User:Czar/drafts/Distinction (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
AuthorPierre Bourdieu
Original titleLa Distinction: Critique sociale du Jugement[1]
TranslatorRichard Nice
CountryFrance
LanguageFrench
SeriesLe sens commun
SubjectFrench social conditions, general sociology
Published
Pages
  • 670 (French)[1]
  • 640 (English)[2]
ISBN978-2-7073-0275-5
(French)[1]

ISBN 978-0-674-21277-0 (English)[2]

306/.0944[2]
LC ClassDC33.7[2]

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste is a 1979 book by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu about aesthetic taste. It was first published as La Distinction: Critique sociale du Jugement by Les Éditions de Minuit in 1979, and translated into English in 1984 by Richard Nice for the Harvard University Press.

Overview[edit]

Distinction is Bourdieu's book on aesthetic taste:[3] "a close analysis of social and cultural differences among French people",[4] or "ethnography of French taste".[5] The book was first published as La Distinction in France in 1979, where it sparked public debate especially amongst French intellectuals.[6] A 1984 English translation, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, was printed by Harvard University Press.[4] The book's subtitle refers to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgment, in which Kant posits the idea of "disinterested sovereign [aesthetic] judgment", which Bourdieu refutes.[7]

In early 2001, The New York Times described Bourdieu as "France's most influential intellectual ... by almost any measure". No intellectual was as popular in American universities since Jacques Derrida in the 1970s.[8]

According to the The New York Times, Bourdieu's view of human society is that it is a competition for status won via the accumulation of economic, social, and cultural capital (e.g., money, clout, and an Ivy League degree, respectively).[8] In an interview translated from French, Bourdieu said, "The point of my work is to show that culture and education aren't simply hobbies or minor influences ... They are hugely important in the affirmation of differences between groups and social classes and in the reproduction of those differences."[8] Bourdieu's work, especially in Distinction, is to connect the worlds of class and status by framing both as markets with exchangeable capital.[9] He argues that the struggle over social interpretation of culture is inextricably linked to class struggle. Put another way, such as in his thesis in Reproduction, the perpetuation of societal power and its inequities ("social reproduction") happens through the generational transference of cultural values ("cultural reproduction"), a process called "symbolic violence".[10]

Bourdieu's conclusions draw from two surveys (1963 and 1967–68) of 127 individuals in a small provincial town, Lille, and Paris.[11] He also draws from other French surveys[5] and readings from across the sciences.[12] The survey collected data on individual knowledge, opinions, practices, and tastes about cultural products such as film, food, furniture, music, painting, photography, reading, sports, theater,[5] choice of newspaper, dining etiquette, potlucks,[3] education, and leisure activities,[13] all of which are exhaustively parsed in an analysis[3] and explanation of lifestyle differences across class divides.[11] The differences of interest between classes, or distinctions, delineate "cultural strategies" as part of a larger "economy of cultural goods".[12] Class dynamics both entrench those tastes and encourage taste differences between classes.[12] While the book is as theory-laden as his other works, Bourdieu additionally cites a variety of examples to ground his ideas in reality.[12] While Bourdieu wrote about French society, he considered his model applicable for "every stratified society".[11]

Synopsis[edit]

Bourdieu first connects his subjects' upbringings and their formal schooling with their later cultural practices. He argues that culture is learned, and that the culture learned is specific to the class. When discerning between cultural products, he presents a "legitimate culture" (with a preexisting hierarchy of tastes) opposite "non-legitimate" cultures (with aesthetic tastes determined by social origins).[11] Bourdieu describes three taste zones: legitimate, middlebrow, and popular. These aesthetic preferences form the basis of class lifestyles. In this structure, there is a dominated aesthetic (that of the working class) defined in relation to a dominant aesthetic (of the upper class, also called the "cultural arbitrary").[14][note 1] He contends that the middle and upper classes are more apt to make aesthetic considerations (in "playful seriousness") since their wealth affords self-assurance and security in distinction. Accordingly, the working class cannot afford purely aesthetic sensibilities.[17][note 2] As an example of how individuals may be unable to escape their class, the petite bourgeoisie (those who distinguish themselves from the lower classes in an attempt to join upper classes) are stunted by lack of knowledge about legitimate taste and "ease" (the "cultivated naturalness" whereby the upper classes make their acquired tastes appear innate).[17]

This idea that taste is socially maintained extends from the work of Émile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, and Bourdieu adds that these tastes serve to perpetuate systems of societal domination.[7]

  • History and social construction trump culture and taste.[19]
  • Taste establishes social identity and lifestyle, and people tend to socialize with and marry those of similar identities.[17]
  • The dominant class owns the argument over what becomes form of legitimate culture is appropriate for domination. They are an "uneasy coalition" and do not necessarily share lifestyles.[20]


Bourdieu groups occupations into "objective classes" and, using national survey data, evaluates each for their amount of economic and cultural capital (as defined by dominant taste).[21] He finds that economic and cultural capital are inversely related, where people trade one capital for the other as a kind of "transverse mobility".

  • Instead of viewing social stratification across a single capital <one dimensional>, the two forms of capital are plotted against each other to show social stratification in two dimensions.[22] In relation to the "objective classes" established by occupation, Bourdieu defines "constructed classes" established by place on the two-dimensional relation between economic and cultural capital.[23]
  • Bourdieu groups occupations into "objective classes" organized by their like abilities to provide access to power.[21]
  • which provides for social stratification in two dimensions instead of one and for "transverse mobility" via "conversion and reconversion strategies".[22][note 3] In these strategies, individuals and families trade one form of capital for the other over the course of a generation so as to sustain or upgrade their class position (for example, economic capital traded for cultural capital in the next generation, and its less common inverse).[22]

In Bourdieu's model, "conditions of existence" and the "constructed class" social position together make "habitus".[23] Habitus, or taste and a corresponding ability to classify cultural practices, makes lifestyle (practices of distinction) and those aforementioned cultural practices.[24] Bourdieu's theory permits a combination of cultural reproduction theories with "competitive struggle" theories.[20][note 4]

Within constructed classes, there is room for individual variation by interests of the time period ("sectional interests") and the influence of their different historical origins.[25]

Within a field (such as music or a hobby), the ample differences between its contents allow for an infinite amount of expressions of social differences (as class distinctions).[20]

  • Bourdieu doesn't convert his statistical findings into prose, but writes "long discursive notes".[5] While the data is prominently shown in tables, he shows less of an interest in following the data than furthering his argument of correlation between class and status.[5]
  • Michael Apple wrote that Bourdieu saw culture as a competitive arena where people worked to sustain their relative advantages instead of as a fixed entity outside power relations.[13]
  • Bourdieu describes how the petite bourgeoisie feel unworthy in their reverence to higher culture, and in their struggle to adopt legitimate culture, automatically ruin those cultural objects' legitimacy. Put another way, by virtue of their acknowledgement of an aspect of culture, the bourgeoisie's authority legitimates, and the petite bourgeoisie attenuates (into middlebrow "charming mediocrity").[26] He also explains various subgroups of the petite bourgeoisie and their conversion strategies for providing their children access to a better life in a higher social class.[26] Likewise, he explains how those who rode the 1960s rise of higher education to a dearth of entrance points to bourgeois work used a reconversion strategy and their "ethical vanguard" upbringings to join "caring" professions between teaching and medical ranks and so create a new space of low-cost living with legitimate repute.[27]

Bourdieu describes how the working class takes refuge in their physical ability ("values of virility") as their surroundings change, how they make decisions without interest in aesthetics ("choice of the necessary"), and how they are difficult to mobilize since their identity is unconscious and relatively unavailable.[18] He describes differentiation in the working class: skilled workers uninterested in class mobility and office workers interested in mobility, and their shared values of "realistic hedonism" and "skeptical materialism" instead of politics.[28] Bourdieu writes that working class political uninvolvement allows for the perpetuation ("reproduction") of existing order and its democratic (and meritocratic) veneer.[28] Accordingly, he correlates the feeling of a right to expression or a personal personal opinion with class lines and corresponding perceptions of incompetence. Since the working class lacks "status competence", when asked for their opinion in public polls, the working class defers to how they think they are expected to respond, and thus the presentation of public opinion does not reflect their interests.[10]

The book is critical of intellectuals, which Bourdieu blames for perpetuating the association of legitimate knowledge with the elite.[3] The book attempts to repurpose the sociology of culture and in so doing, criticizes preexisting literature on culture and education.[12]

Development[edit]

Reception[edit]

Oxford Reference's Dictionary of Critical Theory described Distinction as "undoubtedly [Bourdieu's] best known work".[29] The International Sociological Association declared the book one of the ten most important sociological works of the 20th century.[8] In The New York Times, Mark Greif described the book as an "undisputed masterwork".[30] The 1979 French release sold in "surprisingly large numbers" and was primarily discussed by the French intellectuals at the subject of the book.[6]

Richard Jenkins described the volume as "densely written, technically intimidating, and lengthy"[6] as well as "difficult and complex ... to summarize".[11] He compared the organization of the text and images to the Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, a journal associated with Bourdieu.[11] Jenkins noted that Bourdieu's theoretical framework was consistently about how individuals' daily practices are unconsciously governed by their social class, and how those individuals perpetuate class distinctions.[23] He also praised Bourdieu's ability as an empirical sociologist even in areas where his general theory had flaws,[31] such as a lack of recognition for the non-conforming role of individual psychology, new historical movements like modernism,[19] and institutions like state welfare, professions, and the industries that produce culture.[10] Jenkins also criticized Bourdieu's lack of definitive scope for the "lifestyles" related to occupation-based class divisions, leaving the term defined circularly and the reader unclear whether it exists or is otherwise "an artifact of the analysis".[19] He noted Bourdieu's tone towards the working class as "condescension".[19]

Initial response to the 1984 English translation of the book was "lukewarm" and American sociologists opposed Bourdieu's conclusions, instead believing that hierarchies of status were dependent on money and not culture, with no correlations between patterns of consumerism and social class.[3] The book later grew in popularity. Harvard Business School marketing professor Douglas Holt described the shift in interpretations of the book from a literal reading of how luxury goods create class distinctions to an interpretation where a person's capacity for cultural appreciation is more telling than their actual consumption practices.[3]

  • Reviewers praised the quality of Richard Nice's English translation[32]

and found the text dense, though not unlike Bourdieu's other work.[11]

  • Reviewers wrote that Bourdieu's statistical findings were not new to sociologists of culture.[5]
  • Reviewers did not accept Bourdieu's claim that the French data's findings extrapolate to class differences in other regions.[19]
  • Reviewers found Bourdieu's claims of taste as reductionist as those of Kant.[19]

Michael Apple wrote in Comparative Education Review that Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein were among the foremost contributors to an enduring sociology of education, and that Distinction was among Bourdieu's most ambitious work. He added that Bourdieu was influenced by Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and possibly Max Weber.[13] Apple recognized Distinction as a synthesis of "a truly prodigious amount of material" drawing from a "simply enormous" scope of scientific works, and as unique for its variety of examples offered.[12] Apple thought Bourdieu could have better explicated his examples and made his language less purposefully abstract, adding that, at times, "the density of language and style prevents even the most knowledgeable of readers from fully understanding Bourdieu's points without a large amount of hard textual work."[12] According to Apple, Bourdieu's writings on how cultural and symbolic capital function were instrumental to the sociology of education, though he criticized Bourdieu's excessive focus on structure and view of fixed class dynamics.[32]

Bourdieu's critics argue that his theories are too reductive in their treatment of society as a single contest for social status, that his observations within France do not extrapolate outside the country, and that his conclusions are predictable as a "sociology of the obvious".[3] Others considered his critique of intellectual life hypocritical from the perspective of France's foremost intellectual, claims Bourdieu disregarded.[3] Bourdieu has said that he was repelled by French intellectual culture and that he had no interest in joining it.[3]


Unsorted[edit]

  • Kant[6]
  • "a historical aesthetic sense ... independent of its social context" anthro art history[6]
  • Bourdieu argues that systems of cultural classification are intrinsic to the existence of class distinctions.[11]
  • Weber connection[5]

References[edit]

Notes
  1. ^ Bourdieu does not define the "cultural arbitrary",[15] but it is known to be the arbitrary content and authority of a dominant cultural paradigm originating from power.[16]
  2. ^ The working class' ability to make aesthetic decisions is not only limited by its lack of money (though money affords more choices). The working class has internalized their prior financial restraints into their "habitus", or cultural predispositions.[18]
  3. ^ This two-dimensional "space of social positions" is similar to Max Weber's views on the relation between class and status.[22]
  4. ^ The "competitive struggle" described by Bourdieu is the social structure in which dominated classes accept to pursue the same goals of the dominant class (even while entering at a disadvantage), and in so doing, legitimate those goals.[23]
References
  1. ^ a b c "La Distinction: Critique sociale du Jugement". Bowker Books in Print. 1979. Closed access icon (Subscription required.)
  2. ^ a b c d "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste". Bowker Books in Print. 1984. Closed access icon (Subscription required.)
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Eakin 2001, p. B11.
  4. ^ a b Coughlin 1992, p. A8.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Berger 1986, p. 1445.
  6. ^ a b c d e Jenkins 2002, p. 137.
  7. ^ a b Grenfell 2008, p. 191.
  8. ^ a b c d Eakin 2001, p. B9.
  9. ^ Berger 1986, pp. 1445–1446.
  10. ^ a b c Jenkins 2002, p. 147.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h Jenkins 2002, p. 138.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Apple 1986, p. 276.
  13. ^ a b c Apple 1986, p. 275.
  14. ^ Jenkins 2002, p. 138–9.
  15. ^ Sullivan 2002, p. 147.
  16. ^ Bottomore 1990, pp. xv–xvi.
  17. ^ a b c Jenkins 2002, p. 139.
  18. ^ a b Jenkins 2002, pp. 145–6. Cite error: The named reference "FOOTNOTEJenkins2002145–6" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b c d e f Jenkins 2002, p. 148.
  20. ^ a b c Jenkins 2002, p. 142.
  21. ^ a b Jenkins 2002, pp. 139–140.
  22. ^ a b c d Jenkins 2002, p. 140.
  23. ^ a b c d Jenkins 2002, p. 141.
  24. ^ Jenkins 2002, pp. 141–142.
  25. ^ Jenkins 2002, p. 143.
  26. ^ a b Jenkins 2002, p. 144.
  27. ^ Jenkins 2002, pp. 144–5.
  28. ^ a b Jenkins 2002, p. 146.
  29. ^ Buchanan 2010.
  30. ^ Greif 2010, p. A27.
  31. ^ Jenkins 2002, p. 145.
  32. ^ a b Apple 1986, p. 277.
Sources
  • Douglas, Mary (1982). In the Active Voice. London: Routledge.
  • Sullivan, Alice (2002). "Bourdieu and Education: How Useful Is Bourdieu's Theory for Researchers?". The Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences. 38 (2): 144–166. ISSN 0038-0172.

Further reading[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Czar/drafts/Distinction_(book)&oldid=1133852814"