Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1979, 1984): Our assigned portions of this text represent a full frontal assault on Kant through Marx and Weber. Taste is not some universal to be uncovered, but is defined within particular historical contexts as a socially constructed concept which is driven by systems of class and privilege.
Trained as a sociologist, Bourdieu employs a rigorous (parodist?) form of scientific investigation to examine how taste is determined from an early age by one’s exposure to varying degrees of social, economic, educational, and cultural capital. His analysis continually debunks Kant’s work regarding the definition of true beauty as disinterest, the existence of “pure” forms of perception, and the idea of certain kinds of subjectivity as universal. (Jennifer’s posting on Kant was very helpful to review this week!) I found Bourdieu’s careful examination of the oppositions that work to support the delineation and the perpetuation of high and low forms of culture to be particularly intriguing: beauty as high culture/charm as low culture; pleasure as distanced forms of enjoyment for high culture/enjoyment as immediate gratification for low culture.
I’m not quite sure about Bourdieu’s audience here. His format is fascinating—part reportage, part literature, part researcher’s meta-reflective log, part “objective” gathering of evidence with precise calculations and exact charting. Perhaps, like Williams, he is trying to reach across disciplines in the academy, and he may be concerned about social stratification becoming increasingly more solidified in Western European cultures, if not the world. By presenting multiple forms within the space of this text, Bourdieu seems to be speaking to this stratification and simultaneously undoing it. (He is French, after all).
Trained as a sociologist, Bourdieu employs a rigorous (parodist?) form of scientific investigation to examine how taste is determined from an early age by one’s exposure to varying degrees of social, economic, educational, and cultural capital. His analysis continually debunks Kant’s work regarding the definition of true beauty as disinterest, the existence of “pure” forms of perception, and the idea of certain kinds of subjectivity as universal. (Jennifer’s posting on Kant was very helpful to review this week!) I found Bourdieu’s careful examination of the oppositions that work to support the delineation and the perpetuation of high and low forms of culture to be particularly intriguing: beauty as high culture/charm as low culture; pleasure as distanced forms of enjoyment for high culture/enjoyment as immediate gratification for low culture.
I’m not quite sure about Bourdieu’s audience here. His format is fascinating—part reportage, part literature, part researcher’s meta-reflective log, part “objective” gathering of evidence with precise calculations and exact charting. Perhaps, like Williams, he is trying to reach across disciplines in the academy, and he may be concerned about social stratification becoming increasingly more solidified in Western European cultures, if not the world. By presenting multiple forms within the space of this text, Bourdieu seems to be speaking to this stratification and simultaneously undoing it. (He is French, after all).
By the time I reached Bourdieu's chart on page 59 (what would make a beautiful photo), I started to wonder whether strains of the absurd are also working through this text. Is Bourdieu's "science" highlighting how powerful taxonomies and classifications (gone wild) are suppressing human experience in ridiculous, but frighteningly arbitrary and meaningless ways?
Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990): Our readings within this text highlight Eagleton’s interest in linking Marxism to an ideology of the aesthetic that recognizes the value of the aesthetic as a fully embodied experience which can serve as a critical political tool. Eagleton believes this ideology can offer more of a moral vision than the (empty) ideologies associated with Postmodernism.
Eagleton is particularly concerned about a Post-Reagan Western culture where the left has lost relevancy, and the right is continuing to rise. He wants to reinvigorate Marxism to provide more realistic, more unifying (less polarizing) alternatives for society. He argues that the aesthetic can be an emancipatory force which can produce a new kind of subjectivity, a deep inwardness that fosters individual freedom and self-governance within commonality, and provides a space for reconciliation (25). Eagleton notes this power is "double-edged." While it can be liberating, it can also overstimulate bodily pleasures and desires (28). Do we think he addresses this tension adequately? Also, I am wondering who's in for the Trivial Pursuit version of European philosophers versus Irish writers? And might this exercise involve claret or whiskey? Chart that!
No comments:
Post a Comment