Bourdieu: cognition is misrecognition; contrary to ‘awakening of class consciousness

[Hiero]

While it must be reasserted, against all forms of mechanism, that ordinary experience of the social world is a cognition, it is equally important to realize – contrary to the illusion of the spontaneous generation of consciousness which so many theories of the ‘awakening of class consciousness’ (prise de conscience) amount to – that primary cognition is misrecognition, recognition of an order which is also established in the mind. Life-styles are thus the systematic products of habitus, which, perceived in their mutual relations through the schemes of the habitus, become sign systems that are socially qualified (as ‘distinguished’, ‘vulgar’ etc.). The dialectic of conditions and habitus is the basis of an alchemy which transforms the distribution of capital, the balance-sheet of a power relation, into a system of perceived differences, distinctive properties, that is, a distribution of symbolic capital, legitimate capital, whose objective truth is misrecognized.

How do Marxist feel about what Bourdieu's implications are here when he states, that contrary to the awakening of a class consciousness, cognition is misrecognition. This is taken from Discintion: A Social Critique of Taste (1984).

[electrostal]

I didn't get one word out of this.
What the hell is he saying?
What cognition and what misrecognition?

[citizen of industry]

How do Marxist feel about what Bourdieu's implications are here when he states, that contrary to the awakening of a class consciousness, cognition is misrecognition. This is taken from Discintion: A Social Critique of Taste (1984).

Translate this into slightly less philosophical language for me. Is he trying to say Marxism is "an alchemy which transforms the distribution of capital..into a system of perceived differences" i.e., that class struggle is in the imagination? I think we can demonstrate empirically that it isn't perceived, given massive wealth inequality, wage slavery, etc. But maybe I just don't understand what he is saying.

[islandmilitia]

Translate this into slightly less philosophical language for me. Is he trying to say Marxism is "an alchemy which transforms the distribution of capital..into a system of perceived differences" i.e., that class struggle is in the imagination? I think we can demonstrate empirically that it isn't perceived, given massive wealth inequality, wage slavery, etc. But maybe I just don't understand what he is saying.

This isn't what Bourdieu is saying. Bourdieu is concerned with the different ways in which power manifests itself in society - he designates different forms of power by the term "capital" so when he uses that term we should recognize that he is not using it only to refer to capital in the classical Marxist sense (i.e. a body of accumulated exchange values, derived from past exploitation) but is also interested in the cultural and social dimensions of power. Bourdieu is especially interested in the relationships between the different types of capital and how they can be converted into one another, and the ways in which these forms of capital can be made to appear objective and legitimate, rather than being about power. So when he talks about misrecognition, he is talking about the processes by which capital (in its different forms) is represented in order not to be recognized as such, as capital, that is, how the possession of capital can be made to appear objective. Understood from this angle, Bourdieu's intervention is not overly complicated, and is really part of the fundamental project of trying to understand the non-coercive methods through which capitalism reproduces and justifies itself, especially to its producers.

[citizen of industry]

This isn't what Bourdieu is saying. Bourdieu is concerned with the different ways in which power manifests itself in society - he designates different forms of power by the term "capital" so when he uses that term we should recognize that he is not using it only to refer to capital in the classical Marxist sense (i.e. a body of accumulated exchange values, derived from past exploitation) but is also interested in the cultural and social dimensions of power. Bourdieu is especially interested in the relationships between the different types of capital and how they can be converted into one another, and the ways in which these forms of capital can be made to appear objective and legitimate, rather than being about power. So when he talks about misrecognition, he is talking about the processes by which capital (in its different forms) is represented in order not to be recognized as such, as capital, that is, how the possession of capital can be made to appear objective. Understood from this angle, Bourdieu's intervention is not overly complicated, and is really part of the fundamental project of trying to understand the non-coercive methods through which capitalism reproduces and justifies itself, especially to its producers.

What are some of the different forms? The base-superstructure economic argument seems to explain it sufficiently for me. I reproduce the power relationship every day just by going to work and purchasing commodities. As capital (as understood in the classical Marxian sense) accumulates it appears to me as an objective power standing over me. The division of labor in the workplace creates industrial heirarchy and the predominance of constant over variable capital means I have no power in the workplace. Since economic capital swallows up government and owns the media industry, I am only exposed to media and legislation that perpetuates the existing state of things and makes it appear objective and legitimate.

[Hiero]

What are some of the different forms? The base-superstructure economic argument seems to explain it sufficiently for me. I reproduce the power relationship every day just by going to work and purchasing commodities. As capital (as understood in the classical Marxian sense) accumulates it appears to me as an objective power standing over me. The division of labor in the workplace creates industrial heirarchy and the predominance of constant over variable capital means I have no power in the workplace. Since economic capital swallows up government and owns the media industry, I am only exposed to media and legislation that perpetuates the existing state of things and makes it appear objective and legitimate.

I should have posted a bit more, rather than a blanket quote. I have been reading Bourdieu and Bourdieu inspired literature for awhile, I forgot how dense his work can be. Bourdieu has a really good ability at weaving into a few paragraph a range of theoretical concepts. In Distinction, where that quote is taken from he is dealing with taste and the workings of habitus.

What I get out of this paragraph is the implications for what is called 'symbolic violence', explained through misrecognition. So Bourdieu uses misrecognition here to talk about 'lifestlytes'. Lifestyles are the product of habitus, which is an internalised nexus that organises our practices, our perception of practices, our dispositions, it basically produces 'styles' that are applied to fields. These lifestyles are then socially judged, such as 'unhealthy', 'crude', 'uncultured', 'rough' or at the other end of the spectrum' dignified', 'cultured' etc. What could be called a class discrimination/racism. The result of these lifestyles is the effect of the differences in distribution of economic, symbolic, social and cultural capital (the class system), but it is misrecognised, and these are turned into a system of perceived differences. This explains why in neo-liberal times there is so much focus on individual responsibility (especially targeted at ethnic minorities, indigenous and working poor), as poverty a structural issues is turned back and naturalised onto the body of its victims. That this is an outcome of their natural pathologies i.e they are lazy, they don't care for their children, they waste their money, they predisposed to getting sick etc.

This has implications for the more Marxist concept of ideology and consciousness. Symbolic violence for Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant is the way the agents participate in creating the efficacy of their subjugation. that they misrecognise the objective structures around them for individual errors. The most easiest example to see symbolic violence at work in society is performance at school. Bourdieu found that those who did well at school are thought to be endowed with natural gifts, they were naturally good at maths, English, science and I was not. On the other side a common heard understanding about underperformance at school is 'i could have done well, but I didn't try hard enough'. These are taken from working class discussions on schooling. What is evident is a misrecognition of those imbalances of the distribution of capitals. For instance Bourdieu noted that in France how the middle class invest in their children's cultural capital to prepare them for school. But this is not known or understood, it is misrecognised as natural talent.

So for Bourdieu and Wacquant, subjugated agents contribute to the efficacy of the symbolic violence of the upper classes. This is best explained as the logic "it goes without saying" logic, things are what they are. Where as a Marxist dialectics and historical materialism, see a class that comes to consciousness with it's objectivity. Which leads to many problems, people do have problems with the system and I believe do see other people being offered more opportunities then themselves. There are moments of reflexivity where agents do question where they are life and how they got there, I just don't see where people changed from doxic acceptance of subjugation to resistance and challenge.

But part of the Marxist problem (which answers how people change from subjugation to resistance through dialectics) is it is caught up in Cartesian logic:
The social world doesn't work in terms of consciousness, it works in terms of practices, mechanisms and so forth... By using doxa we accept many things without knowing them, and that is what is called ideology... We must move away from the Cartesian philosophy of the Marxist tradition towards a different philosophy in which agents are not aiming consciously towards things, or mistakenly guided by false representation. I think that is all wrong, and I don't believe in it. *


Jim Wolfeys states “ The error made by Marxists is to overestimate the capacity for resistance 'as a capacity of consciousness'. Such idealism, argues Bourdieu, is mistaken because 'cognitive structures are not forms of consciousness but dispositions of the body'.


I think, like Bourdieu, the world does not work in terms of consciousness, but bodily practices and ‘habitus. Structure and base are not divided, but enmeshed into one another.

Here is the link to Jim Wolfey’s article In Perspective: Bourdieu. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj87/wolfreys.htm)



* P Bourdieu and T Eagleton, 'Doxa and Common Life', New Left Review, January/February 1992, p113.

[citizen of industry]

Hmm...that's pretty deep stuff. Let me chew on it. I think you can definitely put a material test to school performance. E.g., in Japan most kids go to cram school after school to study the same subjects they already study in school in preparation for university entrance exams. But cram school is expensive. Meaning if you are working class you likely aren't going to afford it. So wealthier children are going to do better on average. Of course there are obvious exceptions. Some kids have different priorities.

Thoughts on class consciousness. Assume there is an economic bubble. Wages are high, jobs are plentiful. People have large families, aren't concerned with society. The bubble pops - the same people can no longer find or hold a job, or have to work long hours at a very poor job, can no longer provide for their families. Many of them would develop class consciousness to some degree and question the anarchy of the capitalist system and be aware of the inequality. During those times you do see people organizing and resisting. Look at Greece, London last year, the Occupy movement, revolutions in the middle east. You can trace that back to the latest global crisis.

As for lifestyle, wearing good clothes, eating healthy home-cooked meals, having a garden, etc. are all good things. But you have to be wealthy enough to buy the clothes, food and land, have time to prepare it, etc. That's impossible if you are working two crappy jobs and barely making ends meet. So society might perceive someone living in a trailor as lazy and someone who made poor decisions and cringe at his poor taste when he drinks 40's instead of wine, but only so long as he is a minority and there is a strong middle-class. Why do they see his lifestyle as bad? Because that is what is portrayed as bad on the TV, in the papers, in the language, etc. The moral ideal of society is the moral ideal of the ruling class. And it is natural to want something better. The myth capital expouses is that because we are free laborers and not slaves, it is possible to be upwardly mobile. The other myth is that we belong to a nation, not to a class.

[Hiero]

People have large families, aren't concerned with society. The bubble pops - the same people can no longer find or hold a job, or have to work long hours at a very poor job, can no longer provide for their families. Many of them would develop class consciousness to some degree and question the anarchy of the capitalist system and be aware of the inequality. Well that is what I am trying to work out here in Australia.

The other day I had to attend a interview workshop as mandatory for my welfare payment. One point was raised that there are more male job seekers than female and she asked did anyone know why. One young 18 year old girl said women were of high intelligence another form of misrecognition, however the answer from the workshop provider was placed on mens perceptions about work. She stated that men are more likely to believe they will have the one job or jobs in in the one industry and women were more likely to believe that they would have to work many different jobs in different industries. This is belief might be true, however she did not mention some of the underlying structural causes as why men were being forced to re-engage the workforce in different roles. There was no mention of the rising Australian dollar and its affects on the manufacturing industy ( a few thouasand in the last few years have lost their jobs in the steel manufacruting industries).

Working men's habitus is displaced in the restructing of the industry, it was only a few decades ago they were told they could work hard and buy a house, now the rug has been pulled under their feet and the focus of their blame is themsevles. We were further told that while we may have the skills to get a job, we may lact 'attributes' to getting a job. These attributes were all related to interview techniques, resume writing etc.There was some mention about retrenchment as a reason for lossing a job, but the underying causes for not gaining further employment is in the opinion of the social worker, cultural issues (not being able to sell oneself)

I don't know how much is believed by the participants, I had to stay back so was un able to discuss with the participants there thoughts on these opinions. However this group was newly unemployed (under 12 months). I beleive the survivlence and discplinary model for thoose who are unemployed and receiving benifits for longer then 12 months would be tightly focused and the balme further placed on their inability to sell themsevles. I see in this context people will more likely internalise strutural failurs as personal failures. I believe that after many years there may be resentment and resistance towards the government and the private groups that manage social welfare, but this wont be directed towards the overall system.


But then that is what is lacking initially in Bourdieu and his theory of habitus and symbolic violence or it may be just my mistake of overemphasizing the totality of symbolic violence.

[citizen of industry]

Also you have to think about what people say and what they really think. In an interview you say what the boss wants to hear. While waiting for your welfare check you smile and nod and say what the social worker wants to hear. Rhe social worker says what she is told to say because she is working and needs her check. Outside of the office, those people might be saying and thinking different things.

I don't think people tend to blame themselves. Back to the base, over 40% of the workforce here is irregularly emplyoed. The percentage of women is much higher than men. But that gap is shrinking among the younger generations. The expectation of a 30 career in a company, hard work and job stability is going away. There is also massive population decline, because people are getting paid below the value of labor power. The corporations outsource manufacturing and realize the surplus value in exports. But that doesn't automatically result in class consciousness. People still work as hard as they can to stay afloat. They blame the "economy." But the hope is it will improve. It's a misplaced hope, and another myth of the ruling class. There might be an upward trend from time to time(followed by a violent crash), but I think a pretty constant decline overall.

[ckaihatsu]

What I get out of this paragraph is the implications for what is called 'symbolic violence', explained through misrecognition. So Bourdieu uses misrecognition here to talk about 'lifestlytes'. Lifestyles are the product of habitus, which is an internalised nexus that organises our practices, our perception of practices, our dispositions, it basically produces 'styles' that are applied to fields. These lifestyles are then socially judged, such as 'unhealthy', 'crude', 'uncultured', 'rough' or at the other end of the spectrum' dignified', 'cultured' etc. What could be called a class discrimination/racism.


This really points to social and cultural practices, and brings to mind the term 'bourgeois respectability'. Besides the blatantly *economic* yardstick there are more subtle socio-cultural practices in everyday life -- whether fully intentional or not -- that reinforce social stratification and the social norms of the ruling class.





She stated that men are more likely to believe they will have the one job or jobs in in the one industry and women were more likely to believe that they would have to work many different jobs in different industries. This is belief might be true, however she did not mention some of the underlying structural causes as why men were being forced to re-engage the workforce in different roles. There was no mention of the rising Australian dollar and its affects on the manufacturing industy ( a few thouasand in the last few years have lost their jobs in the steel manufacruting industries).


It sounds like the "price" paid for receiving nationalist assistance is having to be exposed to nationalist social ideology -- while it may be impossible to refute these blithe empirical observations on a facts-basis, the fact remains that the scope involved is solely *person*-centric and doesn't include any *societal* dynamics in its consideration, as you're noting.

I never cease to marvel at the (fully intentional or not) smooth ways in which various philosophical frameworks are inherently employed in descriptions of reality, as with this example. The framework of psychology is *progressive* in relation to a brutish biological determinism or a mechanical empirical / behaviorist determinism, but is *reactionary* compared to a *societal* / sociological framework that includes the whole of society in its context of examination.

(And even an even-handed sociological examination is less keen than one which is inherently cognizant of power-hegemony -- the class dimension -- as well.)


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/

[ckaihatsu]

The corporations outsource manufacturing and realize the surplus value in exports.


Just goes to remind me of the First World "branding" business -- the stuff's *made* over there, and the stuff's *sold* over there, so with the shipping lanes going to and from my doorstep all I have to do is wake up long enough to slap my logo on it and we're *good to go* -- !!

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Bev Skeggs did an ethnographic study on working-class women in Thatcherite Britain, detailing their desires and attempts to distinguish themselves from their initial class position by trying to emulate the kind of cultural-capital that higher-class women possess, through their interpretation of media examples of higher class women (amongst other things). Its an interesting study and basically has Bourdieu's work as a platform for understanding this phenomenon - it helps me understand Bourdieu's ideas in a real world sense.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Formations-Class-Gender-Respectable-association/dp/0761955119

(I might have a pdf file of this study which I might be able to send to people maybe, if they pm me).

[Hiero]

Bev Skeggs did an ethnographic study on working-class women in Thatcherite Britain, detailing their desires and attempts to distinguish themselves from their initial class position by trying to emulate the kind of cultural-capital that higher-class women possess, through their interpretation of media examples of higher class women (amongst other things). Its an interesting study and basically has Bourdieu's work as a platform for understanding this phenomenon - it helps me understand Bourdieu's ideas in a real world sense.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Formations-Class-Gender-Respectable-association/dp/0761955119

(I might have a pdf file of this study which I might be able to send to people maybe, if they pm me).

I have come familar with Beverly Skeggs works, she uses Bourdieu to explore gender in class relationsm really well. Her ability to expand Bourdieu into study of working class women is quite amazing, it just lacks alot of ethnographic.

For other works I recommend Loic Wacquant for US ethnographies and Simon J. Charlesworth.

Here is a link to Wacquant's work http://loicwacquant.net/books/ and Charwlesworth's ethnographic study of Rotherham http://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Phenomenology_of_Working_Class_Experie.html?id=k Ezd17tauZQC&redir_esc=y

These works add a depth of understanding about the working class and the system of subjugation. What is often lacking in Marxism is an ethnographic telling of working class lived realities. I often find myself so frustrated at some of the assumptions and presumptions Marxist make about the future and what is the 'objective' interests of the working class, while ignoring the drudgery of working life or its opposite the success of working life for certian labour aristocrats. Ehtnography often reveals that people are more willing to accept the way things are and these ideas are fully embedded in the embodiment of subjugated people.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Absolutely. It raises many important points about the kinds of instances we're talking about and their ability to act as a barrier to any kind of hegemonic class-consciousness, forcing Marxists to look deeper into the workings of society which can't be answered with sweeping, reductionist statements. For me, this sort of thing points me to thinkers like Althusser.

[blake 3:17]

Absolutely. It raises many important points about the kinds of instances we're talking about and their ability to act as a barrier to any kind of hegemonic class-consciousness, forcing Marxists to look deeper into the workings of society which can't be answered with sweeping, reductionist statements. For me, this sort of thing points me to thinkers like Althusser.


Althusser's theory of ideology is an obvious influence, but Althusser pretty much stayed in abstract theory, whereas Bordieu did actual empirical research. His book on television or The Weight of the World have much more practical dimensions to them.

Edited to add:
I often find myself so frustrated at some of the assumptions and presumptions Marxist make about the future and what is the 'objective' interests of the working class, while ignoring the drudgery of working life or its opposite the success of working life for certian labour aristocrats.

Yes!!!! 100% agreement!!! I've had some very frustrating experiences explaining to fellow Marxists the contradictions of stratification within a union local I was in. More than half the local was made up of part time employees and within this unit there were tremendous contradictions. Some of us were trying to make a living, others were doing it temporarily while they were in school or had other obligations, and some were doing it as a hobby that brought in a little extra cash. Nobody got benefits from these jobs, but many got them through spouses/family or pension plans. Others had none. Sometimes the smallest differences in wages or job security create the biggest conflict between co-workers and do the most to undermine solidarity. Relatively small differences in income have huge effects in terms of housing, health, possibilities for education or other pursuits. There are tremendous differences in consciousness between tenants and home owners, and I agree that too often Marxists ignore these issues. Thanks!

[citizen of industry]

Yes!!!! 100% agreement!!! I've had some very frustrating experiences explaining to fellow Marxists the contradictions of stratification within a union local I was in. More than half the local was made up of part time employees and within this unit there were tremendous contradictions. Some of us were trying to make a living, others were doing it temporarily while they were in school or had other obligations, and some were doing it as a hobby that brought in a little extra cash. Nobody got benefits from these jobs, but many got them through spouses/family or pension plans. Others had none. Sometimes the smallest differences in wages or job security create the biggest conflict between co-workers and do the most to undermine solidarity. Relatively small differences in income have huge effects in terms of housing, health, possibilities for education or other pursuits. There are tremendous differences in consciousness between tenants and home owners, and I agree that too often Marxists ignore these issues. Thanks!

I'm not sure how Marxists ignores these issues. One of the biggest obstacles in organizing casual workers is convincing them that they need to be in a union in the first place, in my experience. That's hard when they have no job security and little invested in a particular job, and don't see it as a long-term thing. Once they are in the union, the difference in income and stability needs to be explained that it isn't that some workers earn more than others, but that everyone doesn't earn enough. Also that the economic trend is for outsourcing, irregular contracts, multiple part-time jobs, etc. You can show the workers with the better jobs a vision of their own future in the irregular workers.

How do these differences effect consciousness? Well, some irregular workers can't find anything better, and are apt to be more class-conscious. Other irregular workers don't see the point in fighting for better working conditions in a job they don't care for, and are apt to be less conscious. Some fully-employed workers have homes and good jobs, and are apt to be less conscious. Other fully-employed workers with homes and good jobs are seeing their job security eroded and worry about the house payment, and are apt to be more conscious.

In any case, aren't we discussing trade-union consciousness here? Marxism seeks to abolish the wage system altogether. Does trade union consciousness lead to class consciousness? Not necessarily. It depends on the condition of the economy, the militancy of the union, the political situation, etc.

[Hiero]

Absolutely. It raises many important points about the kinds of instances we're talking about and their ability to act as a barrier to any kind of hegemonic class-consciousness, forcing Marxists to look deeper into the workings of society which can't be answered with sweeping, reductionist statements. For me, this sort of thing points me to thinkers like Althusser.

I like Althusser in one aspect, he vies ideology as embedded in practice. However he utilises the same cartesian logic as Marx. He seperates ideas and body. Where as Bourdieu is more phenomenological, and sees the two intertwined. As blake notes, perhaps this has to do with lack of enthographic examples?