From: Magnus Marsdal <magnus.marsdal-AT-klassekampen.no>
Subject: Bourdieu vs Marx? 2.0
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:45:24 +0200


There was some technical problem with the first version. I try again, 
starting from a) ...

Magnus
* * *

a) I find both the theories of "class" within both Bourdieu and Marx very 
fruitful. They seem to have strong explicatory power within important 
topics in my society.

b) But are they compatible? It's perfectly ok that they are different, but 
it would seem a litte too eclectic to support both theories if they are 
seriously att odds with each other.

c) And they might be. Bourdieu proposes a theory of "classes of life 
conditions" (depicted with the help of a "distribution 
capitals"-vocabulary), whereas the Marxian theory of class takes 
"exploitation of labour" as its vantagepoint. While Bourdieu's "social 
space" is a seamless hierarchy of distributions with no clear-cut 
boundaries between classes at the level of structure (capital 
distribution), the Marxian theory of exploitation clearly depicts a 
clear-cut boundary between two important classes (between exploiter and   
exploited).

d) The Marxian traditions tend to elaborate a theory of capitalist society 
from this class-relation, which is taken to be the "kernel" of capitalism 
(an assumption grounded on an assumption of the primacy of material 
reproduction/labour relations within historical development). Within such 
Marxism, one attempts to relate most other social phenomena to the 
economical "kernel" of exploitation within the production sphere. It is my 
view that this approach severly limits the perspecives and constitutes a 
vulgar-Marxist derailing of social theoy.

e) Bourdieu to the rescue? Quite a few dissillusioned Marxists seem to find 
in Bourdieu a possible way out of their troubles. He depicts domination and 
social stuggle with what seems to be a much more adeqate vocabulary than 
the one developed within Marxist traditions (for example his concept "The 
field of power" is much more adequate than "The ruling class", when it 
comes to understanding modern societies).

f) But what about exploitation? It might not be the kernel of every process 
in society, but it surely is the kernel of Marxist class theory. Can you 
hold on to the class theory of exploitation, and at the same time embrace 
Bourdieu's vision of the seamless "social space"? This could prove a 
problem. Many might want the best of both worlds.

g) This is why some people might want to develop a concept of 
"exploitation" compatible with Bourdieu's different forms of capial. If 
this could be done, it would seem to integrate Marx and Bourdieu quite 
nicely, in a general "economy of practice" where the same principles 
operate for all forms of capital. This would allow us to see Bourdieu as 
"an elaboration of Marx". This would also be a restatement of the theory of 
explotiation as the "kernel" of most processes i society.

h) I, for one, don't think such a project is feasible. It won't work. You 
might find good parallels to economic exploitation in some instances, but 
in others, the procject inn g) would seem like bending reality to fit 
inside pre-constructed concepts.

i) I think that if there is a fruitful fusion, it is not accoplished 
through reading Bourdieu in a manner consistent with Marx, but rather than 
the other way around. Bourdieu attempts to develop a general economy of 
practises, within which there might be room for Marx' theory of 
exploitation. The problem indicated in c) needn't be such a big problem. 
Bourdieu's concept ("social space") describes a quantitative distribution 
(of resources/capial), which is of course "seamless". Marx' concept 
("exploitation") concerns the qualitative workings of one particular 
*relationship* between certain positions within this social space (the 
position of capitalist and that of wage-worker). It should be clear from 
the writings of Bourdieu that he allows for the existence of such 
qualitative relationships established within an otherwise seamless 
distribution (the explanation of such relationships could be considered a 
large part of the pay-off from his approach, I guess), and thereby perhaps 
also for the Marxist theory of exploitation (a process working as a 
"class-producing machine") within one particular relationship/field/form of 
capital.

j) So, rather than viewing Bourdieu as someone Marx hired to "finish what 
Karl started", you could view Marx as a guy Bourdieu hired to be his 
specialist on economy and a class theory of exploitation within a certain 
field (private sector economy)?


I hope this goes somewhere in answering your question, Anja. Any comment is 
welcomed.

Best regards,
Magnus E. Marsdal
journalist, Oslo


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