16 Class, Culture And Power: Pierre Bourdieu II

Partha Pratim Borah

1. Introduction

The work of Pierre Bourdieu can be divided into two parts: one part is associated with the development of some of the key concepts such as cultural capital, habitus and field etc., the second part is associated with the sociological analysis of some of the major aspects of the French society by using these key concepts. Bourdieu‟s understanding of the social class structure, the system of higher education and intellectuals in France provides an important contribution in sociological understanding. This module tries to give an overview of major contributions of Bourdieu. The first part has been dealt with in the previous module. The present module concerns with the second part of his sociological analysis.

2. Bourdieu’s Understanding of ‘Social Class’ 

Social Class constitutes an important subject of analysis by Bourdieu. The importance that Bourdieu gives to the understanding of the class can be felt from the fact that he regarded class as a „universal principle of explanation‟ (Bourdieu 1984: 114). Bourdieu‟s understanding of social class is based on his theoretical structure. He says that there can be two way of understanding social classes: theoretical and empirical. He writes: „You are faced with a choice between either pure (and simple) theory of social classes, which is based on no empirical data (positions in relations of production) and which has practically no capacity to describe the state of the social structures and its transformations; or empirical studies, like those of INSEE, which are based on no theory but which provides the only available data for analyzing the division into classes…I have tried to put forward a theory that is both more complex (taking into account states of capital that are ignored in classical theory) and empirically better grounded , but which is obliged to resort to imperfect indicators such as those provided by INSEE‟ (Bourdieu 1993: 31).

The understanding of class as understood by Bourdieu is different from his predecessors like Marx and Weber. The work of Bourdieu deviates from other sociologists in his attempt to show the correlation between the cultural practices and the class distinction. While understanding the meaning of class, he followed the same methodological trajectory of rejecting the subjectivist and objectivist dichotomy in understanding social reality and hence he rejects various approaches that try to give either subjectivist or objectivist approach to understand class. In the process, he propagates a relational approach to understand class. While discussing about the problem of objectivist and subjectivist dichotomy in understanding of class, Bourdieu writes that „the problem of social classes is one of the sites par excellence of the opposition between objectivism and subjectivism, which locks research in a series of fictitious alternatives‟ (1990a: 289). Bourdieu provides an understanding of a social world which is highly stratified by rejecting the objective understanding and subjectivist understanding. He rejects the subjectivist understanding of the class saying that the social inequality is because of the objective structure of unequal distribution of various types of capital. On the other hand, he rejects the various objectivist understandings of class such as Marxism or structuralist understanding of class which focus on the macro level structure and statistical regularities because they fail to make the social actor visible and Bourdieu argues that it is the duty of the social scientist to construct the actor.

Bourdieu (1985) also rejects the Marxist understanding of class because it tries to understand classes only in terms of position in the social relation of production. Bourdieu argues that the single causal analysis of economy will fail to explain the multidimensional nature of social space. In this context he writes: „social class is not defined solely by a position in the relations of production, but by the class habitus which is “normally” (i.e., with a high statistical probability) associated with that position‟ (Bourdieu 1984: 372). Thus, habitus forms an important tool for identifying class by Bourdieu. Bourdieu argues that consumption also plays an important role in the understanding of the class along with position in the relation of production. He writes: „a class is defined as much by its being-perceived as by its being, by its consumption- which need not be conspicuous in order to be symbolic- as much as by its position in the relations of production (even if it  is true that the latter governs the former)‟ (Ibid. 483). Bourdieu criticizes the Marxist theory of class also because it tends to combine theoretical construction of class with real social groups. He writes that Marxism tries to see „the movement from probability to reality, from theoretical class to practical class „and as a result it combines the „classes on paper‟ with the real mobilized classes (Bourdieu 1987: 7). He argues that „symbolic labor‟ of leadership is required for identity and mobilization so that „classes on paper‟ can become „classes in reality‟.

Bourdieu also helps us to re-look into Weber‟s concept of class and status (Bourdieu 1984: xiii).Taking the influence of Weber‟s idea of status group based on lifestyle, Bourdieu argues that classes appear as status group in everyday life. He writes that status groups are not „a different kind of group of classes, but are rather dominant classes denied as such, or, so to speak, sublimated and thereby legitimated‟ (Bourdieu 1980: 214 as cited in Swartz, 1997). The class/ status division also helped Bourdieu to look into differences between „intrinsic‟ and „relational‟ feature of class. Here the relational feature describes the class position in terms relative advantage and disadvantage that a particular class have with respect to other class (Bourdieu 1987: 6). The „relational‟ understanding forms an important basis for understanding of class by Bourdieu.

Bourdieu constructed social class on the basis of his definition of classes as those having similar position in the social space. He said that the similar conditions of existence and conditioning of the people constituting the social classes create similar disposition for them that generate similar practices for them (Bourdieu 1987: 6). Bourdieu also talks about social class position in terms of volume and structure of various forms of capitals.

Bourdieu argues that classes which consist of similar objective opportunities and subjective dispositions are difficult to represent empirically because of the prevailing methods of sociology and hence he criticizes the Marxian attempt to make „classes on paper‟ to conform „classes on reality‟. Bourdieu writes that „social class is not defined by a property…nor by a collection of properties (of sex, age, social origins, ethnic origin…income, educational level etc.), nor even by a chain of properties strung out from a fundamental property (position in the relations of production) in a relation of cause and effect…but by the structure of relations between all the pertinent properties which gives its specific value to each of them and to the effects they exert on practices‟ (1984: 106). Bourdieu argues that the class analysis is a work of construction where two total systems of factors: the conditions of external existence and their corresponding dispositions are joined together. He writes that class analysis is „the work of construction and observation…to isolate (relatively) homogenous sets of individuals characterized by sets of properties that are statistically and “sociologically” interrelated‟ (Bourdieu 1984: 259).

Bourdieu constructed class as homogenous grouping of individual on the basis of three dimensional space consisting of total volume of capital, composition of capital and social trajectory. On the basis of total volume of capital, Bourdieu (1984) divided the France society into three tier stratification system: dominant class, a middle class and a working class. Bourdieu argues that the dominant class is distinguished for other classes in terms of substantial possession of capital. On the other hand, Bourdieu makes intra class division on the composition of capital i.e. unequal distribution of economic and cultural capital. Bourdieu (1973) talks about the dominant class in his work „Distinction‟ on the basis of unequal distribution of economic and cultural capital. Bourdieu (1984) talk about three kind of social trajectories i.e. upward mobility, downward mobility and stagnation change of volume and composition of capital of individual and group over time and it shapes the attitudes and practices of its members.

Thus, Bourdieu‟s understanding of social class not only provide us critical understanding of prevailing Marxian and Weberian understanding of class but also provides a new way of conceptualizing class. His understanding of forms of capital and nature of habitus and its significance in the formation of class is worth mentioning.

3. Bourdieu on Education and Social Inequality 

Sociology of education constitutes an important area of interest of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu gives special importance to sociology of education for his overwhelming association with culture and role played by the education in controlling the distribution of status and privileges of contemporary societies. For Bourdieu, sociology of education is not a sub-specialty of sociology but foundation of sociology of symbolic power. He writes, „the sociology of education is a chapter, and not a less important one at that, in the sociology of knowledge and also in the sociology of power- not to mention the sociology of philosophies of power‟ (Bourdieu 1989c:13 cited in Swartz 1997). The interest in sociology of knowledge and the sociology of power creates interest in Bourdieu to study education system with special focus on French education system.

Bourdieu‟s uses his substantial understanding of French education system and finds out about the socially segmental nature of French higher education as well as university faculties. Bourdieu on the basis of his study of social origin of students in 84 French institutions of higher learning argues that they exhibit two different institutional tracks in terms of difference in total volume of economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1989c). On the one hand, there is top tier school like Ecole Nationale d‟Administration which recruits the students from dominant class and their graduates find their career in higher positions in administration, business, education etc. On the other hand, university faculties of science and letters recruit student from less elite background (Ibid.199, 213). Bourdieu also finds a socially segmental nature of university faculties which is bipolar in nature. He remarks, „at one pole the scientifically dominant but socially subordinate faculties, and, at the other, the scientifically subordinate but temporally dominant faculties‟(Bourdieu 1988: 54). Thus, Bourdieu helps us to have a sociological understanding of the French education system by making it clear that the hierarchy exists both in institutions of higher learning as well as within the university faculties in terms of social composition.

Bourdieu‟s concept of habitus and cultural capital helps him to understand the nature of stratification in the French education system. Bourdieu says that hierarchies that exist in the French education system reflect the inequality of struggle for economic and cultural capital. Bourdieu argues that the education system reproduces the hierarchy of the social world in institutionalized form. Even the specialities and disciplines reflect the social hierarchy. Bourdieu writes that „the educational system, an institutionalized classifier which is itself an objectified system of classification reproducing the hierarchies of the social world in a transformal form, with its cleavages by “level” corresponding to social strata and its divisions into specialties and disciplines which reflect social divisions ad infinitum, such as the opposition between theory and practice, conception and execution, transform social classifications into academic classifications, with every appearance of neutrality, and establishes hierarchies which are not experienced as purely technical, and therefore partial and one sided, but as total hierarchies, grounded in nature, so that social values comes to be identified with “personal” value, scholastic dignities with human dignity‟(Bourdieu 1984: 387).

Another interesting work of Bourdieu in the field of sociology of education is his idea of „relative autonomy‟ of education field from outside institutions because of its self reproductive capacity. While discussing the relative autonomy of the French education system, Bourdieu tries to discuss the complex relation which is present between education system, economy and the social class structure (Bourdieu and Passerson 1977: 177-78). He shows the ability of the French education system to recruit its leaders from its own rank as there is historical continuity and stability (Ibid. 195-97) and hence they can maintain relative autonomy. Relative autonomy indicates some degree of autonomy enjoyed by the institutions but at the same time there exists a streak of dependency which points at „the system‟s incapacity to resist external demands‟ (Swartz 1997:209).

4. Bourdieu’s Study on Intellectual 

The deep interest on cultural capital, cultural production, symbolic violence and stratification also creates interest in Bourdieu to study intellectual class. Bourdieu mentions his deep interest on the sociology of intellectual production (Bourdieu 1993: 132).

Bourdieu understands the problem of defining who is an intellectual. He says that there exist struggle within the intellectual field in defining who is an intellectual and to identify the traits of an intellectual (Bourdieu 1988). Bourdieu states that intellectuals are those persons who are in dominant positions due to possession of large number of cultural capital and as such his study mainly associates with the study of various humanistic intelligentsia such as artist, writer and academics etc. Bourdieu argues those intellectuals are the „dominated fraction‟ of the dominant class since they are cultural capitalist which is subordinate to the economic capital (Swartz 1997). Bourdieu argues that this is contradiction that exists in case of intellectuals because though they are in a subordinate position to another who possesses economic capital. However, the intellectual does possess dominant and privileged position because of possession of considerable cultural capital.

According to Bourdieu, there is a distinct habitus of the intellectual due to possession of cultural capital and he categorizes this habitus as intellectual habitus of „aristocratic asceticism‟. He says that the habitus of intellectual is „aristocratic asceticism‟ as intellectual are „oriented towards the least expensive and most austere leisure activities and towards serious and somewhat severe cultural practices… and is opposed to the luxury tastes of the members of the professions‟(Bourdieu 1984: 286). He writes that the „aristocratic asceticism‟ of the intellectual is by virtue of their effort to draw maximum benefits from the cultural capital to minimize economic outlay and in this context he writes that the teacher hardly ever has the means to match their tastes, and this disparity between the cultural and economic capital condemns them to an ascetic aestheticism (a more austere variant of the „artist‟ life-style which „makes the most‟ of what it has)‟ (ibid. 287). Thus, nature of capital of the intellectual habitus in terms of possession of cultural capital but scarcity of economic capital gives the distinct nature of intellectual habitus.

Bourdieu also discusses about the intellectual in terms of the position they have in the intellectual field. He writes that „all intellectuals are defined, primarily, by the fact that they occupy determinant position in the intellectual field‟ (Bourdieu 1972: 33 as cited in Swartz 1997). Bourdieu argues that those intellectual fields are site of struggle about those who have the authority to define what legitimate cultural production is. Bourdieu (1983) argues that the position that the intellectual occupies in the cultural field is constituted by the unequal distribution of cultural and symbolic capital that is associate with the struggle.

Bourdieu argues that interest to have „distinction‟ constitutes important component for the formation of the hierarchy in the intellectual field and arena of struggle for the intellectuals (Bourdieu 1972: 35 as cited in Swartz 1997). Bourdieu says that the position of an individual in the intellectual field is determined by many things such as book contracts, review, citations etc (Bourdieu 1983).

Bourdieu critically see the role of intellectual in society because of their important role in the production of theory of society. Bourdieu in his work „Sociology in Question‟ (1993) answers the question whether the intellectual has a role to play and he says that „Yes, of course-the absence of theory, of theoretical analysis of reality that is papered over by the language of organizations bring forth monsters… I defend science and even theory when they have the effect of providing a better understanding of the social world…The realization that science has become an instrument for legitimizing power…must not lead to a romantic and regressive anti-scientism, which always coexists, in the dominant ideology, with the professed cult of science. Rather, it is a question of producing the conditions for a new scientific and political thinking that can be liberating because it is liberated from censorships‟ (ibid. 6).

5. ‘Reflexive Sociology’ of Bourdieu 

Reflexivity‟ of Bourdieu is the manifestation of the combination of  empirical and theoretical work Reflexivity forms an important methodological concept in the evolution of the work of Bourdieu. The thereby leading to changing representation of an object because of reformulation of the use and meaning of the object which is practically scientific and epistemologically relevant and significance. „Bourdieu has been insistently pointing at the possibility of a unified political economy of a practice, and especially of the symbolic power that fuses structural and phenomenologically- inspired approaches into a coherent, epistemologically grounded, mode of social enquiry of universal applicability… but one that is highly distinctive in that it explicitly encompasses the activity of the social analyst who sets out to offer accounts of the practice of others ( Bourdieu and Wacquant 1989: 26-7).

The call for „Reflexive Sociology‟ emanates from the immense emphasis of Bourdieu on symbolic power and its application. Bourdieu‟s understanding of symbolic power and violence and their application to all forms of symbolic representation necessitates development of sociology which will enable us to show the nature of symbolic power and in such a context he calls for „reflexive practices‟ of sociology (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Bourdieu‟s contribution to „reflexive sociology‟ simultaneously provides us a critical reflection on the intellectual and social conditions. Bourdieu argues that reflexivity is necessary in sociology for doing good science and he says that „sociology of sociology‟ is a form of „reflexive sociology‟. Bourdieu argues that sociology of sociology is necessary as it helps us to move towards scientific field of world sociology as it increases our awareness of the various socially based effects of dominations. He writes that sociology of sociology „can help us move toward a unified scientific field of world sociology by increasing our awareness of the socially based effects of domination that are exerted in that field and by promoting struggles aimed at controlling these effects and the mechanism that produce them‟(Bourdieu 1989b: 385). He also argues that reflexive orientation of sociology helps the expansion of critical examination and communication to others. He argues that critical reflexivity would „associate the pursuit of the universal with a constant struggle for the universalization of the privileged conditions of existence which render the pursuit of the universal possible‟ (Bourdieu 1989a: 110).

Bourdieu sees reflexivity in terms of understanding the relation between the researcher and the research object. Bourdieu (1988) argues that a researcher can achieve objectivity once he is able to find the personal dispositions (habitus) and interests that impact selection of the concept, methods and research topic by the researcher. Bourdieu sees highlights the importance to have reflexivity in social science perspective by looking at the issue of field location in the possibility of creating bias for sociologist. The need of distancing „practical interest‟ of intellectual struggle from the object of inquiry forms an important component of reflexive sociology of Bourdieu (Swartz 1997). The important component of the reflexivity of the sociology of Bourdieu is to have critical look at the researcher‟s position along with the object of enquiry.

Bourdieu‟s idea of theory of practice helps us in understanding his idea of reflexivity. Bourdieu calls for a reflexive criticism of the academic knowledge. He writes, „ The change in the theory of practice provoked by theoretical reflection on the theoretical point of view, on the practical point of view and on the profound differences, is not purely speculative: it is accompanied by a drastic change in the practical operations of the research and quite tangible scientific profits. For instance, one is led to pay attention to properties of ritual practice that structuralist logicism would incline to push aside or to treat as meaningless misfiring of the mythical algebra, and particularly to the polysemic realities underdetermined or indeterminate, not to speak of partial contradictions and of the fuzziness which pervade the whole system and account for its reflexibility, its openness, in short everything that makes it “practical” and thus geared to respond at the least cost (in particular in terms of logical search) to the emergencies of ordinary existence and practice‟ (Bourdieu 1990b:384).

The reflexivity drives all the work Bourdieu. Bourdieu‟s idea of reflexivity asks worthy question of how our intellectual field position in terms of our particular political or individual position can affect our„ reading; and production of social science.‟ Bourdieu (1988) in his reflexive study of French university field in his work „Homo Academicus‟ says that there can be problem when scientific account of social world is read non-reflexively and interpreted as insiders‟ practice of gossip, insult and slander etc. This process helps us to systematically construct the picture of French academe rather than having only a picture based on impression.

One of the major works of Bourdieu „The Weight of the World‟ (1999) tries to put the reflexive social science approach of Bourdieu into practice. Here, he tries to show the way how theory can be put into practice by giving more importance to the logic of the agents over the concern of the observer. The main aim of this is to reduce the relational imbalance. To quote him, „How can we claim to engage in the scientific investigations of presuppositions if we do not work to gain knowledge (science) of own presuppositions? We can do so principally by striving to make reflexive use of the findings of social science to control the effects of the survey itself and to engage in the process of questioning with a command of the inevitable effects of that process…the crucial difference is not between a science that effects a construction and one that does not, but between a science that does this without knowing it and one that, being aware of work of construction, strives to discover and master as completely as possible the nature of its inevitable acts of construction and the equally inevitable effects those acts produce‟ (Bourdieu 1999: 608).

6. ‘Sociology in Question’ 

Sociology in Question‟ (1992)  is an important work of Bourdieu that provides important basis to understand the conceptualization of sociology. Bourdieu argues that sociology differs from other sciences for the fact that sociology needs to be accessible. He argues that „Sociology differs in one respect at least from the other sciences: it is required to be accessible in a way that it is not expected of physics or even semiology or philosophy‟ (Bourdieu 1993: vii). On the other hand, Bourdieu argues that it is difficult to produce sociological discourse or to transmit it because no other sciences put the vital interest of the society at stake a like sociology (ibid.).

Bourdieu argues that Sociology is a science because it has all the characteristics of a science. Sociology posses common heritage of concepts, methods and a asset of verification procedures (ibid. 8) which makes it worthy enough to call science. Bourdieu explains, „Sociology has the unfortunate privilege of being constantly confronted with the question of its status as a science‟ (Ibid. 8)

Bourdieu deals extensively with the question of neutrality or objectivity of the sociologists. Bourdieu argues that the specificity of sociology lies in the fact that object of sociology is not only field of class struggle but the field of scientific struggle itself (Ibid.10). Bourdieu opines, „the sociologists occupy a position in these struggles: first as a possessor of a certain economic and cultural capital, in the field of the classes; then, as a researcher endowed with a certain specific capital in the field of cultural production and, more precisely in the sub field of sociology. He always has to bear this mind. In order to try to allow for everything that he practice, what he sees and does not see (for example, the object he chooses to study), owes to his social position…It seems to me that one of the main causes of error in sociology lies in an unexamined relationship to the object…One‟s chances of contributing to the production of truth seems to me depend on two main factors: which are linked to the position one occupies- the interest one has in knowing and making known the truth (or conversely, in hiding it, from oneself and others), and one‟s capacity to produce it‟ (ibid. 10).

On the other hand, Bourdieu argues that the nature of the subject matter of the sociology is such that it faces some problems. For example, in some context, sociology reveals some of the facts which are not only hidden, but repressed as well (ibid. 9). In this context, we can cite the example of correlation between education achievements which is identified with the „intelligence‟ with that of social origin or the cultural capital inherited from the family. These are some of the hidden truth that the people who read sociology or finance sociology do not like to hear. He further argues that, „..when you show that the scientific world is the site of a competition, oriented by the pursuits of specific profits (Nobel prizes and others, priority in discoveries, prestige, etc), and conducted in the name of specific interests ….you call into question a scientific hagiography which scientist often take part in and which they need in order to believe in what they do‟ (ibid. 9). Thus, Bourdieu is successful in analyzing some of the important issues that the sociologists have to grapple in everyday practice.

7.  Summary 

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

• The vast contribution of Bourdieu to Sociology of Education, understanding of Class and intellectual and his commitment for „Reflexive sociology‟ are of immense theoretical significance.
• For  Bourdieu,  class  constitutes  the universal  principle of  explanation.  His  emphasis  on  the correlation between cultural distinction and cultural capital makes his work different from his predecessors. Bourdieu not only provides us with a critical understanding of prevailing Marxian and Weberian understanding of class but also provides a new way of conceptualizing class by understanding the significance of forms of capital and nature of habitus in the formation of class.
• Bourdieu argues that the hierarchy exists both in French institutions of higher learning as well as within the university faculties in terms of social composition. Bourdieu‟s concept of habitus and cultural  capital  helps  him  to  understand  the  stratification  in  the  French  education  system.
• Bourdieu argues that education system the reproduction of the hierarchy of the social world in institutionalized form.
• Those persons who are in dominant position due to possession of large number of cultural capital are defined as intellectual by Bourdieu. Bourdieu argues that the nature of capital of the intellectual habitus in terms of possession of cultural capital but scarcity of economic capital gives distinct nature of intellectual habitus which he terms as „aristocratic asceticism‟.
• The immense interest of bourdieu on symbolic power and its application led him to call for a„ reflexive sociology‟. For Bourdieu, the important component of the reflexivity of the sociology is to have critical look at the researcher position along with the object of enquiry.
• Thus, the works of Pierre Bourdieu is of sociological significance due to their critical engagement with the various aspects of the society and their attempt to go beyond their general understanding that exist.

8. References

1. Bourdieu,  Pierre.  “Cultural  Reproduction  and  Social  Reproduction”.  In  Knowledge,  Education  and Cultural Change edited by R. Brown, pp. 71-112. London: Tavistock, 1973.

– La sens pratique. Paris: Editions de Minuit,

– “The Field of Cultural Production, or the Economic World Reversed”. Poetics 12 (1983):311- 356.

– Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1

– “What makes a Social Class? On the theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups”. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32(1987):1-

– Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 19

– Conference on „Social theory in a Changing Society‟. The University of Chicago, April. Reprinted in Bourdieu, Pierre and James S. Coleman (ed), 1991. Social Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder: Westview Press, 1989b.“The Corporatism of the Universal: the Role of the Intellectual in the Modern World”.Telos 81 (1989a):99-

– “On the  possibility  of  a  field  of  World  Sociology”.  Keynote  Address  to  the  Russel  Sage

– La noblesse d‟Etat: Grands cor Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1989c.

– The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Pre 1990a.

– “The Scholastic Point of View”. Current Anthropology 5, no.4(1990b):380-

– Sociology in Question. tran Richard Nice. Thousand Oaks Califf.: Sage Publications, 1993.

– The Weight  of  the  World:  Social  Suffering  in  Contemporary  Society,  (tran  P.  Parkhurst Ferguson, S. Emanuel, J. Johnson and S.T. Waryn. Cambridge: Polity, 1999.

– “Social Space and the genesis of Group.” Theory and Society 14, no.6(1985): 723-

2. Bourdieu, Pierre and L. Wacquant. “Towards a Reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu”.

Sociological Theory  7, no.1(1989):26-63.

3. Bourdeu, Pierre and Jean Claude Passerson. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London:

Sage, 1977.

4. Grenfell, Michael (ed). Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2012.

5. Swartz,  David.  Culture  and  Power:  The  Sociology  of  Pierre  Bourdieu.  Chicago  and  London:  The

University of Chicago Press, 1997.