Foucault, Education, and Me

Pistol-whipping, smoking marijuana, engaging in sexual relations, and threatening the very well-being of others take place in this home away from home. Learning, teaching, thinking, creating, negotiating, and navigating social interactions take place as well. What makes it possible that actions and behaviors as varied as those mentioned in the former and the latter would occur under the same “public” roof? In this paper I will examine how Foucault’s philosophy on discipline and punishment relates to my experience with discipline in schools. I have chosen to structure this paper based on sections of Discipline and Punishment.

“Punishment”

While punishment is not –should not—be part of a school system, discipline has its place, and there is a “no vacancy” sign on the door. A regular part of many students’ and teachers’ school days are affected either directly or indirectly by incidents leading to one form of discipline or another. The discipline strategies used where I have worked are wide ranging. However, the underlying purposes of the disciplines of choice are always consistent.

Undoubtedly, schools serve to educate in an academic sense. They also provide a stage for repeated dress-rehearsals of how individuals should be as productive members of society. From early grades through high school, students are informed and reminded of procedures, rules, and regulations. These concepts are the focus of semester long courses in “Classroom Management,” in teacher education programs.

As educators, it is presumed that we not only provide students with content, but that we train them to be successful. This, of course, can be interpreted as very subjective. Whose definition of success are we using? Will our definition apply and/or be accepted by all groups which comprise the students we teach? In my experience, these questions are not ever addressed. The focus is on controlling behavior and attitude, regardless of personal differences and experiences.

A school’s role seems to, as Foucault states, adjust the mechanisms of power that frame the everyday lives of individuals; an adaptation and a refinement of the machinery that assumes responsibility for and places under surveillance their everyday behavior, their identity, their activity, their apparently unimportant gestures; another policy for that multiplicity of bodies and forces that constitutes a population. (77-78)

What has to be arranged and calculated are the return effects of punishment [discipline] on the punishing [disciplining] authority and the power that it claims to exercise. (91) In essence, do teachers’ and schools’ discipline policies make sense? Do they achieve desired effects for all parties (authorities [teachers and administrators], disciplined students, and other students)? That idea that one must punish [discipline] exactly enough to prevent repetition (93) is economically sound according to Foucault’s framework of humanity as it should apply to punishment. (92)

The major rules which illustrate the power to punish (94-101) are similar in many respects to the rules students encounter in school handbooks and in classrooms. Deterring undesirable behavior, consistently applying consequences, publicly displaying rules/policies, requiring proof of violations, and clearly stating consequences for infractions are expected practice. However, as Foucault asserts, there are limitations with this semio-technique of punishments. (103) Other methods must be applied in order to assure order. Here, specifically Foucault addresses discipline as opposed to punishment.

Discipline

The focus of exerting power addresses physical considerations to which I had not previously given much attention. Based on my understanding of Foucault, enforcing discipline incorporates the management of bodies and bodies in space. Envisioning classrooms, at both the elementary and secondary levels, it is now clear how bodies are manipulated for the purposes of discipline.

School districts I have worked in across the country appear to operate in a Foucauldian framework with respect to creating and maintaining discipline. In early grades, students stand on spots, line up, hold hands through hallways, and are assigned to designated areas to eat/work/rest. In later grades, students have assigned seats in rows at separate desks (often established based on what makes for easiest teacher surveillance and navigation), they must be granted permission to enter/leave areas of the school, and they often have to wear an identification on some part of the body.

This scenario bears a striking resemblance to the fortress (and later factory) Foucault describes, down to the description of the bell that announces the resumption of work has rung. (142) In effect, each of the pupils will have his place assigned to him and none of them will leave it or change it except on the order or with consent of the school inspector. (147) Bodies are trained and conditioned as to when they can eat, work, move, and tend to bodily functions.

This is not the only manner in which bodies are controlled. The powers that be—for intents and purposes of this paper, teachers and administrators—attempt to manipulate the ways in which bodies interact with each other and other objects. It is this control which transforms students’ bodies into docile bodies, arranged at the hand of the superpower authority figure. The concept of the correlation between body and the gesture is grounded in carrying out tasks with efficiency and speed. (152) It can dictate the way a student holds a pen, or sits in a chair. We see this discipline in many activities, including practicing handwriting, keyboarding, presenting, and play sports.

According to Foucault, not only are gestures subject to discipline, but so is the concept of efficiency and time use. The theory of exhaustive use incorporates ordered activities, and rhythms imposed by signals, whistles in an effort to ensure that students learn as efficiently as possible. (154) As far back as I can recall, my teacher training program, and later my early years of teaching, were guided by the “teach bell to bell” philosophy. Instructors and administrators used this as their mantra. If teachers were not performing in this capacity, they were not performing productively. Students and teachers were expected to let external switches guide their every action and behavior. At times, I felt conflicted with the “bell to bell” mentality. Was it in the best interest of my students? Did it mean that learning/teaching was unproductive if it was not within the confines of the rhythmic order of things?

I have often reflected on the idea that the structured, segmented days that are typical in most high schools, are not necessarily beneficial to the students served and teachers serving. A school day that is broken into six different periods of time to focus on six distinct content areas is, in many respects, far too fragmented of an educational experience, to be meaningful. In this environment, they are trained not to be scholars, but to be disciplined. A more holistic, theme or project-based approach to learning would seem to better flow with the rhythm of life, having time to create connections, interdependence, and relevance.

I would contend that a major focus—the hidden agenda--in schools is on training. In the training process, an element of individuality is lost, and power is imposed. The workshop, the school, the army were subject to a whole micro-penality of time (latenesses, absences, interruptions of tasks), of activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), of behavior (impoliteness, disobedience), of speech (idle chatter, insolence), of the body (incorrect attitudes, irregular gestures, lack of cleanliness), of sexuality (impurity, indecency). (178)

With these aspects of life put under the microscope, who has time to teach, learn, or recognize what is really important? In Your Average Nigga Performing Race Literacy and Masculinity, Vershawn Ashanti Young states that every student and teacher in the building knew that no students could outshine him academically. He won oratory and science contests, and performed at high levels in reading and math. However, upon inquiring to a teacher about his educational preparation he is sent to the principal.

The principal says that he has an attitude problem and that she would have to work with him before he went to high school (31). Who really has the problem? Young is initially banished from the school, and later relegated to staying in the principal’s office. Foucauldian to the point. Young is now restricted to a specific physical space, and under the direct observation of the principal. This is her attempt of the first stage in the ‘formalization’ of the individual within power relations. (190)

Panoptican and Chillin’ with the Principal

‘Formalization’ can only begin to take place when the powers that be—educators and administrators, in this case—have constructed a community in which the actions of every student are made under the watchful gaze of authority. The architecture of many schools lends itself well to this observation. Long hallways extending from one end of the building to another, classrooms in a row as cells in a prison, open stairways, open dining halls, and restrooms which provide minimal privacy.

Many times I’ve thought about how students relinquish some of their freedom the moment they cross the threshold of the school. There is an unspoken bargain (for whom?) that in exchange for a formal education, they will be placed under surveillance, under control of the powers that be. In schools, the Panopticon functions, as in prisons, to carry out experiments, to alter behavior, to train or correct individuals. (203)

In more than ten years of serving in public school systems, I noticed that the same individuals were consistently referred for their behavior. They were in detention, or in-school suspension more than they were in their classrooms. Why? There was no effort to engage them in a process of self-exploration, to get to the underlying roots of their behavior, in essence to rehabilitate them. This occurred due to a lack of time and resources, rather than because of ignorance regarding best practices.

In the last secondary school in which I taught, I had a student who I’ll call Jeff (because that is his name). Jeff had been kicked out of every required course, other than mine. He lacked the social skills and self-control that are necessary to function productively in public arenas. I encouraged Jeff to reflect on his actions, to provide suggestions for more appropriate behavior, and to think about the outcomes of his behavior. Jeff’s behavior in my class improved, however he was still engaging in negative behaviors throughout the school building and the day.

I sought advice/assistance from other school staff members to help with his behavior. I approached one of the school administrators, to discuss options for Jeff. Although receptive to my inquiry, I could feel the chill in the air. After dismissing my claims that there were great opportunities for reform with Jeff (and others in similar situations), I was told that I could do whatever I wanted because the administration had its eye on Jeff. Although the surveillance and control component of a Panopticon seemed to be securely in place, the rehabilitation component was nonexistent.

On the contrary, in the last school in which I taught in New York City , surveillance, control, and rehabilitation were packaged in a nice little bundle. Panopticon provided a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life on men, or young adults, in this case. (205) Those students labeled as the “worst” behaved were treated in a distinctly different manner than Jeff. These students were “kept” in the principal’s office. They were free to roam the periphery, but found no use. In her office they did their work, watched movies, and listened to music. They were no longer causing havoc in classrooms and around the school, but surely this was not a viable option.

This Panopticon schema (205) provided the administrators a privileged place for experiments [on men], and for analyzing with complete certainty the transformations that may be obtained from them. (204) It was a type of location of bodies in space, of distributions of individuals in relation to one another, of hierarchical organization, of dispositions of channels of power, of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power. (205)They had created Panopticon with a twist; Panopticon operating with a functional mechanism that must improve the exercise of power by making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for society to come. (209) Many staff members, myself included, were unaware of the process that was taking place in this instance.

Having read and pondered Discipline and Punishment over many hours, I am now aware that variations of Panopticon are applied in different school settings, based on the needs of those in power. In the second of the scenarios referred to above, discipline was implemented by regulating movement; it clear[ed] confusion; it dissipate[d] compact groupings of individuals wandering about the [school] in unpredictable ways; it establishe[d] calculated distributions. It master[ed] all the forces that are formed from the very constitution of an organized multiplicity; it neutralize[d] the effects of counter-power that spring from them and from which form a resistance to the power that wishe[d] to dominate it: agitations, revolts, spontaneous organizations, coalitions…(219)

I know that I am not yet at the end of the tunnel, but I am beginning to see the light. How wonderful to have a framework in which to understand some of the school practices that I have often pondered. Foucault has assisted me in better understanding how various types of discipline are implemented, and how this works/or doesn’t, for the individuals affected and society, in general.

Bibliography

Foucault, Michel. (1995).Discipline and Punishment. New York: Vintage Books.

Young, Vershawn A. (2007). Your Average Nigga Performing Race Literacy and Masculinity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Butler Blog

YouTube clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLnv322X4tY

http://20six.fr/trans-ftm-gay/

While I read Gender Trouble, I continued to draw connections between what I do in my classrooms with pre-service teachers, and what I’ve experienced in the secondary schools in which I have worked.

One focus in my classes is that we all have different experiences, perspectives, and beliefs. What may be acceptable to some is completely abhorrent to others. However, we have to be willing to challenge our beliefs (and those of others) so that we might gain a greater understanding of ourselves and others.

Butler certainly encourages thinking outside of the traditional box, for me. According to Butler, she aims to “open up the field of possibility for gender without dictating which kinds of possibilities ought to be realized.” (viii) She goes on to state that “no one who has understood what it is to live in the social world as what is ‘impossible,’ illegible, unrealizable, unreal, and illegitimate is likely to pose [the] question” of the “use of opening up possibilities’.” This is exactly what we do in one of my classes. Push yourself into the unfamiliar and/or the uncomfortable. Reflect on what you know/accept, and expose yourself to that which is unknown, or new territory.

Some of what I was unfamiliar with was the concept of a distinction between gender and sex, or that one does not logically adhere to the other. The notion that one’s sex doesn’t necessarily determine his/her gender is one that we briefly addressed earlier in the semester, in our Cultural Studies (gender as performative). Butler addresses the question the stability of gender, and the fact that sexual practice has the power to destabilize gender (xi). She further asserts, as would many feminists, that there is a distinction between gender and sexuality, refusing a causal or structural link between them. She believes that heterosexual normativity ought not to order gender. (xiv)

This has great implications for the teaching, learning, and socializing that takes place in our midst (the classroom/school). Knowing this, it is imperative that we enter all arenas with an open mind, and no agenda of categorizing individuals (of course this is easier said than done, but who needs easy?). I’ve observed many classroom and school situations in which the preconceived notions of gender, on the part of staff and students alike, fit right into a “traditional” heterosexual mindset. This way of thinking places limitations on us (regarding our perceptions, and expectations) as educators, and on our ability to recognize the potential of each of our students.

Butler expresses that we must explore what society dictates about gender, so that all people (and more specifically those whose lives do not fall lovely into place where sex and gender walk off together into the sunset—thank you Mica Pollock, in Colormute, for getting past the “all” label.) can live THEIR normal life. How must we think the ideal morphological constraints upon the human such that those who fail to approximate the norm are not condemned to a death within life? (xxi)

Bourdieu resonates with me as I read Butler. The idea of educational institutions perpetuating society’s social constructs can be applied to what Butler says about subjects regulated by such structures (juridical notions of power) are, by virtue of being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the requirements of those structures. (3)

Butler confirms my beliefs on the power of language in labeling or assigning power/domination. For feminist theory, the development of language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women. (2) As Wittig states, the “straight mind,” evident in the discourse of the human sciences, “oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men” because they “take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality.” (157) A reminder of the need to be precise in our words and cognizant of their implications.

Even though Butler recognizes that the claim of universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind of credibility it once did, the notion of a generally shared conception of “women,” the corollary to that framework, has been much more difficult to displace. (5) To me, this means that strides have been made in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. In our teaching and learning processes we have to continue to pose questions: Are the specificity and integrity of women’s cultural and linguistic practices always specified against, and hence, within the terms of some more dominant cultural formation? (6)

Butler reinforces the idea that the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders. (9) This outlook epitomizes the saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover….you can’t create your own norms for others. It underscores the reality that we cannot prescribe rules for people and/or their lifestyle, based on their biological sex.

More to follow soon…

Foucault

Though the read was interesting, and I've determined several ways to apply Foucault to the arenas of education in which I am interested, it is still a challenge to cast my net, catch that which I need, and put it to use in a meaningful and efficient manner. That having been said....here goes.

“In its function, the power to punish is not essentially
different from that of curing or educating.”
-Michel Foucault

Please click links for some interesting… footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6APLUeVvFE School Freud Foucault Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz_xE7ywqHc



School/Prison. Prison/School. At times, it seems as though features of each are interchangeable.

(15) [Punishment] assumed as its principal object loss of wealth and rights.
What is it that we are imposing upon students when they are disciplined? In many cases, it does not seem as though they are benefiting from the experience.

(19) What would be the most appropriate approach measures to take? How do we see the future development of the offender? What would be the best way of rehabilitating him”
A shift on rehabilitating individuals—would be an asset if used appropriately and consistently in the public school systems.

(22) Of course, we pass sentence, but this sentence is not in direct relation to the crime.”
How often does this happen? I usually interpret such situations as issues of power struggles (between administrator/teacher and student)

The body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs (25)
This reminds me of the constant conflict of which Bauman speaks, and the concept of field proposed by Bourdieu.

I thought about teachers as “super-power ” (80), and the dysfunction of power. This is directly related to recent discussions I’ve had about teachers’ roles as leaders, role-models, and caregivers.

Regarding classroom management, Foucault’s ideas on informing defendants of their crimes and consequences, can be applied to what should happen in schools (however it doesn’t always play out this way—in power struggles, or with control-mongers, the preference would probably be ). (96)
The shift in addressing defendants’ life circumstances, attitudes, and past (99) mirror the more recent approaches of schools/districts to seek out conditions or circumstances that may impact today’s students’ dispositions.

The confinement of paupers and vagabonds (141) is reminiscent of Bauman’s Globalization. Whereas they are left in the wake of globalization, according to Bauman, they are confined in Foucault’s writing.

It made the educational space like a learning machine, but also as a machine for supervising, hierarchizing, rewarding. (147) This is more of a traditional approach to the set-up of physical space in classrooms. This wouldn’t be conducive to many of the activities in today’s classrooms (cooperative, exploratory learning)

Bourdieu, Education, and Me

Bourdieu, Education, and Me
Maurella Cunningham

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field provide a wonderful framework within to operate when working toward the goal of improving teaching and learning. In this paper I propose to illuminate the ways in which an understanding of habitus and field can be applied to the dynamics of teacher-student relationships and to improving the quality of the teaching and learning process. To do so, I will discuss habitus, field, and the interplay between the two which create an atmosphere ripe for academic and social change in public school systems.

Habitus

The concept that habitus performs the dual function of adaptation and distinction (114) among individuals must be incorporated into plans for improving teaching and learning in the classroom. According to Bourdieu, the educational system is the principal institution controlling the allocation of status and privilege in contemporary societies (189). If we accept this statement we are relegated to acknowledging the fact that the education that takes place in schools--both formal and informal—enables the perpetuation of the status quo (For intents and purposes of this paper, let us assume a status quo to be what exists in U.S. public school systems today.) regarding opportunities and experiences for students.

The status quo, for many students, is a situation in which their daily successes and failures are determined by the interest, skills, knowledge, and dispositions of their teachers. Undoubtedly, students’ are influenced by their families. For some, however, families can only provide limited opportunities and posses limited abilities to navigate educational systems. Individuals can certainly change their social status if they are able to successfully navigate through their educational institution. As Bourdieu contends, actors unwittingly reproduce or change those class distinctions simply by pursuing their available strategies within the sets of constraints and opportunities available to them (134). However, I would argue that this is not likely to happen for most non-privileged students without the support of teachers whose primary agenda (whether overt or hidden) is to reproduce society (implying that those with power and privilege maintain it, and those without remain at a disadvantage).

Teachers must assume a role in questioning privilege and power in society through not only presenting meaningful curriculum, but through exploring how cultural resources are used to perpetuate peoples’ power and privilege (189), so as not to repeat such processes. Escaping one’s habitus is crucial, if habitus is the operating force in keeping one in “one’s place.” Employing the concept of habitus, Bourdieu stresses that educational choices result from dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations. Coupled with the belief that whether a person remains in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of possibilities, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.

If, as Bourdieu postulates, all action is interest-oriented, an interest in education and improving one’s own position in life, must be part of the psyche of individuals who elevate themselves academically and socially. If this mode of thinking is not part of the habitus of individuals, it is not a reality for them, and will be left untapped. If, at this point, teachers do not intervene, there may be a danger of what Panofsky leads Bourdieu to believe; that school systems [will act] as the institutionalized context where the intellectual habitus of a culture develops (102). This is alright, as long as that system acts for the benefit of the student.

As habitus is a “structured structure” that derives from the class-specific experiences of socialization in family and peer groups (134), individuals and institutions outside of that circle have a responsibility for increasing the spectrum of habitus. Habitus both sets structural limits for action, and is responsible for instilling in individuals’ perceptions, aspirations, and practices that correspond to the structuring properties of earlier socialization (103).

To the degree that habitus limits one’s potential—academic and other—it is the responsibility of educators to be involved in the expansion of their students’ habitus. In essence, educators must increase the scope of the habitus of their students to include greater aspirations and expectations. These ideas, when internalized, can lead to action on the part of the student which promote a more positive outlook in respect to possibilities and opportunities, beyond their earlier concept of life chances (104).This is the point at which educators need to step up to the plate, and extinguish the flame that leaves its mark of self-defeating behavior and long-lasting dispositions. The road to achieving this will certainly not be without bumps and forks, but the ultimate destination can still be reached.
Although habitus is fairly resistant to change, since it has been in place throughout the formative years of an individual’s existence, later social experiences can have an impact on what an individual believes to be reasonable or possible for herself. The change that occurs will take time, and may not necessarily be a conscious effort on the part of the student (107). Because the student has relied on her habitus to survive—negotiate and navigate life’s opportunities/challenges—it is part of her culture, a tool used to get along in the world (115).


Field

In the school setting, the student enters a new field, and the opportunity to struggle for legitimation (123). Fields are arenas in which there is constant conflict for domination and control over resources. In any field, individuals are distinguished from others by their relationship to others in the field. This idea of what transpires in fields plays out perfectly in public school systems. I would propose that less conflict between groups, and more conflict within the individual will lead to greater success for students. I would suggest that inner conflict, a challenge to habitus, will challenge ways of thinking, and in turn, ways of acting.

When actions occur outside of the traditional structure of an institution, such as the public school system, individual achievement can increase. A certain “bucking of the system” will start from the middle and project both upward and down. At the middle are the teachers who choose to practice culturally relevant pedagogy. They address their students’ social and emotional learning, as well as academics. These teachers not only make learning relevant, but they value the cultural capital which their students’ possess. Operating in this capacity, they are gradually functioning to expand students’ habitus, as earlier mentioned.

Revolution

The challenges will be many, and will radiate from opposing sides. On behalf of some students, there may be suspicion of their teachers’ intentions. This may lead to resistance toward challenging their dispositions. On behalf of the school system, teachers who partake in such a movement, will be confronted by those who intend to maintain the status quo (retaining their position in society, and the capital they possess). Contrary to Bourdieu’s ideas of reproduction and structural permutations, a movement toward this type of teaching would be characterized by social transformation and revolution (188).

The revolution of which I speak is one that will replace the “traditional” functions of educational systems with a new role, specifically that of promoting success for all in a culturally relevant and responsive manner. This implies that the three functions Bourdieu attributes to educational systems (conserving, inculcating, and consecrating a cultural heritage, reproducing social relations, and social reproduction) will be replaced by advancing the value multiple cultural heritages, refuting existing social relations, and escaping from the cycle of social reproduction (190-191).

What does this look like in practice? A foundation for this new “raison d’etre” of school systems’ will be requiring teachers to become better educated to serve the needs of and embrace all students. Regardless of the content area, teachers will be prepared to include material on diverse groups (ranging from ability, to age, to ethnicity, to sexual orientation, and gender, etc.). Addressing diverse populations will not be relegated to a “month of recognition,” but will be part of the curriculum on a daily basis. Many will understandably view this as a grand undertaking, and they will be correct. However, if we are to emancipate our students—and ourselves-- from unequal school systems where certain cultures are privileged and others penalized (199), then take it on, we must.

Will this be too much for teachers to handle? Perhaps on their own, but this is where professional education programs at the college and university level come into play. I would argue that every teacher preparation program must have a component (be it a stand-alone course, or something that is integrated into the various levels of a program) dedicated to examining the identities of future teachers (their ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and what impact this may have on their future students. Teacher candidates will be required to create and build on a portfolio (electronic or otherwise) that addresses their progress from the first stages of self-identity (including thoughts, actions and feelings) to the later stages of action in the classroom and their communities.

Student (K-12) performance and achievement can be seen as the outcome of a complex interplay of expectations, cultural capital, and the degree of selection (202). I am concerned with the role of pre-service and secondary school teachers in the U.S. As opposed to Bourdieu’s depiction of professors in higher education, K-12 teachers should be encouraged to play more of a supportive role in their students’ academic lives, while simultaneously addressing their students’ social-emotional well-being. This is only half of the battle.

According to Bourdieu’s interpretation of the research of Durkheim and Maus, there is a correlation between institutional structures and cognitive dispositions (202). Assuming this to be the case, we have to consider this revolution as it impacts K-12 students. On the part of students, responsibility to oneself, with the support of the school community, will be a key focus. An exploration of self identity and position in society will also be studied, establishing a springboard from which students can create a “master plan,” pinpointing their “place” in society, and how they want it to evolve as they enter adulthood. Such a project could be considered a type of mini-thesis, required for graduation. The time, effort, and thoughts which go into this “mini-thesis” incorporate both curriculum and personal reflections and aspirations, on the part of the student.

Bourdieu stresses that educational choices are determined by dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations (197). Coupled with the belief that whether a person stays in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of possibilities, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.

Bourdieu’s demonstration of how individuals “self-select” their educational experience should be cause for concern. Those working with youth who do not have the advantage of knowing what measures to take to assist students in succeeding academically, personally, and later, professionally, must be informed. An individual’s habitus has the potential, in any field, to be reformed/expanded, however not without a great investment of energy and time (202). To allow students’ habitus to be reformed/expanded, tracking in public school systems must undergo review.

The system of tracking in U.S. schools is often questioned, but not always by the students which it directly impacts. As Bourdieu mentions, through socialization, actors come to believe they are where they are supposed to be, in the name of education (205). In effect their placements within the school setting reflect their position within society, and for the most part, meet little resistance. This is not surprising. If your "place" in society has been the "place" of your family members for generations, what would motivate you to suddenly question it? In order for students to be questioners, teachers will have to express genuine compassion for, and develop positive rapports with their students. This would set the stage for trust-building and risk-taking, which could eventually lead to significant academic and social achievement.

Prior to reading Bourdieu I wondered why many of my classmates, and later students, did not have parents/family members who advocated more on their behalf. I thought perhaps they didn't care, or did not have the time. Though plausible, their absence was probably a result of their socialization. They did not know what they did not know. Not to be misunderstood, they were aware that the school system did not always provided equal opportunities, but they were not cognizant of the fact that this was the plan--or hidden agenda. In essence, people were oblivious as to this primary role of schooling in our society.

In conclusion, habitus, a regard for field, and action can transform the function of school systems. Bourdieu illustrates three situations in which habitus and field intersect, thereby creating a complete theory of action. First, situations in which the dispositions of habitus were first internalized, habitus tends to produce practices corresponding to existing structures; social reproduction occurs. Second, situations where opportunities and constraints of fields change gradually, habitus tends to adapt, even with some “mismatch.” Third, when discrepancies between new situations and those in which habitus was formed are slight, gradual modifications of structures occur (213).

Keeping this in perspective, it is clear that through adopting similar approaches (both in secondary schools and higher education) to those mentioned earlier in this paper, there are possibilities for great change. These actions will create the social struggles that expose field doxa necessitating new forms of symbolic domination and new reproduction strategies (217).


References
Schwartz, P. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ch 8: Education, Class, & Social Inequality

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, the function of educational systems, and the influence of agency in achieving academic success have increased my understanding of why some of our students fail to experience success in U.S. public school systems. In addition, through wrestling with Bourdieu’s various theories, I feel better equipped to enter discussion surrounding both best educational practices, policy-making, and hidden curricula within education.

The notion of a hidden curriculum is not a new one, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it has never been illuminated for me quite to the extent that it is in Schwartz does in "interpreting" Bourdieu. My concept of a hidden curriculum is one that promotes an agenda which maintains the status quo with respect to dominant culture versus marginalized groups (be it related to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc).

Prior to reading Bourdieu, I hadn't addressed the differences between cultural capital and economic captial, and their roles in determining an individual's "place" in our school systems, much less in society. (Of course Bourdieu's focus is on education in France, but much of his findings can be applied to situations in the United States.) When curriculum fails to provide diverse material on a variety of levels, and teachers lack cultural responsiveness, there is a greater likelihood that only those whose cultures and norm are included in curricula, will benefit from having the opportunity to experience the greatest levels of success. If students' dispositions are such that they excel in environments that differ from the traditional classroom, and they are not part of dominant group, then surely they are set up to fail from the onset of their education. So, why have our public school systems not undergone earth-shattering transformations so that all have not only the opportunity to succeed, but successful outcomes?

According to Bourdieu, the educational system is the principal institution controlling the allocation of status and privilege in contemporary societies. (189) This is a statement with which I strongly agree. Of course families have a great influence over children, yet individuals can—to an extent—change their status if they are able to successfully navigate through their educational institution. This is surely easier said than done. For later discussion…are they changing their stratification or position, or both?

One of the key questions around Bourdieu’s work is how inequalities of privilege and power persist inter-generationally without conscious recognition and public resistance. In my teaching experiences I have seen this, and the exact opposite. I've worked in communities where education is viewed as a ticket to success, a savior from poverty and a life of struggle. However, I've also observed the flip side, where education is viewed as a requirement through age sixteen, and nothing more. Bourdieu postulates that in order to answer the question of how privilege and power persist inter-generationally, we must explore how cultural resources—educational credentials, selection mechanisms, and cognitive classifications—can be used by individuals and groups to perpetuate their position of power and privilege. (189)

According to Bourdieu, the education system performs three functions: 1) conserving, inculcating, and consecrating a cultural heritage (internal and most essential function) 2) reproducing social relations (external-reinforces unequal distribution of cultural capital), and 3) social reproduction (legitimates the cultural heritage it transmits). (190-191) This is clearly the case in the school systems for which I have worked. For the most part, many teachers are not learned (nor do they care to learn) about cultures other than "mainstream" culture. That which they do know, or care to focus on, is usually not positive--certainly not capital (neither economic, nor cultural), but rather deficiencies attributed to various non-dominant groups. A constant refrain I would hear from students referring to their teachers/curriculum was something along the lines of "What does this have to do with me? Why do I need to know this? What do you (addressed to a teacher) know about me?" In truth, if we can apply Bourdieu's philosophy to our U.S. school systems--and I think we can--does it surprise anyone that students ask these questions? I should think not.

Similarly: (199) Bourdieu argues that school systems maintain unequal social systems by privileging certain cultural heritages and penalizing others. The thoughts of Durkheim and Maus (1963) regarding the correlation between institutional structures and cognitive dispositions are applicable here, as well. (202)

Bourdieu addresses the way(s) in which internal processes of selection and instruction, school culture, and tracking structure reinforce power relations. Once again, an appropriate description of what I have observed in the schools in which I have worked. You can call this a self-fulfilling prophecy. The message students receive is that they're not worth a darn, they can't succeed, and will never amount to much. With this message coming from those in "power"--teachers, administrators--what is a student left to think (especially where there is little social, emotional, and/or academic support at home). So, the child lives up--or down--to the expectations expressed, and sets herself up for failure. Of course this isn't every case, but it happens all of the time.

(192) Distribution of economic capital (wealth, income, property) and cultural capital (knowledge, culture, educational credentials) are the two competing principles of social hierarchy that shape the struggle for power.

(193) Bourdieu’s observations on the effect that the type and prestige of a school can have for one exploring career options. I'm aware of the impact of one's schooling. I happened to attend an undergraduate institution with a great academic reputation (at least known by those in Minnesota, and others working in education). When I speak of my school, or have interviewed for jobs, people are usually quiet impressed. Whether they should be or not is up for debate, but what holds true is that this happens.

(196) There is a fundamental paradox between two developments in French Higher Education: the increase in options in higher education (broader range of educational opportunities offered), and a reinforcement of class-based social stratification within the higher education system.
I have witnessed something similar in the public schools in which I have worked. There are a greater range of electives for those students in the upper echelons of academia (within a school), while the “regular track” students are relegated to taking the required courses, rarely having the opportunity to explore more diverse courses. In this way, the systems in which I have worked parallel those which Bourdieu mentions. The opportunities to attain greater cultural capital do not exist for all consumers. As Bauman might chime in, those who do not take part in the greater options are “collateral casualties,” simply left in the wake of all of the action.

(195) Educational elite is divided into those who have greater economic capital and those who have greater cultural capital. I have not given much thought to this dichotomy. As I watched a movie with my kids (or should I say as I watch this movie every other day), I had an "ah-ha" moment. The family has a rags to riches story--the riches gained in illegal car sales--yet only ever possess economic capital. Education is abhorred, reading is despised, and television a valued member of the family. This family will never possess cultural capital. It is not part of its habitus (with the exception of the character for whom the movie is named, "Matilda"). Not only is it not part of each family member's habitus, but there is no intervention, which might influence the habitus.

(197 ) Bourdieu—through the concept of habitus-- stresses that educational choices are dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations. Coupled with the belief that whether a person stays in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of limitations, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.

Bourdieu’s demonstration of how individuals “self-select” their educational selection should be cause concern among those working with youth who do not have the advantage knowing what measures to take to succeed academically (and later, professionally). As mentioned earlier in the book, an individual’s habitus has the potential to be reformed/expanded, however not without a great investment of energy and time.

(202) Student performance and achievement can be seen as the outcome of a complex interplay of expectations, cultural capital, and the degree of selection. I am concerned with the role of secondary teachers in the U.S. As opposed to Bourdieu’s depiction of professors in higher education, k-12 teachers should be encouraged to play more of a supportive role in their students’ academic lives, while simultaneously addressing their students’ social-emotional well-being.

(205) The system of tracking in U.S. schools may often be questioned, but not always by the actors which it directly effects. As Bourdieu mentions, through socialization, actors come to believe they are where they are supposed to be, in the name of education. In effect their placements within the school setting reflect their position within society, and for the most part, meet little resistance.

I am not surprised by this at all. If your "place" in society has been the "place" for your family members for generations, what would incite you to suddenly question it or raise cain? Before reading Bourdieu I did wonder why many of my classmates, and later students, didn't have parents/family members who advocated more on their behalf. I thought perhaps they didn't care, or didn't have the time. Though plausible, their absence was probably a result of their socialization. They didn't know what they didn't know. Not to be misunderstood, they knew the school system may not have always provided equal opportunities, but they didn't necessarily know that this was the plan--or hidden agenda.

(206) Bourdieu believes the French higher education system operates in an autonomous fashion to the extent that it carries out its “external function of social conservation.” It does so by internally generating knowledge and professional and organizational interests (which do not necessarily rely on labor-market demands or dominant-class interests.

(207) "Relative autonomy” addresses the relationship of education to class structure. Education, here, is viewed as a transmitter of social inequality. It is a concept in which the educational system has the capacity to undermine government instituted reforms.

(208) Schwartz notes the difference in the French and U.S. educational systems with respect to autonomy. Institutions in the U.S. are more likely subject to external constraints.

Schwartz mentions that school systems in the U.S. operate with a different level of autonomy, considering funding and other factors. NCLB is a huge factor. It has left schools with relatively little autonomy, while simlutaneously not yielding the results for which it was created. U.S. schools may have some autonomy, but nothing which would enable them to "undermine government instituted reforms.

(209) Capital investment strategies come in three forms. These can likely be compared to strategies that Bauman’s consumers might employ. Their actions are determined by their needs. Different classes pursue different kind of educational investments: 1) Middle class—usually low in cultural capital-demand curriculum & instruction needed to be successful in the professional job market. 2) Intellectual elite work to protect cultural capital from devaluation, resisting demands of the middle class for education to meet the changing skill needs of the labor market. 3) Big business leaders “convert” economic capital to cultural capital in the form of academic degrees.

(213) Bourdieu illustrates three situations in which habitus and filed intersect, thereby creating a complete theory of action. 1) Situations in which the dispositions of habitus were first internalized, habitus tends to produce practices corresponding to existing structures; social reproduction occurs. 2) Situations where opportunities and constraints of fields change gradually, habitus tends to adapt, even with some “mismatch.” 3) When discrepancies between new situations and those in which habitus was formed are slight, gradual modifications of structures occur.

This reinforces my belief that educators can make a difference--even if it means bucking the system, because of the school system in which you work. It confirms that people can be influences for the better, even if it is a slow process.

Bourdieu: Chapter 7

The material below is a list of notes I took on Ch. 7. My own comments will follow shortly.

FYI: These images are not showing. They include pictures of "The Jeffersons," "The Beverly Hillbillies," and "Matilda."

Bourdieu is inspired by subtle but powerful forms of societal distinction.

(143) Bourdieu is concerned with
-social stratification
-how cultural and social class correlate

(144) Class, like habitus, capital, and field, is a major concept

To me this identifies class as something that is neither stable nor composed of a solitary component (ie. an economic factor). Class can be shaped by a variety of factors which may experience change within themselves. This throws a wrench into the theory that class is based on economic factors alone. A wrench is a useful tool, and so too is this concept. For me it addressed the complexities woven into class.

According to Bourdieu, class has a multidimensional and relational theoretical construct, as opposed to the realist concept.
-Social class (and class fraction) has characteristic habitus that generates specific practices.
Bourdieu does not use a purely objective or subjective approach, but rather looks at relational concepts of social reality. Social class is not rooted in objective structuralism of unequal distribution of class. (145) This approach is helpful, as it recognizes the many components that constitute class. It identifies that both structure and agency have an impact on class.

(146) The structural constructionist approach includes perceptions about actors and perceptions about behavior. Bourdieu does not see class operating solely in terms of position in relations to production (as Marx would), but rather operates in a social space that is multidimensional and can't be reduced to one factor.

(147) Social classes are contested identities that are constructed through struggle, and have no clear cut boundaries. Image: flame.

(148) Class identities are constructed "relationally." Bourdieu's stratification framework includes objective resources and symbolic representations of class.

Class identity can be perceived, conceived, and materially constructed. According to Bourdieu, a class can be any group of individuals that share the same relationship to means of production--regardless of consciousness--AND have a shared interest which leads to collective awareness and action.

(151) "Class position" (class distinction) is a form of class struggle emerging from nonmaterial distinctions. On the other hand, "class situation" is grounded in material conditions which set the parameters for class position. Classes take on the appearance of STATUS groups.

Bourdieu integrates culture, tastes, and lifestyle indicators into his social class framework. Here, his framework can be distinguished from that of Marx because culture is a feature of social class, and by identifying status as a source of false consciousness-->cultural differences can serve as class differences.

(from Weber) Class is stratified (relational to production and the acquisition of goods). Status groups are created on the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by lifestyles.

WWBS?: What would Bauman say? I think he would agree with the integration of culture into the class of consumers. His concept of a consumer culture isn't limited to one's proximity to production and equipment, but zooms in on the choices people make, as a result of their habitus.

(152) Actors are defined by "relative position" within social space and have intrinsic properties (their condition) and relational properties (position). Class is seen in terms of power and privilege. Both dispositions (what Weber may consider "life chances") and market power help shape classes.

(154) Bourdieu indicated that there are basic capitals: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. Social class positions are defined based on the forms of capital possessed and how they change over time.

-other stratifying factors include in-class stratification concepts (gender, race, ethnicity, age, residence).

(155) Volumes and composition of capital give form and value to determinations which other factors (age, sex, etc) impose on practices.

Gender can function to stratifyàcreating gender class (secondary social class, according to Bourdieu—for which his work received criticism from some feminists)

Secondary social divisions can become socialized groups

(157) Bourdieu incorporates both structuralism and anti-positivism when postulating that class is composed of two total systems of factors: external existence and dispositions

(158) Bourdieu believes that social class is always constructed, based on statistical evidence and interviews.

Regarding French social class structure, economic factors are the most important, while cultural capital comes in second (France has a three tiered class system)

To create social classes which are primarily homogenous groups, a 3-D social space is defined which includes total volume of capital, compositions of capital, and social trajectory .

(159) It is possible to have intra-class fractions based on the amount of capital possessed. Those with the most capital hold the most power.

(160) Symbolic violence is the impositions of the dominant class culture on sub-groups.

(161) Researchers should use “scientific categories” rather than “bureaucratic categories” when identifying capital possessed. Occupational titles can be used, but one must examine underlying volume and composition of capital.

(162) Data should illustrate the complex oppositional and tentative characteristics of class relations.

Changes in capital volume and composition determine a group’s futureàin terms of both attitudes and practices.

The three social trajectories which characterize group movement are increasing, decreasing, or maintain the status quo.

Individuals who share volume and composition of forms of capital and social trajectory ALSO share similar class conditions à from this we can predict that there would be similar behavior (practices).

(163) Class structure becomes internalized in distinct class habitus.

Individuals enter fields of taste with dispositions which lead to particular lifestyles (practical experience of the symbolic dimension of class).

A relationship between class and lifestyle exists, in terms of “structures in opposition.” Individual’s preferences don’t matteràwhat matters is the systematic opposition to those of other classes.

(164) The primacy of habitus—rather than the amount of money—is what shapes consumer choiceàtastes stem from the idea of scarcity and abundance

(165) Differences in volume and composition of capital lead to differences in class condition lead to differences in class habitusàlifestyle differences

Distance from necessityàdifference in class habitusàdifferent tastes

(166) Difference in basic conditions produce “basic opposition” between tastes of luxury and necessity.

“Tastes of Freedom” can be distinguished from “Tastes for Necessity” in the following way:

Freedom: free from mundane necessities and practical daily urgencies; aesthetic disposition.

Necessity: substance over form; practical needs.

(169) “class racism” (note to self: can this be distinguished from “classism?: class identity is oppositional

(169-170) Habitus reflects underlying condition of existence AND relative position of individual and group in class hierarchy.

(172) Working-class autonomyàreflected in attitudes toward body, food, and language.

(173) Working-class choices are reminders of need for class solidarity

Education perpetuates class distinction and domination.

Experiences of social norms of conformity “keep” people in their class/condition/habitus. (Note to self “Matilda,” “The Jeffersons,” “Beverly Hillbillies.”

(174) The disposition of machines/equipment is the underlying social relationship connecting the working-class to the =social world.

(176) Cultural practices are only possible when primary needs are satisfied.

(179) Practical translation of material conditionsàsymbolic distinctions which represent social functions of culture

(180) Competitive struggle rules all class struggleàactors pursue social reproduction strategies which maintain or improve position in the stratification order.

--Reproduction strategies depend on

---total volume and composition of capital to be maintained

---Converting/exchanging capital (181)

(182) Shifts from “family” mode of production to “education” mode of production

--intra-field vertical mobility (from elementary school teacher àcollege professor)

--inter-field movementàcapital reconversion (ex. Shop-owner invests in higher education to provide for family rather than transferring family business.)

--Occupational mobility does NOT equal change in class condition.

The concep

Bourdieu: Chapter 7

The material below is a list of notes I took on Ch. 7. My own comments will follow shortly.

FYI: These images are not showing. They include pictures of "The Jeffersons," "The Beverly Hillbillies," and "Matilda."

Bourdieu is inspired by subtle but powerful forms of societal distinction.

(143) Bourdieu is concerned with
-social stratification
-how cultural and social class correlate

(144) Class, like habitus, capital, and field, is a major concept

To me this identifies class as something that is neither stable nor composed of a solitary component (ie. an economic factor). Class can be shaped by a variety of factors which may experience change within themselves. This throws a wrench into the theory that class is based on economic factors alone. A wrench is a useful tool, and so too is this concept. For me it addressed the complexities woven into class.

According to Bourdieu, class has a multidimensional and relational theoretical construct, as opposed to the realist concept.
-Social class (and class fraction) has characteristic habitus that generates specific practices.
Bourdieu does not use a purely objective or subjective approach, but rather looks at relational concepts of social reality. Social class is not rooted in objective structuralism of unequal distribution of class. (145)

This approach is helpful, as it recognizes the many components that constitutes class.

(146) The structural constructionist approach includes perceptions about actors and perceptions about behavior.

Bourdieu does not see class operating solely in terms of position in relations to production (as Marx would), but rather operates in a social space that is multidimensional and can't be reduced to one factor.

(147) Social classes are contested identities that are constructed through struggle, and have no clear cut boundaries. Image: flame.

(148) Class identities are constructed "relationally." Bourdieu's stratification framework includes objective resources and symbolic representations of class.

Class identity can be perceived, conceived, and materially constructed. According to Bourdieu, a class can be any group of individuals that share the same relationship to means of production--regardless of consciousness--AND have a shared interest which leads to collective awareness and action.

(151) "Class position" (class distinction) is a form of class struggle emerging from nonmaterial distinctions. On the other hand, "class situation" is grounded in material conditions which set the parameters for class position. Classes take on the appearance of STATUS groups.

Bourdieu integrates culture, tastes, and lifestyle indicators into his social class framework. Here, his framework can be distinguished from that of Marx because culture is a feature of social class, and by identifying status as a source of false consciousness-->cultural differences can serve as class differences.

(from Weber) Class is stratified (relational to production and the acquisition of goods). Status groups are created on the principles of their consumption of goods as represented by lifestyles.

(152) Actors are defined by "relative position" within social space and have intrinsic properties (their condition) and relational properties (position). Class is seen in terms of power and privilege. Both dispositions (what Weber may consider "life chances") and market power help shape classes.

(154) Bourdieu indicated that there are basic capitals: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. Social class positions are defined based on the forms of capital possessed and how they change over time.

-other stratifying factors include in-class stratification concepts (gender, race, ethnicity, age, residence).

(155) Volumes and composition of capital give form and value to determinations which other factors (age, sex, etc) impose on practices.

Gender can function to stratifyàcreating gender class (secondary social class, according to Bourdieu—for which his work received criticism from some feminists)

Secondary social divisions can become socialized groups

(157) Bourdieu incorporates both structuralism and anti-positivism when postulating that class is composed of two total systems of factors: external existence and dispositions

(158) Bourdieu believes that social class is always constructed, based on statistical evidence and interviews.

Regarding French social class structure, economic factors are the most important, while cultural capital comes in second (France has a three tiered class system)

To create social classes which are primarily homogenous groups, a 3-D social space is defined which includes total volume of capital, compositions of capital, and social trajectory .

(159) It is possible to have intra-class fractions based on the amount of capital possessed. Those with the most capital hold the most power.

(160) Symbolic violence is the impositions of the dominant class culture on sub-groups.

(161) Researchers should use “scientific categories” rather than “bureaucratic categories” when identifying capital possessed. Occupational titles can be used, but one must examine underlying volume and composition of capital.

(162) Data should illustrate the complex oppositional and tentative characteristics of class relations.

Changes in capital volume and composition determine a group’s futureàin terms of both attitudes and practices.

The three social trajectories which characterize group movement are increasing, decreasing, or maintain the status quo.

Individuals who share volume and composition of forms of capital and social trajectory ALSO share similar class conditions à from this we can predict that there would be similar behavior (practices).

(163) Class structure becomes internalized in distinct class habitus.

Individuals enter fields of taste with dispositions which lead to particular lifestyles (practical experience of the symbolic dimension of class).

A relationship between class and lifestyle exists, in terms of “structures in opposition.” Individual’s preferences don’t matter à what matters is the systematic opposition to those of other classes.

(164) The primacy of habitus—rather than the amount of money—is what shapes consumer choiceàtastes stem from the idea of scarcity and abundance

(165) Differences in volume and composition of capital lead to differences in class condition lead to differences in class habitusàlifestyle differences

Distance from necessityàdifference in class habitusàdifferent tastes

(166) Difference in basic conditions produce “basic opposition” between tastes of luxury and necessity.

“Tastes of Freedom” can be distinguished from “Tastes for Necessity” in the following way:

Freedom: free from mundane necessities and practical daily urgencies; aesthetic disposition.

Necessity: substance over form; practical needs.

Maslow's hierarchy comes to mind. Those whose basic needs are not being met will not be able to rise to the level where they are able to "taste freedom." Regarding classroom application...teachers need to support students (meeting their needs) in ways that enable students to reach their full potential, and beyond. Pre-service teachers must be aware of what students' needs are, and how to meet them. This goes for all students, but particularly for those whose habitus differs from that of the teacher.

(169) “class racism” (note to self: can this be distinguished from “classism?: class identity is oppositional

(169-170) Habitus reflects underlying condition of existence AND relative position of individual and group in class hierarchy.

(172) Working-class autonomyàreflected in attitudes toward body, food, and language.

(173) Working-class choices are reminders of need for class solidarity

Education perpetuates class distinction and domination.

Experiences of social norms of conformity “keep” people in their class/condition/habitus. (Note to self “Matilda,” “The Jeffersons,” “Beverly Hillbillies.”

(174) The disposition of machines/equipment is the underlying social relationship connecting the working-class to the =social world.

(176) Cultural practices are only possible when primary needs are satisfied.

(179) Practical translation of material conditionsàsymbolic distinctions which represent social functions of culture

(180) Competitive struggle rules all class struggleàactors pursue social reproduction strategies which maintain or improve position in the stratification order.

--Reproduction strategies depend on

---total volume and composition of capital to be maintained

---Converting/exchanging capital (181)

(182) Shifts from “family” mode of production to “education” mode of production

--intra-field vertical mobility (from elementary school teacher àcollege professor)

--inter-field movementàcapital reconversion (ex. Shop-owner invests in higher education to provide for family rather than transferring family business.)

--Occupational mobility does NOT equal change in class condition.

(184) Change in class situation (living conditions) is NOT incompatible with reproduction of class position (stratification order).

--Class conflict takes form of investments in cultural and symbolic distinctions.

(185) Classification struggle: Definition of what is valued and understanding of one’s position in fields. It dictates “sense of place”àfulfilling functions of inclusion/exclusion.

(186) Class power=nomination power (names, titles, codes which confer entitlement)

(187) Groups need leadership:

--possibility of class action is linked to the accumulation of symbolic power

--Class mobility=life chances (Weber) AND symbolic representation

--Intellectuals have key role in class struggle

(184) Change in class situation (living conditions) is NOT incompatible with reproduction of class position (stratification order).

--Class conflict takes form of investments in cultural and symbolic distinctions.

(185) Classification struggle: Definition of what is valued and understanding of one’s position in fields. It dictates “sense of place”àfulfilling functions of inclusion/exclusion.

(186) Class power=nomination power (names, titles, codes which confer entitlement)

(187) Groups need leadership:

--possibility of class action is linked to the accumulation of symbolic power

--Class mobility=life chances (Weber) AND symbolic representation

--Intellectuals have key role in class struggle