From: bb05246-AT-bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Hollister)
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and capital
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 23:25:12 -0400 (EDT)



I might be misunderstanding Bourdieu, but I gather that his 'capital'
is, like 'habitus' defined in relation to 'fields'. His 'capital' is
what you gives you a strong position in a particular field, and it may
well be something you gain in other fields.  I use Bourdieu's scheme
and the structure of gay communities to make sense out of each other.
Facility with words and knowledge of politics is capital in the field
of gay organizations, but not in gay bars, where certain social skills
and fashion sense are more valuable.  

I vaguely remember that somewhere Bourdieu writes that Marx's capital
is a special case of Bourdieu's capital, in the field of production.
So far I don't find that useful, but that may just be a reflex left
over from political work.  It seems that Bourdieu is more useful in
describing those immediate circumstances of peoples lives that engage
them emotionally, while Marx describes the big picture - objectively
discoverable laws of historical motion that may or may not coincide
with the categories that are meaningful to individuals at any given
moment. 

Marx's capital is an aggregate of all of the forces of production, and
I don't think it helps to conflate it with the strength of an
individual in a local context.

-- 
John Hollister 			 bb05246-AT-bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu

"More man than you will ever be; more woman than you will ever have"


     ------------------