Reading Irigaray Through Bourdieu

Luce Irigaray, in her essay “The Power of Discourse and the Subordination of the Feminine,” suggests that language, as it sits now, is a dichotomy between masculine and feminine. This dichotomy functions on the masculine overriding the feminine, continually suppressing and censoring the feminine (796). This dichotomy resembles the societal structures described in Bourdieu’s “Distinctions,” where classes and groups of people are continually struggling against each other. In this case, the masculine is the upper class that possesses the ability to determine taste, or in this case the “logic” (796) between masculine and feminine discourse, and the feminine is the lower class that is subject to the upper class’ tastes, or “logic.” Yet, Irigaray suggests that women need to break from this structure and create a new structure, because even if they reach a position of power in the old dichotomy they are still “within a logic that maintains [the feminine] in repression, censorship, nonrecognition” (769). Therefore, women need to break from this dichotomy to fully realize the feminine’s logic. In this new way of thinking “there would no longer be either a right side or wrong side of discourse, or even of texts” (797). Yet, I think that transition into this new form of thinking/discourse is more difficult than Irigaray presents. If we read Irigaray’s text alongside Bourdieu’s text, women would need to gain a position of power to implement this new form of thinking/discourse, since its those groups and people in power that are able to set the rules for society (according to Bourdieu). Yet, Irigaray does not think that gaining power in the traditional dichotomy would help form this new discourse since women would still be “within a logic that maintains [the feminine] in repression, censorship, nonrecognition.” Yet, Irigaray does not fully establish a way in which discourse can break from the masculine/feminine dichotomy, making me question on how she hoped to achieve this new form of discourse. If it is not through the traditional way of class and group struggle that Bourdieu discusses, how does Irigaray hope to reach the new form of discourse?

– Sean Ettinger

Althusser in relation to Bourdieu

Reading Althusser’s “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus,” I was quickly reminded of Bourdieu’s claims about taste related to categorization of class. Bourdieu offered that taste was a reflection of class, background, race, cultural environment, education, etc. Rather than being innate, taste is closer to a production of chance. In a seemingly similar frame of mind, Althusser argues that ideologies, whether political, religious, ethical, are upheld via “imaginary relations” to vowed beliefs. In other words, an individual consciously agrees to believe in something, encouraging him or her to participate in actions that further and deepen dedication to the belief. Althusser repeatedly uses religion as an example. He explains that if a man chooses to follow Jesus, he then commits himself to activities (church, praying, biblical study) that lead to a perpetuation of the belief. Therefore, Althusser argues that ideas are sustained through actions. To Althusser, “practices” are causal for belief to exist. So from my understanding, according to Althusser, a child raised going to church is more likely to conform to religion as an adult. I agree with Althusser that related activities work to perpetuate belief, but I find that he places too much emphasis in direct practice. I think that the experience or associated emotion of a practice does much more to stimulate or deconstruct a belief than the practice itself. While Althusser looks at belief parallel to the way that Bourdieu looks at taste, I disagree, concluding that taste is much more arbitrary and externally influenced than belief.

Lacan & Bourdieu Argue Language is Governed by Structure

Lacan’s belief in “The Instance of the Letter” that the word should be taken literally frustrated me initially. His concept that ideas are merely inaccessible seemed counterintuitive. I imagined a group of people coming from different countries all recognizing the sign image of a tree before them, though they each had different words to describe this thing and different connotations associated with that thing.

Yet in this frustration Lacan reminds me of the limitations of language Bourdieu discusses that are set by social structures. In class, we discussed Lacan’s example of restroom signs representing the interaction between the signifier and the signified. We also acknowledged this example enforces a binary and limiting system of gender identification. Bourdieu would argue that this example of language is enforced by the societal belief that gender is exclusively binary due to the evolution of the human idea of what gender means and how that relates to your physical sex and needs. This presents a problem of set structure, as gender has become a more fluid concept in recent times, with an individual’s sense of self-identity meaning more than just the bathroom they enter. Even in the example of the international group of people witnessing a tree, the tree itself means different things to each person based on their past experiences and cultural values.

However these viewpoints also bear a supportive function. Everyone has an understanding of the concept and through that understanding a place or foundation of structure to build his or her understanding of language off of. Even the inclusion of gendered pronouns in the last sentence as corrected for me by my computer’s sense of grammar reflects this concept. Though these foundations may seem limiting, they also create these ideas of identity as we discussed with the bathroom example and even the tree example earlier. As people recognize an idea based on their cultural understanding of the idea (which Lacan would argue is inaccessible, however important) they then create for themselves the word associated with it, thus creating a manner through which they may access that inaccessible and otherwise indescribable and unique idea. This system of language is not innate we develop it over time ourselves, just as Bourdieu would argue.

First Run of Distinction

Even though Distinction by Pierre Bourdieu is highly confusing to me, Bourdieu brings up a lot of points that I think are very interesting. In the “Knowledge without Concepts” section, one of the points I found interesting was when Bourdieu discusses the sense of limits. He says, “The sense of limits implies forgetting the limits”(241). I’m not sure why this stuck out to me. I feel like he is trying to say in order to realize what are limits are, we must forget them for a short period of time. Another thing that stuck out to me was “bodily hexis, a basic dimension of the sense of social orientation, is a practical way of experiencing and expressing one’s own sense of social value”(243). I had to look up the meaning of hexis, but basically is it a stable arrangement or disposition of a person’s self. I think if you have a stable hexis, you are able to express your own sense and realize what exactly your social value is. Overall, I thought this piece was really confusing to me, but I would love to really break it down and see what Bourdieu is trying to say about judgment of taste.

First Run Interpretation of Bourdieu

Bordieu argues that no one really has their own “taste,” but it is forced upon them based on what they think their social class would think is appropriate. He makes it very clear that social class is not decided by oneself, but is a natural tendency that is “automatic (in) gestures or apparently most insignificant techniques of the body—ways of walking or blowing one’s nose” (239). If class is decided and taste is predetermined, is anything really constructed or new? It seems like Bordieu is saying that we all are born into these social constructs and we never evolve or create something new, but only discover additional pleasures that our class agrees upon. For example, when I read I think of fashion and clothing as being something strongly decided by class and taste. Are hipsters discovering a NEW style their weird hippie-like clothing style and mason-jar-using tendencies, or are they simply taking their old habits and recreating them into something that their class would enjoy? Because class and taste have been around so long, does something like fashion really evolve or is it constantly being recycled because Bordieu is right; because we really don’t ever create anything new?

Bourdieu First Run

     Bourdieu opens up Distinction by talking about taste and how it is an “acquired disposition to ‘differentiate’ and ‘appreciate.’” This rings true in several cases of literature, especially when it comes to the two terms, meaning and pleasure. The unique thing about literature is that everyone has a different opinion. Some people may love reading Jane Austen while others may despise reading her work. The symbols in one novel may mean something to one person, but someone else may have a completely different interpretation. Literature requires this acquired disposition because literature needs to be performed on like surgery, removing, dissecting, and analyzing little things that have big meanings. Bourdieu talks about how people perceive schemes and a large part of this depends on the classification systems that readers use. The great thing about literature is the ambiguity when it comes to interpretations and the open-mindedness that is available while reading. There is never really such a thing as the “right” answer, but instead there is an abundance of answers. Literature is an acquired taste, because it takes years of practice when it comes to explicating text and finding a strong stance. The meaning of the text can easily be differentiated, as well as the pleasure of a text too as some works require a finite amount of analysis to find enjoyment.

Breaking the Social Reflex: Looking through the Cracks of Bourdieu

When I first read Distinction, I had mixed feelings about the material. I think there is a strong validity to what Bourdieu is claiming. Class symbols are heavily pervasive in our everyday lives and in the history of literature itself. You only need to turn on the E! Entertainment channel to see news on celebrities detailing their extravagant affairs abroad, their luxurious fashion, or their fantastic apartments in New York City. People are obsessed with celebrities because they are the window into a world of high “taste” and riches that few people will ever come close to living. At the same time, these celebrities generate a sea of hate from their fans. Celebrities are constantly bombarded with negativity and judgment in social media. Looking through the lens of Bourdieu, this makes perfect sense, as people the middle or lower classes display “disgust, provoked by horror, or visceral intolerance (‘feeling sick’) of the tastes of others”. They can’t understand or have access to the ways these celebrities live, so they project a reflex of hate.

For an example of “distinguished taste” living in literature, the short story The Cloak by Nikolai Gogol surrounds a main character who struggles to fit in with those peers of the upper class around him. The main character Akaky originally owns a threadbare overcoat, which he is constantly bullied about by his work peers. He feels like an outsider, although he does his job well at the company. The character spends the little money he has on a magnificent fur coat – a status symbol of the rich since the environment of Russia itself is so cold in the winter. Any person of lower stature must suffer through the winter in threadbare clothes while the rich can wear their luxurious fur coats. As soon as he wears the coat, he is invited to a party of his rich work superiors, although they had ignored him and chastised him for years previously. When his coat is stolen from him, he dies from the cold and he loses his stature in the eyes of his peers. There are several instances of reflexive resentment from both classes in this story, and it acts as a perfect example of Bourdieu’s system and how you can have mobility in it.

These examples give life to Bourdeiu’s claims, and honestly made me feel a bit suffocated. I don’t think any human being likes the idea of their identity being pre-determined and created the way that Bourdeiu suggests. There is a positive side to his claims – this system gives us an identity and purpose in the first place. It is a survival mechanism that we’ve created to bring meaning into our existence and organization into our presence as a race. I couldn’t help wondering – are there cracks in this system in our modern world? Is this theory universal or are there ways for the human race to slip through the cracks

Bourdeiu claims“[t]astes in food also depend on the idea each class has of the body and of the effects of food on the body, that is, on its strength, health, and beauty… It follows that the body is the most indisputable materialization of class taste”.  He claims people of lower classes will prefer fatty foods. Sure, McDonald’s is the “taste” of the lower and middle class while a lobster is the symbol of the upper class…but I think this is a result of economic means and not “taste” chosen separately from the inherent properties of the food itself. I think anyone on the street would love to eat Lobster all the time if they had the means. Many may prefer this over a hamburger. Many people in the upperclass probably eat hamburgers themselves. Maybe they haven’t gone to McDonald’s, but I bet many of them eat “fatty foods” all the time. It’s the economic means that stand in the way of eating Lobster, not a distaste for it because you are not part of an upper class. People who are passionate about healthy foods may have been a trend seen in the upper class in the past, but in the 21st century you can find types of person almost in any class. Of course, my claims here are only based on the idea of the “dominant class” being a higher class economically – this may not be true if another ruling class is chosen.

I also realized that there are several things in society that aren’t labeled as a “taste” and are universally seen in a positive light – in fact, these seem to overcome the limits of class structure or differentiation entirely. For example, roses are a symbol accessible to everyone. There hasn’t been anyone I’ve met who has talked negatively or reacted in a reflexive way to roses. Water is universal. Sunsets and Views are admired by everyone.  Bourdeiu claims that “tastes” are chosen separately from their inherent properties. Smells have strong inherent properties that I feel class systems can’t overcome. What smells good, smells good. No matter what type of class you are. Sewage may be labeled as the symbol of the lower class, but no one who is surrounded by poverty and sewage is going to like it as their own personal preferred “taste”.

This may be a stretch so I would love to hear your thoughts.

Audrey Elliott

An Observation of Bourdieu

The essay had a multitude of confusing language and worn-out phrasing, but the basic concepts seemed to remain the same for me (underneath a method of repetition). It seemed to me as though Bourdieu was attempting to emphasis that we’re made up of nothing more than a bunch of popular social constructs and norms, from which we choose what appeals to us best. We’re also human beings made up of contrasting things – light and dark, dull and brilliant, so on and so forth. Almost as though we can’t even exist without those things existing; for example, without contrast, then there would be nothing upon which we could be built, and that’s the end of that.

He continues on with this to progress into the brief point, near the ending of the essay, that he believes if we attempt to define ourselves and limit ourselves to the popular social constructs that we’re being given to choose our definitions upon, then we’ll continue to live inside of a box. I don’t know if I’m completely missing the mark, but it’s almost as though he’s saying attempting to find a definition for ourselves is exactly what ends up limiting ourselves? Perhaps he was trying to also prove a point about opposites, considering this excerpt seemed to be full of them.

Vegan Muffins and Crocs

 

The only part of Bourdieu’s Distinction excerpts that I sort of grasped was the final paragraph. He writes, “A class is defined as much by its being-perceived as by its being, by its consumption – which need not be conspicuous in order to be symbolic – as much as by its position in the relations of production (even if it is true that the latter governs the former).” (251) Basically Bourdieu claims that what we consume (art, food, clothes, etc.) reflects what we produce (in a more modern sense, what social group we fit into). To some extent, I definitely agree with him. A great deal of what we consume depends upon what we feel we ought to consume based on who we think we are, and who we think we are hinges on a variety of factors that are mostly out of our personal control (gender, race, age, socio-economic status, socio-economic-status of parents, education).

How many times have I choked down a disgusting, vegan muffin? How do I explain the guilt I feel for not liking the Beach Boys?  God forbid I wear Crocs. I scoff at sorority girls who seem to wear a uniform of leggings and giant shirts, and yet am I not guilty of the same type of urge to fit in with a crowd when I say “oh thanks, I got this at the Goodwill.”

However, to a certain extent I think we are all aware of what we are supposed to take pleasure in vs. what we actually take pleasure in. An example of this is the common term “guilty pleasure.” At the end of the day, the indescribable feeling I get when I read a poem I love might just be a reflection of the fact that I consider myself to be an intelligent, book-loving, art-appreciating female, which may be due to the fact that I was raised in a well-read, loving, middle-class family, but I would beg to differ. I think that the power we sometimes feel from the things (in particular, modes of art) that we consume and love transcends our social group, our history, our class, and maybe even our personality. That feeling has something deeper to do with human emotion and connection; at least I hope it does.

A First Reading of “Distinction”

As a Labor Studies student I was particularly intrigued by Bordieu’s commentary on social divisions, and the role that “distinction”  plays in determining one’s social stature. He describes the typical dialogue surrounding class divisions as being primarily “opposition between the dominant and the dominated,” and goes on to question where exactly these social and economic divisions exist. This unique question seems to suggest perhaps more of a continuum of social inequality as opposed to social categories as they are often conceived, which opens up a new perspective on the organization of society. In line with this reimagining of social divisions and the distribution of wealth, Bordieu continues to reshape commonly held perspectives on social class divisions with his view regarding his interpretation of “distinction.” In a reevaluation of what factors contribute to social categorization, he focuses in on “taste” as an important factor often overlooked in the examination of social class, taking a complex look at “cultural capital” or the tastes or preferances which one has that are suggestive of “class,” and the social implications associated with such distinctions. “Cultural capital” suggests an additional impediment to social mobility, not so concrete in the way that economic or discriminatory factors (such as race or gender) tend to be, but nonetheless an important force to recognize as it certainly prevents individuals from moving from one social sphere to another. This idea illuminates the intensely influential quality that taste plays in our lives, and asks us to consider what forces have led us to shape those tastes.