Consider Bourdieu's Theory Of Cultural Reproduction Of Class And Its Operation Through Habitus, Capi

This essay discusses Bourdieu's theory of the cultural reproduction of class and its movement through habitus, capital and field. It begins with a brief introduction to familiarize the reader with these terms as used by Bourdieu, followed by a more detailed discussion of his arguments. An outline of other theories in support of and against those arguments will then follow, concluding with the implications of Bourdieu's theory on sociology in general. In his attempts to overcome the divisions between structuralism and culturalism and macro and micro analysis of society, Pierre Bourdieu introduced his concept of 'habitus'. He argued that individuals are neither solely a product of their own free choices nor exclusively what the society moulds them to be. Instead, he sees individuals located in a multidimensional social space defined by the resources they have access to, age, gender, educational status as well as their own interpretive schema. The various resources the individual can access are called 'capital' which, in Broudieu's view, is not limited to economic resources (wealth) but encompasses cultural capital (credentials, knowledge), symbolic capital (honour, prestige) and social capital (social ties, confidence). Every resource has a relative value according to the various 'fields' or social spheres where an individual operates. For instance, ideally, credentials and knowledge are valued more than other resources in the academic sphere while morality is a powerful capital in religious spheres (Seidman, 2004). It is through the concept of habitus that Bourdieu explores cultural reproduction. He maintained that culture is habitus-structured and reproductive of habitus. In his book, Distinction, he records recognizable, common, class-based patterns in preferences in music, theatre, food and home-decorating and cultural practices such as museum visits, concert-going, reading etc. (Bourdieu, 1996a). It was Bourdieu's belief that habitus was based on the degree of freedom from material necessity that economic position provided: "the opposition between the tastes of luxury (or freedom) and the tastes of necessity". The working class, in the monotony of their daily drudgery, is not only alienated from the products of their labour, but also from their own intellectual potentials. Being forced to adapt to incomprehensible and massively unmovable physical and human world, they become more concerned with material interests, abide by authority, seek security in communal strength. The affluent classes, on the other hand, are free to develop a voluntaristic optimism and individualism and in turn, a tendency to internal compulsion and competence built on a distanced and abstract mediation. The bourgeoisie then are free to explore classical music, abstract art, avant garde movies and theatre while the working class, pressured by material necessities, approach culture in more functional ways: music that emphasizes melody and lyrics, content driven art and functional furniture. Food consumption is an aspect that Bourdieu uses to illustrate such differences. He argues that working class men prefer meaty, filling food that not only provides energy for manual labour but also confirms their class specific sense of masculinity. Meanwhile, middle class men prefer food that is precisely delicate, feminine, involves sophistication in cooking and delicacy in consumption. Again, taking food as an example, Bourdieu illustrates how cultural tastes dictate food choices contrary to the common belief that it is dictated by income. He points to differences in food consumption within people of similar income brackets. For example, he shows that foremen retain attachment to 'popular' taste even though they earn more than clerical and commercial employees, who again may differ radically from manual workers in their eating habits but are similar to teachers (Bourdieu, 1996a, p.177). These class differences in culture is reflected in Bernstein's writings on language codes (Bernstein, 1962a) which he distinguishes into two broad categories: restricted and elaborate codes. He associates language use to social relations. Specifically, a restricted code is based on closely shared identifications, 'self-consciously held by the members' (p.90) and involves predictable use of language whereas an elaborated code does not presuppose such shared, self-consciously held identifications showing novelty and individual differences between the interlocutors. In his empirical studies comparing language use, working class subjects showed a restriction on the use of uncommon adjectives, uncommon adverbs, a relative simplicity of the verbal form and a lack of subordinations leading him to conclude that the working class do not articulate intent verbally and their speech is relatively non-individuated (1962b). This can be attributed to the fact that working class individual's life is very much like another's, making restricted coding of reality sufficient. There is no need to elaborate meanings because they share the same experiences in a rigidly defined, unchanging, predictable, ready-made status. People tend to be seen on object terms rather than as unique personalities and emotional sensitivity is not made explicit. These class based differences have further been observed in the realm of music adding weight to Bourdieu's arguments. Virden and Wishart (1977) argue that, in music too, the ruling culture tend to explicitness and those that are dispossessed (the working class) tend towards implicitness. While the dominant musical language, the European classical tradition, explicitly translate soundflows into visual marks on the score articulating every note that is played, working class music conveys meaning implicitly through inflexion of pitch, timbre, attack and rhythm which defies notational analysis. Just as the meaning of a nod or a wink is implicitly understood by the users of shared restricted language, the nuance of the folk music is comprehended without having to articulate and analyse the meaning. Bourdieu believed that one of the ways cultural reproduction operates through habitus is via tendencies to class solidarity and conformity. For example, a surgeon spending three million francs on his son`s engagement party (a sum considered by the working class to be wildly extravagant) sees it as basic necessity: `an excellent investment in social capital` (1996a, p. 375). On the other hand, working class norms strictly forbid every sort of `pretension` in language or clothing, reacting with the likes of `Who does she think she is? That`s not for the likes of us` when, for instance, a working class woman buys from boutiques and expensive cosmetics. As sexual division of labour and sexual morality is more strict among the working class than any others, men are especially sanctioned for indulging in aesthetic refinement with remarks like `toadies`, `la-di-da`, `pansies` etc. (p.382) While this sort of abhorrence towards bourgeoisie culture seems apparent among the working class, Bourdieu also points out a contradictory attitude: that the working class have adapted to (implying that they have accepted) the dominant bourgeoisie culture. The `inevitable` dependence of self- esteem on occupational status and income and the reinforcement received through education about what is socially valuable, leads the working class to consume cheap substitutes for rare goods: sparkling white wine for champagne, imitation leather for real leather, reproductions for paintings, all showing an acceptance of goods worthy of possession (p.386). One of the main obstacles to a critique of the production of the value of cultural goods, says Bourdieu, is the 'charismatic ideology of "creation"' to be found in studies of art, literature and other cultural ?elds. This charismatic ideology, 'directs the gaze towards the apparent producer - painter, composer, writer - and prevents us from asking who has created this "creator" who, in his view, serves the interests of the dominant capitalist class (Bourdieu, 1996b: 167). In fact, he argues, that "higher art" or "pure art" only appears to be non-market oriented because the artists are portrayed as a particularly "spiritual soul". Their reputation for an ascetic withdrawal from the world of profit making is preserved by their dealers or gallery owners, responsible for the artist's monetary transactions, thereby dissociating the artist from the vulgar world of money. The "true artist's" market is propagated by an "aristocracy of culture" which, according to Bourdieu, consists of bankers, liberal professionals and higher education teachers. It is neither the quality and affective power of the art work itself nor the public's authentic taste that dictates the artist's success. Instead, success is gained when the art work is certified by the leading critic or these "aristocrats of culture" whose tastes are perceived as legitimate and good taste (1996b: 169). Although Bourdieu stressed on the autonomy of different fields, he also emphasized the interrelatedness among those fields. He showed that the field of cultural production operated through not only economic, but also political, educational and intellectual fields. This concept is used to show that taken-for-granted cultural practices ultimately serve the interests of the dominant class. The education system, for example, presupposes the possession of cultural capital which consists of familiarity with the dominant culture in a society, and especially the ability to understand and use `educated` language. Although the possession of cultural capital (mainly linguistic and cultural competence) and the advantageous familiarity with it varies with social class and family upbringing, the education system implicitly demands of everyone what it fails to give them explicitly. (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 494 in Sullivan, 2002). In the field of contemporary culture industry, however, Bourdieu has very little to say, argues Hesmondhalgh (2006). For example, market research activities, and how they mediate between production and consumption remain unexplored. Additionally, Bourdieu seems to have primarily focused only on the relatively autonomous prestigious institutions of French journalism (Le Monde features very heavily, for example) and not in the complexities that might be involved in newspapers aimed at larger audiences. In contrast to Bourdieu's arguments, even in the British popular press, for example, there has been a long history of critical intervention, such as the Daily Mirror's attacks on the 'brass-buttoned boneheads' of the British of?cer class during the oppressive publishing climate of the Second World War (Curran and Seaton, 2003: 59 in Hesmondhalgh, 2006). The strength of the relationship between cultural capital, educational credentials and occupational status, that Bourdieu implied, have come into question after observations that powerful positions, in business for example, are not assigned primarily based on educational credentials. Hence, Bourdieu has been accused of putting too much emphasis on symbolic relations compared to material ones (Willis, 1983). Bourdieu has also been criticized for the ambiguity and incoherence of his writings. Sullivan (2002) finds Bourdieu's constant use of 'non-commital' phrases like 'the effect is as though' failing to assert his arguments. She adds that Bourdieu`s view of the importance of cultural and educational capital in the transmission of privileges remains unclear due to the evasive nature of his sentences. At times Bourdieu emphasizes the significance of educational credentials in social reproduction, while downplaying the same with remarks like ". . . academic qualifications are a weak currency and possess all their value only within the limits of the academic market." (Bourdieu, 1977a, p. 507 in Sullivan, 2002) She argues that if cultural capital is an important mechanism of social reproduction then it must be the case that not only does cultural capital aid the acquisition of educational credentials, but that educational credentials in turn are crucial to the transmission of wealth and power. Bourdieu, however, focuses on the first of these relationships failing to explore the latter, which may account for the ambiguity in his views on the subject. For all its limitations, Bourdieu's theory of the cultural reproduction of class has heavy connotations for the study of stratification and education. It points to a critical consideration of both the school curriculum and the social assumptions underpinning teachers' definitions of knowledge and ability involving interaction in the classroom. Furthermore, it adds a social dimension necessary to a complete understanding of aesthetic tastes in language, music and art. Finally, through the concepts of capital, field and habitus, it reveals ways to counter class-based cultural reproduction and culture based class-reproduction, consequently leading to a better understanding of social inequalities.

References Bernstein, B. (1962a). 'Linguistic codes, hesitation phenomena and intelligence', Language and Speech, 5, (I), 31-46. In Class, Codes and Control, I, 76-94. Berstein, B. (1962b) 'Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements', Language and Speech, 5, (4), 221-40. In Class, Codes and Control, I, 95-117 Bourdieu, P.(1977). `Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction`. In Karabel, 1. and Halsey, A. H., eds, Power and Ideology in Education. OUP, Oxford. Bourdieu, P. (1996a). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Routledge. London. Bourdieu, P. (1996b). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford University Press. USA. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006). Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society. SAGE Publications. London. Vol. 28(2): 211-231 Seidman, S. (2004). Contested Knowledge: Social theory today. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, MA. Sullivan, A. (2002). Bourdieu and education: How useful is Bourdieu's theory for researchers? Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 2002. [Accessed online at http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/library-media%5Cdocuments%5CBOURDIEU%20NetherlandsJournal.pdf on 23rd April 2013] Virden, P. & Wishart, T. (1977). 'Some observations on the social stratification of twentieth-century music'. In Whose Music? A Sociology of Musical Languages, 155-178. Willis, P.(1983). `Cultural Production and Theories of Reproduction`. In Barton, L. and Walker, S., eds, Race, Class and Education. Croom Helm, London.