and causes class antagonisms due to inequality. Symbolic capital, on the other hand, represents social symbols such as honour and prestige (Lane, 2000). This is not capital as such but is perceived as such through societal inculcations and is a source of power. Those who are attributed with prestige and honour occupy a dominant place in society while those without such symbols are viewed as lesser beings. When these individuals use symbolic capital to influence others, this is referred by Bourdieu (2005) as symbolic violence. Another thing Bourdieu focuses on is the dispositions which, according to him, are used to solve the conflict between the subjective (habitus) and the objective (field). These dispositions are public and observable as opposed to unknown preferences. The habitus, according to Lane (2000), is used to describe the way objective or material conditions of existence are internalised into a structure of subjective dispositions. For Bourdieu (2005, p. 11), a material good exposed to general gaze expresses the social being of its owners and also reveals their taste, class system of appropriation. It also enables owners to be situated in social space of taste. So what are these habitus and fields? These are common concepts used by Bourdieu in his theories. Habitus is a system of dispositions developed in response to objective conditions experienced. These dispositions are internalised in early childhood and direct individuals to positions they occupy in society. They enable one to view his/her behaviours as appropriate and those with contrary behaviours as inappropriate, thus creating class distinctions. The position of individuals on a field conditions them to continue practicing certain actions, thus developing dispositions and later developing habitus which are typical of his position in the social space (Bourdrieu & Wacquant, 1992; Wacquant, 2006). The field in this case refers to various disciplines in social space and these have own rules, schemes of domination and legitimate opinions. Examples of fields include arts, business, music, law, education, politics and economics. Agents in every field have a way of behaving which is only understandable by members and enable them to develop dispositions. For example, those engaged in arts master its performance through continuous practice and become experts in the field; they dominate the field. The values and dispositions gained determined how individuals engage with the social world and help in social reproduction. Theory Application This theory is applicable to everyday life situations such as visiting a restaurant. According to Bourdieu (1984; 1990), the choices individuals make are not constrained by economic factors as Marx would make us to believe, but by cultural codes which individuals are unaware of and which have a social origin. Children accumulate cultural capital since childhood, which constraints their behaviour or choices. The schools where they are taken depend on family background and the fields that they engage in are also influenced by social origin (Sallaz & Jane, 2007). Children have a tendency to engage in fields that their parents are engaged in, thus acquiring values related to such fields, and through practice gain dispositions that develop into habitus that guides their social actions. If parents are lawyers, children are likely to become lawyers and gain symbolic capital (prestige and honour) in society, thus gaining power to dominate those from lower classes. These agents with power find themselves visiting fancy restaurants where their class is maintained even without realising it while those who feel inferior visit ordinary restaurants where their social position allows them to. Even if they have high incomes, they find themselves in such places. Though learning the habits of the elite would enable them to occupy the elite social spaces, they do not feel comfortable because that is not how they were socialised (Bourdieu, 1977). They are thus constrained by culture or social structure. Language is a power mechanism and a cultural instrument. It creates class distinctions and helps to reproduce them. People learn language while young and their accent and mannerisms determine their social position (they accumulate a lot of cultural capital). Classic restaurants have a certain language which is designed for high class, and this is emphasised through advertising and marketing (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Lower class people are used to common language and do not find it comfortable following some routines. They have already developed habitus appropriate to their social positions in social space that do not allow them to mix with high class. As such, they have freedom of choice, but their dispositions constrain them. The type of food eaten by different groups is also different depending on the tastes they have developed. Poor people tend to take fatty and cheap foods since their habitus tells them it is appropriate. They believe other types of food eaten by the high class is superior to what they are eating, thus legitimating the dominant culture tastes. In common sense, social classes develop due to economic disparities. Those with high incomes and prestigious jobs automatically enter the high class or the dominant class. As such, social mobility is possible through education and learning new behaviour. However, according to the theory, people occupy social positions necessitated by the fields in which they practise and develop dispositions and habitus, which help to reproduce these social distinctions. Social structures are stable, thus social mobility is reduced by the actions of the agents (Bourdieu, 2005). Agents act unconsciously as they are driven by cultural codes which have accumulated since childhood, thus they do not choose how to act. According to Appelrouth (2008), individuals do not create dispositions but acquire them, and these, in turn, help them to develop habitus leading to social reproduction. If culture does not constrain somebody, then individuals would go to any restaurant and order any food despite their social position provided they have cash. The theory is universal in nature as it can be applied to all situations and places. For example, if one wishes to choose a partner, he/she is guided by cultural codes and symbolic capital. If parents do not approve of the relationship, the likelihood of such relationship thriving is minimal. The same case applies to choosing where to study and who our friends are. We are guided by factors beyond our control since we believe what our parents and society want is what is best. Even in contemporary modern society where equality is encouraged, class divisions still exist not because of our economic status but because of our long held beliefs and traditions that constrain our thoughts and actions. Conclusion Though the theory was essential in evaluating the everyday situation, it could not lack some weaknesses. First, as much as we would like to deny it, economic capital does influence our choices. We often look at our pockets when deciding which restaurant to go to and what food to eat. Besides, it is not always that our past experience influences our present. One can transform behaviour and acquire habits of a higher class, hence not reproducing but transforming social production. However, use of economic power to explain the situation would not have achieved good results since even people with same income do have different tastes, which can only be explained by use of culture. There are also other factors that cause distinctions such as race and gender besides class. On the other hand, this may not be appropriate as the restaurant has almost homogenous groups. His theory also lacks reflexivity in that habits are used to replace thoughts. People do develop habits but they can change depending on the situation and by being creative, although this may not explain why there is social reproduction. The theory was, however, very vital in explaining how power operates symbolically. References Appelrouth, S. 2008. Classical and contemporary sociological theory: texts and readings. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinctions: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. Structures, habits, practices. In. P. Bourdieu. The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1996. The rules of art. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.J.D. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Uiversity of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. 2005. The social structures of the economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Grenfell, M (ed). 2008. Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts. London: Acumen Press. Lane, J.F.2000. Pierre Bourdieu: a critical introduction. London: Pluto Press. Sallaz, J. & Jane, Z. 2007. Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980-2004. Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 21-41. Wacquant, L. 2006. Key contemporary thinkers. London: Macmillan. Read More