Hi Gloria,

Bourdieu's theoretical framework addresses the mechanisms behind the intergenerational transmission of advantages and disadvantages, known as social reproduction. His conceptualization of different capital (cultural, economic, and social capital) that families provide to their offspring is valuable for studying and understanding modern-day inequalities.

However, Bourdieu has faced criticism. After thoroughly reading 'Distinction', I concluded the following: 1) His social class scheme may not be fully applicable to other modern societies as it does not adequately differentiate between micro-classes (e.g., big company CEOs) and large social classes (e.g., unskilled manual workers). In my opinion, the EGP class scheme is more suitable for comparative analysis among countries, genders and social classes. 2) His empirical research relied on a very small sample size (approximately 450 for the entire country of France), and the analytical approach (mainly correspondence analysis) lacked detail and did not consider the impact of varying social class sample sizes. 3) Bourdieu's conception of habitus suggests a probabilistic tendency towards certain decisions but lacks dependency analysis such as path or regression analysis. Consequently, he appears to conclude that people lack agency in their decision-making process due to previous experiences, a viewpoint that does not align with observed empirical data on educational attainment inequality among social classes.

Bourdieu is undoubtedly one of the most influential sociologists of all time, and I greatly enjoy reading his papers and books. Nonetheless, I believe that his theory could be enriched by considering Raymond Boudon's primary and secondary effects theory.

I come to cultural theory from literary and rhetorical studies. My Field is Rhetoric and the teaching of English. Cultural theorist/Sociologist Raymond Bordon is a new name and I am pleased to know of this useful addition.

Can you say in what aspect Boudon's work brings more accuracy to this topic of pressing concern? Thanks do much for your comments here.

The science fiction writer and social theorist Isaac Asimov used to argue for "enlightened self-interest" (stop when one's own liberty becomes license and hurts others) in the editorial columns of Fantasy and Science Fiction Magazine.

Rather than this path proposed by a man who was a true polymath a la Goethe, it seems that the individuals in social segments in today's society take each little advantage one may have and try to maximize it over the welfare of those living even in the same city, neighborhood, or family. Why? That is something I am interested in pursuing. And why is such venality admired, rather than what Asimov talked about. It is a puzzle.

I believe there is no better study to help us understand the concept of class. However, with 'Distinction,' Bourdieu might be encouraging us to rethink the concept of class itself. Throughout his life, Bourdieu emphasized that there are various forms of capital—cultural, economic, social, etc.—and that each field has its own hierarchical structure of these capitals. For instance, in academia, a diploma, which is part of cultural capital, is undoubtedly the most significant form of capital, whereas in the field of art, a diploma might not hold the same level of importance. In 'Distinction,' we learn that people at the same economic level can have entirely different tastes. Additionally, those with higher economic status might not possess culturally approved tastes (by culturally, I mean the tastes approved by the hegemonic class, as Gramsci would define it). And in this context maybe we should read what Immanuel Wallerstein told us about the class.

Hi Gloria!

- Bourdieu, and the other French post-structuralists argue that language shapes our society and - according to Girard - that class is even deterministically shaped by language. Perhaps it was Michel Foucault who took this idea the furthest.

I hesitate to talk specifically about Bourdieu, because it has been years since I read him. The filmmaker who has taken this to heart is undoubtedly Jean-Luc Godard

Class can be determined by who listens, who is not interrupted while speaking - the consequences of what he says (performative speech).

The values ​​that concepts have in a society.

These writers lived at the end of modernity on a moment where art questions its boundaries. Semiotics will form the democratization of aesthetics in the sixties - The work of art is there for everyone - and can be read (interpretation) - and understood by everyone! Thanks to semiotics - and to the deconstruction (Derrida) - That is the key to understand art!

And art is the key to understanding society (Beuys)

Richard Rorty called this period "the linguistic turn" because physics was no longer considered to be the basis for philosophy, but now language was.

Hence the work of art now took the place of physics.

The artwork was seen - from then on - as a code - a language that had to be interpreted (Eco) - and which therefore undermined the hierarchy created by the aesthetic experience.

so, language forms community - and by changing the language social class (status) will also change.

The best!

Willy

I have only just dipped into Bourdieu and was not impressed. He struck me as dogmatic, and given to hasty, superficial judgements.

Dear Colleague Derek,

I wonder if this could also be said of others writing at that time who are still highly respected, such as Michel Foucault, Paul Feyerabend, et al. That is to say, those making claims that ran counter to a long line of thought in fields often come across as rather contentious. That in itself is not enough to make me question that value of what they are attempting to do, but you have a good point about scholarly controversy. As people attempt to stand out and to distinguish themselves from the group, they will appear "hasty," and contentious, in many cases.

Foucault somewhat reductively challenged the existence of "progress" engendered by The Enlightenment and psychiatry of that time in his (1961) Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique – Folie et déraison or Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Feyerabend challenged the value of reason and science some have charged "hastily" and reductively in his 1987 Farewell to Reason. These texts are the wind in their sails of various feminist and gendered or racial inclusionist movements across the globe.

Using a historical lens, we can also look at the rhetorical situation into which these writers presented their texts and what else was being thought at the time to avoid an anachronistic post hoc assessment of their work, should we not. If we read with a text and its function among a period's set of texts, and then, after that reading, make a judgment, this may add some nuance to whatever we discover in that text.

Hi Gloria

Thanks for your comment.

I am not a Bourdieu expert – I find him far too tedious to read for that. I have dipped into Distinction, that’s all. But in doing so I once landed on his comment on Malraux and Camus. Without producing a shred of evidence, he slammed them both and did so in what struck me as tasteless, spiteful terms. I haven’t felt any strong inclination to read him since. I suspect he is grossly overrated. Truly worthwhile authors don't usually feel a need to write like that.

Bourdieu's analysis of taste and class still holds water to a greater extent. it is largely true that those with high culture define reality in life in almost all the social institutions. The templates for what the children learn in school, good economic policies, proper healthy habits, good politics ets are provided by those in the upper class culture

One of the things that has always surprised me about Bourdieu is that people have taken his claims about taste and class to be a revelation. I would have thought they are obviousness itself. A more important question is what, if anything, could or should be done about that. More important still, I think, is that due to the general infantilisation of society, "taste" (for lack of a better word) is disappearing anyway.

Dear Gloria Lee Mcmillan Bourdieu’s research in “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste” offers a significant cultural sociological approach to analyzing social class structures and the reproduction of social differences through cultural practices and judgments of taste.

Through his concepts of ‘habitus’ and ‘cultural capital’, Bourdieu illustrates how classes maintain and transmit their status through specific cultural preferences. The habitus - the internalized set of perceptions, evaluations, and practices - serves as a key to understanding how certain cultural practices systematically sustain social boundaries and hierarchies. Culture, in this context, becomes an expression of societal power relations, where cultural preferences are less an outcome of personal choice than structural mechanisms of social exclusion and reproduction.

Bourdieu’s approach is especially valued in cultural sociological debates for its critical examination of the valorization of cultural practices and its insights into how these relate to social power structures. In this regard, he demonstrates how culture serves both as an expression and a tool of social domination, with the dominant class shaping what is considered legitimate and valuable cultural practice. Tastes and aesthetic judgments are thus not neutral choices but instead expressions of social position and group belonging. This perspective explains why cultural preferences often demarcate class boundaries and why certain tastes in society are classified as ‘high’ or ‘low’.

However, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus has faced criticism, as it leaves limited room for the transformation of cultural preferences, portraying culture as a static instrument of social reproduction. His theory’s depiction of cultural self-replication is highly deterministic, allowing little recognition for the flexibility and hybridization seen in contemporary cultural milieus. Additionally, Bourdieu’s framework is critiqued for its limited engagement with the role of new global media cultures and digital networks, which now play a critical role in the dynamics and negotiation of cultural preferences.

Overall, Bourdieu’s analysis remains a fundamental contribution to cultural sociology, particularly regarding how social classes are maintained through cultural structures. At the same time, contemporary debates call for an extension of his theory to better capture the growing plurality and fluidity of cultural preferences in modern societies and to more precisely address the complex interactions between culture, class, and social change.

Hi Christian

Re: “here cultural preferences are less an outcome of personal choice than structural mechanisms of social exclusion and reproduction.”

Speaking for myself, my love of good music (I hate the term “classical music”) is 100% a result of “personal choice” and zero percent an attempt at “social exclusion”. At present, I’m listening to a lot of Sibelius, Purcell, and Renaissance masters like Tallis and Byrd. But any suggestion that in so doing I’m trying to “socially exclude” somebody is absurd. Quite the reverse in fact: I would be pleased if more people shared my “tastes” (another word I try to avoid).

Why on earth does Bourdieu want to infect the world of music with his obsession with class distinctions? It’s about as appropriate as trying to fix a watch with a sledgehammer.

mm (sorry error) DA

Glad to see some newer replies to this. I wonder how Bourdieu intersects with General Semantics' and the finding that words create excitement in neural systems? So TASTE

may be pos + excitement for some sounds images words

- excitement for others.

Now these are being confirmed by fMRI studies. So our "free' chicaces are often conditioned neuro-reflexes.