From: "Pam Stello" <stello-AT-socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [BOU:] Re: are subfields possible? BOU
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:35:33 -0700


That is an interesting pt. In terms of identity as it is lived, there is no
"sub field" because the person does not experience it in that way. That is I
think related to how I wrote in my earlier post about the genius commodity
function in the university. I think it works very well for the reason you
point out. That there are no subfields because people live, embody and as
Anja wrote, the individualization process of commodification as we are
individualized in and through commodity circuits. This not addressed by
Bourdieu because he does not address the role of commodification in the
creation of the dominance of the field of cultural production. He was
looking at a very different society. Thoughts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Andersen" <cta1-AT-ualberta.ca>
To: <bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: are subfields possible?


> 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
>

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