User:Laurier Rochon/readingnotes/bourdieu1/

Pierre Bourdieu > The Field of Cultural Production

Concepts

Notes & quotes : a primer

Bourdieu proposes a new model for critical study of cultural practices
He dissects the relationships between Systems of though <-> social institutions <-> material and symbolic power
Analysis usually comprises of empirical understanding & a rigid theoretical frame
He argues that art & cultural consumption legitimizes social differences (these differences are also accentuated by the academic institutions)
Challenges the Kantian notions of the universality of aesthetics and cultural autonomy (exclusiveness)
Bourdieu was a "blissful structuralist". He seemed to have hit a wall with structuralism.
Subjectivism is based on the primary experience, the perceptions while Objectivism focuses on "objective conditions which structure practice independent of human consciousness".
"Symbolic aspects of social life are inseparably intertwined with the material conditions of existence"
Notions of agent, habitus and field
The habitus is the intuitive "practical sense"
The field is a space with has its own laws of functioning
The agents are in the fields, (at different "positions") competing with each other
There are many types of 'capital' i.e. economic, political, cultural, linguistic, artistic, etc.
For cultural production, Symbolic capital and Cultural capital are very important. They are based on recognition and consecration more than anything else.
Agents in their respective fields enter to 'invest' their 'capital' (whatever it may be) in order to make a 'profit'
His study of cultural works takes the actual work into account (although finding meaning in only the work itself is absurd) as well as the producers and their 'strategies' (orientation of the practice) and 'trajectories' (series of successful (?) occupations in the same field by an agent)
He also wants to analyse the 'broader field of power' (another field) and the complete 'set of social conditions of the production, consumption of symbolic good'
'The full explanation of the works (...) is found in the history and structure ((history of structure also, perhaprs?)) of the field itself'. The specific economy of the cultural field though, is somewhat different from most other fields.
The important question : what social preconditions make a text possible VS the meaning that is found in the text itself
'The concept of the literary system is ultimately inadequate, for it fails to recognize that formal properties, both past and present, and themselves socially and historically constituted'
'Discourse analysis' > internal analysis > find the meaning in the work itself
Production is not only material, but also symbolic
Artistic mediators = agents
Ultimately, the analysis of context if paramount. Formalistic analysis is too reductive.
Statistical methods fail just like reflective methods, to fully understand a cultural work. The reflective methods tend to transform the producer into a medium. It assumes many things, such as the fact that a given producer is even representative of its field.
'Total context' > 'Only a method which retains a notion of intertextuality, seen as a system of different stances, and reintroduces a notion of agent, acting within a specific set of social relations, can transcend the seemingly irreconcilable differences between internet and external readings of artistic works.'
The field of cultural production is in opposition with restricted (high art) and mass (popular) production fields.
Interesting : the the mass cultural production field usually delves into the restricted field to renew itself
Again, the meaning of a certain text cannot be derived only by its content - rather it is more about the context and the field in question.
What is the meaning in Bourdieu's own work then? (If we can't extract it by solely analyzing the formality of it, but rather the field, etc. of it?) (while true ask question) ...
'THe understanding of a work of art depends fully on the possession of the code into which it has been encoded, and this is neither a natural nor universally distributed capability.'
The essential explanation of each work lies outside each of them, in the objective relations which constitute this field
Every position in the field is a result of the determination it imposes on other fields - and is reflective of the structure of the distribution of capital (i.e. literary prestige) in the field. (complete relativity?)
The 'space of possibles' is objective (is it malleable?). Thus, every change in a field results in a change in other fields, even if the latter keep an identical position. (adaptive repositining?).
Parody is one very powerful repositioning force - it recontextualizes a 'classic work'
Literary and artistic fields are ones of position-takings. The 'unifying principle of this system is the struggle'.
What would a 'graphic' look like, representing the different fields in relation to each other?
What is the link between formalist approaches, art for art's sake (refers to itself only) and conceptual art (idea vs production)?
For a work of art to exist, it must my socially insituted and recognized as such by spectators
If a work = material AND symbolic value (the production of the value of the work), then critics, publishers, gallery directors, etc. (as they make the viewers capable of making the art exist -> recognizing them as such) contribute to the work (they transform the field of which meaning can be derived from)
The struggle in the field of cultural production over the imposition of the legitimate mode of cultural production -> The struggle within the dominant class (artists vs bourgeois) to impose the dominant principle of domination
'The fundamental stake in literary struggles is the monopoly of literacy legitimacy'. 'The power to say with authority who are authorized to call themselves writers'.
The cultural producers, who occupy the economically dominated and symbolically dominant position within the field of cultural production, tend to feel solidarity with the occupants of the economically and culturally dominated positions within the field of class relations. They are able to mobilize the potential strength of the dominant classes to undermine the order of the field of power.
The literary field is itself defined by its position in the hierarchy of the arts
There are three competing principles of legitimacy : 1) from within the art world (art for art's sake) 2) coming from the dominant classes (power of consecration) 3) coming from the mass population (power of the number)
- - -
What if we apply Bourdieu's analysis on his own text? (he usually deals with literature)
p46. Interesting idea : how two agents at 2 opposite poles may contribute to a field with their completely inverted strategies
p47. hierarchy in the field > poetry, novel, drama (in order) [how does this relate to Ergodic Literature - where all genres are somewhat mixed up]
p50. "since the collective bad faith which is the basis of a universe sustained by denial of the economy helps to support the effort of individua l bad faith which makes it possible to experience failure in this world as election hereafter, and the incompre hension of the audience as an effect of the prophetic refusal to compromise with the demands of an audience attached to old norms of production" ?
p53. "It follows that..." ?
Actually...the whole aim of "Genesis of a structure" is not entierly clear to me. Economical change in the 1880s, how did this affect the field of cultural production?
p55. Changes that affect the structure of a field are both internal and external
p58. Self-reflective process : social (external) conditions affect the writing, which in turn affect the social conditions.
p59. "The history of the field arises from the struggle between the estalished figures and the young challengers."
p60. Duchamp was the last of a family of painters. Therefore he knew everything about the field, and could think 'many moves ahead'.
How can this (if at all) relate to ergodic literature (text that requires non-trivial effort to traverse)? How does cybertext, interactive literature, change the structure of the field of productions? What does the will of the producer to create an open-ended scenario tell us about the production/consumption cycle - the desire for literary consecration? How does literature change if applied to new mediums (other than books).

Post-discussion notes 1

The title Theory Colloquium : what does it mean? Would it be more pertinent to call it Critical Reflection?
Theory is a codeword for a certain discourse (for the arts and academia at least)
Why discuss theory? Especially in a program of centered on practice? (theory = point of view, perspective). Perhaps because even practice relies on an implicit theory, whatever it may be. Can practice even exist without some form of theory behind it?
What and why is there a separation between theory and practice? This split is very Platonic, and has been challenged in eastern philosophy a lot.
Theories from arts & humanities VS science & mathematics. One is empirical (based on reasoning) while the latter is scientific (based on proof).
Theory = I have a point of view VS theory = I have proof that...or logic VS rhetoric (Plato!)
According to Bourdieu, there is nothing but the institution - all is formed by the field, and the fomality of the work basically stops to exist.