From: "Simon Beesley" <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: Homology Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:49:00 -0000 John, After re-reading various sections in Distinction, I think we've been making heavy weather of the homology question. It's quite clear that Bourdieu refers to homologies between 'relatively autonomous' fields; to put it at its simplest, homologies between class and the tastes/distinctions/aesthetic preferences specific to class. On this score, there is no arguing with him -- it's obviously the case -- which is why much of Distinction seems to be redundant in that it states correlations everyone accepts, but is none the less necessary since most feel their tastes and aesthetic preferences are shaped solely by criteria intrinsic to the objects (i.e. aesthetic criteria). For my part, I can't see that the two are mutually exclusive; that is, one can accept the determinations of class habitus and at the same time be comfortable with one's aesthetic judgements. Or rather the two are entirely separate and, on top of which, Bourdieu's theory is by no means asserting rigid determinations. So I misunderstood Agnes when she wrote: "I still cannot stop being sceptical about Bourdieu's neatness of homological relations, especially in the fields of production and consumption (homology between the position of agents in the field of class relations and the position in the field of production of the objects they consume: to a low position corresponds the consumption of a 'low' object or to an avantarde position correspond the consumption of an avantgarde objects etc. as is clearly expressed in Bourdieu's Le Couturier et sa Griffe)." The "'low'" here does not indicate Bourdieu's commitment (or lack of commitment) to objective aesthetic judgement; it serves only to demarcate the object. And as to the question of the neatness of homological relations or the "almost miraculous encounter" and "elective affinity" between cultural object choice and social class, presumably his emphasis is mainly rhetorical and in fact, assuming a lack of autonomy between the fields, such neatness is more or less pre-ordained, and is, rather, determined by relations between fields. - Simon ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005