Durkheim & Bourdieu on class & inequality

Summary

This lecture explores the development of class and inequality theories by French sociologists Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu. Durkheim's work on division of labor and its impact on social solidarity is contrasted with traditional and industrial societies. Bourdieu's concept of class is examined through the lens of capital, habitus, and field, highlighting the struggle for recognition and dignity as the driving force behind social hierarchies and distinctions.

Takeaways

• 📚 Emile Durkheim's work on class inequality is closely tied to his analysis of the division of labour in society.
• 🔗 Durkheim identified social solidarity in traditional societies as being based on shared customs and norms, contrasting with the occupational specialization in industrial societies.
• 🌐 Durkheim explained the evolution from pre-industrial to industrial societies, highlighting the increasing specialization of occupations as a key factor.
• 🛠️ Durkheim discussed three abnormal forms of the division of labour that lead to class and inequality issues in industrial societies.
• 💼 The concept of 'anomic division of labour' by Durkheim refers to the negative outcomes of rapid industrialization and poor economic policies.
• 🧩 Durkheim addressed 'forced division of labour', where inequality not inherent to the division of labour itself endangers social solidarity.
• 🤝 Pierre Bourdieu's sociological project focuses on how social inequality is organized around class divisions and perpetuated in society.
• 🏆 Bourdieu defined class based on the conditions of existence and the endowments of power or capital, leading to different 'habitus' or dispositions.
• 💼 Bourdieu identified four main forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic, which determine an individual's or group's social position.
• 🌟 Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus' describes the set of dispositions that shape individuals' perceptions and actions, influenced by their social positions and capital.
• 🎲 Bourdieu's notion of 'fields' represents different social spheres with distinct structures and struggles for recognition and dignity.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the lecture on class and inequality?

The lecture focuses on the development of ideas on class and inequality by Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu, two famous French sociologists, and how their work relates to the ideas of Marx and Weber.

How does Durkheim's concept of social solidarity differ between traditional and industrial societies?

Durkheim argued that traditional societies had a simple division of labour with social solidarity based on common customs and norms, while industrial societies had a complex division of labour with occupational specialisation as the basis for social solidarity.

What is the 'anomic division of labour' according to Durkheim?

The anomic division of labour refers to an abnormal form where rapid industrialisation and poor economic planning result in economic crises, class conflict, and meaningless work, disrupting social solidarity.

What are the two main forms of inequality that Durkheim identified as external to the division of labour itself?

Durkheim identified a mismatch between the distribution of natural talents and social functions, and unequal exchange, particularly in the form of unequal contracts between people in unequal bargaining positions.

How does Pierre Bourdieu define class divisions?

Bourdieu defines class divisions in terms of the different conditions of existence, which provide people with different endowments of power or capital and different sets of dispositions for how they live.

What are the four main forms of capital identified by Bourdieu?

Bourdieu identified economic capital, cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital as the four main forms that are used in the struggle for social positions and recognition.

What is 'habitus' in Bourdieu's sociological framework?

Habitus refers to a set of durable and transposable dispositions that shape people's perceptions, judgements, and actions, and is structured by past and present conditions of existence and capital endowments.

How does Bourdieu conceptualise the social world in terms of 'fields'?

Bourdieu sees the social world as divided into different spheres or fields, each with its own structure of positions, rules, and forms of authority, where struggles occur over the distribution of capital.

What is the fundamental drive behind the struggles within Bourdieu's concept of 'fields'?

The fundamental drive behind the struggles within fields is the quest for recognition and dignity, as people seek a distinctive place and function within society.

How does Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus' influence an individual's practices across different areas of life?

An individual's habitus shapes their orientation to work, leisure activities, cultural consumption, social interactions, and various other aspects of life, reflecting their social conditioning and capital endowments.

What is the relationship between Durkheim's and Bourdieu's perspectives on class and inequality?

While both Durkheim and Bourdieu focus on class and inequality, Durkheim emphasizes the role of the division of labour and its impact on social solidarity, whereas Bourdieu focuses on the role of different forms of capital and habitus in shaping social positions and struggles within various fields.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Durkheim's View on Class Inequality and Division of Labour

This paragraph delves into Emile Durkheim's perspective on class inequality and its connection to the division of labour in society. Durkheim's work, notably in 'The Division of Labour in Society,' is explored, highlighting the development of complex division of labour during the Industrial Revolution and its impact on individual autonomy and social cohesion. The text outlines three main parts of Durkheim's analysis: the comparison of social solidarity between traditional and industrial societies, the evolution of industrial societies from pre-industrial ones, and the examination of abnormal forms of division of labour leading to class and inequality issues. Durkheim identified anomic, forced, and poorly coordinated divisions of labour as sources of social disruption and class conflict, attributing these disruptions more to the transition between societal stages rather than the inherent instability of capitalism.

05:06

🏛 Bourdieu's Sociological Insights on Class and Capital

Pierre Bourdieu's sociological framework is the focus of this paragraph, emphasizing his examination of social inequality and its perpetuation through class divisions. Bourdieu defined class in terms of conditions of existence and the endowments of power or 'capital' that result from these conditions. He identified four forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic, which contribute to an individual's or group's social position. The concept of 'habitus' is introduced as a set of dispositions shaped by an individual's social position and capital endowment, influencing their practices and perceptions across life. Bourdieu also discusses the concept of 'fields' as distinct social spheres with their own structures and struggles, underlining the quest for recognition and dignity as a fundamental driver of social dynamics. The competitive nature of society and the resulting hierarchies are seen as integral to the human experience, as per Bourdieu's analysis.

Keywords

💡Class Inequality

Class inequality refers to the disparities in wealth, power, and social status among different groups in society, often structured along economic lines. In the video, it is central to the discussion of how Durkheim and Bourdieu developed their sociological theories. For instance, Durkheim's analysis of the division of labor and its impact on social solidarity indirectly addresses class inequality, while Bourdieu's concept of capital directly engages with the mechanisms that perpetuate class differences.

💡Division of Labour

The division of labour is a concept that describes how work is distributed among individuals in a society. In Durkheim's work, as mentioned in the script, it is tied to the evolution from traditional to industrial societies and the resulting changes in social solidarity. The script explains how Durkheim saw the complex division of labour in industrial societies as a basis for a new form of social solidarity, contrasting with the simpler, norm-based solidarity of pre-industrial societies.

💡Social Solidarity

Social solidarity is the cohesion that binds individuals together in a society, ensuring its continuity. In the script, Durkheim's concept of social solidarity is contrasted between traditional societies with simple divisions of labour and industrial societies with complex divisions. The video emphasizes how the type of social solidarity changes with the development of the division of labour, affecting class relations and societal structure.

💡Anomic Division of Labour

Anomic division of labour is one of the abnormal forms identified by Durkheim, where rapid industrialization and poor economic planning lead to economic crises and class conflict. The script describes how this form of division can result in meaningless work and disrupt social solidarity, illustrating the negative consequences of industrialization on societal cohesion.

💡Forced Division of Labour

Forced division of labour is another abnormal form discussed by Durkheim, where external inequalities endanger social solidarity. The script explains that Durkheim was particularly concerned with the mismatch between the distribution of natural talents and the social functions assigned to them, which can lead to class conflict and a breakdown of social solidarity.

💡Capital

In Bourdieu's theory, capital refers to any resource that can be used to accumulate profit in social arenas. The script outlines four main forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. Capital is central to understanding how class divisions are maintained and how individuals navigate different social fields, affecting their social status and opportunities.

💡Habitus

Habitus, as defined by Bourdieu, is a set of durable and transposable dispositions that shape an individual's perceptions, judgments, and actions. The script explains how the habitus is structured by past and present conditions and influences a person's practices across various life areas. It is a key concept in understanding how individuals internalize and perpetuate social inequalities.

💡Field

A field, in Bourdieu's sociology, is a social space with its own structure of positions, rules, and forms of authority. The script describes how fields, such as the economy, politics, or art, are arenas of struggle between individuals and groups seeking to preserve or change the distribution of capital. Fields are essential to understanding the dynamics of social inequality and the pursuit of recognition.

💡Social Inequality

Social inequality is the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, and social positions among individuals and groups. The script discusses how Bourdieu saw social inequality as organized around class divisions and perpetuated through various forms of capital. It is a fundamental theme in the video, highlighting the mechanisms that maintain and reinforce class differences.

💡Recognition

Recognition, in Bourdieu's view, is a quest for dignity and a distinctive place within society. The script explains how this competitive quest for recognition drives individuals to invest in social games, seeking validation and a justification for their existence. Recognition is a key motivator in the struggles within social fields and contributes to the creation of social hierarchies.

Highlights

The lecture explores the development of Marx and Weber's ideas on class and inequality by French sociologists Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu.

Durkheim's work on class inequality is connected to his analysis of the division of labor in society.

Bourdieu's conception of class is explained in relation to his broader sociological project and key concepts like capital, habitus, and field.

Durkheim's contribution to class and inequality has been less influential than Marx and Weber's work.

Durkheim discussed class in his book 'The Division of Labour in Society', focusing on the development of complex division of labor in Europe post-Industrial Revolution.

Durkheim identified three main parts in his analysis: social solidarity comparison, evolution of industrial societies, and abnormal forms of division of labor leading to class and inequality.

Durkheim defined social solidarity as the bonds uniting people and enabling societal continuity.

Traditional societies had simple division of labor with conformity induced by shared customs and norms, while industrial societies had complex division of labor with occupational specialization.

Durkheim argued that increasing specialization of occupations in industrial societies enabled different groups to coexist and utilize resources more efficiently.

Durkheim identified three abnormal forms of division of labor causing class and inequality: anomic, forced, and poorly coordinated work allocation.

Anomic division of labor results from rapid industrialization, poor economic planning, and industrial relations policy.

Forced division of labor is caused by inequality external to the division of labor itself, endangering social solidarity.

Durkheim attributed class conflict to the denial of opportunities for talented lower-class members due to hereditary social positions.

Bourdieu became a sociologist after witnessing the impact of war, capitalism, and colonialism on Algerian society.

Bourdieu defined class divisions based on different conditions of existence, endowments of power or capital, and social conditioning.

Bourdieu identified four main forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic.

Habitus, according to Bourdieu, is a set of durable dispositions shaped by an individual's social position and endowment of capital.

Bourdieu emphasized that society should be seen as divided into different fields with unique structures and struggles.

Bourdieu believed that struggles within fields are driven by a quest for recognition and dignity.

The competitive quest for recognition recreates social differences and hierarchies, according to Bourdieu.

Transcripts

This lecture looks at how the ideas of Marx and Weber have been developed in the work on class

and inequality by two famous French sociologists: Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu.

First, it will explain how Durkheim’s writing about class inequality is connected to his work on the division of labour in society.

Second, it will outline Bourdieu’s conception of class, and explain how this is related to his

broader sociological project, and to his other key concepts, such as capital, habitus and field.

Like Marx and Weber, Durkheim also wrote on class and inequality.

However, his contribution to this topic has not had the profile or influence of Marx and Weber’s work.

One of the main places where Durkheim discussed class was in his book The Division of Labour in Society.

This was concerned with analysing the development of a new and complex division of labour, which had developed in Europe with the

Industrial Revolution, and the implications of this for individual autonomy and social cohesion.

The book had three main parts.

FIRST, Durkheim compared traditional or pre- industrial societies with industrial societies in terms of their social solidarity.

By social solidarity, Durkheim meant the bonds that united people together and made the continuity of societies possible.

He argued that traditional societies had a relatively simple division of labour, and people were generally bound together through commonly

held customs, moral beliefs and norms which induced conformity and structured daily life.

By contrast, industrial societies had a complex division of labour with occupational specialisation as the basis of social solidarity.

In this complex division of labour, individuals were highly dependent on each other and society to fulfil their various needs and functions.

SECOND, Durkheim provided an explanation of how the later industrial societies had evolved out of the earlier pre-industrial societies.

He argued that as populations grew, and transport and communication links increased,

more individuals were brought into contact and interaction with each other.

While this could put pressure on the environment, and heighten competition between people for

scarce resources, Durkheim argued that the increasing specialisation of occupations enabled

different groups to more easily co-exist and make use of different resources.

THIRD, Durkheim analysed three abnormal forms of the division of labour in industrial societies

where they did not produce the social solidarity he expected.

This is where he addressed the topic of class and inequality.

The first abnormal form of the division of labour was the anomic division of labour.

Here Durkheim argued that rapid industrialisation combined with poor economic planning and

industrial relations policy had resulted in economic crises, bankruptcies, class conflict,

industrial restructuring, and meaningless, regimented forms of work.

The second abnormal form of the division of labour was the forced division of labour.

Here Durkheim argued that inequality external to the division of labour itself had endangered social solidarity.

Durkheim focussed on two main forms of inequality generated by forces other than the division of labour itself.

The first involved a mismatch between the distribution of natural talents in the society and the social functions assigned to them.

In other words, some naturally talented people were deprived of suitable higher level work,

while others with little talent were under- achieving in the positions they were allocated.

Durkheim saw this as a class issue where talented members of the lower classes were

denied the opportunities that members of higher classes had.

He attributed one form of class conflict to lower class attempts to open up higher social positions, which were otherwise closed to them.

He believed that the division of labour would only produce social solidarity when social inequalities exactly expressed natural inequalities.

The SECOND form of inequality that Durkheim discussed was unequal exchange, particularly

unequal contracts between people, where the price of the good or service bore no relation to its actual cost or value.

This could occur when the contracting parties were in unequal bargaining positions.

Durkheim wrote that

This was particularly true when unequal social positions were hereditary and when ‘the law [itself] sanctioned all kinds of inequalities.’

The THIRD abnormal form of the division of labour that Durkheim discussed had no specific name.

However, it involved the poor allocation and coordination of work so that production was

disrupted, workers were unoccupied and social solidarity broke down.

Durkheim’s over-riding belief was that these disruptions to social solidarity had more to do

with the difficulties of transition from pre- industrial to industrial societies rather than to

instability and inequalities generated by the structure of capitalism itself.

The second famous French sociologist we are looking at is Pierre Bourdieu, who lived from 1930 to 2002.

He became a sociologist after military service in Algeria in the 1950s where he saw the impact of

war, capitalism and colonialism on Algerian society.

Bourdieu had an abiding interest in the study of social inequality and the ways it is masked and perpetuated in society.

He saw social inequality as being organised around class inequality.

He defined class divisions in terms of the different conditions of existence in which people live.

These conditions of existence provided people with different endowments of power or capital (

resources), and through their social conditioning, different sets of dispositions for how they would live.

Bourdieu defined class as: the set of ‘all biological individuals who, being the product of the same

objective conditions, have the same habitus [or dispositions].

He went on to say that “A social class (in-itself) - a class of identical or similar conditions of

existence and conditionings - is at the same time a class of biological individuals having the same

habitus, understood as a system of dispositions common to all products of the same conditionings.”

For Bourdieu, the dispositions that people acquire depend on the social positions they occupy in

society, and, in particular, their endowment of various types of ‘capital’.

Capital is any resource which enables a person to accumulate ‘profit’ from their participation or

contest in a given social arena, such as a school, labour market, workplace, artistic milieu, or scientific field.

Bourdieu distinguished four main forms of capital that are used in this struggle:

FIRST, ECONOMIC capital, which includes money, financial assets and material goods.

SECOND, CULTURAL capital, which includes titles, awards, qualifications and scarce cultural knowledge.

THIRD, SOCIAL capital which includes connections with prominent or influential people.

FOURTH, SYMBOLIC capital, which includes social legitimation, honour and respect.

Bourdieu identifies the social positions of different individuals or groups by the overall volume and composition of capital they have.

Thus, old wealthy families might be high in both economic and cultural capital, while newly rich

people might have high economic capital but low cultural capital.

Members of the lower classes might be low in both economic and cultural capital.

Bourdieu also noted that the volume and composition of capital can vary over time, and

this can mark the trajectory of a person’s social biography.

He argued that the uneven conditions of existence in which people live, and their different

endowments of capital, conditioned them develop a particular kind of “habitus”, which refers to a

set of durable and transposable dispositions which shaped people’s perceptions, judgements and actions in the world.

This habitus is structured by past and present conditions, but it also structures a person’s practices across different areas of their lives.

An individual’s habitus will shape their orientation to the work they do, the leisure activities they

engage in, the television and films they watch, the books and magazines they read, their internet

habits, whether they go to art galleries and which ones, which sports they’re interested in, what

parts of the city they find interesting and attractive, just to mention a few examples.

Bourdieu also emphasised that society should be seen as divided up into different spheres or

FIELDS, such as the economy, politics, art, science and religion.

Each of these fields has its own structure of positions, rules, requirements and forms of authority, rather than there being a single society-

wide set of “rules of the game”, to use Bourdieu’s expression.

Fields are arenas of struggles, between individuals and groups seeking to preserve or

change the existing distribution of capital within that field.

Such struggles within a field could occur, for example, in the field of art between the art

establishment and the avant-garde, or in the field of academic economics between the economic

establishment and dissident economists over positions, titles, authority and economic rewards.

Importantly, Bourdieu thought that all these sorts of struggles should be understood as

fundamentally driven by a quest for recognition and dignity.

He thought that people invested considerable effort in the pursuit of a distinctive place, name

and function within society in order to escape the finitude, contingency and absurdity of human existence.

He wrote that ‘With investment in a game, and the recognition that can come from cooperative

competition with others, the social world offers humans that which they most totally lack: a justification for existing.’

For Bourdieu, it is this competitive quest for recognition, necessarily involving a willingness to be exposed to the judgement of others, that re-

creates the differences and hierarchies lying at the heart of social existence.

These, in turn, wrote Bourdieu, are part of the continuing interplay between success and

failure, recognition and misrecognition, distinction and pretence, that oscillate through human lives.