Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:29:16 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: M-I: Marx and Bourdieu's analysis of class style


[Second retry. Good wine gets better with ageing!]

[From Jon F's comment on bouncing posts, I think this might have been one
of them. Hope the original doesn't crop up later and duplicate things.
Hugh]

Lots of good stuff in Rakesh's latest on Bourdieu on M-Thx.

He writes:

>It is probably true that after having read Bourdieu's microsociological
>analyses of class styles, one will understand "everyday life" in a new way
>(I was stunned into self-reflection by his analysis of the earnestness and
>autodidactism of the petty bourgeoisie).

Don't tease us, Rakesh! You may be unique, but enough of you is typical to
make a paragraph on the results of your self-reflection something of
general interest!

Then continues:

>it does seem that Bourdieu does
>provide innovative analyses of how life styles which are class imposed are
>experienced as freely chosen and of how then classes strategically attempt
>to impose their modes of perception and categorization.

How heavy is the determinism in "class imposed"? "Experienced as freely
chosen" individually, collectively, ideologically or in what way?

As for the "strategic imposition of modes of perception etc", we could use
some examples. Not so much of imperialist attempts, but working class
attempts. What is Bourdieu's focus here, and how does it mesh with yours?

He rounds off:

> However, as Postone has argued, the real problem with Bourdieu's work may
>lie in his attempt to transplant a basic theory of society formulated in
>the context of Kabyle society to a dynamic industrial mode of production.

Well, this sounds like inadequate abstraction in relation to the definition
of social institutions -- and a sure test of how close or distant Bourdieu
is to Marx in his understanding of the historical development of modes of
production and the fundamental processes of capitalist society. Because in
Marx's analysis the fundamental social institutions remain the same -- the
three great classes owning capital, land and labour power respectively --
although everything else is in a state of flux and constantly
revolutionizing itself. (There are of course also constants in the relation
of labour to value and value to profit -- the defining categories of
capitalist production -- but my focus here is on the sociological aspect.)


>The adequacy of Bourdieu's theory of practice for a disorganized,
>crisis-ridden capitalism has yet to be determined.

This links to the above.

>Peter Wagner has
>suggested that Bourdieu is a great sociologist of organized modernity, what
>now unravels before us.

This is obscure. Capitalism is more like organized anarchy, with the
organization always being at too low and reified a level to deal with the
chaotic development of the whole. "Sie tun es, aber sie wissen es nicht --
They do it, but they aren't conscious of it" -- as Marx says.

The thing is, there are various levels of unconscious behaviour, and I'm
wondering what sort of level Bourdieu ends up on compared to Marx. Marx
shows how the workings of capitalism require individuals to behave in
certain determined ways to stay alive and reproduce themselves and their
families and their relation to the forces of production. In other words,
how much of the reality of the capitalist mode of production does Bourdieu
abstract out of his analysis, and how badly does this cripple his
relevance?


Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---