Talk:Social Space and the Genesis of Groups (Group 1)

Bourdieu talks in-depth about the importance of cultural and economic capital in shaping one's identity and thus their categorization into society, however is there any other important aspects of identity you can think of that Bourdieu might have missed? *Just like how Bourdieu argues against Marx that there is not just one defining class factor (economic production)*

Since Bourdieu focuses heavily on cultural and economic capital (both material and objectified) it seems as though he gives agency to those factors to create classes of their own. Marx depicts an extreme image of this with having a defined class system with economic means. Bourdieu doesn't talk about the equity and doesn't acknowledge the idea that not all individuals in society have the same opportunity but measures economic prosperity solely based on the accumulation of capital. Individuals in society can be wealthy but lack cultural economic capital. Econcomic capital can also include access to private healthcare- like in the case of the United States.

Hi Namra,

The way I perceived Bourdieu is that he does acknowledge that all individuals in society do not have the same opportunities. For him, this lack of equality is based on the different cultural and economic capital individuals obtain. He splits up cultural capital and economic capital as two different and distinct forms of capital, however still underlining that they are interdependent. The forms of cultural capital that he alludes to are education and habitus. Both education and habitus provide the individual with unconscious orientations that guide individuals to their positions in line with their class backgrounds. These "orientations" are aspirations and expectations that individuals begin to acquire based on their status and what they see going on around them. This then gives way to accumulation of the respective economic capital, which individuals "aspire" for or are "expected" to have based on their standing in society. The interdependence between cultural capital and economic capital comes in with the concept of consumption, in which individuals use their economic capital to acquire more objectified and institutionalized states of cultural capital, such as (artwork-- objectified; and PhDs -- institutionalized). Therefore, I do believe that Bourdieu's whole argument is based on the unequal opportunities individuals have to endure based on their "capital" which includes economic and cultural capital, but definitely is not limited to it.

Hi Marielle,

It's not really clear if Bourdieu distinguishes between the two, but apart from economic capital we should consider human capital and social capital as distinct nonetheless. Human capital refers to one's life skills, health, knowledge, and motivation. Of course, it could be argued that knowledge is positively related (and possibly attributable to?) economic capital, while motivation in Bourdieu's analysis would be seen as a result of capital, rather than a part of it. Social capital is interactions and accessibility to institutions that shape society such as government, school, etc. but it can be argued that this is in fact dependent once again on human and economic capital.

Therefore, I would argue that there are in fact different forms of capital, but in elaborating them we can see how they already fit into the existing framework that Bourdieu has laid out.

Hi Marielle,

My suggestion is not necessarily what Bourdieu had missed, but another important aspect to his concept of cultural/economic capital shaping identity. Within the social spaces, there is room for individuals to live as long as they follow the written and unwritten rules (the term he uses to describe this is doxa). Within these spaces, he argues individuals have the ability to fight for power. Thus, since individuals fight for power within these social spaces, one could argue there is opportunity to create identity. Although I would argue not individual identity, but a group identity. Those who are able to achieve power within social spaces can form different classes with different contexts. For example, if a group of people within a social space achieve economic power, an upper class can form.

Your mention about how individuals can create identity makes me think of the argument for structure verses agency in the context of Bordieu's theory. I always think of cultural capital in terms of the occupation one has. Occupation is often related to one's cultural capital. For example, buisnessmen sometimes go golfing and this taste in sport is reflective of their high status in society. So if we can choose our profession, for example, by choosing what we study in university, is this a way that individuals can have the agency to create their own identity? And also obtain a certain level of cultural capital? Any thoughts of whether this works in real life?

Nicole, I think you have brought up very interesting questions, particularly in the application to the contemporary life as you suggest. Though the resources that give agency, especially in achieving a profession through university studies, are available to all, it is arguable how equally and readily the availability is. It is challenging with the barriers of entry into university for the lower class youths. Universities continue to become more expensive and exclusive, particularly in North America. These standards exclude many from further acquiring both cultural capital and economic capital. Consequences of exercising this form of agency is often being left with large student loans and debt, which delays life milestones. Students financially supported by their families do not have these loans, which gives them an advantage even though the education process of a degree is the same to all students. To a certain extent this is the unequal opportunities offered to higher status students that have a parent or such paying for tuition and expenses, as Nayantara had suggested earlier.

I agree that education, in contemporary societies, could offer agency for one to creat his own identity, it is arguable about how equally though. I think cultural capital is not only affected by one's education attainment, but also his/her social relations. We have all filled out the question "Do you have family members attend UBC before?" when we applied for universities, and it is quite true that if one has parents/siblings at same university, they would be more likely to be admitted. Even after one enters universities, his social network also plays an important role in his study and work - whether he/she knows some big people, if one is popular he/she might have more news on all kinds of opportunities etc. Gradually, people who are able to achieve power within the social spaces form their own classes with different contexts, and excludes others to attain the cultural capital and economic capital.

Although individuals can created their new identity, the identities that they already have largely force them to perform in certain ways. People with similar identities often have shared aspects, and they tend to live together and do similar routine activities. For example, if people with weak social and economic capitals are living in the same area, the residential segregation could concentrate poverty and give rise to neighbourhoods of low quality. There would be no resources and opportunities for them to move up the ladder.

Hi Marielle, I agree, Bourdieu essentially broke my understanding of Marx for me. I understood that Marx was overly idealistic. (Even when we were talking about DuBois) However, it was another thing to break down the layers of complexities in the way that Bourdieu does with Marx. We all observe that each invididual experience is unique and represent their own differences but it's a completely new experience to see it being described in the way that Bourdieu does.

Bourdieu discusses the paradoxical dilemma in which “one always has to risk political dispossession in order to escape political dispossession” or essentially individuals will always have to give up their authority towards another in order to form/join a group and gain more power in politics. In regards to this, is there any examples in which Bourdieu’s statement is proven wrong?

I personally can’t think of one, as there is certainly an enormous amount of evidence that support Bourdieu’s statement. If we look at the democratic and republican parties in the U.S. we see a clear example of this. Although it is basically a two-party system, everyone within these political groups do not all believe in the same things. It’s usually perceived that if someone is associated with one party they must all believe in the same things, but in reality the beliefs within the party run along a wide spectrum. Most democrats might believe in abortions or be pro-choice, but there are individuals within the party that do not share the same beliefs. On the other hand, majority of the republicans might support Trump, but there are individuals within the party that do not. Even in some cases, a republican might be pro-choice and a democrat might support Trump, yet they still would associate themselves with their respective parties. Essentially individuals have to make compromises in their own beliefs or else risk being without a voice in politics. So even if individuals do not share all the same beliefs as their party, they choose to join it nonetheless in order to escape alienation.

I think you are right in that most people need to risk compromising their beliefs in order to actively defend them. For an individual to successfully fight against political dispossession without collective mobilization is unheard of, and one can generally rely on the fact that individuals will have to compromise their values somewhere along the line when taking collective social action. It is possible for an individual to eschew any form of compromise, but it is rare for such an individual to find allies that would give them the strength to achieve their goal. In which case, without collective action, they will most likely be politically dispossessed.

Some people who may be an exception are highly charismatic leaders who can persuade people to align themselves with their beliefs (I'm looking at you, Jim Jones). However, attracting people to your cause requires its own form of compromise, as one would have to posture themself and express a specific persona in order to appeal to as many people as possible. For some, the real incentive is the feeling of power that comes from converting people to one's beliefs, rather than furthering their political goals.

It might also be worth looking at religion in general, as there are many different sects in Christianity which interpret the religion differently, with some sects strictly obeying traditional Christian beliefs and practices. In this case, they are not (typically) trying to achieve a political end, but they nonetheless have to come together and compromise on certain issues in order to maintain the strength of their beliefs against opposing factions.

I think the examples with Christianity, or religion in general is very interesting. With all the different branches of a main religion, there are always some aspects that are different from each other, and these differences will appeal to different people. Some branches are very traditional while others are very modern, within a religion, as long as the main doctrines are the same, I think people are able to find a branch that is comfortable with them, There will be compromises made but it does create a sense of community and strength against other groups.

I also agree in the sense that politically alienated individuals are not able to make themselves heard unless they get together to form a group. The political power that a large group has over a single individual is much larger. I agree as well that in many cases, people must do away with simpler wants in order to reach the end goal as a group. A big example of this would be the working class as a whole. Individually, they are divided by different levels of disposition but as a group, their collective power is unmatched. However, the ruling class maintains is social and economic dominance by ensuring that the working class remains dispossessed.

In this section of Bourdieu's article I was struck by the quote "it is not the relative value of the work that determines the value of the name, but the institutionalized value of the title that can be used as a means of defending or maintaining the value of the work". This made me think of the title of "manager" versus "server" within a restaurant. Not in every restaurant, but in some (by personal experience) the "manager" doesn't do any more, sometimes they do even less, work than the average "server". However, the title of "manager" justifies them having a higher wage or taking a higher percentage of tips as there is an institutionalized value to their title that is not present in "server".

When I look at this quote and relate it to the manager server example I seem to think that the quote is coming from the perspective of the server rather than the manager or from someone who hasnt had to be a manager or in a supervisor position. I would say that even though the manager and server may appear to be doing the same amount of work if there were something to go wrong it would all come down on the manager since its their responsibility to ensure everyone is doing the right job. I believe there is alot of behind the scenes work and stress that managers have to deal with and coming back to the quote I see a broader view of this where even though a manager and server may have the same amount of production in an economic sense but in order for everything to run smoothly the manager has more responsibilities and that comes with the job title.

Good example Madeleine. I think one of the effects of it could be seen when a person puts a title i.e. "manager" like you mentioned on their resume or coin a professional sounding name to a job that you have done before to make it sound more prestigious, when in reality the job itself wasn't a big of a deal or did not require any important skills..Naming can really take you far in this context because if a recruiter sees names for these highly regarded positions on your resume, they are more likely to give you the job over another person who named themselves as a past "server". Perhaps, it could also get you jobs that have higher wages similarly to the positions that the person has mentioned on their resume. So then if this concept of the power to name is taken for granted, could there be consequences? For example, people obtaining undeserved jobs

I think that these types of titles act as cues or short-cuts for how this particular establishment expects outsiders to interact with each person. Like Max Weber's model of bureaucracy, this hierarchy between professionals connotes the level of social prestige that each person receives. The manager is inherently superior to the server, even if this particular manager is not motivated to perform more responsibility in their job. The server is probably on the lowest rung of the social ladder within this establishment, yet they could also work the hardest, but does that quality of work show up on a resume when they apply for a different job? Unfortunately, due to the bureaucratic structure, using the title "Server" on a resume is less effective than "Manager" is, even though neither title specifically indicates how hard the applicant worked.

Often, people who become managers are hired because they showed that they could take on more responsibility, but this is not absolute. Unlike the position of "Lawyer," there is no certification that supports that the manager can perform the job, other than the assumption that because they have that experience, they are more responsible than the server. Perhaps the main culprit here is that there is not a standard in place for what a manager should be doing, as managerial positions differ across industries.

Hi Emily, I think you made a great point. Oftentimes there are no such official certification for people to become a manager. People don't need to take any form of exam to become a manager. However, I believe that there are certain criteria for what kind of person should take the position as manager. Also I am not too sure about why you think that there is not a standard in place for what a manager should be doing. Personally, I think they have certain tasks, such as monitoring all the employees, be responsible for the store, etc. The responsibility and more strict criteria(such as more working experience and leadership skill) that linked to the title of "manager" granted them more wages. In this sense, I think that the value of the title is more important or is more rewarded than their actual work.

Some titles are able to show a person's status. Similarly, from where I worked, which is a small cafe, a shift leader works just as much as the boss, and like you said sometimes even more. However due to the differences in the titles, the shift leader earns very little. In my opinion, the titles define the people's wages, not the amount of work they do.

By reading "The Symbolic Order and the Power to Name" written by Tina, I can tell that it is true that personal perspectives, interests, benefit and the limitation of recognition and acceptance may cause insults, and the title that given by authorities, like government, agents will make the official nomination. I think Tina's example about titles are able to provide people with material and symbolic advantages associated with them is great. The title makes people in working place have more power and benefits, and it also has more symbolic influences. People can be attracted by occupations with the prestigious title than a better salary. Because a prestigious title can bring a higher social position for them.