The History Of The Bourdieus Sociology Sociology Essay

The History Of The Bourdieus Sociology Sociology Essay Pierre Bourdieu was born in France in 1930 and died in 2002. He is well known for his works in the field of Sociology, Anthropology and Philosophy. He is best known for his theory of class distinction, which he theorised in his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Another theory he worked on was the theory of power and practice, where he dealt with subjects such as Symbolic power and habitus.  [1]   In Bourdieus view, agency and structure constantly sustain power, which is created within a culture and can become symbolic. This happens due to what he refers to as habitus. Habitus represents the norms and rules of society which are used to control peoples behaviour and way of thinking. Habitus is the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, which then guide them (Navarro, 2006). Society is the one that creates habitus. The patterns developed can be transferred from a context to another and they change given different circumstances or a different period of time. Habitus is not fixed or permanent, and can be changed under unexpected situations or over a long historical period (Navarro, 2006). Free will and structures interact and give rise to habitus. There is no need for conscious thought or deliberate pursuit of coherence. In addition to habitus, Bourdieu talked about the concept of fields. These refer to several social or institutional networks where people can interact with others, thus showing their different kinds of capital and expressing their dispositions. Networks can be represented by relationships formed among people, relationships based on similarities such as: religion, education, culture. Power is not experienced in the same way in all environments; this means that the context a person is in has a big influence on habitus. Different contexts have an influence on the way people react to power. While a person could not be affected by power in one field, the same person could see it as a challenge in a different one. Bourdieu also talked about a concept he called capital. He elaborated on three types of capital, which go beyond material assets: cultural capital, symbolic capital and social capital. These concepts were presented in Bourdieus book Distinction where he argued that society maintains its order by following the rules of language, values, education, thinking or activities. These norms that people follow lead them to accept without thinking the differences present in society, the hierarchies made and the social inequality surrounding them. The three elements: habitus, capital and field play a central role in Bourdieus theory of Practice. These interact with each other forming the actions of people. A persons dispositions, or habitus, her capital and the fields in which she operates form her action repertoire. Social capital is one of the forms of capital mentioned by Bourdieu in his theories. It can refer to the networks of friends a person has, to the networks of the family or acquaintances or even of contacts. Social capital brings befits to a person by exerting preferential treatment towards in group members. Bourdieus economic capital refers to the material possessions of a person, for instance money and property. Having a low economic capital implies not having as many possessions or chances to afford high priced affairs. A high economic capital means a person owns more material possessions and is able to afford luxurious things. However, having a high economic capital does not mean a person is considered from a higher class. What Bourdieu suggests is that economic capital only combined with cultural capital forms the hierarchy of classes. Cultural capital plays an important role in the hierarchy of society. It is used by higher classes as a way to distinguish themselves from lower classes. It is a form of domination that is not based on economic domination. Instead, taste is the primary weapon of differentiation. Focusing on taste preferences instead of material assets became a method to hide inequality while still maintaining a well-defined line between lower and higher classes. Cultural capital is formed by the cultural knowledge and goods a person possesses. This form of capital includes artistic preferences and taste, educational background, aesthetic taste in fashion or furniture, as well as many others. Bourdieus theory of distinction states that cultural capital is represented by: cultivated disposition, which can be verbal facility, the way in which a person expresses herself in a conversation, but it can also be body posture, manners and general behaviour. Other representatives of cultural capital can be material objects that require specialised knowledge to appreciate, such as sculptures or old pieces of art which are not well-known by the general population. In addition to these, he argues that cultural capital is institutionalised, which refers to the educational background of a person. Attending a high ranked University is usually evidence of a higher level of cultural knowledge. Symbolic capital is closely related to cultural capital and symbolic forms and it refers to recognised legitimation by the society. The place a person occupies in society and the way society responds to that becomes symbolic capital. Being recognised as an influential or knowledgeable person offers one a high symbolic capital. It becomes a source of power which can be used by its holder. When this power is utilised by someone, that person exercised symbolic violence. Symbolic violence represents the imposition of a certain way of thinking upon another person. It imposes social order because it is embedded in peoples unconscious, making them follow the dominant or superior persons way of thinking. Bourdieu argues that social origin and cultural capital are the most important. He claims that although social and economic capital are indeed acquired as time passes, both of them depend on the social origins and cultural knowledge of a person. Another topic Bourdieu elaborated on was Social Illusion. He saw reality as being constituted from a number of roles people follow. Everyone engages and follows their own path in life, similar to how a character from a book follows the storyline. The rules and norms society follows add a sense of reality and help the formation of the social illusion. Like a fictional character, a human being has a beginning- his birth, and an end-his death. The beginning is associated with someones cause, reason to be there while the end reminds of his purpose, the role he managed to play. Bourdieu called this sequence of events biographical illusion. There are some attributes that contour the created illusion. The symbolic power of the sate supports these attributes by giving people dates of birth, citizen numbers, grouping them based on nationalities and sex. People often compare life to a story that is being written as time passes. They see it as a journey in which decisions guide the outcome of t he narration. Bourdieu constructed his theories based on real life circumstances that intrigued him. This means the theories can be tested by others as well, by applying them to a personal context. An example of social networks I am part of would constitute my participation in the Rotaract club. This allowed me to interact with other peers, have conversations in which we exchanged knowledge but which also allowed people to show their cultural capital. Being part of the club requires one to pass through a process of admission, which means that it is necessary for one to possess a certain amount of capital to enter. Once in, how you express your dispositions becomes one of the things other members notice first about you. The norms, or habitus, of the group can soon be observed as being different from the patterns developed in other circumstances. These patterns are assimilated by new members in an unconscious way and create a new way of thinking for that person. The objective experiences one has bec ome subjective, interpreted in different ways by everyone. This social network, or field, constitutes one part of my social capital. In addition to this network, being part of a class in high-school, maintaining a group of friends or even being part of my family is considered a part of my social capital. Similar to my capital, is the social capital of one of my friends. However, attending a different school, being part of a different family and having a different group of friends influences the amount of benefits he could gain from being part of a network. Our systems of dispositions might indeed be similar at a superficial level, given that we both come from the same class, in the same society. However, our acquired schemes of thought and perception differ at a deeper level. Institutional education as well as family education influences the most profound cognitive interactions. I received an education focused on science, which gave me a different way to view the world compared to him, whose education was based on art and music. Little differences come from our economic capital. Comparing all of our possessions would lead to the conclusion that the only difference is him owning some musical instruments. However, the value of these instruments, an acoustic and an electrical guitar, does not put him in a different societal class. The differences in hierarchy, as Bourdieu argued, come from the quality and amount of knowledge one possesses, which form our cultural capital. Taste in food, art, music and literature are good indicators of class. Appreciating exotic food is something in common for both me and my friend. The differences would surface when comparing artistic and musical knowledge. I, for instance, cannot read music; neither can I play any instruments. But, playing the guitar is not an indicator of higher glass. Uncommon, more difficult ones, like piano or violin, are the ones that make the true hierarchy distinctions. Yet, one cannot say that cultural and economic capital are not interconnected. For example, if cultural capital is institutionalized, meaning a high ranked university plays a role in defining the hierarchies, a high economic capital is also needed to be able to afford attending the said institution. Moreover, symbolic capital could also surface from this interaction. The majority of society views high ranking universities as something out of their touch, thus, they offer respect and power to people who got in. Having prestige and power usually means being part of more groups, having more interactions with people. This implies that ones social capital is higher. In conclusion, Bourdieus theories covered most of the components of society. These components interact and form subsystems which, glued together, give rise to the unified society. Social illusion gives people reason and a story to continue. With the use of all different forms of capital, people draw boundaries between them, differentiate themselves from the crowd. But still, society maintains the control through habitus, the norms everyone follows unconsciously. And given that humans are social creatures, they need to interact; Bourdieu presented the fields, which represents the subsystem that allows people to express themselves, to show their dispositions and continue playing their role.

NIKE and Child Labor Essay examples -- Business Management

NIKE and Child Labor Nike Company started in 1984, in Portland Oregon by Tinker Hatfield, a former pole-vaulter and architect. Hatfield worked his way into the shoe industry. He got his idea from Converse’s in the early 1970’s slogan, Limousines for the Feet. In Hatfield believe our culture have a lot of interest in shoes, just as much as our culture back in the 1950’s were interested in owning cars. They began introducing their Nike shoes and products to the society by images of people and things like the production of the Nike Air Jordan. This product was named after Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan is the best basketball player and biggest star at that time. In advertisement, Michael Jordan would show us a quick lay up to the goal or a fast break away from an opponent while wearing the Air Jordan. This high top basketball shoe gave an image of speed and quick moves to a younger group of viewers. With this in mind, Hatfield and associates learned that a product had to be able to have implied performance. Know Nike is doing well in the United States. The minute the market accepted their products they started looking for alternative to minimize their cost and to increase their profit. A lot of reason caused that to happen, one of them the labor cost over here in the U.S, is higher than it is in the other countries like (China, Indonesia, Vietnam†¦etc). An estimated 200 million Children around the world go to work every day. Their ages ranges between 5 and 17 years. According to the International Labor Organization, nearly 171 million children are engaged in unsafe work environment, of which 111 million are younger than 15. Some 8.4 million children are trapped in the worst forms of child labor, including slavery, t... ...ause of the cheep labor and the benefit that heir companies gain in term of profit for example the shoes cost them in labor about $1.90 a day to produce, but on the other hand it will cost them about $6.35 an hour in the US. Therefore children are trapped going to work because governments and international agencies do not put enough priority into education and because globalization without a social dimension allows crooked employers to profit from exploiting children. In my opinion I think that the International Labor Organization, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and WTO (World Trade Organization) should work hand to hand to create and in force soon kind of rules to protect these kids from this kind of iron grip. References: 1. http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/children.cfm 2. http://www.american.edu/TED/nike.htm.

Summary of Becoming Human’s Interactive Documentary

This is a documentary by Donald C. Johanson, a paleoanthropologist. It discusses about the evidences that prove where humans did originate. The story starts in Africa where our ancestors are believed to have first stood up and eventually continued to evolve and spread out across the globe.Insights of our ancestors In Johanson’s trip to Hadar Ethiopia in 1973, he made a discovery that firmly placed this geographical location as one of the most significant hominoid fossil sites in the world.He discovered bones of a hominid, which they called Lucy. Johanson called her Lucy because when her fossils were being examined, the song â€Å"Lucy† of the Beatles was playing on the background. He suspected it to be a female because of the skeleton’s petite stature. This discovery opened a major opportunity for the study of human origin. Kaye Reed, a paleoecologist, said that Hadar Ethiopia was a place full of trees three million years ago so it was a good place for animals to live in, more importantly there was enough food for hominids to eat.In line with this, the long arms of Lucy helped her to climb trees and get away from these predators and survive. There were also fossils in Saddaman, which were probably Lucy’s species, whose foot prints proved them to be hominids for they are bipedal. The brain size and body size of the fossils also prove that they are hominids. The Homo neanderthalensis are closely related to Homo sapiens, the genus for modern humans.One paleoanthropologist thinks that Homo sapiens succeeded to survive and Neanderthals went on being extinct without contributing to the modern human gene but another one thinks that modern humans have Neanderthal genes. The culture of man’s ancestors can be seen in Australia where human expression is visible through writings. It was also conducive for aboriginal artists to paint on. Reference: Institute of Human Origin (2008). Becoming Human. Retrieved May 16, 2010, from http://www. b ecominghuman. org/node/interactive-docume

The Paradox of Tragedy

How is it possible that human beings can derive pleasure from unpleasant states? This is the question addressed by Hume in his essay On Tragedy, which lies at the heart of a long-standing philosophical discussion on tragedy. Take horror movies, for instance. Some people are terrified while watching them, or they don’t sleep for days. So why  are they doing it? Why stay in front of the screen for a horror movie?It is clear that sometimes we enjoy being spectators of tragedies. Although this may be an everyday observation, it is a surprising one. Indeed, the view of a tragedy typically produces disgust or awe in the viewer. But disgust and awe are unpleasant states. So how is it possible that we enjoy unpleasant states?It is by no chance that Hume devoted a whole essay to the topic. The rise of aesthetics in his time took place side by side with a revival of a fascination for horror. The issue had already kept busy a number of ancient philosophers. Here is, for example, what t he Roman poet Lucretius and British philosopher Thomas Hobbes had to say on it.br/>What joy it is, when out at sea the stormwinds are lashing the waters, to gaze from the shore at the heavy stress some other man is enduring! Not that anyones afflictions are in themselves a source of delight; but to realize from what troubles you yourself are free is joy indeed. Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, Book II.From what passion proceedeth it, that men take pleasure to behold from the shore the danger of them that are at sea in a tempest, or in fight, or from a safe castle to behold two armies charge one another in the field? It is certainly in the whole sum joy. else men would never flock to such a spectacle. Nevertheless there is in it both joy and grief. For as there is novelty and remembrance of [ones] own security present, which is delight; so is there also pity, which is grief But the delight is so far predominant, that men usually are content in such a case to be spectators of the misery of their friends. Hobbes, Elements of Law, 9.19.So, how to solve the paradox? More Pleasure Than Pain One first attempt, pretty obvious, consists in claiming that the pleasures involved in any spectacle of tragedy outweigh the pains. Of course I’m suffering while watching a horror movie; but that thrill, that excitement that accompanies the experience is totally worth the travail. After all, one could say, the most delectable pleasures all come with some sacrifice; in this circumstance, the sacrifice is to be horrified.On the other hand, it seems that some people do not find particular pleasure in watching horror movies. If there is any pleasure at all, it’s the pleasure of being in pain. How can that be? Pain as Catharsis A second possible approach sees in the quest for pain an attempt to find a catharsis, that is a form of liberation, from those negative emotions. It is by inflicting upon ourselves some form of punishment that we find relief from those negative emotions and feelings that we have experienced.This is, in the end, an ancient interpretation of the power and relevance of tragedy, as that form of entertainment that is quintessential to elevate our spirits by allowing them to surpass our traumas. Pain is, Sometimes, Fun Yet another, third, approach to the paradox of horror comes from philosopher  Berys  Gaut. According to him, to be in awe or in pain, to suffer, can in some circumstances be sources of enjoyment. That is, the way to pleasure is pain. In this perspective, pleasure and pain are not really opposites: they may be two sides of the very same coin. This is because what’s bad in a tragedy is not the sensation, but the scene that elicits such sensation. Such a scene is connected to a horrific emotion, and this, in turn, elicits a sensation that we find in the end pleasurable.Whether Gaut’s ingenious proposal got it right is questionable, but the paradox of horror certainly remains one of the most entertaining subjects in philosophy.