8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ.

Notes on Bourdieu

Bourdieu Notes.

Introduction:
Bourdieu is probably one of the most currently influential social theorists. His
work on Structure, Habitus, and Social Space has influenced a great deal of
contemporary Sociology. Good introductions to his work can be found in "Toward a
reflexive Sociology" by Loic Wacquant, and a GREAT secondary source: Pierre
Bourdieu by Richard Jenkins (1992 Routledge Press).

Social Space and the Genesis of Classes.

Bourdieu's Opponents:
(1) A break with Marxists: (I.e. 'objective' reality). PB is interested in RELATIONS,
on more levels than just the economic, and argues that how people interpret and make
sense of their relations matters (this is the subjective element).
(2) A break with "intellectualism": The theoretical class (i.e. the one we as scientists
define) is not necessarily the class that exists in-the-world.
(3) A break with Economics: There are more dimensions to the social world that
just economics.
(4) A break with “Objectivism” in favor of a symbolic understanding of social
structure.

He also has s definite focus on POWER STRUGGLES.

Social Space: A geographic/mathematical metaphor for how people are arranged in

society. PB defines social space as:

"a (multi-dimensional) space constructed on the basis of principles of differentiation

or distribution constituted by the set of properties active in the social universe under
consideration, that is, able to confer force or power on their possessor in that universe."
(p.229).

The points to keep in mind with this def:

(1) Social space has multiple dimensions (ex economic, educational, cultural,
powerful, etc) These dimensions can usually be categorized as a form of Capital.

(2) "...constructed on the basis of principles of differentiation or distribution..." This

mean that how
much and what kind of the particular capital one has is the basis for sorting along
the dimensions.

(3) "...by the set of properties active in the social universe under consideration, that
is, able to confer
force or power on their possessor in that universe." The quantity or quality (i.e.
point 2) of a given good only matters to the extent that the good in question is 'active'
in the social world of interest. This part of the definition implies an element of
contextual specificity. Two groups' relative position depend on the particular 'field'
that is active. If we're dealing in the economic field, then the relative position of $$

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 1/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

matters, if we're dealing with the educational, then that's what matters. [note, that this
discussion is about one dimension at a time, PB does not think that way - this is for
illustration only, the point is that in some struggles, the relative value of a given
dimension will change.].

Power follows from the ability to mobilize capital.

The social space is a field of forces -- the system of relations, alliances, and power
struggles. His vision of social space is NOT one that is (necessarily) static, but instead
constantly infused with power struggles. Thus we see the world as a system of
'objective power relations.'

This allows us to see the social world in two ways, as the positions themselves thusly:
(take culture and econ as examples)
Hi Culture
|
| A
|
|
Poor ---------------------------- Rich
|
| B
c |
|
Low Culture

In this picture, the three groups are arrayed on these two dimensions (thus C is poor
and holds mainly 'low culture' values, A is rich with 'high culture' , etc).

Because these positions are at the same time relations, because domination follows
from the ability to utilize this capital, we could instead view this picture as:

A -> B-----> C
\ _____/

Where A dominates (a little) B, and both B and A dominate C. What PB wants to

claim is that these systems of relations are in constant contest -- not ONLY in who gets
to be WHERE, but what having a certain quantity/distribution of a good GIVES you, ie
what it MEANS.

The dimensions are the elements that give power (education, money, social
contacts, etc) in general, these elements form types of CAPITAL. The four general
types of capital that PB points out in this article are:

1. Economic Capital: How much money one has.

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 2/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

2. Cultural Capital: The systems of value and meaning a person can draw on, what
counts as 'good' for a group. (the main distinction is between high and low
culture for PB, thus the difference between a person who listens to Garth brooks
and goes to the bowling alley every weekend versus a person who reads
Shakespere, drinks fine wine, and goes to the museum all the time).
3. Social Capital: The set of relations one can draw on: who you know that
MATTERS.
4. Symbolic Capital. : the extent to which one has the power to institute, to NAME,
to define who is who. Symbolic power rests on RECOGNITION.

PB argues that each of these types of capital is transformable (to some extent) one to
the other. Thus if you have enough money you might get to know a new set of
important people, etc.

The two dimensions along which each type of capital are arrayed is Volume and
composition. Thus the AMOUNT of money one has, and the TYPE of money matter
(i.e. cash vs stocks vs gold vs land).

Classes on Paper:
On the basis of the distribution of the various forms of capital, we can find groups
of people who have 'similar' distributions. These are 'classes' in the logical sense --
people who occupy the same cell in a cross-tabulation. BUT, we can't necessarily
assume that these classes are self-recognized. This is the long standing differentiation
between classes in-themselves vs. classes for themselves.

What exists, is a space of relations, out of which may or may not come a class-for-
itself
Marx’s work assumes that groups form from similarity, but it does not explain how the
groups form. Instead, through a theoretical ‘slight of hand’, the essential questions are
spirited away:

We don’t ask about the political work needed to organize and created a self-
recognized, mobilized class
Don’t explain how the formal ‘classes’ of social scientists are related to the
actual, living classes in society.

The Perception of the social world and political struggle.

One must account for how actors see the world to make sense of how they act. That is,
we ned to look to the social construction of identity.

One's perspective in the world is due to two things:

1) 'Objective': People see the world differently because they occupy a different
space in the world.
2) 'subjective': The tools brought to bear, the language used, are all the products of
previous struggles, and influence the meaning of the very dimensions that people array
themselves along.

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 3/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

Thus, not only are people seeing the world from different spaces, but the very view
of that space, the relevant value of any given quantity/quality distribution is different
depending on a group's past history of struggle.

Objects of the social world can be perceived and expressed in different ways because:
1. They always include a certain ambiguity (does this person belong to this group or
that group)
2. As historical objects the meaning of any social thing is dependent on the future, and
thus can’t be readily classified at the moment (recall the previous discussion of
spinning political events)
The uncertainty of the world is what makes a plurality of world-views possible, and is
the locus of political struggle.

While PB argues that people TEND to accept the position they find themselves in,
there is social change, and that it comes from struggles for power related to (1) and (2).
(p.235)

re-read p.236. this would be a great section to pull a quote from for the exam.

“Knowledge of the social world and, more precisely, the categories which make it
possible, are the stake par excellence of the political struggle, a struggle which is
inseparably theoretical and practical, over the power of preserving or transforming the
social world by preserving or transforming the categories of perception of that world.”
(p.236)

Being able to define the dimensions of status, to identify the subject of political debate
and shape the way issues are seen to be related are all symbolic actions, and they are
the means through which politics are carried out. Thus, being able to control these
means gives one control of political outcomes. The power of naming is crucial.
Examples:
? Political rhetoric about abortion: proponents use ‘right-to-choose’ language,
opponents use ‘rights-to-life’ language.
? Use of the word ‘Liberal’ in the Clinton campaign

Symbolic Capital: Any capital when it is perceived by an agent as self-recognized

power to name, to make distinctions. (p.238).

It follows that objective power relations reproduce themselves in symbolic power.

The power to create titles

Citizenship is bestowed by the government,
The definition of ‘adult’ or ‘graduate’
“It is the most visible agents, from the point of view of the prevailing categories of
perception, who are the best placed to change the vision by changing the categories of
perceptions. But they are also, with a few exceptions, the least inclined to do so.”
(p.239)

Why? Because thy benefit from the current arrangement. That those in power control
the means to power creates a cycle, whereby they reenforce the power that they have.

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 4/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

PB refers to this as the “circle of symbolic reproduction”.

Symbolic power rests on legitimate recognition your brother-in-law can’t declare you a
graduate of the university. The title ‘graduate’ can only be made by those with
legitimate control of symbolic power.

Symbolic order and the power of naming.

Symbolic power can be arrayed along a dimension of intensity/legitimacy:

Insult Official Naming
I-----------------------------------------------I
Low power High Power

As you read this section, think about the proliferation of titles in current work and
occupations. This rise (sanitary engineer for example) follows FROM the desire of
groups to NAME THEMSELVES, and thus make their own distinction. The move in
contemporary society (which from time to time marks the heart of the "PC"
movement) to provide all with a new name, is a struggle for legitimate power. Racial
epithets are the imposition of place by a ruling class on a ruled class, and when the
POWER associated with those epithets can be reversed, then the group has gained the
symbolic upper hand.

The logic of naming is seen most clearly in titles. An area that is more and more
becoming the purview of educational institutions.

PB points out that rewards separate a title from a task. Thus, a part-time person doing
the same work as a full time person will likely be paid less (even by the hour) than the
person who officially occupies the position. Or, for example, a nurse and a doctor
often do exactly the same things, but the doctor will make more.

Because symbolic power is a useful power, something that can be used to gain
resources in multiple dimensions, it is clearly the subject of controversy. Groups fight
over the right to control the naming process.
“Every field is the site of a more or less openly declared struggle for the definition of
the legitimate principles of division of the field.” (p.242)

The Political Field and Homologies

Those who occupy similar, but distinct social spaces (or who are in similar, but
distinct patterns of social relations) tend to form alliances (though, again, not
necessarily). See p. 244

How do people at the bottom of a symbolic power system gain capital to change the
present point of view?

PB says it happens through alliances with those who have the ability to control
symbols. For example, the intellectuals will ‘embezzle’ symbolic power for the
workers. These alliances occur where there is a similarity in their position in the
structure, across dimensions of the structure. Thus, workers are the dominated group

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 5/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

in the production/economic realm, while intellectuals are the dominated group in the
cultural realm. The one helps the other because of the similarity (the homology) of
their situation. This was Marx’s error: to look only within the economic realm for the
emergence of classes.

Class and Will as Representation.

This is his argument that the definition of a group depends reciprocally on there
being a spokesperson for the group. As we start seeing a group, and as they gain more
voice, it re-enforces the very existence of that group. There is a sociological chicken-
and-egg problem: that the group needs a spokesman to be named as a group, but can’t
give authority to a spokesman if they are not already a group. PB says that this
situation leads to a precarious position for alienated groups, since the powerless have
to give up power (give authority) to another in order to gain power in the other
dimension.

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 6/7
8/11/23, 11:16 π.μ. Notes on Bourdieu

https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/bourdieu.htm 7/7