You are on page 1of 6

Bourdieu and Space The social structures of the creation of the build form

Commentaries of Bourdieus work do not specially point as it being a work on the knowledge of the creation of space. De Certeau, famous for his work on space, specifically critics Bourdieus research as lacking of tools to understand space (de Certeau, 1984). His work specifically builds on Bourdieus one. In Geography, Thrift (Thrift, ????), Crang (Crang & Thrift, 2000) refer to Bourdieus theoretical framework and interrogates how use it in the particular field of georgraphy. They seems not to dig into the specific work in space that I will relate in the next paragraphs. I content that it is possible to approach Bourdieu theory by extracting all his references to space like others have done for divers topics. In particular have been extracted his research on religion (Engler, 2003), economics (Swedberg, 2011), historical studies (Steinmetz, 2011). Dovey (Dovey, 1999, 2005, 2010) and Stevens (Stevens, 1998) are the few in architectural studies to employ Bourdieu as a framework to study specific problematic link to space. However they do not attempt really to extract his work on space to put theirs in perspective. They rather use directly Bourdieu toolkits to do a critic of the architects positions in the social space. In Bourdieus work there exist a stream of studies relate to the creation of space. That particular topic can help to put in perspective on his most known the theoretical toolkit of habitus, fields, and capital. A few of his seminal work are deeply spatial, his work in Algeria (Bourdieu, 1962, 1977a, 1977b, 1980a), and his translation of Panofsky work (Bourdieu, 1967). These works are highly important for Bourdieus elaboration of his thinking process. One of his last work, the social structures of the economy (Bourdieu, 2005), I content, is specifically a work on the creation of the built form. Bourdieu studied the social processes in France that lead to development of the individual house in the countrys city suburbs in the 1980s. Next I will succinctly describe the different facet of his work on space and At the beginning of his career, Bourdieu work in Algeria is by many account as much as a study of the spatialization of the social as it is about the study of the evolution of social structure and of the Kabyle culture. One of Bourdieu first study is that of the Kabyle house (Bourdieu, 1980b). In it, he is interested in uncovering the symbolism of space in the traditional house of this ethnic tribes of Algeria. This work is often deemed as a spectacular structuralist work (Swartz, 1995). The findings are that the whole space in its practice and its arrangement is ritualized. Space represents one of the order of the society, the title of the book summarizes the findings: the house or the world reversed. The symbolism for example describes the back of house as perceived as cold and the front as warn ,the kitchen is feminine, the outdoor is male. The woman enters through the back door while the men through the front one. In every part of the house exists thresholds that define area of use and practices. The world is reversed because the order of the house, the social order of the house is under the authority of the wife, whereas in the society, the social order is presided by men. It is importance to respect the symbolism of space. This is the rules of the society that are expressed in space. Symbolically, everything on earth has its place. As a cosmological order, the Man has its place to respect, every person in the society has its place. Challenging the order is challenging life and the society itself. Consequences are great. These are believes: illness and lack of fortune will fall upon the individual and its extension the group that belongs to the house. But real is the threat of exclusion to the group, an individual in the Kabyle society do not exist on its own. The first part of the conceptualization of Bourdieus work is to understand the spatialization of the struggle of power. Society is understood as the locus of power of struggle between the individual social agent that is

placed, reacts, think, behave, produce and reproduce to positioned itself into the larger rules and social context. To socially understand space it is to start to understand the order of the society. The second interesting conceptualization is the research on the transmission, the learning of the meaning of space, and by extension the learning of cultural production. Culture is understood as socially produce, space is socially produced. Bourdieu contends that the space symbolism is not taught to the children by words, but it is learned by practice, by bodily practice. The reaction of the spaces inhabitants is unconsciously transmitted, 1 the children learn through the practice of the eye . This work later serves to illustrate how the individual learn, absorbs through the body and education disposition that s/he is then able to reproduce. I will come back later in the article on the conceptualization of symbolic systems and learning capacities. Throughout his other work in Algeria (Bourdieu, 1962, 1964, 1977a) Bourdieu refers to the spatialization of the social divisions of the Kabyle society. Bourdieu describe the village as the spatial homology of the social organisation. Each quarter of a village is occupied by one group. This quarter is itself divided into the different family that are with that group. That work on the social and spatial has to be expanded to fully represent of comprehensive theory on social and spatial organisation. However, it is what led Bourdieu to later to state that in the society the location of different social groups of common social and economic dispositions (denomination of social class) is an homology of these dispositions (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990, 2005). Culture change - Social Space - Trajectory Another part of his work is interested how individual and culture change when they are transported from traditional, or rural settings to an urban one (Bourdieu, 1962, 1964, 1977a). Bourdieu carefully studies the uprooting of the Kabyle people from the country side, form their traditional way of living to the city, or modern living estate provided to them. The city, in Algeria of the time, is a construction of the French culture. It has a different economy, it has different social organisation and social hierarchies. The Kabyle are thought by Bourdieu as an undifferentiated society as contrary to the French one understood as differentiated. This distinction separates between societies with relatively simple social order against the one with society with complex social organisation. What is at stake it seems it the capacity and layer of interaction between the individual social agent and the other parts of the society. In undifferentiated societies, the group is often the social horizon of the social agent. It is through the group that social interest are negotiated, but also that social dispositions are acquired. Western societies became complex when economic modernisation, technology complexification, the industrial revolution parallel the complexification of the social th organisation in the 18 C. For Bourdieu, one of the fact of differentiated societies is that education, the transmission of knowledge, culture and cultural disposition became the right of the school system. The study of Bourdieu on the Kabyle uprooting is a study of the transformation of a culture, more specifically the forms of the transformation, within it there is the problematic of the transformation of a culture in undifferentiated society to a differentiated one. What changes? Individual that had certain dispositions, social abilities to relate to others, a particular way of thinking time and economy, particular ways to apprehend the traditional space and transported or are immigrating into the city. Bourdieu asserts that every individual or groups are different from their history and then when faced to new situations will behave and change in a different way. How peasant think time and economy is not suitable to the market economy of the city. They are not ready to think in term of opportunity without the support of the group they traditionally live in. But local rural bourgeois are able to see in the city opportunity to business. In his work on his natal Barn peasant Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 2002) insists how in the city the way people look and perceive themselves is different. The uprooted peasant feel awkward and
1

This part is added by Bourdieu in later writings (Bourdieu, 1996). His first analysis was structuralist (Bourdieu, 1980a), following Sassurian grammar. The process of understanding space was not stated as such at the time. 2 Bourdieu thought of the Kabyle as a unified type of culture, despite having been under the influence of the French for more than 150years (xxx)

uncomfortable, his whole body and his thinking as individual is changed when being brought into the city. This uprooting and the observation of the different forms of adaptation to the city will point toward a particular conceptualization of social and culture by Bourdieu in his famous work distinction (Bourdieu, 1984). One of Bourdieu theory is that as describe earlier, individual exposed to same situation will react differently. Individuals are different, they have different dispositions toward the future, the use of space, the liking of music... These dispositions are historically learn. As previously, the children in the Kabyle house learn in time certain language of space. But when put in different situation, confronted to different culture, each individual will be prepared differently to change. Change always occurs, by being in position of social relation. The new position in the social space can be understood if the previous is understood. That is the trajectory. Change occurs in continuity of previous position and dispositions. Another part of the work on the uprooting reveal how space is imprinted into the mind of individual. As described earlier, the Kabyle have a very particular way of feeling, moving into space. The Kabyle have been displaced into new housing that did not respect the traditional setting of the house (Bourdieu, 1964, 1977a). Bourdieu points out the effect of this uprooting in the conscience and behaviour of the individual. The social agent transported into a different space needs to learn how to relate to this space again, needs to reappropriate that space. In the spatial and social displacement, Bourdieu has a very interesting short chapter (Bourdieu, 1964, pp. 2931) about the trajectory of culture change. He describe how a culture that encounters another one is changing. 3 He makes the difference between acculturation and deculturation . Acculturation is the transformation of a culture that keeps most/some/ part of its characteristics. There is amalgamation of characteristics. There is a creation of a new culture, indeed, but that new one is built on the previous one. Deculturation is a (almost) complete transformation of a culture. The principal factor that differentiate the two phenomena is the time period of the change occurring. Acculturation is possible when the period of change is important, that it allows for a slow exposure and time for change. One could put this observation in perspective of other part of Bourdieu work. Changes in cultural dispositions are possible, but they have to be learn. When the changes are sudden, time of change is short, and the gap with the disposition of the previous culture is too extensive, then Bourdieu content a phenomenon of deculturation occurs. Bourdieu thinking on cultures as Calhoun (2006) comment does not allow for an account of small culture changes. For Bourdieu dramatic culture changes seem to occur only when one is confronted with another. Space as Habitus Production Reproduction Symbol Symbolic violence Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1967) translated a study of Panofsky on the creation of the gothic architecture in the th 13 C. Bourdieu insists on Panofskys findings of the homology between the scholastic thinking and the architectural language produced by the architects of the gothic cathedral. Panofsky contents that the builders created the division of space, its sacred practice, its symbolic language, as a reflection of the religion scholars thinking. Panofsky introduces the notion of mental habits; the producers of the build forms where imbued, educated to produce a type of thinking by their education by scholars. The close relation between the two social organisations, prepared the builders to operate unconsciously, reproducing symbols, codes, concepts that they processed bodily, intuitively. Gothic architecture and scholasticism are united not only in their forms of organisation and harmonization, but in their habitus, the disposition that regulates mental and bodily actions of their medieval practitioners. Out of this particular analysis Bourdieu devised different theoretical frameworks. The first framework is Bourdieu interest on the problematic of symbols production, the reception, the reproduction. In the gothic architecture, space is a concrete representation of a system of symbols.

Traduction of dculturation

What are symbolic systems? These are, within a community, a particular social arena, common codes, particular forms of thoughts, answers to common problems. Find in Bourdieu in (Holsinger, 2005). Space, in the gothic architecture has meaning, architrave position, orientation of architecture... To be understood, these system have to be known. How to learn the meaning of the symbols, here the meaning of space? Bourdieu asserts that the meaning of symbols, here space, can be learn by practicing this, by being raised in understanding that space. There are two ways. Through the upbringing, in childhood, the meaning of space would have be signified, but not said explicitly. By practicing, by confronting others perception and reception of their comments. The meaning do not carry an articulated mental significance yet, but became part of the body, the body of possible reaction. The system is carried out by habitus. But the meaning of the symbol can also be taught. This teaching can be straight forward, class and exercise, or can be taught by experience. However, there seems to be a difference 4 of the intensity of the habitus if the bodily dispositions are acquired in the second way . How are these systems reproduced? The producers of space are endowed with undeniable individual talents, but their references are common. When producing the space, they refer to symbols that are accepted by the community they are building for. They call upon embodied knowledge, habitus, that shape, at certain degree of unconsciousness their acts. Habitus is as much how symbol is perceived, how the world is perceived, as it is framing / informing future actions (consciously or unconsciously). Who produced these systems? In a particular social arena, or here in the particular medieval settings, the symbolic meaning of space is determined by a group of individuals that have managed to take the symbolic control of that particular arena. The religious theologians are the one who determine the symbolic value of the spaces. Symbolic systems are powerful and have meaning as long as they are hidden, they are not recognized as symbolic, misrecognition. If they are contested, then they lose their legitimacy and their power of structuring. Bourdieu conceptualize that in a particular social arena, those who can impose the symbolic system imposes a symbolic violence. This part of Bourdieu research is about the mode of domination, in particular the domination of the preeminent culture over another one, preeminent social group over another one. Bourdieu devised that then a thinking of production of culture, by understanding culture in a particular way. Not as a unique produce, but as a mental construction, with meaning understood broadly or specifically. The reproduction of culture, of my interest is the reproduction of space, calls upon symbol, code, that are known and understood, that will appeal to those only endowed with the capacity to relate to these codes. An individual is inside a group. Structures and structuring. Language. Gothic space is a language. A parallel work has to be done to understand the producer of symbol.

For Bourdieu, Panofsky shows how to uncover the functioning of cultural production, its meaning-generating core.

This work Bourdieu is critical in the development of his theoretical thinking; it touches many of the subjects that he will later develops in different social and theoretical context: habitus, the production of symbol and its control, education as the medium of social reproduction, fields as a particular social arena where social struggle are continually at stake, parts of his methodology of study that consist to aim at understanding historically a field to understand the construction of the struggle of power, a particular way of conceptualizing culture as a series of code, schemata, socially produced and control, that lead to thinking how to apprehend space and reproduce it.

Bourdieu makes this comments in a xxxx

In the specific milieu, The social structures of the economy Bourdieu aim is to use his theoretical framework, to insist that the economy theories forget that economy is 5 social, it is a result of society choices, interaction between social organisations and individual behaviour. The goal of sociology is to uncover the social production, the social phenomena. As such, at the end of the book, propose the basis for an anthropology of economy. I content in this part that this work by Bourdieu is a work on the study of the social production of space. The content of the book is a description by Bourdieu of the creation by the French state of Maybe I should go as much as to aim at the same goal. Other French philosopher, Lefebvre posit that space is socially produce. I should use and question Bourdieu work and aim to apply his method to propose an anthropology of space. The house, particular for the family. It is about sentiment, as it is big financially it is as much a consumption good as it is affecting the emotion, as a risk for the family.

A Bourdieusian method to study space? Bourdieu fields, is about social structures. Understand their construction through historical research. Statistics.... can't do that in Brunei... Relations of power Society organisation, the organisations responsible for the creation of space.

We will see later a firm, the state, are all considered as social organisations.

Bourdieu, P. (1962). The Algerians. Toronto: Reginald Saunders Ltd. Bourdieu, P. (1964). Le Dracinement. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (1967). Postface: Edwin Panosfky, Architecture Gothique et Pense Scholastique. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Architecture Gothique et Pense Scholastique. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (1977a). Algrie 1960. Paris: Editions du Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (1977b). The Kabyle House or the World reversed Algeria 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1980a). Esquisse d'une thorie de la pratique Esquisse d'une thorie de la pratique prcde de trois tudes ethnologique Kabyle. Paris: Edition du seuil. Bourdieu, P. (1980b). La Maison ou le Monde Renvers Esquisse d'une thorie de la pratique prcde de trois tudes ethnologique Kabyle. Paris: Edition du seuil. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art. Stanford: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2002). Le Bal des Clibataires: Crise de la socit en Barn. Paris: Edition du Seuil. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Calhoun (2006). Pierre Bourdieu and Social Transformation: Lessons from Algeria. Development and Change, 37(6), 1403-1412. Crang, N., & Thrift, N. (2000). Thinking Space. London: Routledge. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. London: University of California Press. Dovey, K. (1999). Framing Places. London: Routledge. Dovey, K. (2005). The Silent Complicity of Architecture. In J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitus: a Sense of Place. Aldershot: Ashgate. Dovey, K. (2010). Becoming Places: Urbanism/Architecture/Identity/Power. New York: Routledge. Engler, S. (2003). Modern Times: Religion, Consecration and the State in Bourdieu Cultural Studies, 17(3/4), 445. Holsinger, B. (2005). The Premodern Condition: Medievalism and the Making of Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Steinmetz, G. (2011). Bourdieu, Historicity, and Historical Sociology. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 45-66. Stevens, G. (1998). The favored circle. London: The MIT Press. Swartz, D. (1995). Culture and Power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Swedberg, R. (2011). The Economic Sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 67-82. Thrift, N. (????). Spatial Formations.