PIERRE BOURDIEU BIOGRAHY BORN IN DENGUIN FRANCE 1930

PIERRE BOURDIEU

BIOGRAHY • BORN IN DENGUIN, FRANCE. 1930. • STUDIED PHILOSOPHY ALONGSIDE LOUIS ALTHUSSER AT THE ECOLE NORMAL SUPERIEURE IN PARIS • CONSCRIPTED INTO THE FRENCH ARMY AND DEPLOYED TO ALGERIA IN 1955, UNDERTOOK ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH ON THE KABYLE PEOPLES DURING THE ALGERIAN WAR. FIRST BOOK SOCIOLOGIE DE L’ALGERIE WAS RECEIVED WITH PRAISE • WORK INFLUENCED BY MARX, MAX WEBER, EMILE DURKHEIM AND CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS, COMBINES STRUCTURALISM WITH MARXIST IDEAS OF SOCIETY AS AN ENSEMBLE OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS • SOUGHT TO “TRANSCEND OPPOSITIONS” THAT CHARACTERIZED SOCIAL SCIENCES OF THE TIME. (FREEDOM VS. DETERMINISM, SUBJECTIVISM VS. OBJECTIVISM ETC. )

KEY CONCEPTS • BOURDIEU’S SOCIOLOGICAL WORK HAS BEEN VERY INFLUENTIAL IN THE FIELD OF CULTURAL STUDIES • DEVELOPED CONCEPTS THAT HAVE ENTERED THE CULTURAL LEXICON SUCH AS: • THE MARKET OF SYMBOLIC GOODS (RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL ARTIFACTS AND COMMERCE) • THE FIELD OF RESTRICTED PRODUCTION VS. THE FIELD OF LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION (HIGH ART VS. POPULAR/COMMERCIAL ART) • CULTURAL AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL

• BY AN APPARENT PARADOX, AS THE ART MARKET BEGAN TO DEVELOP, WRITERS AND ARTISTS FOUND THEMSELVES ABLE TO AFFIRM THE IRREDUCIBILITY OF THE WORK OF ART TO THESTATUS OF A SIMPLE ARTICLE OF MERCHANDISE AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THE SINGULARITY OF THE INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC CONDITION. THE PROCESS OF DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FIELDS OF PRACTICE PRODUCES CONDITIONS FAVOURABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ‘PURE’ THEORIES (OF ECONOMICS, POLITICS, LAW, ART, ETC. ), WHICH REPRODUCE THE PRIOR DIFFERENTIATION OF THE SOCIAL STRUCTURES IN THE INITIAL ABSTRACTION BY WHICH THEY ARE CONSTITUTED. THE EMERGENCE OF THE WORK OF ART AS A COMMODITY, AND THE APPEARANCE OF A DISTINCT CATEGORY OF PRODUCERS OF SYMBOLIC GOODS SPECIFICALLY DESTINED FOR THE MARKET, TO SOME EXTENT PREPARED THE GROUND FOR A PURE THEORY OF ART, THAT IS, OF ART AS ART. IT DID SO BY DISSOCIATING ART-AS-COMMODITY FROM ART-ASPURE-SIGNIFICATION. -- “THE MARKET OF SYMBOLIC GOODS” 1971

DISTINCTION • PUBLISHED IN FRENCH IN 1979 AS “LA DISTINCTION”, PRIMARILY AN EXAMINATION OF FRENCH CULTURE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO EDUCATION • ALTHOUGH ANALYSIS DRAWS ON SOME CRITICAL THEORIES (MARXISM AND STRUCTURALISM, ) IT IS PRIMARILY A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY INCLUDING FOCUS GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS. • DISPUTES THE “IDEOLOGY OF CHARISMA” THAT SEES AESTHETIC TASTE AS NATURAL OR INNATE. • PREFERENCES IN ART AND LITERATURE ARE CLOSELY LINKED TO BOTH UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION. “CULTURAL CAPITAL” • “TASTES” THUS FUNCTION AS MARKERS OF “CLASS” • THE ACQUISITION OF THE “CODES” FOR DECIPHERING A WORK OF HIGH CULTURE TEND TO BE HIDDEN. “THE ‘EYE’ IS A PRODUCT OF HISTORY REPRODUCED BY EDUCATION. ”

• THOSE UNTRAINED IN “SEEING”, RELY ON PRIMARILY SENSUAL RECEPTION. • THE “PURE GAZE” IS A HISTORICAL CONSTRUCT (EMERGING OUT OF THE ‘ART FOR ART’S SAKE’ MOVEMENT, WHICH SOUGHT AN ART WHICH TRANSCENDS FORM, REPRESENTATION OR CIRCUMSTANCES) • THE WORKING CLASSES EVALUATE ART IN RELATION TO HOW IT REFLECTS REAL LIFE. • THE “DETATCHMENT” OR “SUBLIMATION” OF CLASSED CONSUMPTION EXTENDS TO OTHER AREAS OF LIFE (NOTABLY, EATING) • “TASTE CLASSIFIES, AND IT CLASSIFIES THE CLASSIFIER. SOCIAL SUBJECTS, CLASSIFIED BY THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS, DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES BY THE DISTINCTIONS THEY MAKE” • “THE DENIAL OF LOWER, COARSE, VULGAR, VENAL, SERVILE—IN A WORD, NATURAL— ENJOYMENT, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE SACRED SPHERE OF CULTURE, IMPLIES AN AFFIRMATION OF THE SUPERIORITY OF THOSE WHO CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THE SUBLIMATED, REFINED, DISINTERESTED, GRATUITOUS, DISTINGUISHED PLEASURES FOREVER CLOSED TO THE PROFANE. THAT IS WHY ART AND CULTURAL CONSUMPTION ARE PREDISPOSED, CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY OR NOT, TO FULFIL A SOCIAL FUNCTION OF LEGITIMATING SOCIAL DIFFERENCES. ”

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION • CONSIDER YOUR OWN PREFERENCES FOR ART/LITERATURE ETC. WHERE DID THESE PREFERENCES COME FROM? WHO WERE THEY INFLUENCED BY? (SCHOOL, FAMILY ETC. ) • DO YOU HAVE ANY FAVOURITES (SONG, MOVIE, ART PIECE ETC. ) THAT YOU CONSIDER A “GUILTY PLEASURE”? WHY ARE SOME FORMS OF CULTURAL CONSUMPTION CONSIDERED “EMBARRASSING” AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS. • WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL CONSUMPTION AND SOCIAL STATUS?

• DO YOU AGREE WITH BOURDIEU’S ASSERTION THAT ARTISTIC DISTINCTION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIFFERENCES OF CLASS? WHERE IS HE RIGHT ABOUT THIS? WHERE IS HE WRONG? • HOW WOULD YOU APPLY BOURDIEU’S IDEAS TO POSTMODERN SOCIETY? ARE THERE STILL GROUPS WHO MEASURE SOCIAL INCLUSION BASED ON RESTRICTED CULTURAL CONSUMPTION? (HIPSTER VS. MAINSTREAM FOR EX. ) HOW DO THESE DIFFER FROM THOSE DISCUSSED BY BOURDIEU IN FRANCE FORTY YEARS AGO? • HOW DOES BOURDIEU’S ASSESSMENT AFFECT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “HIGH CULTURE” AND “POPULAR CULTURE” WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING?