|
. |
J.P.Roos The ‘Arctic Bourdieu’: Four theses from the Nordic countries (Comments welcome! j.p.roos@helsinki.fi, )
Johs. Hjellbrekke: Yard Work and Worker Memories. An analysis of
fields and practices of remembering from a relationist standpoint.
Department of Sociology, University of Bergen 1999 354 p
Introduction
It is an interesting coincidence that precisely when Pierre Bourdieu as a person and the Bourdieusian approach have come under intense criticism in France (and in the US, but not with same motives), his Nordic adepts publish no less than four explicitly bourdieusian PhD theses, where the main problem is how to apply the framework to an area or problem where it has not been used (with the exception of Rahkonen's thesis which partly covers central ground but contains also an attempt to apply the bourdieusian approach to Bourdieu himself). All these theses refer also to the magnum opus of Donald Broady from 1990, a thesis which set as its goal to uncover all the theoretical roots from which the sepcifically bourdieusian theoretical concept grows. Unfortunately they ignore the very high quality thesis of Niilo Kauppi 1991 (again with the exception of Rahkonen) which applies the bourdieusian framework to Tel Quel and has been shamelessly exploited by Louis Pinto (1992). This is incidentally one of the true disadvantages of periphery: if you come up with something really original and interesting, but cannot safeguard yourself (through public acknowledgement), your work will be exploited by those in the center, whose interest is precisely not to reveal where the ideas have come from. There are quite a few additional bourdieusian theses in more marginal disciplines (education, cultural studies, nursing) published during the 90's, such as M'hamed Sabour's on the Arab Intellectuals, Erik Peurells on Jan Fridegard and a recent thesis on Homehelpers’ practices (by Marianne Hamann-Johnsen 1999). In Denmark, Callewaert has pointed out especially the following three theses: Karin Anna Petersens Sygeplejevidenskap - myte eller virkelighed (1998), Per Gecklers: Impacts of basic education reform in independent Namibia (2000) and Kristian Larsens observational study of nurses' practices (2000). Others who have aborded Bourdieu have been more established (Callewaert, Osterberg, Broady) and/or published mainly articles. Callewaerts Bourdieu-studier I-III may be mentioned as an example as well as a recent collection of important articles on the use of the bourdieusian field concept should be mentioned (Broady ed 1999). In all Nordic countries, there are several translations of Bourdieu's works, but here Sweden is definitely in the forefront with transaltions of several of Bourdieu's major works. In my own country Finland, we have translations of the essay collections or pamphlets only (for good Bourdieu Internet-pages with bibliographies go to “Les pages Bourdieu” or “Hyper-Bourdieu” or just to Google.com and write Bourdieu (you may wish to specify the language) in the search box (a search in August 2000 produced 32 000 different sites!) All the theses are more or less parallel and independent of the critical surge in France, so that there is no direct discussion of the polemics. Let me mention here only the book by Jeanine Verdes-Leroux (1998) which helped unleash a ferocious media discussion on Bourdieu, and the book edited by Bernard Lahire (1999) which makes an attempt to present a critique which would still be debatable even by those who accept the bourdieusian framework. The book by Louis Pinto (1999) belongs to the category of rather uncritical (and dishonest: Pinto tries ingenuously to dissimulate the central but subordinated position he has in the bourdieusian camp) exposés (of which an even more exalted version can be found in the small book published by Patrick Champagne which includes a lecture by Bourdieu on the field concept as well as an introduction by Champagne. The mutual admiration seeps through every sentence, so that Bourdieu has the highest esteem for the agricultural sociologists and Champagne for Bourdieu. Of this kind of mutual capital boosting there are already several other examples: the discussion between Haack and Bourdieu or the recent discussion between Grass and Bourdieu are typical. For me it is truly astonishing, how little self- reflexivity is displayed here, especially in view of the high requirements posed by Bourdieu in this respect .... My "own" Bourdieu Let me present my own starting point: I have translated
one book by Bourdieu into Finnish, I have reviewed several of his books,
I have been instrumental in directing many students into using the bourdieusian
framework, and I have used him in my own research (even in consulting marketing
research, which shows that the bourdieusian approach can be put into very
practical and profitable uses - unfortunately not for me!). On the other
hand, my major interest being life stories, there have been several
points of difference of opinion and the article by Bourdieu on the biographical
fallacy was not a very convincing bourdieusian intervention in my own field.
After Misere du Monde, which makes several misleading claims about how
to interview powerless and excluded people (simply showing
the lack of knowledge by the master) and which on the other hand makes
all the mistakes criticised in the biographical fallacy (especially
taking the stories of the downtrodden at face value), my relationship to
Bourdieu has become more critical but still definitely appreciative. I
still think that his contribution to sociology will be of permanent value
and that he has introduced concepts which simply must be used, if we wish
to discuss the social world adequately. He is one of the few who operates
simultaneously between the fundamental aspects of structure, agency, space
and gender. Strangely, only time escapes him, perhaps because of his partial
blindness to the (life) historical dimension, notwithstanding some claims
to the contrary (and the obvious potential of the habitus).
Is Bourdieu a constructionist?
I will start on a few common points. For instance, in all the empirical theses, the bourdieusian strict requirement of relationalism (or contextualisation), is not fulfilled. Also, even though a new field is approached, the necessary empirical-theoretical construction of the new concepts is not undertaken. Thus the concept of field remains in all cases "underdeveloped", an abstract field. In fact, it is a legitimate question whether the field concept actually works only in the cultural field or then what are the actual limits of the concept (see also Broady (ed) 1998, which contains numerous studies about the cultural field). My first question addresses the point which is common to all of
the theses under debate: there is an underlying assumption that Bourdieu
is a social constructionist, and more precisely a constructionist
structuralist or a structuralist constructionist (depending on what you
want to emphasize as primary). I know well that Bourdieu hates all labels,
but this is an important fundamental question. And we know that he likes
to combine very different approaches, claiming that they must be treated
simultaneously. My term for him would be critical sociological unificationist:
a sociologist who believes in the necessity of unifying several seemingly
irreconcilable approaches and concepts and who is actually quite eclectic
in his theoretical work. But I definitely recuse the thesis that
Bourdieu is a structural constructionist, at least if we understand by
constructionism the principle that social reality must first of all be
constructed, that it is not discovered or revealed, and that
thedifferent constructions are in principle equal, being just different
interpretations and understandings of the infinitely malleable social “material”.
In my view it is quite clear that Bourdieu adheres to the thesis that there
is a social reality which we (the researchers) must discover. It is very
complex, and dependent of our own interests and habituses, but it is possible
to eliminate all ideological weeds and point out the real structure underlying
all the hype. The task of social scientist is precisely to avoid the pitfalls
lying in waiting for journalists, politicians, people who rely only
upon the surface and its deceptive forms. Also, it is the task of the sociologist
to show the relations between the various agents of the real world, that
is construct a field in which they act and which makes their acts and intepretations
understandable (and even predictable). So there is construction,
but construction in a very different sense from social constructionism.
A bourdieusian sociologist constructs his basic concepts and relationships
so that they are most adequate in relation to the social reality,
being aware of the inherent feedback and reflexivity of this reality. He
would never say that this is just a construction amond others. Or
that the construction is dependent on our freely formed interpretations
of the social world. This would be anathema in the bourdieusian framework!
Therefore, to put it crassly, most of the more constructionist bourdieu-interpretations
are simply misreadings
It is easy to classify the theses in relation to this question: Rahkonen is an extreme constructionist who has to resort to very acrobatic tricks to fit Bourdieu into his framework, Mjaatvedt is a soft constructionist, while both Munk and Hjellbrekke are strictly “orthodox” bourdieusians in this question.
"Not class but struggle" is a so-called article thesis:
it consists of a collection of previously published articles with an introduction/summary
written specifically for the book. Although it contains articles from as
far back as 1985, it is not very extensive: in fact it is the shortest
of the four theses. Keijo Rahkonen is a close colleague
(and friend) of mine, which is obvious from the fact that two of the articles
have been coauthored by me. Consequently I shall not try to present a critical
review, just to give an idea what the book is about and discuss some general
problems. It should also be noted that one of the articles "Truth as fiction",
is explicitly a critique of my position concerning the reality of life
stories.
And it should be noted that Bourdieu is also a definitely "modernist" author, for whom the post-modern sociology is just plain rubbish. Even though he has had some common political actions with Derrida, this does not extend to theoretical field. A recent volume in Liber /Raisons d‘Agir by Jacques Bouveresse shows this well. It is a consecration of Sokal-Bricmont from a bourdieusian perspective. This is a difficult matter for Rahkonen, who is a convinced postmodernist/relativist. He has been obliged to do some acrobatics to create the illusion of being a true bourdivine. And sometimes he falls flat outside the net, especially so in the biography text. But not always: both his summary and the article on Nietzsche keep to common philosophical premises for Bourdieu and Rahkonen and do not venture outside the limits set by the Bourdieusian enterprise. Unfortunately this also means that the critique does not go very deep. Mjaatvedt Olav Mjaatvedts "Trill rundt" (Roll around) tries to apply
Bourdieu to transportation, more precisely to the users of transportation
and to the marketing of cars. I would describe it with some exaggeration
as a "postmodernist" Bourdieu-development, which is a critical, not a positive
comment. Why postmodernist? It seems to me that Mjaatvedt really constructs
his own Bourdieu and his own field inversely to what Bourdieu himself
has proposed. We get first a long treatment of the "historical epistemology"
which is supposed to be the fundament of bourdieusian theory, then it is
noted that actually field is a little too demanding concept here so
Mjaatvedt will treat his subject as a discourse. Then a third concept,
social space is introduced. It is said to be less demanding and
restrictive than that of field. And finally, by way of introducing us to
the field, a field of transportation is presented. This contains different
class positions, consumption items, car models (from Mercedes to 2CV and
Lada). It is not very clear what is the empirical basis of this tableau,
which looks very similar to the social spaces in The distinction.
After this we move to discussion of car advertisements directed to different
groups of consumers. This discussion is definitely the most concrete and
as such quite interesting. But it could be easily done without any kind
of bourdieusian framework. The problem is that this kind of differential
car advertisement analysis should lead to something more general, and in
this case conclusions about the field of transportation. In
connection of Mjaatvedt, one cannot speak of “results”, as the discussion
moves on a rather general level, which is somewhat irritating. Mjaatvedt
seems never to get to the real point.
Interestingly, Mjaadvedt responds also to criticism directed
to his way of using the bourdieusian concepts in saying that they are analogous
to the criticism that Bourdieu himself has encountered for concepts such
as habitus or field being irrelevant to scientific endeavour. I think this
is a slight exaggeration. It is true that Bourdieu has been criticized
for a rather extensive use of concepts. But still I think that there is
a world of difference between the loose and abstract discussion of the
transport field and the way Bourdieu is simultaneously extremely strict
and demanding, and extensive.
. Hjellbrekke Johs. Hjellbrekke’s Yard work and worker memories
is an ambitious and impressive work. Johs. Hjellbrekke combines Bourdieu,
Elias, Mannheim and Halbwachs in trying to analyse the field of yard
workers in combination with generations. These are to some extent separate
undertakings: the field positions of different skilled worker groups are
clearly distinct from generational experiences.
THE problem is how to combine the vast theoretical ambitions to the relatively limited scope of the empirical research. In general, as Hjellbrekke notes himself, the concepts of Bourdieu are not directly empirically usable and therefore it requires a lot of specific work to apply them. The same applies, of course for Halbwachs and Mannheim, whose concepts have not been intended for direct empirical use. Following problems come immediately to mind:
The empirical setup is quite dramatic: a Stavanger
shipyard which used to be owned by a well known power figure in the city
and which later was sold to Kvaerner (and has now been resold) and which
simultaneously has made a transition from shipbuilding to oil platforms.
Four groups of workers are distinguished: platers, plumbers, welders, mechanics/turners
(p. 159). These groups are then discussed as a field where they have different
positions and a certain hierarchy. They are also all in the skilled worker
category so there is not a sufficient spread.
In chapter Three ( An alternative relational approach to memory) which
is the key chapter from a theoretical point of view, bourdieusian
theory is connected to Halbwachs’ collective memory. Unfortunately it does
not fully succeed in creating a theory which would be applicable to the
questions posed in the empirical part. Of course they should not be completely
identical but there should be a correspondence so that all the different
theoretical conceptualisations come to full use and the criticisms directed
to alternative approaches can be avoided.
One special aspect which should be noted is that both Hjellbrekke and Munk are very strong on correspondence analysis, a multivariate method which is not the easiest one to use and interpret, but which has been used almost exclusively by Bourdieu in his empirical analyses. Hjellbrekke has even published a book on the method and it seems that the most recent available versions are really practical and concrete (for instance when trying to understand a location of a point, the spread of all such points is immediately shown). So both these books are very good as presentations of the use of correspondence analysis, Hjellbrekke is perhaps even clearer and more instructive. Munk
Martin Munk’s Livsbaner gjennem et felt.
(Life courses through a field) discusses again a field on which I am not
a specialist (the same goes, of course for transport or shipyards!), but
in this case I happen to be a an amateur sports enthusiast with even a
small inlkling of competitive sports . But still Munk’s field is very far
away: the Danish elite sports people and their social mobility is not exactly
close. No cross country skiers or track and field athletes here! (the track
and field star I know best is of course Kipketer, the Kenyan-Danish
runner, whereas Munk discusses football, cycling, badminton etc.)
As in all these theses the basic theory of Bourdieu is
presented here quite competently and with many variations. It is interesting
that all these these emphasize slightly different fundamental concepts:
Rahkonen struggle and taste, Mjaatvedt field, Hjellbrekke capital and Munk
capital reconversions and trajectories. And they try to connect to some
concepts or empirical questions not used by Bourdieu. In Munk’s case, social
mobility. It is astonishing that,with the exception of Daniel Bertaux,
social mobility is normally not tackled from the point of view of life
histories, even though this should be the central approach. In the bourdieusian
framework this is, however, understandable as the time dimension is curiously
hidden. Mobility is seen as movements on a field, conversions of capital,
trajectories in space. Interestingly, Munk takes very seriously the
mathematical-physical models evoked by Bourdieu to illustrate the field
concept. He even speaks of constant energy, which has implications for
reconversions, and he even recommends learning from physics. I very
much doubt that these analogies are really useful, perhaps on the contrary.
One clear problem in Munk’s discussions is a lack of life historical
specificity: it would be very interesting to see how for example a given
elite athlete actually has made these reconversions. The names I can think
of, are mainly not Danish (but I’ve heard of Bjarne Riis!)
Munk discusses the field of sports as a subfield of the
field of power (wich makes sports look more unidimensional than it really
is), as well as a structurally homologous field of social space. His analysis
is very ambitious; he deoes indeed develop very specific and contextualized
ways of treating the field of sports. One interesting problem is as the
fact that the position of of sports in the field of power is very differenyt
in different countries. This kind of comparative aspect is very difficult
to concretize. More generally, this is the problem of looking at social
and cultural space in different countries, so that whereas in France, culture
occupies as central position the same position is occupied by civil society
in the nordic countries, or is in the process of being occupied by the
media in countriels like the US or UK. To select the field
of sports in Denmark is to select a very weak field indeed, where perhaps
the individual athletes do not form a field at all? Munk thinks also
that the elite sports is becoming more autonomous; this is certainly true
when looking at the field of sports as a whole, but on the other hand this
autonomy, looked form another angle, becomes an almost total dependency
of media, markets, globalization, i.e. a loss of autonomy. Especially in
the Danish context, it becomes even more globalized and dependent of outside
forces.
To make a popular book of this work, much cutting of the empirical discussion would be needed, but also more concerete discussions which would make the discussions understandable outside the Bourdieu-oriented readership. For those who wish to use correspondence analysis, Munk’s book offers an additional bonus. Together whith Hjellbrekke they are definitely the most advanced and competent discussions of this very exotic field of multivariate analysis. General conclusions
These four books show first and foremost the true possibilities
of bourdieusian approach:
Helsinki, June 2000, Revised October 2000 Literature (Nowadays a bibliography is almost unnecessary. Just go to the net and search the references there! The Bourdieu-sites below are rather complete; if you wish to find a reference, just go and search the relevant site or a large library, such as the Library of congress or Bibliotheque nationale or a good bookstore if you wish to buy the book.) Recommended Bourdieu sites: Hyper-Bourdieu: www. iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/be/sektkf/bb/HyperBourdieu/
J.P.Roos home pages: www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/jproos
Books
Pierre Bourdieu. Propos sur le champ politique. Presses universitaires
de Lyon 2000
Back to beginning |