Social Order – Pierre Bourdieu (A
Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste)
To
the socially recognised hierarchy of the arts corresponds a social hierarchy of
consumers. This predisposes tastes to function as markers of class
(Bourdieu1984:xxv).
“Bourdieu explains his vision about the cultural
field. He compared it to the economic world where individuals aim to collect
and accumulate resources and rewards, in terms of cultural goods, to beat
competition, and gain distinction, preponderance and predomination over social
status, this distinction, according to Bourdieu, is achieved given the strict
connection to economic distribution of material goods, that emulates and brings
value”
Critics of Bourdieu.
Consumption is not
based on social structure anymore, but/rather reflects the multiple collection
agglomeration of lifestyles – due to post-modernism
Study doesn’t take
into account the ethnicity. Hes been ‘tied’ by the French legislation therefore
his results have come straight from France itself, doesn’t take into
consideration other nationalities.
He categorises the
upper and lower group of social classes in a very simple/general way. He
categorises the taste of the social classes.
Habitus is used as a
universal mechanism for classification. (Habitus – categorising people)
Applications of
Bourdieu in my essay:
Habitus could be
acted upon as a mean of rebellion through challenging the social groups/classes
by taste and social logic.
-- Kruger: Appealing
to people with money. Rebellion against over
consumption by the upper class. Ironic? – encouraging both the lower and upper
class to consume. Kruger says the
universal mechanism for classification of upper class is overconsumption.
Quotes to consider using within my dissertation:
“To the socially recognized hierarchy of
the arts, and within each of them, of genres, schools or periods, corresponds a
social hireachy of the consumers. This predisposes tastes to function as
markers of ‘class’ (Bourdieu 1984:).
“The naïve exhibitionism of ‘conspicuous
consumption’, which seeks distinction in the crude display of ill-mastered
luxury, is nothing compared to the unique capacity of the pure gaze, a
quasi-creative power which sets the aesthete apart from the common herd by a radical
difference which seems to be inscribed in ‘persons’ (Bourdieu
1984: 23). The public are placed into two ‘antaganoistic castes’ of those who
understand and those who do not. Bourdieu comments that you have to have an
understanding of the charismatic ideology driven from art in order to be able
to understand ‘art’ which others have been denied” (Bourdieu 1984). By
contrast, the young art helps the “best” to know and recognise one another in
the greyness of the multitude and to learn their mission, which is to be few in
number and to have to fight against the multitude. In the past times museums, paintings, music
and even books were seen as pleasures for the rich rather than the ‘common’
people. This is an example where the
social class divided people based on their wealth and stability.
“Objectively and
subjectively aesthetic stances adopted in matters like cosmetics, clothing or
home decoration are opportunities to experience or assert one’s position in
social space, as a rank to be upheld or a distance to be kept. It goes without
saying that the social classes are not equally inclined and prepared to enter
this game of refusal and counter-refusal” (Bourdieu 1984:50). People are able
to view different cultures through visual interaction or experience.
“A class is defined as much by its being-perceived as by its being,
by its consumption- which need not be conspicuous in order to be symbolic- as
much as by its position in the relations of production” (Bourdieu 1984:485). The
class/group is defined by its being, but also through inevitable projects
through their practices which makes them part of the social reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment