Foundations+of+Pierre+Bourdieu’s+Class+Analysis

Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s Class Analysis: by Eliiot B. Weininger Summary by Annie Gillman, 11/11/10
 * 1)  Bordieu stands apart from other schools of contemporary class analysis in that;
 * 2)  His theory of action revolves around the idea of “habitus,” defined as “socially constituted system of dispositions that orient thoughts perceptions, expressions and actions” (contrast this to rational choice theory of action, Bordieu thinks rationality is “socially bounded)
 * 3)  The analysis of “symbolic systems” is central to his theory of class
 * 4)  He’s interested in the relationship between social classes (defined by material, or economic, aspect) and “status groups” (which are collectivities defined by a uniformity of lifestyle, or a “symbolic” aspect--the word “Stand” gets used for this). He thinks that the division between these two concepts is only nominal (not real, as Weber says), and so analysis of class can not be confined to economic analysis, but must also include this other “symbolic” aspect of relations.
 * 5)  He rejects demarcating classes “a priori” and instead argues that boundaries between classes “must be understood in terms of //social practices// rather than //theoretical conjecture.”//
 * 6)  He notes a causal connection between class location and “habitus” and suggests that your habitus is expressed in different forms of consumption, that link you to a social collectivity (status group) by establishing “symbolic boundaries” between people in different places in the class structure.
 * 7)  Division of labor creates a system within which people can be spatially located based on their capital (defined as set of actually usable resources and power). People can have different types and varying degrees of capital--he’s most interested in economic and cultural capital (defined as a culturally-specific competence which is efficacious as a resource or power in a certain social situation). People can vary according to 1) volume of capital, 2) composition of capital, and 3) trajectory (aka change or stability they have experienced over time in the volume and composition of their capital. Thus, he doesn’t see things as just a binary opposition of capital and labor, ala Marx, and his model allows for analysis of social mobility.
 * 8)  He is interested, then, in “social space” which represents a “single system of the objective relations between the various possible combinations for the most important ‘powers and resources’ in the social formation, and their evolution over time.” Within this space, the three axes described above (volume, composition, and trajectory of capital) are continuous, thus there are no inherent cleavages between classes.
 * 9)  There is, however, an indirect link between positions in the social space and practices by this concept of “habitus” which is a “socially constituted system of dispositions.” The habitus allows for some agency (you decide what to do) but is not just rational choice (you don’t always make calculations)--rather, typically, you can act on a “pre-reflexive” basis (kind of like a habit, but does not require repetition to be pre-reflexive). It’s kind of like improvisation when you’re a good musician who knows the structure of the song.
 * 10)  The habitus is “differentially formed according to each actor’s position in social space,” meaning it’s class specific.
 * 11)  Social collectivities are formed primarily in the practice of consumption. Consumption is the form of social life in which the possession of varying degrees of economic and cultural capital can be “theatrically displayed.” This is the way the habitus, which can not be observed, becomes visible--through consumption, you demonstrate your tastes and define your lifestyle.
 * 12)  Lifestyles are hierarchically organized to determine status, and are caught up in “social struggles.” Status is determined by location with regards to “legitimate culture”--or elements of a culture regarded as distinguished and worthy. Shared tastes and behaviors are vehicles through which actors symbolize their social similarity with some and differences with others, thus classifying themselves within the social space as part of this struggle. Collectivities, then, engage in practices that symbolically delimit regions of social space.
 * 13)  Class for Bordieu is only one form of domination within multiple, complicated and intertwining forms of domination, such as those related to gender and ethinicity. But even if domination is not just about class struggle, //social classification// is still the fundamental power animating acts of “symbolic violence”.”