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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005