Materialism and Marxism in the works of Pierre Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory represents an attempt to raise the social phenomena of contemporary capitalism, issuing, concepts based on the analysis of daily life as structures of social reality that influence the different ways of assessing things based on the interest of the interest ofindividuals in a given field (political, economic, cultural, intellectual and social). Assuming another look on the forms of domination that were beyond the classic vision of Marxism. (Cf. Therborn, 2007: 101-103). This document seeks to perform an analysis that allows to demonstrate how Bourdieu’s approaches are compatible, with the theories of Marxism and have meeting points that denote more differences from the dialectical or reasonable plane.
Pierre Bourdieu’s approaches coincide with Marxist theory in terms of every capital is accumulated work. However, the work category differs between one and the other;For Bourdieu, work does not consist merely in an activity producing goods and services as a generator of greater value, but expands the concept to cover aspects beyond those traditionally studied by political economy. The meaning of this reformulation points to the fact that society would be divided into different relatively autonomous social fields, neither totally dependent nor totally self-sufficient each other, and linked or related to each other. Within each of those different fields, the agents would gradually be divided between those who dominate and who are dominated. Some would occupy positions and maintain relationships of domination against others whose positions and relationships would be subordination. What would mainly characterize each of these social spaces would be the existence of a common capital that everyone would try to possess, producing the consequent struggles and tensions that will consist, in the case of those most privileged classes, in trying to maintain and increase that capitalwhich is the one that gives them their superior status, and, in the case of the intermediate and low classes, in improving their situation trying to change the order of things. This search for improvements in its own existence, leads, to the least outstanding, to fight so that the classes ostentators of power and, therefore, hoarders of most of the capital, not only economic, but also cultural and social, sharethose advantages with them. Of course, it is an unequal struggle, the favored classes have more resources to get the capital, while the intermediates and lows will have to devise them to, even without having so many resources, to also enjoy that capital. The effort, clearly, must be much greater. (Bourdieu, 2002).
It should be noted that the notion of capital in its economic dimension can adopt several forms. For example, whoever invests their money in a private school for the education of their children, reconcuting their economic capital in cultural capital and, sometimes also in social capital due to belonging to a select group (only if they have consolidated lasting ties as forto carry out common companies and businesses) and with it strengthen resources from the educational training received, which is to close the circle that re -enter the economic capital originally invested with greater benefits (in Marx’s logic the money creates more money ‘). In this sense, Bourdieu’s proposal exceeds other theoretical proposals since they only tend to focus profitability and benefits in economic terms. (Bourdieu 2001: 137).
Precisely, it is from the conversion of the capitals, where the coincidences between the two theories are evidenced. Relating economic capital, with the share capital and cultural. In both cases, it is about starting with social subjects, on the one hand, the habitus of Bourdieu and on the other Marx is emphatic in stating that capital has a relationship with social force (cfr. Marx and Engels, S.F.: 48-49).
In contrast to Marxist theory, Bourdieu makes a significant contribution to social theory by focusing attention on non -immediately economic forms of social power, but in its formulation, due to its rejection of Marxism, it speaks accumulatory activities of other types of capital;However, to dedicate attention to social capitals, economic production is necessarily needed;Although Marx did not specifically theorize about processes such as those studied by Bourdieu – many of them symbolic, he left the foundations for problematizing them. Bourdieu is right when focusing social practice, above economic practice. Before all these contrasts there is a question that becomes evident? This question could be answered with the fact that the existence of different types of capital allows Bourdieu to address the importance of contemporary social movements and demands, analyzing phenomena such as male domination, distinction and symbolic violence, topics that play an importantrole in his theory.
We can conclude that the tension in the conceptualization of Bourdieu regarding the transformation of capitals is, therefore, that of the contradiction between the division of postmodern sensitivity, and the changes in social practices and in particular of Marxism, through theUltimately Economic Preminence. The emphasis of this author who shares with other contemporaries of his such as Foucault, Certeau and Deleuze, among others on the political role of corporality and the temporalities by her also produced part of the concern for the rationalization processes and the possibilities of individual resistance, after the crisis of the workers’ parties in Western Europe, and in the context of the economic-burocratic administration strategies of capitalism of flexible accumulation (cfr. Harvey, 1999: 213-217).
Bibliographic references
- Gutiérrez, a. Complutense Magazine of Education Vol. 14 no. 2 (2003) 453-482. With Marx and against Marx »: Materialism in Pierre Bourdieu
- Mariano, h. (2018). Pierre Bourdieu: For a sociology about the State and educational policies. Educational praxis, 13 (1), 145-153.
- Márquez, Á. (2007). Think the complexity from the cognitive praxis of intersubjective rationality. Latin American utopia and praxis, 12 (38), 99-106.
- Márquez, Á. (2008). Modern State’s political episteme crisis in Latin America. Obtained from IX Runner of Ideas.
- Bourdieu, Pierre, Contrafuegos 2. For a European social movement, Barcelona, Anagrama, 2001.
Leave feedback