From: BoPaulle-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 23:02:58 EST
Subject: Re:symbolic vs. cultural capital


Forgive me for being so unclear.  Deborah is absolutely correct in pointing
out the historical contingency of the link between economic capitals and the
cultural production field.  I did try to use words like "tendency," "often,"
etc.  There are many famous examples of artists (and holders of significant
symbolic power as well) who do not have mega-bucks.  
My reading of Bourdieu is however, that there is a strong Weberian side
(autonomous fields, internal logic, etc.) and a more Marxian side (field of
power, "homology," etc.).  He is guilty of going back and forth, no sin if you
believe that social reality does the same.  I feel that his anti-Kantian
polemic in Distinction (as well as other places) illustrates that he is not
really on the fence.  He comes down clearly on the Marxian side, although his
conceptual framework is so multi tracked that it is difficult to classify him
as a Marxist (a la Alexander). 
Bourdieu paints with a broad brush.  He is, after all, asking the big
questions.  In general, to develop the aesthetic disposition (generally)
required by the field of cultural production requires "an arms distance from
necessity."  And ask yourself, grad students and faculty out there in cyber
space, how many working class  grad students and\or artists do you know of?
Poor now, yes, born in poverty or working class conditions, not so often.
Again, in general, the tendency is for the holders of cultural capital
(academic or artistic) to have grown up at least once removed from conditions
that put emphasis on function over form, quantity or quality (I'm stealing
from chapter one of Distiction).
"Art for Arts sake," as someone mentioned, is perhaps not such a strong
argument for the autonomy of the cultural field.  Following B.'s argument,
this amounts to a pseudo depoliticization of art.  Art for arts sake is, it
might be argued, a manifestation of cultural produces who have the cultural
capital to look upon art and the world with the cool distant aesthetic view of
the middle or upper classes.  The key word is "disinterested."  Who can afford
to develop this disinterested gaze?
This matter of historical contingency is even less debatable, I would argue,
when we examine the relationship between symbolic and economic power.  Who
will become an editor of the Times editorial page, a tenured professor, a
published art critic?  The "homology" in this case is even stronger.  The
corporitization of the university - the incredible power of big money (i.e.
public relations, corporate sponsered think tanks, etc.) on the discourses
taking place in civil society - the fact that the galleries and museums are
supported by corporations and the moneyed classes - and the fact that those
bestowing symbolic capital generally come from the same socio-economic
backgrounds (i.e. habitus formation) - all   indicate the rule being true
despite many significant exceptions.

sorry to have gotten so long winded and off the origian topic,
regards 
b.paulle
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu