Pierre Bourdieu abul PDF

Preview

Summary

Pierre...

Description

Oppgave 1 Hva er «økonomisk kapital», «kulturell kapital», «sosial kapital» og «symbolsk kapital» ifølge Bourdieu? Drøft hva som kjennetegner arbeiderklasse-, middelklasse-, og overklassekultur (f.eks. ferieturer, matvaner og kunstinteresse). In order to answer this question, I will first explain the poststructuralism and introduce a French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Then I will discuss the concepts of “economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital”. After this, I will make an attempt to link these concepts to and explain the characteristics of working-class, middle-class and upper-class. Poststructuralism and Pierre Bourdieu biography Pierre Bourdieu’s work has a certain relationship to poststructuralism, a “theoretical trend” that was developed in the 1960s by French thinkers, such as Michel Foucault and others. Poststructuralism was developed as a critique of structuralism, who focused on finding the “universal truth” that binds us all together and the systems of meaning and how it performs. The poststructuralists were not trying to find the “universal truth” but instead they challenged the idea of truth, power and knowledge as they saw the social life as disordered, confused and fragmented (Appelrouth & Edless 2016, 642). Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) was a French sociologist born in southern France in a simple family. But because of his strong commitment and hard work, he could study in prestige schools in France. Bourdieu gain degree in sociology, anthropology and philosophy. During his studies in Paris, he felt disadvantaged of being from the lower-class family and this initiated his interest in the differences between social classes and how the education and cultural preferences cause the perpetuation of social inequalities. Bourdieu used the concepts of habitus, field and capital to explain the social classes (Appelrouth & Edless 2016, 664). In studying people´s class position, classical sociology has mostly taken into account the economic position and occupation. Nonetheless, the new theorists argue that the market position and access to the means of production are not the only factors determining the class position (Giddens & Sutton 2017, 505). Bourdieu connects the economic situation, social status, symbolic capital and cultural knowledge as an important indicator of class.

The key concept of Bourdieu´s theory is “capital”.

He believed that capital gives an

advantage to earn higher social class. Bourdieu was influenced by Marx’s ideas on capitalism. For Marx, the ownership of the means of production was the main divider in society; on the contrary, Bourdieu saw the “economic capital” as one of the factors but certainly not the only one. Explanation of "economic capital", "cultural capital", "social capital" and "symbolic capital" Pierre Bourdieu sees the social world as the place where people engage in a competition for resources. This competition results in unequal distribution of different forms of capital: economic, cultural, social and symbolic (Allan 2006, 174). Economic capital is determined by material resources like income, wealth, property, savings that are, usually, owned by a person. Economic capital is a starting point that gives a person possibility to gain more capital, let it be economic or social, cultural. Bourdieu suggest that social status is not only determined by how much wealth one possesses, but also on the basis of cultural capital. Cultural capital refers to the education, social skills, cultural goods and tastes that person could obtain as a result of the economic funds. It is worth to mention that not only the economic capital determines who will have access to knowledge but also the variable such as gender, race and religion. Our cultural capital can be influenced by media and existing trends that motivate our (as consumers) behaviour and the choices we make (Giddens & Sutton 2017, 506). Bourdieu distinguish three forms of cultural capital: objectified, institutionalized and embodied. (Allan 2006, 178). Objectified cultural capital represents the “material goods” that help to gain the knowledge, verbal skills and aesthetic “taste”. Those material goods are books, devices, artwork etc. Institutionalised cultural capital refers to the accreditation, certificate that recognise gained degree and academic knowledge. Lastly, Bourdieu points to the embodied cultural capital that stands for an individual “habitus” and is demonstrated through the body. Such as “good taste” in music, food and clothes. Social capital refers to the social networks, friends and elite membership in exclusive clubs etc. As the saying says “it´s not what you know but who you know”. Having the influential friends opens the door for more opportunities in life. It is likely that people with low

socioeconomic status would be rejected by high-status groups and institutions. In this way, “social capital” of elite class is securely protected from the lower-class people, remaining only within the exclusive spheres. Hence creating even bigger gap between classes, as rich people help other rich people, forming the “closed circle”. Symbolic capital according to Bourdieu, refers to possessing the “good reputation”, in other words the status, awards and honour. It gives a person with high status a power to dominate those with lower position (Giddens & Sutton 2017, 814). Symbolic capital also provides more favourable social acceptance. As an example, I would like to refer to W.E.B. Du Bois, the first African American who earned the doctorate degree and could teach at the university during the extreme “racial division” times in USA. His “PhD” status gave him acceptance in academic circles, that were dominated by white American males. Bourdieu also points to “charisma” (previously examined by Weber) as the part of symbolic capital that can be used as a “source of power” to legitimate demand for obedience from others” (Appelrouth & Edless 2016, 672). According to Bourdieu, those who hold symbolic capital can also enjoy the “symbolic power” and through the “words” (power of speech) define the “truth” and make people believe in that truth (Appelrouth & Edless 2016, 673). Characterization of working-class, middle-class, and upper-class culture Pierre Bourdieu helps us to understand the specific characteristics of different classes and why people act, talk and walk in certain ways. He indicates that the access to the high culture tends has been reduced and restricted, only for the upper classes. In order to appreciate the “high culture” like artwork, exclusive cuisine or literature a person must have a certain type of education and knowledge. Someone who was raised by the working-class family is unlikely to have such knowledge and skills. Thus, the lifestyle of upper-class people is not understandable and acceptable for lower classes. People from upper classes have time and economical resources to spend on things like vacations in Maldives, dinners at the best rated Michelin restaurants or visiting the exhibition in Louvre museum. From the upper position, the middle and lower class is being associated with bad taste and lack of intellectual knowledge, so called “mass culture”. A relevant example of how differently people pursue the world is shown in the book by Appelrouth and Edless (2016) where the picture of an old woman´s hands was presented to the people from different classes. Those from privileged classes saw the picture as a form of art, a symbol of “toil”. While those who had limited economic and cultural capital saw only the “negative”

picture, i.e. how badly deformed were her hands and that she probably suffered from arthritis. This example solidifies the arguments presented in Pierre Bourdieu’s theory that as long as the education and cultural differences will exist, we will have to deal with the reproduction of the class differences....