In this book review, I will be looking at Pierre Bourdieu’s 1979 book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. I will examine the key ideas presented by Bourdieu and then evaluate the relevance of his book almost 40 years later.
Pierre Bourdieu was a French sociologist. Bourdieu’s work mostly focused on the power dynamics that exist in society and the ways in which power is transferred and maintained across generation and in society. Through his work Bourdieu introduced many influential idea’s such as cultural, social and symbolic capital, the habitus and more. Bourdieu’s most well know book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste originally published in France in 1979. According to the International Sociology Association Distinction is the 6th most influential books for sociology of the twentieth century. It has arguably shaped the concerns of contemporary sociology more deeply and extensively than other single text. (Introduction) (Tony Bennett).
Bourdieu’s work was influenced largely by traditional sociology which he used as the basis of his own theory’s. Bourdieu’s ideas were different to those of structuralists who studied elements of human culture by looking at their relationship to the wider system of culture. At the time that Bourdieu was collecting his data that he later used in Distinction structuralist theory was being criticised by some for its inflexibility. Bourdieu instead sought to achieve a more quantitative approach to sociology. Bourdieu used the ideas of Weber of the importance of symbolism in social life and the idea of social order and expanded these into the theory of fields. Whereas Marx believed that the ruling class oppressed and exploited working class through the possession of the means of production. Bourdieu believed instead that class positions are instead defined by the possession of social, economic and cultural capital.
Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste was published in 1979. It is based in the research that Bourdieu conducted from 1963-1968. “Based on a survey by questionnaire carried out in 1963 and 967-68, on a sample of 1,217 people” (Pg.5). Originally published in French the book was translated and published in English in 1984. Based on an endeavour to rethink Max Weber’s opposition between class and Stand (preface). It is based on two surveys conducted by Bourdieu’s research group and included data from other French surveys carried out in 1970 by INSEE (Appendix 2). ‘The survey sought to determine how the cultivated disposition and cultural competence that are revealed in the nature of the cultural good consumed, an in the way they are consumed, vary according to the category of agents and the area to which they applied, from the most legitimate area’s such as painting or music to the most personal ones’ (pg.5). The individuals where questioned on a variety of things such as their knowledge, opinions and tastes on activities such as music, food, reading and more. Two basic facts that where established by the survey’s “very close relationships linking cultural practises to educational practises and secondarily to social origin.” (pg. 5)
In this book Bourdieu describes how an individual chooses to present their social status through the possession of capital. Bourdieu claims that this definition of oneself begins at an early age and that children are naturally guided towards their social positions through learned behaviours. This happens through “knowing the relationship which exists between cultural capital inherited from the family and academic capital, by virtue of the logic of the transmission of cultural capital (pg.14)”. These relationships create social structures
Bourdieu argues that social structures are created by human beings and are not something that have a distinct and independent existence. In Distinction Bourdieu claims that social structures are something that is reproduced. Bourdieu believed that culture is part of a social system which controlled by forces such as the distribution of wealth. Cultural capital as defined in Distinction has three key elements social, economic and inherited. Social Capital is not clearly defined. Economic capital is the money and assets that an individual has. Inherited cultural capital is the reproduction of certain culture within an institution such as school.
Bourdieu saw the education system as an institution that transmitted parts of the dominant culture. The education system is a key way in which an individual acquire culture. “Disposition towards legitimate culture, which is first acquired with respect to scholastically recognized knowledge and practises” (pg.15) In the education system, there is a constant struggle between class. The culture of the ruling middle class “tends to be applied beyond the bounds of the curriculum” (pg.15). This is because those who have the power to over the education system constantly seeks to force their cultural preferences and values on the education system. This leads to a conflict between the culture that working-class students experience in school and outside of school. “Even in the classroom, the dominant definition of the legitimate way of appropriating culture and works of arts favours those who have early access to legitimate culture”. (Introduction to 1st ed p xxv)
Distinction identifies what Bourdieu believed to be the three fundamental types of tastes present in the twentieth century. “Taste is the practical operator of the of the transmutation of things into distinct and distinctive signs. (pg.170)”. The first is based on freedom of choice where the individual can place value on behaviours that satisfy them the most. The second is similar to the first but the individual may lack the ability to do so because of a lack of cultural capital. The third places value in the satisfaction that comes from living in comfort. Therefore, taste is a fundamental illustration of cultural hegemony and of how class fractions are determined. “Taste are the practices affirmation of inevitable difference” (pg.49)
Class fractions are the choices that a person’s makes that creates distance one social class from another. “The members of the different social classes differ not so much in the extent to which they acknowledge culture as in the extent to which they know it” (pg.318). These fractions are created by a preference for foods, music, art etc. that are taught to children through early socialisation mostly in the home that place them in a certain social class. This is because an individual is taught taste at an early age and therefore is internalized and are difficult to change. “Taste in an acquired disposition to differentiate and appreciate (pg.469)” . Therefore, individuals tend to be permanently identified as belonging to a certain social class which affects social mobility. Because of this the culture and tastes of the ruling middle class tend to have precedent of the tastes of other social classes, which is reproduced in institution such as schools. Individuals therefore have to conform to the culture and tastes of the dominated classes so that they don’t appear to be tasteless. In the process of identifying individuals with a social group and the distinction between social group through a variety of factors such as beliefs and practises, a natural hierarchy occurs in society in which social hierarchy appears normal and not based on power.
Through the process of identifying oneself with a social group and the distinction between groups through a variety of factors such as, beliefs and practises a natural hierarchy occurs in society in which hierarchy is seen as normal and not power based. These rooted ideas or habitus are deeply rooted in society and act as an invisible hand that controls our culture. This habitus is not fixed but is dependent on individual capital acquired by an individual as they socialise
In Distinction, Bourdieu defines three classes all identified by their tastes, the bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie and the working class. “Each class is defined, simultaneously by its intrinsic properties and by the relational properties which derives from its positions in the system of class conditions (pg. 166)”. Taste is defined by Bourdieu as “the practical operator of the of the transmutation of things into distinct and distinctive signs” (pg.170.) The bourgeois posses the highest amount of economic capital. Because of this they are free to have a preference for culture and practises such as theatre going.” Bourgeois culture… acquires, preverbal by early immersion in a world of cultivated people, practises and objects.” (pg. 67). This freedom is opposite to that of the working class. Having very little economic capital, they are constantly troubled by the necessity for material things. “Cannot ever purchase…without a painful sense of wasting money” (pg.375). Bourdieu argues that this necessity therefore determines taste and actual choice. “Stem from a choice of the necessary both in the sense of what is technically necessary ‘practical …and of what is imposed by an economic and social necessity.” (Pg. 379-380) According to Bourdieu “the petit bourgeoisie is a proletarian who makes himself small to became bourgeois” (pg.338).
Criticisms have been made of the concepts that Bourdieu explores in Distinction for many reasons such as the lack of clarity in for some concepts such as Habitus. The “book will strike the reader as ‘very French’’’ (Preface). John Goldthorpe argues that “Bourdieu's view of the transmission of cultural capital as a key process in social reproduction is simply wrong”. And the more detailed findings of the research, as noted above, could then have been taken as helping to explain just why it is wrong. That is, because differing class conditions do not give rise to such distinctive and abiding forms of habitus as Bourdieu would suppose”. Because of Bourdieu’s traditional views of class, he doesn’t seem to fully describe the changes brought about through capitalism. His concept of habitus is meant to be a solution to this problem. However, Bourdieu offers to many definitions of habitus on his book creating confusion. Another criticism is that sometimes Bourdieu defines the differences between social, education and economic capital but sometimes he does not and this creates confusion. Another issue is that Bourdieu’s data is more than 35 years old and therefore some of the practises he defines are no longer high-class practises for example listening to the radio and or owning a tape recorder. There’s also an issue because “the upper and middle classes were over represented” (appendix 1 p.506). However, it’s theories and concepts have become part of the vocabularies which now routinely inform the term in which questions concerning the relations between such policies and questions of social stratification are posed (Introduction)
In conclusion, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste is a highly complicated and dense book to read. Some of the concepts introduced by Bourdieu are both confusing and also irrelevant in term of the context of today. However, Bourdieu does introduce idea’s that have been fundamental in shaping the way that sociology has been viewed and research that has taken place since the book was published over 30 years ago.