Download pierre bourdieu - Studies in Film

PIERRE BOURDIEU
The Sociology of
Class, Lifestyle and Power
Bourdieu’s Key Claims
1. Social class is the elementary social fact
2. We continue to live in highly stratified,
class-based societies
3. Society works to keep the upper classes
powerful and the lower classes powerless
4. A lot of this happens unintentionally; not
deliberate manipulation by the powerful
OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bourdieu’s biography
Main aims
Social action
Habitus, capital, field
Education field
Social reproduction
Criticisms
Bourdieu’s Biography
1930 – 2002
- Born in the Béarn region of France
- Peasant background
- Star pupil; degrees in philosophy
and anthropology
- Professor of Sociology, College de
France (1980)
- Political figure; Media personality
- “An Outsider’s Sociology”
Main Aims
1) To understand why social inequalities:
a) are reproduced over time:
Retention of wealth, prestige, power by elites
(“reproduction”)
b) are generally accepted by the lower classes
2) To liberate social actors from oppressive
social and mental conditions
- reveals structures actors not fully aware of
- shows society could be organised differently
Main Aims
3) Reconcile and synthesise separate
schools of sociological thought
- Marxism (class & power)
- Durkheimian sociology (division of
labour; worldviews of different groups)
- Weberian sociology (focus on social
action; attention to empirical details)
- Phenomenology
(how people perceive the world they live
in; how social power shapes perceptions)
Main Aims
4) Transcend dualisms
- “Subjective” OR “Objective”
- Social Structure OR Action/Agency
(“Structuration”)
- Theory OR Empirical sociology
- Quantitative OR Qualitative
Use of multiple research methods:
Interviews, questionnaires, documents, etc.
Main Aims
5) Connect different social spheres
- Sociology of education, sociology of politics,
sociology of mass media, etc.
- See how each sphere connects with, and affects,
the others
6) Encourage “reflexivity”
- Sociology of sociology
- See how social forces shape the ways in which
sociologists see things
- Sociologist studies him/herself sociologically
Social Action
(Weber; Parsons)
1) A person
- who has resources
2) Person thinks in certain ways
- has certain goals
- thinks of ways (means) to achieve them
- goals and means shaped by culture
3) Has to act in particular social contexts
- Contexts shape the person’s thinking & acting
- Contexts shape how successful (or not) the
person is in achieving their goals
1) A person has particular goals
(these may be thought about fully consciously or only
semi-consciously)
2) They try to pursue those goals using certain
strategies
(also consciously or semi-consciously)
3) They have certain resources at their disposal
(some people have more resources than others)
4) They act in certain social contexts
Success: 1) having a large amount of the right sort of
resources; 2) having appropriate strategies
Failure: 1) having the wrong sort of resources;
2) having inappropriate strategies
a) A person (“social actor”) (shaped by a “habitus”)
- who has resources (“capital”)
b) Person thinks in certain ways
- thinking is semi-conscious – “practical reason”
- both goals and strategies shaped by the habitus
c) Person has to act in particular social contexts
(“fields”)
d) Person has to interact with other people
(“social games”) (Actors = “players”)
How successful a person is in a particular field
depends on how appropriate their habitus and
capital is for the game played in that field
Sporting analogy:
1) Social life is a series of games
2) You need the right skills to play those games
successfully
e.g. tennis skills; rugby playing
3) Skills = the capital you possess
4) Your habitus dictates the capital you possess
5) Some people have more capital than others
EXAMPLE: the “game” of education
- Appropriate skills = “cultural capital”
- Appropriate habitus = middle class habitus
Habitus, Capital, Field
Habitus (plural: habitus)
Components:
- ways of thinking / ways of acting
- bodily habits
- tastes: likes and dislikes
Whole way of life / lifestyle
a) Each class has its own habitus
- Working class habitus
- Middle class habitus
Lower working class (least capital)
Upper working class (some capital)
Lower middle class (more capital)
Upper middle class (most capital)
b) Each individual’s habitus is the
habitus of their class
e.g. working class person, working class habitus
c) Socialised into particular ways of thinking
and acting
Primary socialisation
Secondary socialisation
d) Experience the habitus as “natural”:
- the condition of “doxa”
Could have been socialised very differently
e) Each habitus has its own set of tastes
- Likes / dislikes
- Beautiful / disgusting
- Moral / immoral, etc.
f) Tastes are socially stratified
Upper middle class taste – highest
Lower middle class taste – middling
Working class taste – lowest
BOURDIEU - RECAP
1. Society still very much class-based
2. Reproduction of privilege
- Elites pass advantages onto their children
- Non-elites pass disadvantages onto their
children
3. Social life is a series of games, occurring
in “fields”
Success: appropriate habitus & capital
Habitus - continued
f) Tastes are socially stratified
Upper middle class taste – highest
Lower middle class taste – middling
Working class taste – lowest
g) Cultural power
Elites have the power to define their tastes and
their culture as the best
- the most “sophisticated”, “refined”, “tasteful”, etc.
Upper middle class habitus - sense of superiority
Lower middle class habitus – aspirational
Working class habitus – sense of inferiority;
defensiveness; mocking of middle class
pretentions
Capital
HOW MUCH capital does a person have?
WHAT TYPE of capital does a person have?
• Economic capital:
- money resources
• Cultural capital:
- knowledge of ‘legitimate’ culture / ‘High Culture’
- “Linguistic capital” – speaking “properly”
• Social capital
- social networks (knowing influential people)
a) AMOUNT & TYPE of capital
=> class membership
e.g. LOW AMOUNT of all 3 TYPES =
lower working class
e.g. HIGH AMOUNT of all 3 TYPES = upper
middle class
b) Habitus STRONGLY INFLUENCES both the
amount & type of capital a person has
The more upper middle class the habitus
=> the more capital the person has
Cultural Capital
Economic Capital
Cultural bourgeoisie
e.g. artists, academics
High
Intermediate
Business bourgeoisie
e.g. company directors
Intermediate
High
Upper professionals
e.g. lawyers, higher civil
servants
Intermediate to high
Intermediate to high
Lower middle class
e.g. primary school
teachers, nurses
Intermediate to low
Intermediate to low
Low to intermediate
Low
Low to intermediate
Low
Working class
(Upper WC)
Skilled
Unskilled
(Lower WC)
Field
a) Level of individuals’ experiences:
- different social contexts
e.g. school, work, leisure
- contexts where social games are played
b) Level of Society:
- separate social spheres
e.g. education system, economic system,
system of leisure and recreation, etc.
c) Fields are based around specific types of capital
e.g. education field – educational capital
(a particular sort of cultural capital)
d) Success in the game played in a field
= having a large amount of the right type of
capital for that field
e) Fields are organised to the advantage of elites
- Not level playing fields
- Fields are organised to favour the sorts of
capital elites happen to possess
f) Reproduction of inequalities
- Successful actors have large amounts of the
right sort of capital for the fields they are in
- They pass that capital onto their children
- (Opposite: unsuccessful actors pass onto their
children small amounts of useful capital and
large amounts of useless capital)
THE WINNERS KEEP WINNING
THE LOSERS KEEP LOSING
(Most of the time)
EDUCATION FIELD
Against the conventional view:
- Meritocracy: intelligence & diligence
- Social mobility
Educational success =
- Having the right sort of capital
- Cultural Capital (CC)
- High CC => good qualifications
- Elites use CC to get large amounts of
educational capital (good qualifications)
Possessors of high CC:
- Upper middle class
- Comes from their habitus (esp. home life)
Possessors of intermediate CC:
- Lower middle classes
Possessors of low CC:
- Working classes (esp. Lower WC)
Habitus => CC => educational capital
“Hidden curriculum”
1) Unintentional evaluations by
teachers
Conscious level:
- Child’s intelligence and diligence
“good work”, “articulate”, “bright”,
“attentive”, etc.
Unconscious level:
- Teachers have middle class habitus
- Teachers respect CC
- Evaluations in terms of amount of
CC the child has (due to its habitus)
“sloppy work”, “inarticulate”, “lazy”,
“disruptive”, etc.
2) Child feels sense of:
- worthiness (if CC is high)
- unworthiness (if CC is low)
Feelings translate into effort & performance
“Naturally” clever / “Naturally” untalented
High CC – virtuous circle
Low CC – vicious circle
OUTCOME:
- Middle class success and working class failure are
reproduced across generations
- This happens mostly unintentionally
Social Reproduction
High cultural capital =>
High educational capital =>
Access to “good” jobs =>
High wealth (economic capital)
Upper middle class parents advantage their
children:
1) Economic capital => access to “good”
schools
2) Cultural capital => “good” at school
3) Social capital => useful connections
Upward social mobility
-
It is possible for LMC and WC individuals
But only for a relatively small number
a) Capitalist society needs a working class
b) Capitalist society needs to show itself as
meritocratic and democratic
- Everyone goes to school; all have the same chances
c) Upper middle classes can “play the game” better
- Easier access to “good schools”
- Can cope with “grade inflation”
Downward social mobility
- The upper middle classes’ greatest fear
- Children occupy lower social positions than
parents
- Parents pass on capital that is not useful, as
society’s fields change over time
e.g. high CC => non-vocational Arts degrees
BUT if changing economy requires vocational &
technical qualifications => CC not much use
Middle class defence mechanisms
Transform one sort of capital into another sort
1) Use economic capital to get new sorts of
educational capital
- home: familiarity with sophisticated technology
- school: extra tuition in employable skills
2) Use social capital to get entry into “good” jobs
3) Use economic & cultural capital to create new
sorts of jobs:
e.g. ‘cultural service sector’ jobs: aromatherapy,
interior decoration, style consultancy, etc.
Criticisms of Bourdieu
1. Explains EVERYTHING in terms of habitus,
capital & field
2. Circular: assumes what he will find
- key concepts supposed to be guides to
research; but turn into certainties
3. Overemphasises class?
- other sources of inequality downplayed?
- non-class-based habitus?
4. Outdated and context-specific?
France in the 1960s/70s
Society and culture more complex now?
5. Defence: can use his concepts to understand
changing social conditions