Pierre Bourdieu (1930 – 2002) is one of the most famous and influential scientists, sociologists and statesmen of the 20th century. According to Calhoun (2002), his views reflected the most important points of the society contemporary to him in respect of class stratification of the society, aesthetic likes and dislikes of its members, globalization, its painful effects for economical and cultural lives of particular countries, and courageous protest against globalization (Calhoun, 267-75). The most famous of Pierre Bourdieu’s books is titled Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement and Taste published in 1984. This book examines the major ideas of the author in respect of culture, aesthetics and people’s outlook of the world. Thus, the following ideas of the book together with the critical analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s work will be the major focuses of this essay.
Social fields
To begin with, the book by Pierre Bourdieu is, as LiPuma (1993) notices, the manifestation against social inequality which is produced by globalization, stratification of society and differences in tastes of representatives of different social classes, which Bourdieu calls fields (LiPuma, 21). Grenfell (2008) explains how from the very beginning of the book, Bourdieu is concerned about the future of his nation, as well as other nations, because social stratification, according also to Berger (1986) takes its roots from the early childhood in which every person obtains certain values and symbolic capital characteristic of this or that social field or class (Berger, 1446).
Cultural capital
Drawing from this, Jenkins (1992) traces the way by which Bourdieu comes to the idea of cultural capital which is then followed by symbolic and educational capitals. The essence of the concept of the cultural capital by Bourdieu lies, according to Jenkins (1992), in the accumulation of values and material things that constitute the distinguishing features of this or that social class: “symbolic goods, especially those regarded as the attributes of excellence, …the ideal weapon in strategies of distinction” (Bourdieu, 66).
Taste
Consequently, the concept of taste is attributed to every class of the society demonstrating the differences in which people who are really born equal exist throughout their lives and can not get rid of. Douglas (1981) states that taste is thus examined by Bourdieu as one of the major factors that serve as indicators of belonging to this or that social field, and Giddens (1986) considers them as guidelines for acting in a certain habitus as formulated by Bourdieu.
Habitus and doxa
Habaitus, according to Bourdieu, is the area where people of uniform interests and means of achieving their goals live and act (Grenfell, 131). As closely connected to habitus, the concept of doxa is also considered by Bourdieu, and reviewed by Douglas (1981) who observes it as the set of certain beliefs, values and orientations that are typical of each particular social field and taste. While field is an objective phenomenon existing in reality, habitus and doxa are the subjective concepts that are experienced by people in their minds (Douglas, 165).
Certainly, scholars have found certain strong and weak points in the book by Bourdieu in the ideas it raises, arguments it presents and major conclusions it draws from the latter. However, the strength of this work dominates, and, for example, ideas by Swartz (1998) prove it. Swartz considers the distinct line drawn by Bourdieu between the classes according to their aesthetic tastes: “…differences in cultural capital mark the differences between the classes” (Bourdieu, 69).
This point is a strong one in this work because it reflects the actual state of things in the modern society as viewed by Grenfel (2008), and manifests the things that all people can observe but are either afraid or reluctant to admit.
Moreover, to prove this Bourdieu’s point of view, LiPuma (1993) considers Bourdieu’s ideas about the period when tastes of different classes are formed and concludes that childhood and childish naivety allow the grown-up representatives of a certain social field impose their values on the new inhabitants of this field, so that the latter could adopt “definitions that their elders offer them” (Bourdieu, 177; LiPuma, 22) Developing this point, scholars like Berger (1986) also examine the significance of economical and temporal factors for class distinction by Bourdieu.
Needless to say, and Douglas (1981) admits this also, for a certain group of people geopolitical and economic issues are not of primary importance and they form their tastes according to their personal preferences, but the factor of economical state of this or that family is paramount because it refers the latter to a certain social class: “…one has to take account of all the characteristics of social condition which are (statistically) associated from earliest childhood with possession of high or low income and which tend to shape tastes adjusted to these conditions.” (Bourdieu, 177).
At the same time, the weak points of the book under consideration are not so numerous as Calhoun (2002) and Jenkins (1992) notice. According to them, Bourdieu’s consideration of social stratification and class tastes is rather significant; however, it seems to be able to cause a kind of a conflict within the society. In more detail, the views of Bourdieu are correct in their essence but some of his statements and remarks can be wrongly interpreted by the representatives of this or that social class.
Furthermore, Giddens (1986) claims that lower classes can consider themselves to be offended, while the higher social fields can think that the author interferes with their private lives and tastes which can be chosen freely. Thus, for example, belonging to social class “presuppose not only dispositions associated with long establishment in the world of art and culture but also economic means…and spare time.” (Bourdieu, 75) However, Swartz (1998) concludes that the only weak point of the book can not be compared to the positive sides of this work.
The issues raised by Bourdieu in his brilliant work are rather significant even nowadays when over 20 years have passes since the day when the book was published. Globalization still develops and increases the gaps between the higher and lower classes of society (Giddens, 301).
To make the respective logical conclusion of this paper, it is necessary to state that Pierre Bourdieu was one of the luminaries of the modern social science. His works concerned the major problems of today’s society including class differences, cultural differences between the representatives of various social fields and fractions, effect of globalization upon the re-shaping of the society and many others. This paper focused on the major ideas of Pierre Bourdieu’s work and managed to find out its main strong and weak points. In respect of the relevance and actuality of the work and the issues it raises, it cam be stated that Bourdieu’s book went ahead of its time and nowadays it looks much more important and necessary than it was twenty years ago (The Corporatism of the Universal, 81).
Bibliography
Bourdieu, P. 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement and Taste.
Calhoun, C. 2002, ‘The Sociological Theory of Pierre Bourdieu’ in Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by Calhoun et al, Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 267-75.
Jenkins, R. 1992, Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Berger, B. 1986, ‘Taste and domination’ in American Journal of Sociology 91 (6), 1445-53.
Douglas, M. 1981, ‘Good Taste: review of Pierre Bourdieu, La Distinction’ in Times Literary Supplement 13 february, 163-16.
Giddens, A. 1986, ‘The Politics of Taste: Review of Distinction’, Partisan Review 53 (2), 300-305.
LiPuma, E. 1993, Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. Bourdieu:CriticalPerspectivesed. C. Calhoun,E. LiPuma, M.Postone.
Swartz, D, 1998. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University of Chicago, pp.163-188.
The Corporatism of the Universal: The Role of Intellectuals in the Modern World. 1989, Telos 81. New York: Telos Press.
Grenfell, M. (ed). 2008, Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. London: Acumen Press.