From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller-AT-uws.edu.au>
Subject: [BOU:] Two questions
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:03:10 +1100


Hi list,

I have two questions I have of Bourdieu's work I am trying to work through
at the moment.

First, I am having trouble understanding his description of the social field
as 'multi-dimensional' from (1985). "The Social Space and the Genesis of
Groups." Theory and Society 14(6): 723-744. (it was also reprinted as a
chapter in LaSP, with a few minor changes)

"The social field can be described as a multi-dimensional space of positions
such that every actual positions can be defined in terms of a
multi-dimensional system of co-ordinates whose values correspond to the
values of the different pertinent variables." (724)

My query also relates to his statement "sociology presents itself as a
social topology" (723).

What I am concerned with is his use of terminology. 'Sociology is a social
topology', while the 'social field is a multi-dimensional space'. So is
Bourdieu saying that sociology is a 'kind of superfigure that is defined not
by invariant formal properties but by the continuity of transformation'
(def. of topology offered by Massumi 2002)? I can understand that. And that
the social field is a multi-dimensional space 'constructed by the set of
properties active in the social universe under consideration' (B. 1985:
723)? I can understand that. Although it may seem trivial, what I am
wondering is whether others believe Bourdieu to be arguing that the social
field is topological (as well as the discipline of sociology, which, it may
be argued, is a social field itself)? In my mind multi-dimensional does not
necessarily mean topological (and vice-versa). Does anyone know of any work
in this area?

Secondly, this has been on my mind for a while, reading 'Distinction' it
struck me that Bourdieu does not seem to take into account scenarios where
consumers of cultural products are also producers of cultural products. For
example, D.I.Y. cultures. This is more of a general question about
Bourdieu's work, but does he look at productive practices of consumption?
Perhaps production in this sense can be understood as a 'negative-' or
'inverted-consumption'? I do not want to simply reduce Bourdieu to being an
'exchangist' by such a simple inversion.

Bourdieu's describes a cultural product as a "constituted taste, a taste
which has been raised from the vague semi-existence of half-formulated or
unformulated experience, implicit or even unconscious desire, to the full
reality of the finished product, by a process of objectification which, in
present circumstances, is *almost always the work of professionals*." (B.
1984: 231) He then goes on to talk about legitimatizing capacity of
objectification, and this is my interest. If D.I.Y.'ers (and, for my
research, custom car afficionados) have the power to produce cultural
products, do they also have the power to legitmate the taste constituted by
the object? Perhaps such activities were not popular when Bourdieu did his
research.

Thanks, any comments/replies appreciated,

Ciao,
Glen.


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