Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
!,'4$#=2>/*3$#%:*?$%
8$,#9./*@.A*B%'.#*C%2'$#5D*E$:F*GGD*@$F*HD*6&".#2*;#$1*'4.*<$11$(A.&:'4*<.('.#*;$#
B%'.#*&(-*<,:',#&:*<4&().*=!,',1(D*IJJI>D*""F*IKILMIKHJ
6,N:%24.-*N5/*34.*O$4(2*C$"P%(2*Q(%R.#2%'5*6#.22
8'&N:.*QSB/*http://www.jstor.org/stable/469077
!99.22.-/*IITKHTGKKJ*KJ/IK
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
New Literary History.
http://www.jstor.org
Appropriating Bourdieu:
Feminist Theory and Pierre Bourdieu's
Sociology of Culture*
Toril Moi
Feminism as Critique
is critical theory; feminist critique is therefore
necessarily political. In making this claim I draw on the Marxist
concept of "critique," succinctly summarized by Kate Soper as
a theoretical exercise which, by "explaining the source in reality of
the cognitive shortcomings of the theory under attack, call[s] for
changes in the reality itself" (93). In this sense, Soper writes, feminist
critique comes to echo critical theory as developed by the Frankfurt
School with its emphasis on "argued justification for concrete, emancipatory practice" (93).' This is clearly an ambitious aim, which
would require me to situate Pierre Bourdieu's social theory in relation
to the specific French social formation which produced it. Such
analysis would require substantial empirical research: there is no
space for such an undertaking in this context.
I have therefore called this paper "Appropriating Bourdieu." By
"appropriation" I understand a critical assessment of a given theory
formation with a view to taking it over and using it for feminist
purposes.2 Appropriation, then, is theoretically somewhat more modest than a full-scale critique and has a relatively well-defined concrete
purpose. Neither "appropriation" nor "critique" rely on the idea of
a transcendental vantage point from which to scrutinize the theory
formation in question. Unlike the Enlightenment concept of "criticism," the concept of "critique" as used here is immanent and
dialectical. My proposal of "appropriation" and "critique" as key
feminist activities is intended to contest the idea that feminists are
doomed to be victimized by what is sometimes called "male" theory.
If I prefer to use terms such as "patriarchal" and "feminist" rather
EMINIST THEORY
1018
Why Bourdieu?
Since the 1960s the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, professor
of sociology at the College de France and directeur d'etudes at the
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris, has published
over twenty books on anthropology, cultural sociology, language
and literature. Only recently, however, has he found an audience
outside the social sciences in the English-speaking world. One of
the reasons for such relatively belated interdisciplinary interest is
surely the fact that his resolutely sociological and historical thought,
which owes far more to classical French sociology, structuralism,
and even Marxism than to any later intellectual movements,3 could
find little resonance in a theoretical space dominated, in the humanities at least, by poststructuralism and postmodernism. Today,
however, there is a renewed interest in the social and historical
determinants of cultural production. The fact that Bourdieu has
always devoted much space to problems pertaining to literature,
language and aesthetics makes his work particularly promising terrain for literary critics.4
In a recent paper, the British cultural sociologist Janet Wolff puts
the case for a more sociological approach to feminist criticism: "[I]t
is only with a systematic analysis of sexual divisions in society, of
the social relations of cultural production, and of the relationship
between textuality, gender and social structure," she writes, "that
feminist literary criticism will really be adequate to its object."5 I
agree with Wolff that feminist criticism would do well to develop
a more sophisticated understanding of the social aspects of cultural
production.6 Bourdieu's sociology of culture, I would argue, is
promising terrain for feminists precisely because it allows us to
produce highly concrete and specific analyses of the social determinants of the literary enonciation. This is not to say that such
determinants are the only ones that we need to consider, nor that
feminist critics should not concern themselves with the enonce, or
the actual statement itself.7 Again I agree with Janet Wolff who
holds that feminist criticism fails in its political and literary task if
it does not study literature both at the level of texts and at the
level of institutions and social processes. I should perhaps add that
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1019
1020
NEW LITERARY
HISTORY
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1021
its own specific logic or rules. "A field," Bourdieu writes, "is a space
in which a game takes place [espace de jeu], a field of objective
relations between individuals or institutions who are competing for
the same stake" (Questions de sociologie, 197). In principle, a field is
simply any social system which can be shown to function according
to such a logic.
But if the field is a competitive structure, or perhaps more
accurately a site of struggle or a battlefield, what is at stake? Generally
speaking, any agent in the field may be assumed to seek maximum
power and dominance within it. The aim is to rule the field, to
become the instance which has the power to confer or withdraw
legitimacy from other participants in the game. Bourdieu defines
legitimacyas follows: "An institution, action or usage which is dominant, but not recognized as such [mnconnucommetell, that is to say,
which is tacitly accepted, is legitimate" (Questions de sociologie, 110).
Such a position of dominance is achieved by amassing the maximum
amount of the specific kind of symbolic capital current in the field.
In his pioneering article of 1966, "Champ intellectuel et projet
createur," Bourdieu presents a striking analysis of the interrelations
between the writer's project and the structures of the intellectual
field. The intellectual field, he argues, is relatively autonomous in
relation to the whole social field and generates its own type of
legitimacy. This is not to say that the social field is not present
within the intellectual field, but rather that it is present only as a
representation of itself, a representation, moreover, which is not
imported from outside, but produced from within the intellectual
field itself.
The intellectual and educational fields, like any other such, have
their own specific mechanisms of selection and consecration. Intellectual legitimacy as a symbolic value is produced by the field itself
and may be defined as that which is recognized-or in Bourdieu's
term, consecrated-by the field at any given time. In order to achieve
legitimacy, the agents in the field have recourse to many and varied
strategies. These strategies, however, are rarely if ever perceived as
such by the agents themselves. Instead, each field generates its own
specific habitus, which Bourdieu defines as "a system of dispositions
adjusted to the game [of the field]" (Questionsde sociologie, 34). "For
a field to work," he writes, "there must be stakes, and people ready
to play the game, equipped with the habitus which enables them
to know and recognize the immanent laws of the game, the stakes
and so on" (110). Habitus, then, may be seen as the totality of general
dispositions acquired through practical experience in the field. At
one level, then, habitus is practical sense (le sens pratique). In some
1022
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1023
1024
must be noble in order to behave nobly; but one would cease being
noble if one did not behave as a noble. In other words, social magic
has very real effects. To assign somebody to a group with a superior
essence (nobles as opposed to commoners, men as opposed to women,
cultured people as opposed to uneducated people and so on) operates
an objective transformation determining a learning process which
in its turn facilitates a real transformation apt to bring that person
closer to the definition that has been bestowed on him" (Noblesse,
157, my translation). The fact that distinguished products of the
educational system are distinguished as a result of the social belief
in their distinction, then, does not mean that they do not in fact
also possess some objective competence (the ability to read Greek,
solve complex equations, or whatever). Such competence, however,
has very little to do with the nature of the tasks they will be called
upon to perform as, say, managing directors of important companies
or members of politically powerful commissions. The fact that the
educational system necessarily produces some competence without
for that matter ceasing to exercise social magic is a phenomenon
Bourdieu labels the "ambiguity of competence." This ambiguity,
then, is precisely what enables the educational system to make such
an efficient or convincing contribution to the legitimization and
naturalization of power.
The reproduction of power, however, is not merely an effect of
education. On the contrary, the evidence produced by Bourdieu
would seem to indicate that whereas the educational system has an
indispensable role to play as one of the most important agents of
legitimate symbolic violence, social agents rich in political and economic power know how to overcome the educational hurdle if
they have to. If persons from disadvantaged social groups require
all the educational capital they can obtain if they are to advance in
society, members of more favoured classes can get further on less
educational capital, simply because they have access to large amounts
of other kinds of capital.
Bourdieu convincingly shows how the educational system favours
the bourgeoisie even in its most intrinsically academic exercises. The
consequences are ominous: students lacking in cultural capital (for
instance those of modest social origins) tend to fare badly at a very
early stage in their educational careers. According to Bourdieu there
is an almost perfect homology between the class position of the
individual pupils and their teachers' intellectual judgments of them.
Defined as failures, these students become failures in precisely the
same way as the distinguished students becomedistinguished.
APPROPRIATING
BOURDIEU
1025
1026
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1027
1028
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1029
1030
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1031
1032
APPROPRIATING
BOURDIEU
1033
1034
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1035
1036
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1037
1038
Beauvoir was a brilliant student, combined with the fact that she
met with very little overt institutional discrimination at any point
in her career, would certainly dispose her to identify with the
intellectual values of the system, rather than to revolt against them.
Such implicit intellectual solidarity with the dominant French educational institutions of her time can in fact be traced in the very
texture of her style and rhetoric.
Bourdieuian categories are always relational, always determined
by their fluctuating relationship to other categories. One interesting
consequence of this is that we cannot assume that femaleness will
carry equal amounts of negative capital throughout a woman's life
or in all social fields. Socially speaking, then, it follows that sometimes
a woman is a woman and sometimes she is much less so. In some
contexts, "femaleness" may even be converted from a liability to an
advantage.
In general, the impact of femaleness as negative capital may be
assumed to decline in direct proportion to the amount of other
forms of symbolic capital amassed. Or to put it the other way round:
although a woman rich in symbolic capital may lose some legitimacy
because of her gender, she still has more than enough capital left
to make her impact on the field. In the case of exceptionally high
amounts of capital, femaleness may play a very small part indeed.
In sociological terms such cases are so rare as to be negligible. For
literary critics, however, it is not an entirely irrelevant problematic,
since until recently the very fact of being a non-neglected woman
writer was so rare as to turn the author into a miraculee almost per
definition.30 The works of such women cannot be read in the same
way as those of writers lacking in symbolic capital. Their relationship
to the works of more or less legitimate male colleagues will also be
different from that of their less well endowed sisters.
When it comes to explaining why it is that some exceptional
women writers manage to accumulate more symbolic capital than
others, Bourdieu's concept of social capital becomes particularly interesting. As we have seen, social capital is defined as relational
capital, or in other words, the power and advantages one gains
from having a network of "contacts" as well as a series of other,
more personal or intimate personal relations. Social capital helps
its possessor to develop and increase other forms of capital and
may greatly enhance his or her chances of achieving legitimacy in
a given field.
By the early 1950s, Simone de Beauvoir had developed considerable social capital in addition to the intellectual capital she had
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1039
1040
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1041
1042
1043
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1044
4 See for instance "Flaubert's Point of View" and Ce que parler veut dire, as well as
Distinction. See also "Sartre," and the closely related work on Sartre and Les Temps
modernesby one of Bourdieu's students, Anna Boschetti. In this introductory context
I would also like to mention Bourdieu's inaugural lecture at the College de France,
Lefon sur la lefon and the collection of short essays entitled Chosesdites as accessible
and readable examples of his cultural criticism. A selection of essays from Choses
dites, together with Bourdieu's inaugural lecture, have now been published in English
under the title In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology. New readers of
Bourdieu's social theory should perhaps start with this volume and then go on to
Outline of a Theoryof Practice, Questionsde sociologie, "Le Marche des biens symbolique,"
"The Production of Belief," "Champ du pouvoir," and at least the first few sections
of Distinction. Then they might turn to Le Sens pratique and La Noblesse d'etat. Yvette
Delsaut has produced a full bibliography of Bourdieu's work up to and including
1988, a bibliography now readily available in English in In Other Words, pp. 199218. Loic J. D. Wacquant has conducted, edited, and annotated a series of interviews
with Bourdieu under the title An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. When published,
this book will provide by far the most pedagogical, accurate, and accessible introduction
to Bourdieu's work in English.
5 I am quoting from the English manuscript version of her paper "Texts and
Institutions: Problems of Feminist Criticism." In the French published version the
quote can be found on p. 181. The English version will be published in Wolff's
forthcoming collection of essays Feminine Sentences.
6 Bourdieu does not provide the only theoretical inspiration for such work. The
whole tradition of British cultural criticism from Raymond Williams to the Birmingham
school would be another obvious source of inspiration.
7 For Emile Benveniste's original definitions of the terms inonce and enonciation,
see his "Les relations du temps" and "L'appareil formel." For my own view on the
relation between Benveniste's enonciation and Julia Kristeva's theory of language as
the discourse of the speaking, embodied subject, see my Feminist Theoryand Simone
de Beauvoir, p. 53 n. 2 and p. 87 n. 3.
8 My claim, then, is not that Bourdieu somehow supersedes or finally transcends
these other theories. In order fully to grasp the relative strengths and limitations
of Bourdieu's theories, one would need to produce a careful reading of his works
in relation to the whole tradition of Western Marxism on the one hand, and to
French sociology and ethnology on the other: such an appraisal is not my purpose
here.
9 This specific formulation was first coined by Terry Eagleton.
10 This is not to say that Bourdieu systematically ignores the question of women
in earlier works. There are sustained and interesting discussions of the position of
women in Bourdieu and Passeron, Les Heritiers (1964) and La Reproduction(1970),
and in Bourdieu, La Distinction (1979) and Le Sens pratique (1980).
11 It is important to stress that Bourdieu's work is based on the French educational
system. This is a system which is ostensibly egalitarian and meritocratic in a way
which is not true for, say, the British educational system with its clear-cut class-based
divisions between public schools and state schools. Some of Bourdieu's conclusions
about the discriminatory and oppressive nature of the French educational system
may come as a surprise to the French, while in Britain the very same points may
seem rather obvious, precisely because the British educational system does not mask
its symbolic violence as well as the French.
12 For other works on education and the intellectual field in France, see Bourdieu
and Passeron, Les Heritiers and La Reproduction, Bourdieu's own Homo Academicus,
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1045
and the essays "Epreuve scolaire" and Bourdieu and Saint-Martin, "Les categories
de l'entendement professoral" (these two papers are now revised and included in
La Noblesse de l'tat). See also the closely related work by Boschetti, Charle, and
Fabiani.
13 As mentioned above (n. 12), Bourdieu's work on the social power of the tokens
of educational capital is based on empirical research in France. In other countries
certain educational diplomas do not necessarily carry such high social prestige as in
France. This does not mean that the educational systems of other nations are not
crucial to the reproduction of social power: what remains to be studied is precisely
how the educational system interacts with other social institutions and structures in
different countries. There is no reason why Bourdieu's general point about social
magic-the socially sanctioned belief in the value of certain tokens and insigniashould not be deployed in contexts quite different from those of the French
educational system.
14 This still leaves the problem of where the miraculdscome from. In Les Heritiers
Bourdieu and Passeron point to specific and exceptional constellations in the family
of the successful student from the peasantry as one element that may explain the
relatively successful educational career of the individual in question. This is clearly
not all there is to be said about the matter. Bourdieu, himself a miracul6, would
seem to be well placed to produce a fuller analysis of this question.
15 Here Bourdieu uses exactly the same rhetorical strategy against Le Nouvel
Observateur. I take it that the difference is that Bourdieu is not in a position of
power in relation to Le Nouvel Observateur.His ironic echoing of their rhetoric can
thus be read as a denunciation, not as a celebration of the strategy. I have previously
argued that in some cases Luce Irigaray's ironic use of mimicry functions in a similar
way (see Sexual/Textual Politics, 140).
16 In his paper on "Habitus, Field of Power and Capital" Craig Calhoun also argues
that Bourdieu's theory should be seen as critical theory in the tradition of the
Frankfurt school.
17 I should make it clear that I am not arguing that such legitimizing expressions
of experience must always take the form of intellectual discourse.
18 In fact, I have consulted three different papers by Bourdieu dealing specifically
with gender. First there is the full-length unpublished 1989 manuscript entitled "La
Construction sociale du sexe" (50 pp.). A somewhat rewritten excerpt from this
paper appeared in English in 1989 under the title "He whose word is law." Finally,
there is Bourdieu's 1990 essay published in Actes de la rechercheen sciences sociales,
entitled "La Domination masculine."
19 Actes de la rechercheen sciences sociales, 83 and 84 (June and September 1990).
20 It is, of course, impossible to use the term habitus without raising the question
of the social conditions which give rise to it (see "Domination," 11).
21 This formulation is taken from "La Construction sociale du sexe" (p. 37). This
specific turn of phrase has been left out of "La Domination masculine." The argument
nevertheless remains the same. It is also expressed in "He whose word is law," where
Bourdieu writes that the "specific process of socialization of which they [men] are
the products inclines them to take seriously those games that the social world
constitutes as being serious, and to 'play them seriously' " (13).
22 I use the terms patriarchal or masculinist power or domination as synonyms to
Bourdieu's "domination masculine." It is well known that the term "masculine" in
French may correspond either to "male" or to "masculine" in English. It is clear
that what Bourdieu has in mind is domination by males, but it is equally clear that
for him it is unthinkable to posit such a domination without at the same time positing
1046
1047
APPROPRIATING BOURDIEU
1048
APPROPRIATING
BOURDIEU
1049