Cultural Studies

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

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.

Monday, September 29, 2008

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.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

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."

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."

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.