SOC281 - Fields + Habitus Flashcards
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
- Bourdieu: stresses economic + cultural capitals
- for fields of artistic production he stresses recognition by fellow artists + critics in field as essential form of capital useful in gaining profits
- correlation betw rank of social positions + rank of their cultures + always some struggling around inequalities of capitals + their links to rewards
- puts great emphasis on class in the SES sense
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
- Classes develop cultures that reflect + legitimate their position in hierarchy of conditions of existence. So lower class ppl have culture marked by a “taste for necessity” while higher-class ppl, less constrained by lack of money + education, specialize in culture that is hard for anyone less privileged to achieve.
- map of France does not include ANY social relationships – only relative position in the space defined by amount + composition of capital
- popular culture as just an ABSENCE a lack of cultural capital (elite culture), hence a vacuum - FEW items there are at the bottom of the France chart
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
•On right of upper class – higher in economic capital
•On left of upper class – higher in cultural capital
oCultural resources – education, higher certificate
oLifestyle – hobbies, interests, shopping
•Lower Class:
oLow capital
oLower education in family
•Uneaqual distribution of capital
•Left critical of right and vice-versa
oDisagreements of value of capital
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
•Bottom pursuing lifestyles that don’t require a lot of money or education/sophistication that requires cultural capital
oTaste for Necessity: learn to like stuff you can get + easy to appreciate
•Cultural Ranking: more sophisticated, much better
•How easy it to understand and appreciate this type of culture – exclusivity
•Ppl at top have most resources to judge what is the best, they define the things they are good at + what they have as the best so their culture is deemed superior
•included more things
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
- Children, # of hours worked
- How age, gender, ethnicity is involved in cultural lifestyle
- Veenstra’s chart: few practices at the bottom of the social ladder in Canada
- Upper right more activities – more education + money
- You have to learn to appreciate + understand high brow culture
- Bottom – watching tv – easy, plenty of choice
- Cultural menu in lower class is greatly understudied + underestimated
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
- Income: economic capital moves from lower left to upper right
- Education: 2 Kinds – Graduate + BA/Community College
- More pragmatic from lower right to higher left
- Higher prestige activities more where ppl have education + economic means to understand + appreciate it
- Less educated + less money are doing things, but they have a different culture
- Religion
Compare and contrast Bourdieu’s map of class and culture in France, and Veenstra’s map of culture and inequality in Canada. How and why are class and culture related in these maps?
- has some sort of Ethnicity
- Top have more cultural resources
- Sophisticated approach in upper class, you can take it + apply it to anything
- You can approach any cultural form with same sophisticated analytical skill obtained from high culture
- Not just about what ppl like + what ppl do – about how ppl appreciate, how they do it (their style)
- You can’t see their style (habitus) in this map
Field
- relatively autonomous social setting with its own internal social + cultural stratification
- social boundaries, clear classes, distinctive cultures
- more social relationships within the field than betw field members + outsiders -perhaps sharp (organizations, nations)
- has its own kind of internal stratification, hierarchies of capitals
Field
- Self contained universe within class + culture interact with one another
- All fields have boundaries – dynamic structures, interactions, inequality
- central kinds of capitals + rewards they can bring vary from field to field
Habitus
- underlying cultural orientation which affects your style, how you appropriate, use culture, diff in diff locations of class
- Bourdieu: person’s visible cultural elements organized by an underlying, invisible orientation
- person learns habitus in social life + learns habitus that prevails in his/her social location, learning the cultural inclinations that will help to reproduce social location
Habitus
- reflected in variety of person’s preferences + actions
- shapes how we interpret social reality, how we classify, evaluate, + how we act
- Bourdieu emphasizes unconscious nature of the habitus, its link to class position, + its role in class reproduction
- refers to relatively stable sets of attitudes + beliefs that reflect their social circumstances
Habitus
- embodied in individuals as links betw social structural circumstances + serve to distinguish betw groups of ppl
- Product of social location
- Transformable: absorb parent’s nature, becomes part of you, take it to school, transpose it to diff aspects of life
- Shows up in various social settings
