File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2000/bourdieu.0001, message 82


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005