Poststructuralism and Objective Structures
In discussing my understandings of Bourdieu's theories and their applicability to my own research into the literacy practices of mobile technologies, with my supervisor, I have been given cause to reflect on my self-positioning as a researcher.
I must comment that when I first read the term 'objective structures' in Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (1991) it did catch my eye. A small splinter in the back of my brain seemed to suggest that there was something 'wrong' here, something amiss, something that did not seem to gel with the rest of my poststructural leanings. Indeed, the very idea of something being 'objective' in any way shape of form, seems highly problematic to me, similar to describing the ocean as blue, when we actually know that this is a perceptual trick of light. This continual reference to 'objective phenomena' seems to be spread throughout Bourdieu's work, underlining his structuralist perspective. However, it remains something that I find difficult to accept.
So how am I to resolve this apparant contradiction between my poststructural beliefs and Bourdieu's identification of 'objective structures'? Can they fit together, or do they destroy each other as matter and anti-matter would?
Objectivity, in all its apparent forms may appear to be a 'truth', but such is the danger when one looks at one's own culture from within. I had always considered 'objective truths' within the field of social activities to be constructions of hegemonic discourses: 'truths' that could be changed, but only by those with the appropriate cultural and symbolic capital. In reviewing literature in this area (of which there is a mountainous amount) I was drawn to the work of James Paul Gee on Discourse Analysis.
The two central concepts at the heart of Gee's model of discourse analysis are "situated meanings" and "cultural models." (1999). With reference to both these concepts, there is a continual dependence on situational context for meaning-making. Let me take each of these concepts in turn, discussing their implications for my approach in dealing with the 'objective structures' identified by Bourdieu.
Situated meanings are based on a "pattern-recognition" (Gee, 1999, 48-52) model of the mind. It is based on an understanding that meaning is not an objective reality, but rather something situated in actual practices and experiences: "...meaning is multiple, flexible, and tied to culture." (40) Further, "...meanings are situated in relationship to history and in relationship to other texts and voices." (41) Meaning-making is thus tied up continually with contextual factors determined by the 'cultural models' at work in any given situation.
This concept in fact has a good deal in common with Bourdieu's understanding of the way habitus works for individuals in social situations, across fields. Indeed, as Schirato and Yell point out, cultural context is an essential component of Bourdieu's theories: "...practice, or what people actually do, is constrained by, and develops as a response to, the rules and conventions of a culture." (Schirato & Yell, 2000, 1). Both are based on an understanding of the deployment of dispositions, or actions, in response to a contextualised meaning. Through Bourdieu we might configure this relation as being one about how activities are conducted in response to a particular field, where the individual deploys responses according to their habitus, which is augmented by the 'capital' they have access to in that particular concept. It is here where his concept of 'objective structures' comes into play, as a determining aspect of social relations that helps define the capital that one is able to realise in certain contexts. Part of the structure of 'symbolic violence' is the necessary importance of 'misrecognition'. In this process "...agents are subjected to forms of violence...but they do not perceive it that way; rather, their situation seems to them to be 'the natural order of things'." (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002, 25). It seems therefore that 'symbolic violence' is the way in which 'objective structures' may be maintained and gain their 'objectivity' in the mind of individuals. Whether or not we can equate 'objective structures' with 'cultural models' is a difficult and complex question.
At it's simplest level, Gee describes "cultural models" as being like "videotapes in the mind" (1999, 60-61), though he admits that this metaphor should not be taken too literally or simplistically, the situation being far more complicated that the description suggests prima facie (On a side-note, should we now be speaking of DVDs in the mind, or MPEGs in the the mind, avoiding the connotations of linearity that this metaphor suggests and instead moving to one that suggests we can skip to scenes without having to fast-forward through all the irrelevant 'stuff'? A rethink of the metaphor to consider.). Whilst cultural models may appear to be 'objective', this is only a result of Bourdieu's concept of 'misrecognition'. The distinction must be made though that whilst Bourdieu uses the concept of 'objective structures' as if they were external influences on social practice (well that's the implication), for Gee, the concept of 'cultural models' is always contextual and always linked to local cultural contexts. Cultural models are not an external construction of a society, but rather, shared understandings, shared Discourses (with a capital D) of individuals with similarly inculcated habituses. 'Cultural models can become emblematic visions of an idealized, "normal," "typical" reality...' (Gee, 1999, 60) yet is must be kept in mind that this is not an objective reality, but rather the construction of shared Discourses across a society. Therefore, just as with individual habitus there is variation, "Cultural models are also variable, differing across different cultural groups, including different cultural groups in a society speaking the same language. They change with time and other changes in society, as well as with new experience." (60)
Suggesting an alternative to Bourdieu's notion of 'objective structures' in order to reframe his theories in a more poststructural light, is a difficult, and no doubt, controversial move; though it is a necessary one I think. In his sociological work Bourdieu goes to great pains to be flexible, to lay open rules to breaches and difference. Therefore whilst he may say that individual interest is generally pursued at the unconscious or pre-conscious level, he still does not rule out conscious pursuit of 'interest': "There is, however, ambiguity in Bourdieu's work.... At times he admits conscious strategizing while at other times he insists on the unconscious character of interest calculation....Bourdieu is willing to recognize degrees of awareness of the interested character of some forms of action...." (Swartz, 1997, 70). It is difficult therefore to accept the place of 'objectivity', of strict certainty, within his theory.
I seek to move beyond any absolute certainty in the reality of social practices, to a more fluid understanding of social relations caught up in symbolic systems of power, 'cultural models', or 'Discourses'. As society and culture seems to move and change so rapidly - the massive impact of mobile technologies on social life is a dramatic demonstration of rapid change - we need a sociological understanding that is capable of accounting for these rapid changes, without getting caught up by principles of objectivity. I do not see this as leaving me at the mercy of unresolved and rampant subjectivism either: concepts such as Gee's 'cultural models' and the manner in which capital is continually reproduced as 'the natural' through Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic violence', point to understandings of everyday life and the literacies involved therein, that can account for stability, as well as change.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge.
Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction (2nd ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Webb, J., Schirato, T. & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
I must comment that when I first read the term 'objective structures' in Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (1991) it did catch my eye. A small splinter in the back of my brain seemed to suggest that there was something 'wrong' here, something amiss, something that did not seem to gel with the rest of my poststructural leanings. Indeed, the very idea of something being 'objective' in any way shape of form, seems highly problematic to me, similar to describing the ocean as blue, when we actually know that this is a perceptual trick of light. This continual reference to 'objective phenomena' seems to be spread throughout Bourdieu's work, underlining his structuralist perspective. However, it remains something that I find difficult to accept.
So how am I to resolve this apparant contradiction between my poststructural beliefs and Bourdieu's identification of 'objective structures'? Can they fit together, or do they destroy each other as matter and anti-matter would?
Objectivity, in all its apparent forms may appear to be a 'truth', but such is the danger when one looks at one's own culture from within. I had always considered 'objective truths' within the field of social activities to be constructions of hegemonic discourses: 'truths' that could be changed, but only by those with the appropriate cultural and symbolic capital. In reviewing literature in this area (of which there is a mountainous amount) I was drawn to the work of James Paul Gee on Discourse Analysis.
The two central concepts at the heart of Gee's model of discourse analysis are "situated meanings" and "cultural models." (1999). With reference to both these concepts, there is a continual dependence on situational context for meaning-making. Let me take each of these concepts in turn, discussing their implications for my approach in dealing with the 'objective structures' identified by Bourdieu.
Situated meanings are based on a "pattern-recognition" (Gee, 1999, 48-52) model of the mind. It is based on an understanding that meaning is not an objective reality, but rather something situated in actual practices and experiences: "...meaning is multiple, flexible, and tied to culture." (40) Further, "...meanings are situated in relationship to history and in relationship to other texts and voices." (41) Meaning-making is thus tied up continually with contextual factors determined by the 'cultural models' at work in any given situation.
This concept in fact has a good deal in common with Bourdieu's understanding of the way habitus works for individuals in social situations, across fields. Indeed, as Schirato and Yell point out, cultural context is an essential component of Bourdieu's theories: "...practice, or what people actually do, is constrained by, and develops as a response to, the rules and conventions of a culture." (Schirato & Yell, 2000, 1). Both are based on an understanding of the deployment of dispositions, or actions, in response to a contextualised meaning. Through Bourdieu we might configure this relation as being one about how activities are conducted in response to a particular field, where the individual deploys responses according to their habitus, which is augmented by the 'capital' they have access to in that particular concept. It is here where his concept of 'objective structures' comes into play, as a determining aspect of social relations that helps define the capital that one is able to realise in certain contexts. Part of the structure of 'symbolic violence' is the necessary importance of 'misrecognition'. In this process "...agents are subjected to forms of violence...but they do not perceive it that way; rather, their situation seems to them to be 'the natural order of things'." (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002, 25). It seems therefore that 'symbolic violence' is the way in which 'objective structures' may be maintained and gain their 'objectivity' in the mind of individuals. Whether or not we can equate 'objective structures' with 'cultural models' is a difficult and complex question.
At it's simplest level, Gee describes "cultural models" as being like "videotapes in the mind" (1999, 60-61), though he admits that this metaphor should not be taken too literally or simplistically, the situation being far more complicated that the description suggests prima facie (On a side-note, should we now be speaking of DVDs in the mind, or MPEGs in the the mind, avoiding the connotations of linearity that this metaphor suggests and instead moving to one that suggests we can skip to scenes without having to fast-forward through all the irrelevant 'stuff'? A rethink of the metaphor to consider.). Whilst cultural models may appear to be 'objective', this is only a result of Bourdieu's concept of 'misrecognition'. The distinction must be made though that whilst Bourdieu uses the concept of 'objective structures' as if they were external influences on social practice (well that's the implication), for Gee, the concept of 'cultural models' is always contextual and always linked to local cultural contexts. Cultural models are not an external construction of a society, but rather, shared understandings, shared Discourses (with a capital D) of individuals with similarly inculcated habituses. 'Cultural models can become emblematic visions of an idealized, "normal," "typical" reality...' (Gee, 1999, 60) yet is must be kept in mind that this is not an objective reality, but rather the construction of shared Discourses across a society. Therefore, just as with individual habitus there is variation, "Cultural models are also variable, differing across different cultural groups, including different cultural groups in a society speaking the same language. They change with time and other changes in society, as well as with new experience." (60)
Suggesting an alternative to Bourdieu's notion of 'objective structures' in order to reframe his theories in a more poststructural light, is a difficult, and no doubt, controversial move; though it is a necessary one I think. In his sociological work Bourdieu goes to great pains to be flexible, to lay open rules to breaches and difference. Therefore whilst he may say that individual interest is generally pursued at the unconscious or pre-conscious level, he still does not rule out conscious pursuit of 'interest': "There is, however, ambiguity in Bourdieu's work.... At times he admits conscious strategizing while at other times he insists on the unconscious character of interest calculation....Bourdieu is willing to recognize degrees of awareness of the interested character of some forms of action...." (Swartz, 1997, 70). It is difficult therefore to accept the place of 'objectivity', of strict certainty, within his theory.
I seek to move beyond any absolute certainty in the reality of social practices, to a more fluid understanding of social relations caught up in symbolic systems of power, 'cultural models', or 'Discourses'. As society and culture seems to move and change so rapidly - the massive impact of mobile technologies on social life is a dramatic demonstration of rapid change - we need a sociological understanding that is capable of accounting for these rapid changes, without getting caught up by principles of objectivity. I do not see this as leaving me at the mercy of unresolved and rampant subjectivism either: concepts such as Gee's 'cultural models' and the manner in which capital is continually reproduced as 'the natural' through Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic violence', point to understandings of everyday life and the literacies involved therein, that can account for stability, as well as change.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge.
Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction (2nd ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Webb, J., Schirato, T. & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Labels: Bourdieu, Methodology, Objective structures, Poststructuralism
posted by Calvin Taylor at 12:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home