Sociological Views of Pierre Bourdieu - Essay Example

?Pierre Bourdieu has been significant in sociology having produced the 6th most important social scientific work of the 20th century and earning a distinction. The document analysis of ruling and experience gives a diverse approach to the society, biased/purpose contest; thus, considering they went beyond and detailed on Marx’s main objective account of social class that economy was the major motive for social discrimination. On the other hand, his opinion compared culture along with power and its function in social class. Bourdieu uses four concepts to explain social inequality symbolic violence, field, habitus and capital, he further believes social life can’t be understood as simply the aggregate of individual behaviour (Jenkins 1992, p.74) and further says that the structures need analysis though they don’t control and dominate agents as Marx, Althusser and others thought. Moreover, he creates a bridge between two dualism in the form of ‘habitus’, where its original meaning is ‘ an get hold of system of generative systems impartially accustomed to the exact circumstances in which it is comprised of (Pierre1977, p.95). For Bourdieu, the body is a mnemonic gadget whereby the basis of customs, realistic taxonomies are fixed in a socializing process, the socialized body does not stand opposition to society one of its own. On the contrary, habitus does not determine action rather practice; however, individuals do make decision based on principles outside their control. In his own words representatives categorize themselves, represent themselves to categorization by selecting their tastes, clothes, attributes, foods, drinks, sports which go well together and suitable to their position (Bourdieu, 1990, p.132).In addition, our habitus coincides with our class position and it is taken for granted where there is acceptance of the fundamental conditions of existence (Swartz 1997, P.96) Bourdieu defines a field as a network, or a pattern of purpose relations between positions impartially definite in their subsistence and in the willpowers they inflict upon their inhabitants, negotiators or foundations, by their current and possible condition in capital whose ownership orders way in to the exact profits that are at risk in the field, as well as their purpose relation to further locations (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p.39). Consequently, his concept of field is there to provide a framework for analysis of agent and their positions within a given field. The position of agents has been described as accumulation of economic and cultural capital where people are subordinate or dominant in the fields. This, for that reason, elucidates the belief that Bourdieu does not just deem structures bring about social inequality, instead the agents do. A variety of agents that exist include internal logic and regulatory principles that govern the agenda of the field power, which is the most important and symbolic according to Bourdieu’s theory where he highlights other sociologists stating that geographic location can play a part in the field to that of a poker game where the piles of chips reflects the unequal distribution of capital, which is summarized as a result of previous struggles and orient strategies for the future (Swartz,1997, P.123). In the past researchers have concentrated in three diverse perceptions on social capital based on ideas of Bourdieu. This could not be clarified by economics only as he is famous for discussion of cultural capital in ways people use cultural knowledge to anchor their place in the social ranking. Moreover he explores the ways in which the trappings of middle –class taste and farming is used by communities as cultural implications as they try to identify themselves with those on top of them on the social ranking, and to reveal their disparity. According to Bourdieu, a universal science of the practices economy that does not synthetically bound itself to those practices that are communally known as economic, must endeavour to grab capital, that power of social physics…..in all of its different forms. Bourdieu and Wacquant go on to define social capital as the summary of the resources, definite or effective, that are to a person or a group by high merit of having a long-lasting network of more or less institutionalizing relationships of shared recognition. This definition, in itself is similar to other definitions like that of Hanifan who sees social capital as a fundamentally heart warming network of social connections and moreover, Bourdieu uses it to give explanation on the cold realism of social variation. Social capital is an additional instrument in the arsenal of the elite, set out to ensure that the wrong type of people do not join their circles and more as most models of social capital portray it as a force bringing groups together in a way which is in essence beneficial to the people involved. Bourdieu viewpoint is a significant prompt that social capital can be a segregator; he likes to talk about people aggressively playing the game except in the end sees them as quite powerless; conversely, he brings forward the subjective experience of the individual. His version of social capital lands in this framework, offering an account of the ways in which those at the top of social chain of command can hold onto their position through a variety of reserved techniques which collectively form an iron grip. James Coleman an American sociologist, was as well writing on the subject of social capital; indeed, although their viewpoints were relatively unlike, he worked together for a while with Bourdieu in Chicago co-heading a conference in 1989 and co-editing a 1991 book on social Theory in changing society. Coleman connected social capital to economics too, although in a dissimilar approach. He attempted to merge the insights of sociology along with economic theory. Coleman’s approach leads to an extensive view of social capital, where it is not viewed merely as reserve held by powerful elites, but highlights its worth for all kinds of communities, including the incapable and marginalized. Coleman further argues in more detail and starts his key paper introducing social capital by delineating two broad scholarly steams in the depiction and rationalization of social action plus the economic approach, which is about self-centered and self-governing individuals in quest of fulfilling their goals. In spite of being pulled to the sophistication of economic models, Coleman saves particular disdain for these views. In addition an edition of sociology is developed, which scrounge from these rivulet, considering the economist’s suggestion of a coherent person engaging in reasonable circumstances, but also for growth of social organization and in that he states that the economic steam. The function of social capital can be helpful in daily information and norm and endorse, this can make possible several types of actions; however, they can also be preventive. Moreover, development can be pointed out as a summary or in other words, the wealth of knowledge inside the head of a well-educated journalist or lawyer, reading his newspaper at the breakfast table, will of no use to his son unless he ignores the newspaper and converses with his son effectively and efficiently educating and supporting him as a person not concentrating on futile facts. Social capital is a fundamental resource for individuals and may greatly impinge on their ability to act and their apparent quality of life. They have the capability of bringing it into being as you may think that he could overcome this problem by suggesting that when people are philanthropic, they possibly may be having in their possession the hope when they support their fellow human beings, they contributes to a general culture of community helpfulness and support, which might pay off one day when we ourselves need a hand; nevertheless, these peculiarities of common psychology need to be accepted. Among the most contented on claims by Bourdieu is education as a result of inequality; where he stated that social stratification was an elementary fact of society. People from the upper class will ineluctably determine the welfare of those from the lower class, and the latter will continually accept this reality. He coined the phrase reproduction of inequalities referring to the tendency of the rich to retain wealth, power and prestige; and endeavoured to understand why this persisted in the society over time. Subsequently, his work was aimed at liberating people from the lower class from the oppressive mental and mental state that allows inequality to continue to exist. He did this by identifying structures within society that have enabled this over time. He was of the viewpoint that the level of success to be achieved by a person, termed as social actor, was determined by how they manipulated their resources, termed as capital, and habitus. This had to be appropriate as the social actor interacted with other people, termed as social games, in the field (“Pierre Bourdieu...”, n.d). Bourdieu claimed that developed societies operated in such a way that makes class inequalities justifiable, through their education systems. Success in such an education system is determined by the possession of cultural capital and higher class habitus, this implies that lower-class students will fail as they do not have the necessary resources. Nonetheless, success or failure with regards to education is reliant on the individual gifts that one may or may not possess. Bourdieu felt that higher class people continue to achieve success in education because society perceives them as being justified; essentially, this is how education systems legitimize class inequalities and continue reproduction. He uses the concept of cultural capital to expound this, where he states that education systems assume everyone within society possesses cultural capital although reality is that cultural capital will differ among people within a society. Cultural capital can be defined as having the ability to be familiar with the culture and language of higher class people. Such kind of familiarity is difficult as it is as a result of family upbringing that passes on the dominant culture. Because education systems make this presupposition, lower class students will constantly be at a disadvantage. Bourdieu states that this is more apparent in higher learning institutions where students from lower classes will fear revealing their ignorance (Sullivan 2002, pp.145-146). This analysis was necessary according to Bourdieu as he believed that social life could not be comprehended merely as the summative of individual behaviour. Cultural capital is the main determinant of individual behaviour because as per Bourdieu, it is assigned to individuals at random and it reveals one’s tastes, mannerisms and attitudes; therefore, for the education system to be obliging to all persons within society, it must recognize this fact. His apprehensiveness with the education system was encompassed in its academic language and content, selection process, academic qualifications and class reproduction which give rise to social stratification. Hence, lower class people will be more likely to quit school because they have an internalized disposition that makes them believe they will not succeed in education. Bourdieu found that curriculum content and language were modified to suit higher class people and that cultural capital could be altered into an occupation of high status and income once was done with education (Tabb, n.d). The distinctive value of cultural capital is established by the conditions in which one acquired it in their earliest stages. Beyond a certain appropriate capacity, it is not possible for the cultural capital to get accumulated instead it wears off and dies. This links cultural capital to the biological singularity of an individual and hereditary conveyance; thus inferring that innate property is a form of prestige. In adopting a suitable education system, two theoretic stances must be overcome objectivism and subjectivism. The former refers to social reality, comprising of groups of forces and relations, which imposes itself upon individuals within a society; this brings to mind Marx’ argument of irrespective of the will and consciousness. The latter refers to the creation of momentous lines of interaction from as a result of immeasurable acts of interaction. In order to explain this, Bourdieu states that lasting exposure to exacting conditions and conditionings following the internalization of constraints and possibilities, we acquire a system of disposable and transposable schemata. This system predetermines how we act, judge and perceive the world; meaning that people that are subjected to similar experiences will, regardless of their individual personalities, share a system (Wacquat 2006, pp.6-7). Following this logic, we can understand why people of the same nationality, social rank and gender will spontaneously feel connected to each other. In addition, these systems of disposition are impressionable as they engrave to the body the developing influence of the social environment although contained by the limits set by earlier experiences. Such limitation is exerted by the habitus which in each instant filters that influence. When there is conciliation linking past as well as present experiences, the habitus becomes structured, with social forces contributing to the pattern. Notably also, this structuring gives form and consistency to the diverse activities of an individual as they go through the separate fields of life. Habitus features social continuity and discontinuity as well; where the former is explained by the social forces stored into an individual being as they move across space and time. The latter is explained by the fact that an individual acquires new dispositions thereby modifying the habitus. In addition, habitus elicits innovation where an individual notices a discrepancy in a setting that issues it within society. It is crucial to note that the system of dispositions attained by an individual is predestined by the successive position held within society, that is with reference to the capital they possess (Wacquat 2006. pp.7-8). Bourdieu declared objectivism a falsehood as it ascribes a mechanistic analysis of human conduct disregarding the fact that social life is a practical achievement by endowed individuals. In the same way, subjectivism is misguided as it suggests that social relations and values arise from social situations without considering the impact of social structures. Furthermore, he delved into the other noteworthy forms of capital in society- economic and social capital. He described economic capital as all that is at directly and at once convertible into money where property rights have been institutionalized. Free time and adaptable schedules have been illustrated as direct conversion of economic capital. On the other hand, social capital is fundamentally all the social relationships whether through mutual acquaintance or direct interaction, that an individual has formed a network with. The efficacy of such relationships is calculated by their ability to allow an individual certain objectives. This form of capital was not given much attention by Bourdieu compared to cultural and economic forms. He noted that capital does not obtain its meaning inherently but through the specific fields it is in operation. These fields include artistic, political and legal that utilize resources to access and have a stake in (Robson and Sanders 2009, pp.63-64). Another concept analyzed by Bourdieu is symbolic violence, which he explains as impositions of systems of symbolism within culture of classes that makes such culture seem legitimate. The legitimacy makes the power relations that in fact enact the impositions, incomprehensible. The culture imposed continues to exist insofar as it is permissible within society, adding to the power relations already in play; leading to reproduction of inequalities in a systematic way. He termed this course as misrecognition, where power involvements are not interpreted in an objective manner but rather in the justifiable form ascribed to them by the beholder. This leads to his discussion of cultural arbitrary as he suggests that the relative value of culture cannot be appropriated although its result can be traced historically in an empirical manner. He denotes this arbitrary aspect from the content and form of culture. He goes on to explain that the stronghold of symbolic violence lies in the imposition of the arbitrary nature of culture, referring to this as pedagogic action that exists in three modes diffuse, family and institutionalized education. Each is differentiated by its source, from informal groups, family and institutions such as school respectively. Any symbolic strength attached to every one of the pedagogic agencies lies in their capacity to instil meaning successfully (Jenkins 1992, pp.65-66). Bourdieu went on to state that in order to have a scientific account of the society, the concept of doxa has to be inferred. The doxa represents the experience through which the natural and social worlds appear self-evident, and according to him has been taken for granted. This supposes that in order to develop scientific knowledge of the society both theoretical and practical process of thought need to be combined. This is what he termed as dialectical synthesis; where the objective knowledge is anchored on structuralism and the subjective knowledge is anchored on phenomenology. In the end though, the two must be kept in opposition to avoid the impasse created by analyzing internalized dispositions scientifically. The other subject featured in Bourdieu’s works is consumption of art as a predetermined by culture. He aims to unveil the mystification attached to art using three ideologies- ideology of natural taste, ideology of fresh eye and ideology of charismatic taste, all three of which favour the higher class or dominant class. He describes people with an artistic sense as being ‘justified’ because they belong to the dominant class and the mystification or awe attached to art was hence referred to as cultural consumption (Fowler 1997, pp.43-44). In conclusion, it is universally agreeable that Bourdieu made significant contribution to the topics of social inequality by dissecting the society and its components to explain its existence. In addition, he attributed the dominance of higher class to education systems that favour them because of the capital they possess. However, this is agreeable to the extent where people are precluded in society because of their lack of academic qualifications. Where a society accommodates people with other skills such as sports, his argument may not hold. This is because he only alludes to endowment of intellectual gifts as determining the success of people. Overall, society cannot be studied from an objective view using common sense and scientific means without considering social interactions. Herein, the concept of phenomenology is relevant as social power defines how people perceive the world. This cannot be given weight over structuralism that dictates who holds the social power and why they continue to hold it. His works will continue to be relatable in both sociology and anthropology. Works Cited “Pierre Bourdieu: The Sociology of Class, Lifestyle and Power”. (n.d). [Online] Available at: https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=a801fbc475&view=att&th=13eb22230414f43a&attid=0.2&disp=safe&realattid=f_hgt8u7ug1&zw [Accessed 17/05/2013]. Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, L.J. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. California: Stanford University Press. Fowler, B. 1997. Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations. California: SAGE Jenkins, P. 1992. Intimate enemies: moral panics in contemporary Great Britain. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Jenkins, R. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge. Pierre B. 1977. Equisse D'une Theorie de la Pratique. England: Cambridge University Press. Robson, K. and Sanders, C. 2009. Quantifying Theory: Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Springer. Sullivan, A. 2002. “Bourdieu and Education: How Useful is Bourdieu’s Theory for Researchers?” The Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences- Volume 38- 110. 2. Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tabb, E. (n.d). Bourdieu’s explanation of social inequality. [Online] Available at: www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/pdf/ug_journal/vol6/2011SC301_EmilyTabb.pdf [Accessed 17/05/2013]. Wacquat, L. 2006. “Chapter 16: Pierre Bourdieu”. [Online] Available at: www.umsl.edu/~keelr/3210/resources/PIERREBOURDIEU-KEYTHINK-REV2006.pdf [Accessed 17/05/2013]. Read More