From: Cameron Mann <csmann-AT-telstra.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:41:29 +1000
Subject: [BOU:] Fields of struggle, not 'value agreeement'


Chris also wrote:

<<I get the impression from reading Bourdieu that being in a field is 
like being pregnant - you either are or you are not.>> and <<although 
the boundaries are more or less clearly defined in any given instance>>

<<[Bourdieu] severely overestimates the amount of 'value-agreement' 
about what constitutes normality (within one's location in different 
social fields) in society-at-large.>>

and

<<In Canada, indigenous communities in the last 30 years have used the 
courts to good effect - but not many of these communities attribute 
some underlying legitimacy to the courts. Rather, they are used 
pragmatically but without optimism.>>

Here I think I need to defend the field/habitus/practice thing, since 
Chris's half-baked (by your own admission) critique seem to attack the 
straw-man Bourdieu, which is a very common practice. I have tried to 
write this a number of ways already, and each has blown out into 
something quite lengthy. So, I'm trying to remember that brevity is 
your friend (oh my goodness, I've gone Meta-).

Point One. A field is exactly NOT like being pregnant - whether or not 
you're in a field is a contentious issue. Whether you've got a lot, a 
little or no symbolic capital - always a contentious issue. Whether the 
field is autonomous or part of something bigger - always a contentious 
issue. 

Point Two: The boundaries are never clearly defined. There are no 
qualified umpires. Those who stand up and PRETEND to define a field and 
its capital and its membership are trying to do something (in their own 
interest) - and other people in the field will sometimes let them get 
away with it, and different_other_people in the field will try to pull 
the rug from under their feet, or make fun of them, or pack up their 
bats and balls and go play somewhere else.

Point Three. There is an exceptional special field: the economic field. 
The capital of the economic field is "stuff" that you either have or 
you don't. You can't just act like your rich and expect to convince 
anyone and expect things to turn around for you like you are rich. 
Apparently you don't need to convince people that "stuff" and money are 
worth something - you just spend it. Existence announces there's more 
advantage in having stuff than not having it. [Except diseases, but 
that's off the point].

Point Four. Symbolic Capital is not 'stuff'. Symbolic capital is worth 
something only by agreement. Symbolic capital is acquired by 
saying/thinking/being/doing/having certain things that are AGREED to be 
worthwhile. Every agreement is only ever one argument away from being a 
disagreement. Equally, every disagreement can be brought to an 
agreement. Ooh, isn't this all very contentious!

Point Five. I find it very helpful to translate "symbolic capital" as 
advantage. The habitus directs agents to seize opportunities that AVOID 
DISADVANTAGE. (Here's Canadian indigenous people using courts - simply 
refusing their legitimacy is a bad move when that opinion is in the 
minority - refusing their legitimacy /while/ accepting their REALITY is 
sensible).  One good way to avoid disadvantage is to agree with 
everyone else and say/think/be/do/have something agreed to be 
worthwhile. If you avoid disadvantage well enough, you'll actually be 
regarded as someone with a certain amount of symbolic capital soon 
enough. You may also find yourself as a little fish in a big pond. So, 
the advantage may be pretty small. 

Point Six. Rather than trying to acquire symbolic capital by agreeing 
with the definitions that dominate the field, sometimes the most 
advantage is found in a disagreement. [Kurt Cobain says that mainstream 
music has lost the plot and stands up and shows them what music 
is /really/ about. The Surrealists stand up, annouce a manifesto and 
try to rescue the arts. Marx stands up and says that the science of 
political economy is a farce.] Sure, not everyone's is going to agree - 
but amongst those few that do, you've got some symbolic capital to crow 
about - and a real advantage. In this case, the whole field is 
disregarded for the advantage negotiating the smaller field. 


Point Seven

"To the reduction of conscious calculation, I oppose the relationship 
of ontological complicity between the habitus and the field."  
Bourdieu, /Is a disinterested act possible?/, p79

NONE of this is conscious calculation. The field, the habitus, the 
symbolic capital and the practices in the field are all tied up 
together. AND they're CONSTRUCTS for analysis, not REAL. Bourdieu's 
most contentious assumption is that we (humans) all compete for 
advantages (I think it's more accurate to say we strive to avoid 
disadvantages)always. From there, what we do depends on which 
opportunities we see, which opportunities we see depends on what we've 
seen, what we've seen depends on what we've done. What we do shows what 
we think is important, who agrees with us determines who we think 
matters, we apprehend the world in the terms of that "what" and 
those "who", and continue to act.

"This disposition [habitus], always marked by its (social) conditions 
of acquisition and realization, tends to adjust to the objective 
chances of satisying need or  desire, inclining agents to  'cut their 
coats according to their cloth', and so to become the accomplices of 
the processes that tend to make the probable a reality." 
Bourdieu, /Structures, Habitus, Practices/, p65


Cam
--------------------
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