File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2003/bourdieu.0305, message 148


From: "Chris Andersen" <cta1-AT-ualberta.ca>
Subject: are subfields possible?
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:05:15 -0600


Hi All,

A phrase in Cameron's excellent post raises an interesting question.  Is
it possible to make an ontological distinction between a 'field' and a
'sub-field'? If so, what would the difference be?  If not, why our
discomfort with 'local' and more abstract kinds of fields such that we
feel the need to make such a distinction in the first place? I get the
impression from reading Bourdieu that being in a field is like being
pregnant - you either are or you are not. And yet, he clearly attributes
an irreducibility of internal logic to fields which are actually an
intersection of various fields (like, for example, his 'juridical
field').  So, although the boundaries are more or less clearly defined
in any given instance (that's an empirical rather than a theoretical
problem), I'm not sure that one can belong to a 'sub-field'.  As I've
said in earlier posts, I'm not a hard core 'Bourdieudian', but it seems
to me that this is a fundamental problem with how his theoretical
frameworks are glibly employed (Cameron, I'm certainly not referring to
you - I have a brother who is a 'gear head', who very much believes in
building earth-bound rocket ships).   

Any thoughts?

<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
Chris Andersen
School of Native Studies
5-182 Education North
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, CANADA
T6G 2G5
(780) 492 4814 - phone
(780) 492 0527 - fax
www.ualberta.ca/nativestudies
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Cameron
Mann
Sent: May 13, 2003 9:14 PM
To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Plural symbolics?

Glen,

I am puzzled by this problem of yours. My understanding of Bourdieu^s 
articulation of habitus and field is such that there is always "a 
plurality of ^symbolic^ axes". Now, I'm not near any texts at the 
moment but let me try and do this without quoting anything much. 

You wrote:

<<Bourdieu seems to think that in such situations someone 
_always_ 'wins' (or 'loses') and their conception of 'common sense' 
wins>>

First things first, an agent can always 'win' while 'losing' (or lose 
while winning) - never an absolute thing - always a 'doing more or less 
well' thing. Depending on what you're attending as symbolic capital, 
you can usually find a group of people who appreciate the fact that 
you've got more. At the same time you'll usually encounter people who 
say that you're paying attention to the wrong thing (eg Kent Strock). 
The nature of a field is a struggle - you may not be able to convince 
everyone that where you are in the field is the best place to be, and 
that what you've got is the best thing to have - but that's the aim of 
the game. 

The habitus of those agents situated near to each other in a field is 
more similar, which means that what they see in the world, and what
they think is important is more similar. But remember also, the 
symbollic capital is not something you choose by design - it's your 
common sense that tells you what's important, and that the other people 
have got it OH SO WRONG (irrational, elitist, old-fashioned, heretical, 
non-person or whatever) - which goes all the way back to the questions 
about how the habitus is acquired...

So thinking about car-modification - something about which I  know 
nothing, but let me imagine (against B's emprical insistence): "car 
enthusiasts can spend considerable amounts of time and money modifying 
a car", and they are in a field. 

Let me imagine that some of the agents in this field restore cars to 
pristine condition and then keep them in glass cages, and occasionally 
take them to shows perhaps. Now, these would be people who /really/ 
know their cars, like artworks - heritage & authenticity & appreciate
the economic investment - are up at the dominant, sanctified end of the 
field. Like the top left of others fields of cultural production, 
these 'car enthusiasts' are interested in 'cars for the sake of cars' : 
they can show off eminently USELESS knowledge about their cars, they 
can waste the time and money on paying attention to these cars that are 
not functional because time and money are NOT an issue. Of course these 
cars ARE functional in a symbollic economy: it /really/ means something 
to have a 1969 Brandname Bigcar (I have no capital amongst car 
enthusiasts!!) in mint condition, rebuilt from original parts, with a 
perfect shine and an engine that purrs... if (and only if) you're into 
that kind of thing.

Now, your car enthusiasts who spend time & money and then destroy the 
cars with risky behaviour (called Hoons), well they're somewhere else 
in the field. You can tell they're in the same field because spending 
time and money working on your car is considered by both groups to be a 
worthwhile activity. The Hoons no doubt have a certain respect the 
people who restore their cars meticulously & perfectly (called 
Collectors) - a car is a thing worthy of attention in this field. But 
Hoons don't or can't (not a big difference) spend that much time and 
money on a car they won't use - and in this respect the Hoons probably 
consider the Collectors to be wankers, while the Collectors would 
consider the Hoons to be barbarians for risking/destroying a perfectly 
good car! 

The Hoons have added something else to their appreciation of cars. It's 
not the car as artwork - it's the car as earth-bound rocket ship. It 
not only looks good, it sounds good, it's loaded with power - it goes 
fast and performs well. By adding what the car DOES to symbollic 
capital - the Collector wankers become losers - and the performance 
of /driving/ a modified performance vehicle earns capital too. 

So, plurality of symbolic axes? Car enthusiasm is about the beauty and 
art of car engineering. Hoons and Collectors agree on that. But these 
two sub-fields interpret that differently. Even within these "sub-
field" the same struggles exist. The field of Hoons will map out 
between those who think the car is MORE important, and those who think 
the driving is MORE important. (or that the Best cars are European, or 
street drags are the ultimate arena, or that a tattoo of your car is 
proof of authenticity).

In the field of car enthusiasts - the Hoons are nearer the heteronomous 
pole than the Collectors, because the speed & performance of the 
vehicle, and derring-do and skill of the driver also consititute 
symbollic capital. In the field of car enthusiasts, the Collectors are 
probably strictly dominant, because 1) their knowledge is that 
rarified, pure and technical speicality 2) they can afford ($$) to lose 
their cars (they don't use them) but will never risk it, 3)it all about 
the car!. 

But the Hoons don't take their dominated position lying down - they put 
forward their own ideas about car enthusiasm : cars not should not just 
be perfect specimens - they should be POWERFUL, FAST and IN USE, and 
driving one well is worthy of respect too. But this is not (strictly) 
trangression. It's not like the Hoons look at the Collectors protecting 
their cars and say "we're not going to do that" - it's just that common 
sense (the immanent regularities of the habitus) dictates it makes NO 
SENSE AT ALL to have an excellent car and not race it!

Sorry, I ramble.

Cameron

--------------------
csmann-AT-bigpond.com

"you will never understand how it feels to live your life with no 
meaning or control" - Common People, PULP
 
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu


**********************************************************************
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