Roman Theatre, Aosta - Wikimedia Commons
Pierre Bourdieu:
Human interaction on stage
Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological work is dominated by an analysis of how the ruling social classes maintain their strength relative to the social classes lower down in the social hierarchy. His focus on the mechanisms of reproduction of the social hierarchies is a point of departure for the development of a series of very interesting and useful notions for those who wish to understand more about how social forces interact with the individual.
Bourdieu emphasizes the importance of cultural and symbolic factors in this maintenance of social dominance. Those who are in a position to define the prevailing social rules of human behaviour and achievement, are also in a position to make sure that their own preferences and their own qualifications will prevail as measures of social success. This power to define is, once it is used actively for the attainment of social and political power, called symbolic violence by Bourdieu. He defines symbolic violence as the capacity to ascribe relative social value to symbolic behavior and to legitimize certain types of behavior as opposed to other types of behavior.
The social world is in his analysis divided into fields (French: champs), like the fields of art, fashion, media, sports, academia or politics. These fields have their own respective social rules of behavior and their own criteria for success or failure. They have their own hierarchies and their own dynamics, and the persons who are within these fields or who try to enter them are in a constant state of social competition – with the aim of improving their relative position in the field’s ranking system.
The participants in each field possess a certain capital which they can make use of to further their aims in the field. In this context, we can (following Bourdieu's reasoning) distinguish between economic capital, cultural capital and social capital. The economic capital consists of all forms of economic capital, whether in the form of financial assets, real estate or other forms of assets. Cultural capital consists of all cultural resources, either in the form of internalized resources (know-how, competence, manner of speech, manner of clothing and behaviour, etc), objects (cultural objects, for instance like those contained in museums) or institutionalized resources (diplomas, titles, etc.). Social capital designates all types of resources that are linked to possession of networks, the quality of those networks, and the degree to which the individual is accepted and respected in these networks. An additional notion of capital is symbolic capital, which designates those parts of the other three forms of capital that are particularly recognized as having a high status in society (cf. the distinction between “old” money and “new” money as regards economic capital, or the status of the school you have graduated from as regards cultural capital).
Each person, or agent (as he is most often referred to by Bourdieu in this context), is characterized by what he calls a habitus. The habitus is the collection of dispositions, perceptions and modes of action that the individual has acquired through his social experience, and it forms the basic platform from which the individual’s actions flow. Important elements in forming an individual's habitus are gender, race, social class, parental education, tastes, preferences and attitudes towards challenges posed by the individual's surroundings.
Through more than thirty books and hundreds of articles Bourdieu’s work contain vast empirical work. This work is centered round these major concepts and directions, in the following way:
· The habitus is seen as a driving force (or lack of such) behind the individual’s behavior.
· The social world is divided in fields with their own internal power structures, rules and criteria for success.
· The participants in each of the fields possess economic capital, cultural capital and social capital, which they may use to further their aims in the fields they choose to operate in.
· The social world contains latent symbolic violence, i.e. the capacity of dominating groups or persons to impose their criteria for success without being challenged by the victims of these criteria. The degree of symbolic violence applied in each field will vary according to the dispositions of those who have power in the respective fields, and according to how easily rules can be challenged and changed there.
· The direction of Bourdieu’s work tends to show: 1) how hierarchies are formed between the social groups; 2) how cultural practice plays an important role in the conflicts between these groups; 3) how the school system plays a decisive role in reproducing and legitimizing these social hierarchies.
Like every scientist, Bourdieu has been inspired in his work by others. From Max Weber he has retained the importance of the symbolic dimension as a legitimizing force in social domination. Weber’s idea of social orders has in Bourdieu’s work become fields. From Karl Marx he has retained the notion of capital, generalized by Bourdieu for all social activities, not only the economic activities. From Émile Durkheim he has taken up the notion of determinism, and – in a way – Claude Lévi-Strauss’ structuralism.
Structuralism, which states the submission of the individual to rules of conduct imposed by the social structures, is conceptually opposed to constructivism, which considers the social world as the result of freely chosen actions on the part of individuals. Claude Lévi-Strauss was the major proponent of structuralism, whereas Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism is an important example of constructivism – in the sense that the individual’s complete freedom of choice was at the center of his preoccupations.
Bourdieu’s theories were developed with the idea that the individual has freedom of action, but that this freedom is limited by the structures within which his actions take place. He was thus operating on the basis of a synthesis of the two concepts. This is why he preferred to talk about agents, rather than individuals, because this notion in a better way covers the idea that the individual acts on the basis of several conscious and unconscious premises that he represents when he acts.
Bourdieu emphasizes the importance of cultural and symbolic factors in this maintenance of social dominance. Those who are in a position to define the prevailing social rules of human behaviour and achievement, are also in a position to make sure that their own preferences and their own qualifications will prevail as measures of social success. This power to define is, once it is used actively for the attainment of social and political power, called symbolic violence by Bourdieu. He defines symbolic violence as the capacity to ascribe relative social value to symbolic behavior and to legitimize certain types of behavior as opposed to other types of behavior.
The social world is in his analysis divided into fields (French: champs), like the fields of art, fashion, media, sports, academia or politics. These fields have their own respective social rules of behavior and their own criteria for success or failure. They have their own hierarchies and their own dynamics, and the persons who are within these fields or who try to enter them are in a constant state of social competition – with the aim of improving their relative position in the field’s ranking system.
The participants in each field possess a certain capital which they can make use of to further their aims in the field. In this context, we can (following Bourdieu's reasoning) distinguish between economic capital, cultural capital and social capital. The economic capital consists of all forms of economic capital, whether in the form of financial assets, real estate or other forms of assets. Cultural capital consists of all cultural resources, either in the form of internalized resources (know-how, competence, manner of speech, manner of clothing and behaviour, etc), objects (cultural objects, for instance like those contained in museums) or institutionalized resources (diplomas, titles, etc.). Social capital designates all types of resources that are linked to possession of networks, the quality of those networks, and the degree to which the individual is accepted and respected in these networks. An additional notion of capital is symbolic capital, which designates those parts of the other three forms of capital that are particularly recognized as having a high status in society (cf. the distinction between “old” money and “new” money as regards economic capital, or the status of the school you have graduated from as regards cultural capital).
Each person, or agent (as he is most often referred to by Bourdieu in this context), is characterized by what he calls a habitus. The habitus is the collection of dispositions, perceptions and modes of action that the individual has acquired through his social experience, and it forms the basic platform from which the individual’s actions flow. Important elements in forming an individual's habitus are gender, race, social class, parental education, tastes, preferences and attitudes towards challenges posed by the individual's surroundings.
Through more than thirty books and hundreds of articles Bourdieu’s work contain vast empirical work. This work is centered round these major concepts and directions, in the following way:
· The habitus is seen as a driving force (or lack of such) behind the individual’s behavior.
· The social world is divided in fields with their own internal power structures, rules and criteria for success.
· The participants in each of the fields possess economic capital, cultural capital and social capital, which they may use to further their aims in the fields they choose to operate in.
· The social world contains latent symbolic violence, i.e. the capacity of dominating groups or persons to impose their criteria for success without being challenged by the victims of these criteria. The degree of symbolic violence applied in each field will vary according to the dispositions of those who have power in the respective fields, and according to how easily rules can be challenged and changed there.
· The direction of Bourdieu’s work tends to show: 1) how hierarchies are formed between the social groups; 2) how cultural practice plays an important role in the conflicts between these groups; 3) how the school system plays a decisive role in reproducing and legitimizing these social hierarchies.
Like every scientist, Bourdieu has been inspired in his work by others. From Max Weber he has retained the importance of the symbolic dimension as a legitimizing force in social domination. Weber’s idea of social orders has in Bourdieu’s work become fields. From Karl Marx he has retained the notion of capital, generalized by Bourdieu for all social activities, not only the economic activities. From Émile Durkheim he has taken up the notion of determinism, and – in a way – Claude Lévi-Strauss’ structuralism.
Structuralism, which states the submission of the individual to rules of conduct imposed by the social structures, is conceptually opposed to constructivism, which considers the social world as the result of freely chosen actions on the part of individuals. Claude Lévi-Strauss was the major proponent of structuralism, whereas Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism is an important example of constructivism – in the sense that the individual’s complete freedom of choice was at the center of his preoccupations.
Bourdieu’s theories were developed with the idea that the individual has freedom of action, but that this freedom is limited by the structures within which his actions take place. He was thus operating on the basis of a synthesis of the two concepts. This is why he preferred to talk about agents, rather than individuals, because this notion in a better way covers the idea that the individual acts on the basis of several conscious and unconscious premises that he represents when he acts.