Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:10:00 +0100
From: Anja Weiß <anja.weiss-AT-berghof.b.shuttle.de>
Subject: Re: Request: Is there ethnic/racial capital?


Anja Weiss wrote: 

> > Refering to my above argument, Habitus could explain why interactive
> > groups are ethnically homogenous, because sharing similar experiences is
> > one important reason for group cohesion. Nevertheless ethnic relations
> > at least in Germany are changing so much and quickly, that it is
> > difficult to determine what is "the same group". Thus we cannot argue
> > with "Habitus" alone. We will have to take into account, that struggles
> > about value hierarchies and distinguishing markers are ongoing and still
> > changing quickly and that these struggles determine who will be
> > considered a class in the future and who will develop a common habitus
> > in the future. In short: I think that Habitus plays an important role,
> > but that the concept of classes consisting of clusters of people with a
> > similar distribution of capital may be as important.

Frans Schryer wrote:
> >
>   I would not see ANY interactive group as homogenous (not if
> `gender' classes, occupational `classes' and even regional and ethnic
> 'classes' overlap as they inevitably do). I would also distinguish a
> particular ethnic group as having more to do with a phenomenon to be
> investigated (and as a common sense, taken-for-granted category) as
> opposed to `class' as a theoretical construct designed to better
> understand the phenomenon. All ethnic groups are bound to be
> heterogenous (i.e. with members of both sexes, and members of a
> greater or smaller range of incomes or occupations, objectively
> defined). Ethnic groups exist precisely because people (and even
> social scientists) believe or think they are homogenous.
> 
> Frans J. Schryer
> Graduate Co-ordinator for Sociology and Anthropology & CIDS
>      (Collaborative International Development Studies)
> Ext. 2505
> e-mail: fschryer-AT-uoguelph.ca

I find this discussion very interesting and thank you very much for your
very interesting comments.

As I was not very clear in my last statement I would like to specify it:
Despite the fact that all groups of people are heterogenous along
several dimensions, small interactive groups tend to emphasize one or
more criteria along which they are homogenous. For example the groups
that I am working with tend to have similar ethnic and class backgrounds
even though they differ in gender and some other criteria. Of course
that is an interactively produced phenomenon that can be investigated,
but does not necessarily relate to classes of people.

I would try to theorize this in a closed circle: If classes (in the
abstract sense), i.e. clusters of people form with a particular
distribution of capital [and classifications (like race/ethnicity)] are
relevant for symbolic capital (a suggestion of yours which I find very
valuable) there will be groups of people (in the common sense) with a
similar habitus and they will find it easier to reproduce themselves as
groups (in the political sense). However if it is heavily disputed which
capital is legitimate and what can be delegitimized by ethnic markers
(e.g. as a result of symbolic and political struggles), classes (in the
abstract sense) will be shifting (because the distribution of symbolic
capital is shifting), and I agree with you that there will be a higher
degree of contestation of those value hierarchies which reproduce
classes (in the abstract sense). I argue that the clusters of people
should change rapidly because the factors which determine the clustering
(e.g. what is legitimate cultural capital) are changing. If that is the
case "habitus" as a relatively stable concept will be contradictory to
the political struggles and changing value hierarchies.
 
This is why I talk about interactive groups: Because I find groups in
the empirical reality which are homogenous in that sense that classes
that have existed in the past have produced a habitus that makes it
easier for people to form an interactive group. However this habitus may
not relate to the classes presently existing and it may be contradictory
for the classes which will exist in the future.

I am working with anti-racist groups and they contest politically the
value hierarchies which have led to the formation of a class of people
like them (which in the abstract sense is white only and in the
interactive reality is relatively homogenous ethnically). Nevertheless
they tend to reproduce the class they contest with the help of their
habitualized congruence which excludes people with a habitus that is
distant from theirs. [I use distance in the statistical sense: far away
from their cluster, even though their cluster is hetereogenous in
itself].


Anja Weiss
anja.weiss-AT-berghof.b.shuttle.de

Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management
Altensteinstrasse 48a
D-14195 Berlin
fon: *49-30-8318090/99
fax: *49-30-8315985
http://www.b.shuttle.de/berghof/


**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu