Bourdieu Fields of Struggle for Power, Part 2

Field Homologies

Within fields entities have structural and functional homologies, or resemblances within differences. Dominance and subordination co-exist as counter-axis holding each other in place, which seems to be co-dependency.

French education and the Catholic church are homologous. The educational system legitimizes the unequal distribution of cultural capital, like the church, p. 130.

Bourdieu parallels economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital and position in the various fields. Those who dominate, are in control across the strata. Those who are dominated, tend to be so consistently. Struggles in cultural fields produce cultural distinctions that are social distinctions: what is in and what is out. Thus the resultant homologous relations between fields.

The legitimacy of social class and inequality results from structural correspondence between fields, (p. 134).

Finally, Bourdieu supports two historic trends:

1. the increasing autonomy of cultural fields from the economy and polity


2. the ultimate dominance of the economic field, (p. 135), (which seems to be taking place right before our eyes).

In chapter 9, Bourdieu explains the capacity for political alliance between intellectuals and workers [this should be interesting]. Apparently both intellectuals and workers are in subordinate positions, though in different fields.

Status group co-membership, network ties, and common world views help explain reciprocal relationship between groups.

The Field of Power: Economic Capital versus Cultural Capital

The field of power is the principal field, conflict is fundamental to all social life, and essential to all social interaction is the struggle for power (p. 136), with two hierarchies at work:

1. economic capital (income, wealth, and property)


2. cultural capital (knowledge, culture, and education credentials).

The wider the gap in asset structure of these types of capital, the greater the power struggle for domination (p. 137).

Cultural fields vary in autonomy from economic and political authority (p. 140). Bourdieu poses a structural analysis expressing the deep structure of all social and political conflict.

Toward a General Science of Practices: A Research Program

[habitus) (capital)] + field = practice

is the equation summarizing Bourdieu's model.

Applying this model to our study, Bourdieu necessitates three steps for research:

1. 
   
   Relate the particular field of practices to the broader field of power.


2. 
   
   Identify the structure of objective relations between the opposing positions occupied by individuals or groups as they compete for intellectual or artistic legitimation.


3. 
   
   Analyze the class habitus brought by agents to their respective positions and the social trajectory they pursue within the field of struggle.

This would constitute Bourdieu's research method.