Bourdieu is hard to read for his concepts are a little slippery to me. I am spending most of my time to understand his theoretical framework and his sociology theory behind the phenomenon of taste.

Bourdieu’s theory tells us, the Social stratification is not the result of enforcement; instead it is dispositions gradually and unconsciously developed from the social conditions that individuals encounter. Then the subjective structures of the individuals dictate each one to live the way their class is expected, thus reinforce the distinctions and reproduce the social structure. Bourdieu emphasizes the “unconscious” process of habitus. To him habitus is not the result of rational calculation, but a certain state of mind acquired gradually in a certain social condition. Bourdieu’s frequently cited example is that the working class can never understand the meaning of luxury consumption—they regard it as a waste of money. He says, people always think they choose what they like. Actually it’s just they like what they happen to possess. If habitus derived from the growth environment of individuals, and this environment is decided by each family’s position in social classes, then people eventually would only like what their classes should like. But in fact, we know that to make a person just like what he happen to possess is very difficult. How would Bourdieu answer this question?

Also, from here I feel Bourdieu has a little similarity with Marx and Gramsci. They both emphasize that the ruled class cannot see their true interest because of the ideological indoctrination. For Gramsci, in consequence we need the organic intellectuals to enlighten everyone—once people are aware of their class positions, the problem is easy to solve. Obviously Bourdieu wouldn’t agree with this opinion. For one thing there is no class consciousness that is independent from social life. For another, the way people are divided into social classes is itself a product of social stratification. To not resist means acceptance of stratification; to resist means the recognition of the rules of stratification. The former reinforce the social structure; the latter reproduce the social structure itself through struggle.

What’s intriguing is that at the same time Bourdieu lays great stress on the strategy of action. I can’t help but wondering, didn’t he say people are not conscious of their being restrained by the social structure? The design of strategy should base on Weber’s sense of rational calculability, while rational calculability should base on the understanding of structure. Since people are not conscious of the restraint, then how could they design strategy of action according to their position? Bourdieu’s answer is that the strategy is based on the urgency of practice. The theory of practice is different from the theory of rational choice. The latter has it that people take conducive actions to themselves because they already know where their interests lie and make precise calculations. The theory of practice is that people are familiar with the rules long under a certain condition. Even without a rational calculation, they are able to take the right actions. For example when facing a ball a tennis player simultaneously knows how to swing the racket without calculating the speed of the ball.

Here I have another question, can this timely strategic readjustment eventually change the structure of the society? Bourdieu suggests the field is dynamic. Every field has its own rules and people in it pursue their goals under these rules. However, it could appear anytime that people inside a field would question the legitimacy of these rules. Also the definition of a goal itself could also be strategic struggles.