The Cult. Soc. of P. Bourdieu

8/12/2019 The Cult. Soc. of P. Bourdieu

1/14

Society Made Visible: On the Cultural Sociology of Pierre BourdieuAuthor(s): Pekka SulkunenReviewed work(s):Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1982), pp. 103-115Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194391.

Accessed: 15/02/2012 08:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toActa

Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4194391?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4194391?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd


2/14

Acta Sociologica 1982 (25), 2:103-115

Society Made Visible- on the CulturalSociology of Pierre BourdieuPekka SulkunenSocial Research Institute of Alcohol Studies, Helsinki

In this article the culturalsociologyof Pierre Bourdieu,one of the mosteminentcontemporaryFrenchsociologists, s reviewedand discussed.Orig-inallya structuralist nthropologist,Bourdieuhasdevelopeda criticalsoci-ology of cultural orms.His methodologicalpointof view is at one andthesame time anti-functionalist, nti-empiricist nd anti-subjectivist.The cul-tural forms of the practicesof everydaylife cannot be reducedto 'needs'of the individualany morethanto the functionalmperatives f the collec-tivity.Theytake the formof irreductibleymbolicexpressions, he meaningof whichare not directlyapparent o the subjects.Yet the subjectsare notdeterminedby the collective institutions in their practices.The centralconcept, 'habitus', aims at combiningthe subjectiveand the culturallydeterminedcollective elements in these practices.The substantialproble-matic of Bourdieu's ociologyis to show how the cultural ormsareexpres-sions of the structureof domination n society.The mostflamboyant ealiz-ation of this problematic s his recent work La Distinction,which makesvisible the systemof class domination n modernFrance. It is a systematicstudyof the cultural orms in which this dominations revealed n the wayof lifeof differentclasses and class fractions.Thisarticleaims to locatebothBourdieu'smethodology and his interpretationof the culturalforms inmodernFrance n the French ntellectual cene as well as in the context ofthe sociologyof culture n general.

IntroductionPierre Bourdieu is a contemporary French sociologist little known in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian sociological communities. The actuality of Bourdieu's viewof society to contemporary sociological thought lies in its ability to avoid theempirically empty theoretical impasses characteristic of the materialistic ambitionsof the post-positivistic era, while being faithful to the epistemological critique ofempiricist questionnaire sociology.In his most explicit attack on empiricist sociology (1968), Le metier de sociologue(The profession of the sociologist, written in collaboration with J.-C. Passeron andJ.-C. Chamboredon), Bourdieu denounces the manner in which positivistic ques-tionnaire sociology takes at face value the statistical patterns of survey responses,which in fact are only representations of the arbitrary theoretical constructions ofthe sociologist himself. Social facts are produced by the scientists, but they can bereal facts only on the condition that they correspond to the real underlying structure

103


3/14

of society, and on the conditionthat the sociologistis awareof the social deter-minationof his concepts, categoriesand classifications. n this critique,Bourdieucomes close to the argumentscharacteristic f the anti-positivisticupheavalbyyoung Marxists and inheritorsof the criticalsociologies, both of the American(Mills, Gouldner)and Germanvarieties(for exampleHabermas).His advantageis that from the outset he requires hat hissocialfactsaremeaningfulo the peoplehe studies. The meanings that people attach to their practicesare not alwaysobjectivelycorrect, however, and it is exactly the (critical)task of sociologytorevealthe contradictionsbetweenthe subjectivemeanings whichusuallyarethoseprofessedbythe 'official' ociety)and the implicitobjectivemeanings hatstructurethe life style of different socialgroupsand explaintheir inherent logic'. In otherwords,Bourdieutakesseriouslythe notionof culture,andit is for thisreason thathis work is relevant for a wide range of critical researchon the way of life,consumptionpatterns, life-style, social consciousness,and even on the variousformsof political practices.Contraryo hisBritishcounterparts,he Birminghamchoolof cultural ociology(whichadopts a 'wide' definition of cultureas a totalityof meaningfulpracticesconstitutinga way of life), Bourdieudefines culturenarrowlyas 'thebest that hasbeen thought and said, regardedas the summitsof achieved civilization'(Hall1980:59).He addes one crucialqualification, owever: hatwhich s definedassuchby the dominant classes. Bourdieu has no great difficultyoperationalizing hisdefinition n works of art, modes of dressingor practicesof leisure. His interestrevolves around the question: what determinesthis appreciationand how is itexpressedand lived among the different sections of the dominatingclasses andamongthe dominatedpopularclasses?Bourdieu,originallyan anthropologistof the structuralist ersuasion,becameknownin the early 1960sfor his workson Algeria (Bourdieu 1961, 1978, 1964;Bourdieuet al. 1964). Since then his concerns have been oriented towards thecultural ife of modern France. His books on educationhave been translated ntoEnglish (Bourdieu Passeron 1964, 1970), but his very interestingworks onphotographyBourdieuet al. 1965)and the appreciation f art(Bourdieu Darbel1966)still remainbeyondthe linguisticbarrieras faras English-readingudiencesare concerned.His nominationto College de France ast year (1981) is a sign oftheesteemenjoyedbyhisthinkingandresearchn France oday,andthepublicationof his chef-d'oeuvre La distinction - critique sociale du jugement (1979) in Englishthisyearis a signof increasingnterestabroad.Severalof hisbookshaveappearedin Germany,Italy, Hungary,andin Latin America.Partsof La reproduction aveeven appearedin a Swedish and a Danish anthology(1977), whichalso includesthe editors'(Boel Berner,StafCallewaert,HenningSilberbrandt)larifyingntro-ductionsto Bourdieu'ssociologyof educationandto the debates around t.In the followingI intend to reviewthe whole of Bourdieu'sculturalsociology,aimingto place it in a theoreticalcontextand to drawout its implicationsn viewof studiesof contemporary ulturalstudies.

The problematiqueThe diversityof Bourdieu's nterestsandfieldsof empiricalresearchmayseem so104


4/14

extravagant as to avert the suspicious reader from a search for a common andintegrating problematic in his thinking. What could the kinship system in anAlgerian village have to do with the educational system, the style of dressing,dietary patterns, photography or artistic tastes in modern France? One might atleast expect that a problematic integrating such a dispersed set of subjects wouldbe extremely formalistic and void of content. Here Bourdieu takes us by surprise.His sociology is more consistent throughout its development from the early worksto the most recent ones than is usually the case in the working out of complextheoretical ideas. The same themes keep returning to his texts, to the point of evenunnecessary repetition, but always with a substance treated in the context of newmaterial.One could say that Bourdieu has both a substantial problematic and a meth-odological point of view. His problematic consists in revealing and bringing to lightthe hidden forms of domination that are consciously and unconsciously reproducedin everyday life. The kinship system in Algeria is one such form. It is a culturallyaccepted and objectively existing institution that is closely associated with patternsof domination in Algerian society (1961, 1972). Far from being an innocent butunconscious function of the 'total' society, it is a system of conventions that areconstantly being used as instruments in a competition for power, prestige andeconomic gains. In other words, the kinship pattern means something to the villagersas well as defines the meaning of their actions for others. This is the first clue toBourdieu's methodological point of view.The second clue to Bourdieu's methodology is also closely associated with hissubstantial problematic. From the sociology of Algeria he moved to the study ofhigher education in France (Bourdieu Passeron 1964, 1970). Education is thearea in which the ideology of equality is most prominently expressed in France,in the tradition of a comprehensive state school system. Formally providing anequal opportunity to all, the system camouflages the thousands of ways in whichschool reproduces the class differences, founded in primary 'socialization', in theideology of 'talent'. The differential achievements in education are socially attri-buted to the innate qualities of the students, while in reality these differencesreflect the domination of one class by another. The important point is not only thatthe school system exercises the function of selection of students to positions withdifferential cultural, economic and status advantages. It is also the mechanismwhich individualizes the merits for success and the blame for failure, while, fur-thermore, it produces an aura of legitimacy to the values, tastes and life-style ofthe dominant classes. Thus also the school system, the very institution par excellencesymbolizing the ideology of equality, is in fact a cultural instrument of classdomination.The school generates 'cultural capital' which can be utilized in all areas of life,in artistic enjoyment as well as in the cultural forms of everyday life (style). It isa capital which can be accumulated in aesthetic and cognitive practices which areimpossible without an original 'investment' of time and effort spent in formaleducation. But as in economic life, the returns on cultural capital are not guaranteedand do not accumulate without success in competition. There is a constant strugglefor the validity of cultural assets and currencies in the contestation for 'distinction'in cultural styles. Those with the largest pools of cultural capital, the intellectuals,

105


5/14

constantly create new tastes, styles and aesthetic values and claim legitimacy forthem. The less cultured groups are quick to adopt these cultural forms, but theirvery generalization leads to a lack of rarity and thus to a loss of value (Bourdieu1979:249-255).It is this incessantly changing pattern of cultural forms of domination, competitionfor power and prestige that constitutes the problematic of Bourdieu's sociology.It is a critical programme, astoundingly revealing a struggle between social groupswhere we might least expect it: in the practice of photography, attendance of artmuseums, musical tastes, leisure patterns, selection of foods on the dinner table,clothes, sports, etc. In all these areas the cultural patterns reveal an expression ofa contest for position, a distinction from others as a possessor of taste - and ofpower.

In regard to his methodological position it is important to underline that in hisanalysis of the cultural system of society it is not only a structureof given meanings,it is also a field of action. Culture is a meaning structure, but it is produced,reproduced and used by acting subjects.

Model of societyBourdieu is not a model builder. His sociology is as plastic as it is inspiring. Hisstyle is complex, literary, and difficult; his flows of argument are polycentric, andpolyvalent, constantly transgressing the boundaries between statistical description,ethnological observation and philosophical analysis. He is almost arrogantin takingliberties to adopt concepts, analogies and allegories from different and opposingtraditions of sociological theory and philosophical thinking. His concepts have beencriticized for being unsystematic and vague (DiMaggio 1979), and this is to someextent true. On the other hand, Bourdieu is right in his defence: the complaintsabout eclecticism are only too often a shelter against criticism, an alibi for 'in-culture', a pretext for ghettoism (Bourdieu 1980b:24).There is another reason for 'eclecticism'. The study of cultural forms in moderncapitalist societies is a new approach in the field of sociology. The 'normal'empiricistsociology of the Anglo-Saxon variety has not conceptualized cultural forms in otherthan the Parsonian metaphysics of 'normative integration', whereas the Marxianrenaissance of the 1960s has either reduced them to 'capitalist forms of conscious-ness' (the post-Frankfurtian school) or seen them only in relation to politicalideology and domination (the Althusserian reading of Marx).There is a necessity, thus, to account for the fact that the mature capitalistsocieties are class societies, while recognizing that the 'logic' of capitalist socialrelations does not appear as a direct reflection in aesthetic styles and cultural formsof everyday life. The historical importance of this point is augmented by thepuverization of class-based subcultures, by the atomization of society into individ-uals and individual families instead of class communities and neighbourhoods, andby the emergence of the service economy as the demographically dominant segmentof society.To realize this task, Bourdieu (1979:109-144) uses a model of society which canbe seen as a simple formal analogy of the Marxian concept of capital. Everydaylife is a conglomeration of 'fields' such as leisure, family patterns, consumption,106


6/14

work, artistic practices, etc. In each of these fields there are two major forms ofassets: money and cultural competence, and Bourdieu conceptualizes these aseconomic and cultural 'capital' respectively, because both of these assets mayaccumulate - but not without competition. Those who adhere to a strict interpret-ation of Marx's Capital would probably call this a rather liberal use of the concept- some would even call it a naive economism applying a concept of capital(understood as a formal model of capitalist economy) by analogy to any area ofsocial interaction.Even if one takes this criticism seriously, Bourdieu's use of the analogy can bejustified. It must be emphasized that for him it is only an analogy. He is far from

any attempt to prove that the cultural forms of everyday life are 'deformed' as theresult of the 'labelling' effects of capital (understood as the 'iibergreifende Subjekt'of capitalist society). This intellectualist moralism, characteristic of the traditionof 'critical' Marxism in Germany (Krahl, Negt, Krowoza) and in Scandinavia(Schanz) is very alien to the critical sociology of Bourdieu.Why should he then conceptualize as 'capital' the cultural supremacy of thedominating classes, which they have acquired in formal education? In my view, thepower of the analogy (keeping in mind that it is only an analogy) derives from thestate of the reality itself in modern capitalist societies. The cultural forms in whichclass differences appear in everyday life are no longer self-evident, as they wereeven up to the 1950s. The working class has become less and less distinguishableand is less and less distinguishable itself as a class. On the other hand, the powerof the dominant classes is no longer only divided between their national fractions,but increasingly also between the national bourgeoisies and such supranationalcentres of power as the multinational corporations and international organizations.Facing the weakening of traditional correspondence between class position, politicalorganization and cultural practices, it is in the area of 'private' life, style and taste,where the apparition of the class structure in capitalist societies must be found.That the economic model applies to the contestation for distinction in taste andstyle is an important consequence of these historical developments which Hirsch(1980) calls 'Durchkapitalisierung'. The social relationships of everyday life havebeen turned into markets of esteem. The various groups of wage labourers, uprootedfrom their class collectivities, are isolated competitors against each other. They areno longer only owners of their own commodity, their labour power, but also ownersof themselves: a commodity has become a treasure and as known from Marx,treasure tends to be capital. As isolated individuals, also the wage labourers ofmodest means may capitalize their cultural competence on the market for socialesteem, accumulate it by participating in the cultural activities defined as legitimeby the elites, and profit from it in the form of social ascent.

Habitus - the mystery of everyday aestheticsThe programme of sociology that Bourdieu has outlined for himself is a difficultone. To be able to see the meaning of the minuscule forms of habitual practicesand to place them in a structural context requires a sensitive 'eye' and a profoundimagination. It will not be possible for just anyone to do the same, following hisexample, although Bourdieu always writes extensively of his methodological views

107


7/14

and procedures.The basic notion in Bourdieu'smethodologicalposition is hisconception of the habitus.By this he means that the variouspracticesof livingamong a certain class or group are harmonizedand homologized n accordancewithits specific ivingconditions,but not mechanically etermined o fulfila socialfunction, an individual need' or an 'algebraicpattern'.This harmonization ndhomologizationis broughtabout by a common habitus, a generativeprinciple,modusoperandi,that is at the same time a systemthatgeneratesperceptionsanda system that generatespractices.The harmonizing ffect of habitus s basedonthe similarityof the livingconditionsof the membersof the group.The homologyprinciplemeanssimply hatthe habitus ntegratesdifferentaspectsof the life-style:taste in dietary patterns, housing patterns, style of dressing,aestheticcodes, etc.into a consistent whole. Thus the same principles(or meaningstructures) hatappear n workingclassclothingshould be foundin its dietarypatternsandartistictaste.Habitus is not a one-to-one functionof livingconditions.Cultural ormshavean inertia (Bourdieu 1979:195) hat survives,often throughseveralgenerations,the material basis that may changevery rapidly(Bourdieu1979:195).This pointis mademost strikinglyn hisstudieson Algeria,in whichBourdieu howshowtheprecapitalistway of life determinedby the agricultural ycle survivesalong withthelinearconceptionof timeimposedbythe colonial ransformationf theeconomy(Bourdieu Sayad1964;Bourdieuet al. 1964;Bourdieu1978).Thus, the habitusof a groupor a classdefinesa symbolicorderwithinwhichitconducts ts practices in everyday ife aswell as in the feast. Itprovidesacommonframeworkwithinwhich the membersof the groupunderstand heir ownandeachother'sactions and throughwhichthe researchercan makesense of them. But itis not a deterministic ormulaor a set of norms(cf. Parsons) o which ndividualsare expected to conform. Lower middleclass people do not preferRafaellotoPicassobecausethere is a normsayingtheyshould.Theysimply ike Rafaelloanddo not like Picasso. Whatthis preferencemeans and how it has been generatedis a matterof the habitus it is for the researcher o findout. But thispreferenceis an activechoice. There is a cultural ode thatdefinesa symbolicvalueto culturalpractices- going to certainkindsof art museumsfor example- and the habitusof each group or class is formed in the practicalchoice of utilizingthese values,definingoneself in termsof themandexpressingone's self-definition yattachmentto certainspecificartisticgenres(or life-styles).The conceptor habitushas been saidto be a vagueone (DiMaggio1979:1467).Since the habitus is defined as a generatingprincipleof style that enduresthechanges n objectivelivingconditions,while it is alsoconditionedby them,we cannever be sure to which end the explanationof culturalphenomena houldappeal:to the function with respect to livingconditions or to the durabilityof culturalcodes.To understand his ambiguityof Bourdieu'smethodology, t is necessary o seeit in the context of anthropologicalraditionsand in the French ntellectual cenein general.The methodological point of viewAbove I indicatedtwo clues to this methodology.The firstwas the interpretation108


8/14

of the Algeriankinshipsystemas a formof dominationand as a field of contestationfor position, ratherthan as a functionof total society or a definiteset of rulesorbehaviouralnorms.The secondwas that the educationalsystemand the meaningsystemproducedandreproducedby it are not justa structure,but fieldsof action.They are used by individuals o accumulate heir economic and culturalcapital,and they do this as actingsubjectswith meaningful ntentions(although they donot alwaysknow what they are in fact doing).These two 'clues' are importantbecausethey exemplifyBourdieu'sattitude totwomethodologicaloppositions hat have had an importantplacein Frenchanthro-pological methodology. The first opposition is that between functionalismandsemiologicalanthropology which nterpretsanthropological ata n termsof mean-ing systems)and the secondopposition s between structuralism ndexistentialism,the Frenchversion of phenomenology.It has been said that in anthropology wo traditions have existed in parallel.When studyinginstitutionalrealities, some anthropologistsask what they meanwhile others ask what functionsthey serve (Auge 1978:139).That interpretationsbased on these two startingpoints are in fact very different is easy to see in thelightof the exampleof kinshipsystems.Fromthe semiotic(or structuralist) ointof view such institutionsprovidemeaning systems by which the members of thegroupcan understand heirpositionnot only in societybut in the worldas a whole,andwhich heycan use as ageneralmeansof orientation owards n theenvironment.Theexplanation orsuchmeaning ystemsneed not necessarilyie in theirfunctionswithrespectto the materialexistence or reproductionof the group.They maybesymbolic reflexionsof somethingthat has nothing directlyto do with who maymarrywhom and who should live with whom.The notion of habitus, for Bourdieu, is a way of rejectingfunctionalism.Hisbasic argument against it is that it takes an objectivistpoint of view in seeingcultural ormsasfaits accomplisorpostfestum. ForBourdieu here is no functionalcalculus between the exigenciesof survivalor integrationand the structuredprac-tices of its members.They are constantlyproducingnew meanings,and far frombeingdeterminedby the existing nstitutions heir actionsare a wayof usingthemin the struggle for dominance, power and prestige (Bourdieu 1972:Chapitre1;Bourdieu1980a:51-70).It is the anti-functionalism f the conceptof habitusthatmakesit relevant to the Marxist onceptionsof a wayof life. Pin;on(1978)argues,from a definitelyMarxistpointof view, that the conceptof need based on repro-duction of the labourforce, must be complementedby the conceptionof habitusas 'interiorization f the exterieur'.The sameargumentalso works n theotherdimension, hat betweenstructuralismand existentialist subjectivism. While Durkheimian sociological functionalismdefines cultural institutions n terms of their contribution o social or moralinte-gration, Bourdieu accuses Levi-Straussian hilosophicalanthropology or seeingthem as serving the functions of logical integration(Bourdieu 1980a:160-162).Again, the habitus is constantly being formed in the daily practicesof individualsubjects (whichfor Bourdieuare often families)and while it is a structured ystemof meanings t does not follow any mechanistic ormalor 'algebraic'ogic. Peopledo not simply reproducetheirmeaningsystems, they also produceand use them.One must see classes and their membersnot just as actorsin a prefabricated lay

109


9/14

but also as creative subjects. As such their actions and thoughts should not beinterpreted in terms of a 'logic' but rather in terms of a 'sense' (hence the title ofLe sens pratique). This sense is generated by the objective living conditions, butsince it is itself able to generate new 'sense' it is by no means reducible to a functionof them. On the other hand, Bourdieu warns against going too far with Levi-Straussin rejecting the notion of mythology and magic as Urdummheit, primitive stupidityin the spiritual reflection of nature and man's relation to it. One should not forgetthat the symbolic systems are fundamentally mundane, not the result of abstractlogical requirements (Bourdieu 1980a:160).The mainstream of Bourdieu's argumentation is directed againstacademic anthro-pology and structuralist anthropology in particular. Thus he is aiming more fireagainst the semiotic and structuralist ends of the two dimensions outlined abovethan their respective polar opposites: functionalism and subjectivism. There is nodoubt that this is due to the dominant position of the 'linguistic model' (Pettit1975:37-39) and structuralist objectivism in France. However, Bourdieu can by nomeans be seen as a deserter of the structuralist camp or as an opponent of thelinguistic model, despite the arrogance of his reservations to them - hence thevagueness of the concept of habitus. In a way it could be seen as a workingcompromise between the oppositions of the two dimensions:

structuretmeaning ,- habitus

-- functionsubject

It reminds us that while it is necessary to see human practices as structured bymeaning systems and as their expressions, they also serve various functions deter-mined by objective conditions of existence; and while they are parts of a structurethey are carried out, produced, reproduced and used by living individuals. (A verysimilar diagram has been proposed by Marc Aug6 to conceptualize the majortheoretical dimensions in contemporary anthropological discourse. In place of theopposition structure-subject he puts the opposition culture-evolution [Auge1979:37].)To those attracted by model building and grand theoretical systems such com-promising vagueness may seem too generous in granting artistic freedoms to thescientist making his interpretations of cultural phenomena. While it is true thatBourdieu's sociology can never develop into a routine and that it does not lenditself to systematic generation of precise hypotheses which could be rigorouslytested by mathematical and statistical methods, it is doubtful whether the appear-ance of methodological rigour is ever anything more than just an appearance.Sociology is a creative science, one of the forms in which society thinks of itself,and the only way of avoiding error is to be aware of the alternatives offeringthemselves as guiding principles in interpreting concrete phenomena. AlthoughBourdieu for the most part formulates his methodological positions in a negativeway, aware he is.110


10/14

Modern France: a culture contesting for distinctionBy a sociologist, the advantages of the awareness and flexibility of Bourdieu'smethodological position can best be appreciated in his interpretations of the culturalforms in modern France. In this respect it is La distinction that must be consideredhis chef-d'oeuvre. (An anthropologist or a philosopher might profit more from Lesens pratique.)La distinction is a summary and interpretation of a large number of empiricalstudies of the life-styles and cultural institutions of France, of which several havebeen published earlier in monograph form (Les heritiers, L'amour d'art, Un artmoyen), but some of which are published here for the first time.The book is a very elaborate and comprehensive treatment of the different waysof life and class-based habituses in modern French culture. It is not possible torender the sense of the richness of the text in a few sentences, but one or twoimportant observations can be made of the way Bourdieu structures the culturalforms of his society.In France, as in all other highly industrialized capitalist countries, the occupationalstructure has greatly changed in the course of the post-war period, especially in the1960s. Service occupations have mushroomed, and the new middle class has grown,and while education has become more important and more accessible, its value hasbeen depreciated both in the labour market and in the market of social esteem.It is in this context of 'reclassification' (Bourdieu 1979:145-176) of French societythat Bourdieu places his analysis of cultural forms. The most interesting contrastthat he finds in the cultural between different classes is that between the urbanworking classes and the while collar and upper classes. The styles of working classare predominantly 'functional'. It eats food that has the function of nourishment:fat, carbohydrates, wine, strong meat, pates, etc. It does not pay attention to theform of food, it does not change plates between different courses of the meal, etc.In clothing, the same functionality appears: the distinction between outer garmentsand underwear is not very clear, clothes are not worn to be seen but to clothe thebody. In a similar way, the working class culture embodies a functional aesthetictaste. In his study of photography (Bourdieu et al. 1965) he noticed that the valueof photographs was closely associated with their use as symbols of the family. Alsoaesthetic judgments of photographs shown to working class respondents alwaysreferred to the use that could be made of them and the context in which they couldbe shown. An 'artistic' photograph of a nude woman that in no way is pointedly'sexy' was said to be 'good for the Pigalle'. A photograph of a dead soldier wascommented on in terms of its influence on spectators as regards their acceptanceof war. In a similar vein, Bourdieu and his team have found the same functionalpuritanismat the root of the demand for representativeness as regards art (BourdieuDarbel 1966). Non-figurative or abstract art has no meaning for the less educatedclasses, because they can see no use for it.The polar opposite to the working class are the intellectuals: university professors,artists, and those in highly educated liberal professions. They possess a culturalcapital which gives them a 'key' to the language(s) of art. For them the aestheticexperience has meaning and significance as such, it is its own function. They canplace the works of art, of whatever sort, in a context of pre-learned classifications,

Ill


11/14

whichrenders them an autonomousreadability ndependentof any practicaluseto whichtheymightbe put.Similarly,n foodandclothingpracticesheintellectualsappreciatea greatdeal of distinction:betweenclothesworn nsideandoutside,theritualsassociatedwithdifferent ypesof food, etc. The makingof suchdistinctionsdoesnot leadto extravagance.On thecontrary,Bourdieudescribesheintellectuals'life-styleas aestheticascetism.But it is the life-styleof the nouvellepetite bourgeoisie hatincites the best andmost sensitive analyses.This group,or rather these groups,are also attachedtofine distinctionsbetween the meaningsof differentforms of practices,not for thesake or the pure aestheticpleasure tself but for the sake of distinguishinghem-selves: 'To advanceits interestsand its plansof ascension(in the socialhierarchy- PS), it is inclinedto a Berkeleyianvisionof the social world,thusreduced o atheatre in whichto be is never anythingbut to be seen - or rather o a (mental)representationof a (theatrical)representation' Bourdieu 1979:283).The newmiddle classes are not attachedto traditional ood, traditional orms of clothing,decorating he houseor spending he leisure,becausetheyhavea future.Inmiddleclassprofessions t is alwayspossible o support he 'trajectory' f upwardmobility:hence the incessant contestationfor culturaland personaldistinction,passionforlife. It is a passion,however,that is forcedto be anemptyone. Despitethematerialextravaganceand the intensityof experiences,the life of the new bourgeoisie sboundto remainwithoutcontent,because all that is originallyts content s turnedinto a meansof concurrence,contestationfor distinction,an instrument f socialascendancy.Hence the concernfor one's own body, the mostconvincing videnceof life as my life in my personality or my individualpleasure.A society made visibleThe picturesthat Bourdieudrawsof the different ractionsof classes- thoserisingand those on the decline- are indeedvivid, full of flavourandtelling.His abilityto get across the feeling of whathe meansis indeed rareamongsociologists.Hedoes not avoid the use of photographs,advertisements ndexcerpts rompopularliterature o illustratehis argument.Manyof the themes on middle-classcultureare not new as such, and, as hasoften been pointedout (e.g. Swartz1977),the argumentsmightprofit rombeingpresentedmore explicitly n the contextof paralleltheories. In some respectshistreatmentof the new middleclassis veryclose to Riseman'sLonelyCrowd 1950);his discussionof the formalism f middle-class onsumptionpatterns s nearHaug'sanalysisof Warenasthetik 1971), whereas his point about the 'functionality' fworkingclass aestheticsand consumptionstyles is close to what Lindner(1977)calls the use-value orientationof the workingclass. It is also hardnot to see theinfluenceof Barthes(1957)or Baudrillard1968) in the analysisof the symbolismof consumptionstyles.In my view the novelty deservingthe greatestmerit in Bourdieu'sanalysisofmodern Franceis its comprehensiveness.This comes out mostclearlyin La Dis-tinction. He sees the same pattern of contestation for distinctionoperatingeverywhere,although manifesting tself in very differentforms of comportment,opinions and survey responses.Thus 'class analyses'are not to be seen only as112


12/14

separate descriptions of different ways of life in contemporary France. They amountto a profound insight into the structure of modern French society, its dynamics ofchange, dominated by bourgeois values vested in a vast variety of symbolisms andencoded in a long tradition of legitimized elite culture. Characteristic of this insightis its presentation of French society as structured by one dominating feature: one'sincessant effort to define position, to defend it against and to distinguish it fromthose below. It is this pervasive dimension of struggle that in the last instance isthe key to the meanings of the different cultural forms in which the various life-styles manifest themselves. In methodological terms, the analysis brings to lightthe structure of French society. After reading La distinction it is possible tounderstand the hidden meanings behind the visible cultural practices. The hiddenmeaning structure is in fact nothing more than a reflexion of two characteristicfeatures of the material, political and cultural structure of French society: thedominance of the bourgeoisie and the great and relatively autonomous role ofintellectuals.Now it is possible to see that when Bourdieu defines culture as that which hasthe highest legitimate aesthetic and social value, he does so with reason. In Frenchsociety, in his view, it is the pursuit for expressions of cultural competence thatmotivates the style and aesthetic practices of all classes. When the pretension ofcompetence does not coincide with actual competence, style outgrows the aesthetic,form subjugates the content. But the legitimacy of the elite culture is neverquestioned as such. The difference in the definitions of culture between Bourdieuand his British counterparts is not a difference of theoretical orientation but adifference in the societies themselves (see also Passeron 1970).Despite his extensive work in Algeria and in France, Bourdieu seldom makesany direct cultural comparisons between these two societies. He does not extensivelyrefer to foreign literature and does not try to locate France in its specific placeamong the capitalist countries. It is his treatment of working class culture thatwould most profit from such comparisons. Bourdieu goes to the extreme in denyingeven the possibility of an autonomous working class culture (Bourdieu 1979:433-461 and 1980b:15). For the British, and certainly for the Scandinavians, this positionmust sound odd, facing the importance of the 'pub-culture' in Britain and theextensive working class cultures and their role in the political mobilization of theworking class in Scandinavia. Concerning Bourdieu's works on education, Swartz(1977) doubts whether the competitive class model is in fact valid only in the caseof the middle strata that have something to 'invest' in the market of economic andcultural capital. One wonders to what extent, after all, the two large working classparties in France could maintain their strength if the cultural practices of theworking class were so totally obedient to the codes dictated by the elites, so totallyvoid of autonomous creative power as Bourdieu describes them. What is the'functionalism' of working class style and aesthetic taste if it is not a conscious andsubconscious rejection of the coquettery of the bourgeoisie?Apart from that, Bourdieu's insight on French society seems credible and illu-minating. In pointing out how thoroughly bourgeois French culture actually is, themethod of Bourdieu makes its structure visible in the variety of cultural forms inwhich people express their aspirations, definitions of the world, common experi-ences and common meanings. This could not be done without the emphasis of

113


13/14

meaning, which Bourdieu has inherited from the structuralist anthropology, butneither could it be done without emphasis on subjective action and objectivefunctionality, for the lack of which he criticizes it.So the greatest merit of Bourdieu's methodological 'eclecticism' or 'compromise'is that it brings to light those social structures that social theorists are usually onlyable to describe in the abstract or that they desperately try to find in statistics.Society manifests itself in the cultural forms in which and through which peopleexpress it: in style, taste and aesthetic appreciation. But to see it requires that theseexpressions are not reduced to their abstract functions or to logical formulas or -even worse - seen only as subjective whims. Thus, the novelty and originality ofBourdieu's thinking and of his concrete analyses are indisputably an importantcontribution, not only in the area of life-style studies, but in the macroanalysis ofmodern capitalist societies at large.Correspondence to: Pekka Sulkunen, Social Research Instituteof Alcohol Studies,Kalevankatu 12, 00100 Helsinki 10, Finland.

ReferencesAuge, Marc. Symbole,fonction, histoire. Les interrogationse I'anthropologie,Hachette1979.Auge, Marc. 'Versun refus de l'alternative ens-fonction',L'homme,Vol. XVIII, Nos. 3-4, pp. 139-154.Barthes,Roland.Mythologies,Seuil, Paris1970.Baudrillard, ean. Le systemedes objects.La consommation essignes,Gallimard1968.Berner, Boel, Callewaert,S. Silberbrandt,H. Skola, ideologioch samhalle. Ett kom-menteraturval franskautbildningssociologiskaexterav Bourdieu Passeron,BaudelotEstablet och Poulantzas.Wahlstrom Widstrand,Stockholm1977.Bourdieu,Pierre.Sociologiede I'Algerie,PUF 1961.(TheAlgerians,BeaconPress,Boston1962.)Bourdieu,Pierre(withA. Sayad). Le deracinement,Minuit1964.Bourdieu,Pierre(withA. Darbel, R. Castel J.-C. Chamboredon).Travailet travailleursen Algerie,Mouton1964.Bourdieu,Pierre Passeron,J.-C. Lesheritiers,Minuit1964. TheInheritors, renchStudentsand theirRelation o Culture.The Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago1979.)Bourdieu,Pierre,BoltanskiL. Castel,R. Chamboredon, .-C. LUnrtmoyen,Minuit1965.Bourdieu,Pierre Darbel,A. L'armourde l'art,Minuit1966.Bourdieu,Pierre, Passeron,J.-C. Chamboredon, .-C. Le merierde sociologue,Mouton1968.Bourdieu,Pierre Passeron,J.-C. La reproduction,Minuit1970. (Reproductionn Edu-cation,Societyand Culture,Sage, London1977.)Bourdieu,Pierre.Esquissed'une theoriede la pratique,Droz, Geneve 1972. (Outlineof aTheoryof Practice,Cambridge1977.)Bourdieu,Pierre.Algerie60, Minuit 1978.Bourdieu,Pierre.La distinction critique ocialedujugement,Minuit1979.(Englishtrans-lation to appear n 1982by HarvardUniversityPress.)Bourdieu,Pierre.Le senspratique,Minuit 1980a.Bourdieu,Pierret.Questionsde sociologie,Minuit198(b.DiMaggio,Paul. 'ReviewEssay:On PierreBourdieu',American ournalof Sociology,Vol.84 (1979),pp. 1460-1475.Hall, Stuart. Cultural tudies: two paradigms.Media,Cultureand Society,Vol. 11(1980),pp. 57-72.Haug, W. F. Kritikder Warenasthetik,uhrkamp,Frankfurt m Main 1971.114


14/14

Hirsch, Joachim. Der Sicherheitsstaat. 'Das Modell Deutschland' und seine Krise und dieneuen sozialen Bewegungen, Europaische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main 1980.Lindner, Rolf. Das Gefuhl von Abenteuer. Ideologie und Praxis der Werbung, Campus,Frankfurt am Main, New York 1977.Passeron, Jean Claude. 'Presentation', in Richard Hoggart, La culture du pauvre. Etude surle style de vie des classes populaires en Angleterre, Minuit 1970.Pettit, Philip. The Concept of Structuralism. A Critical Analysis, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley 1975.Pingon, Michel. Besoins et habitus. Critique le la notion de besoin et theorie de la pratique,Centre de Sociologie Urbaine, Paris 1978.Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd, Yale University Press, New Haven 1950.Swartz, David. 'Pierre Bourdieu: The Cultural Transmission of Social Inequality', HarvardEducational Review, Vol. 47, (November 1977), No. 4.

115

Documents

The Cult. Soc. of P. Bourdieu