Bourdieu’s concept of field is important for me because of my interest in how things are interrelated. Field is described as a “corrective against positivism” (p. 119), however, I think it would be best described as another tool in the toolkit. Field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. In regards to how I see research, I think using the concept of field when conducting research is useful when thinking about cultural/racial allies. One reason is because it “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate this point because (again) this is where my research and theoretical interest focus. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes these allies are invisible in their relations. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine this concept would be a very good match because it encourages seeking out these kinds of relations (interactions among actors) for research. Who are racial allies for people they do not know or will never meet? How and why do they consider themselves allies? Why do they choose to do work in an “invisible” way?
The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. It is defined as sites of resistance as well as domination and are linked (p. 121). This is also an important concept for me because as I am thinking about Omi and Winant’s racial formation, I am struck by how they historically looked at racial formation (“sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabitated, and transformed” p. 55 in Omi & Winant) and racial projects (how people are situated, in Omi & Winant) historically. Bourdieu, Omi & Winant theories overlap because, many fields of struggle took part within racial projects. As described in the Bourdieu book, we are all part of these fields of struggle and that is why he is calling for a “reflexive practice of sociology” (p. 122). This call for practice of reflection, I would argue critical reflection, is very important because we cannot escape society and these racial projects and racial formation within it, so we need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own bias. Bourdieu also calls for researcher critical reflection on theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (p. 58). I wonder if Bourdieu is using the concept of reflection and reflexivity the way Schön (reflective practitioner) and some of the earlier scholars uses it? I wonder how Bourdieu suggests facilitation of critical reflection and does he write more about this? I wonder how Omi and Winant think about researcher critical reflection the way Bourdieu calls for it? This is how I’m thinking of fields of struggle and why I think it can be so useful in researching race.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Bauman's Consuming Life
Consuming Life talks about the over indulgence of material goods in Western Culture.
I think Bauman is saying that our culture is out of balance regarding consumerism vs producer and that it has societal consequences.
For example, at the beginning he talks about how in the late 1920s society moved from producers to consumer (p. 7). How is this shift related to the Industrial Revolution? Before then people were more dependent on physical labor for production and consumption. Now with mass production maybe access to products became cheaper hence the producer to consumer shift. Also, I think that there is a relationship with the increased consumerism and more people working away from home (i.e. in factories). I know for myself when I’m away from home for long periods of time (vacation, conferences, ect.) to I begin to sift to a more consumer stance. At home I can balance my own production for consumption. I also think there is a connection between globalization and the global markets increasing consumerism (Bauman addresses this also).
He goes on later to talk about waste and excess (p. 38). This notion of waste and excess is also very cultural even within the US because from what I’ve experienced I feel that middle class Midwesterners tend to have a higher level of excess. This is seen in the big yards, large houses, and large vehicles. I think Midwesterners also tend to be larger people (height &/or weight)! I think know this is historical and related to topography. I’ve noticed compared to the east coast, people seem to have fewer cars and smaller dwellings. I’m not exactly sure about the west and south but I think it may be the same for similar reasons. I have not done or read studies or articles on this, but it would be interesting to find out more.
Would Bauman consider education consumption/consumerism? I think so. I don’t think he addresses education in particular, but I see some qualities of education reflected in the text. One example I’m thinking of when he explains that consumerism is a type of social arrangement that has a socializing effect (p. 28). This is the primary goal of education in the US. Also, at the beginning of chapter 2 he talks about reflexivity and personal excitement (p. 52). He is saying that people should be more thoughtful about their goals and life’s meaning. I think Parker Palmer also talks about this regarding the culture of teaching. He asks us to think about why we became teachers and to tap into the love of the work. Sometimes teachers get too caught up in external demands and forget why they joined the profession. Although there is always a call for reflexivity in teaching, but it is very difficult as it is a cultural shift.
I also can connect academic achievement to p. 68, because I think Bauman is discussing how a system is designed to get the results it is supposed to (such as education systems). Many kids that don’t do well in school underachieve because the system is under-serving them. It is a cultural mis-match and schools have a difficult time changing.
I love in Ch. 3 when he says “As a rule, they accept the short lifespan of things” (p 86) [regarding consumers]. The reason this connected with me is because teachers would tell me that they would wait out education initiatives because these initiatives would come and go like the wind (Bauman again discusses on p. 107). I believe that this is what many educators may say across the country. I noticed that things are not given a chance to work (3-5 years for change efforts) before they are completely discontinued. Instead of organizations reflecting on what has worked to move forward, a new model is introduced which does not take the learning from the old model. “Consuming life cannot be other than a life of rapid learning, but it also needs to be a life of swift forgetting” (p. 96)…
I enjoyed the section on Collateral Casualties of Consumerism because it talks a lot about intent vs. impact (i.e. war section) and how people don’t intend to do damage/hurt other people, but do so (sometimes large scale damage to other people and their lives). This problem is grounded in not enough perspective taking and relationship building in which the participants talk about their differences. As educators, we should be sure to attempt to instill this quality in our students and encourage them to use it regularly. Although I liked this session, the criticism I have with it is the politically loaded word terrorist (p. 118). “Terrorist” is heavily grounded in perspectives. Furthermore some of the text makes me uncomfortable due to its broad sweeping generalizations about people (“since those who planned and delivered it did not particularly care” p.119). Maybe they did care. Who is to say that they DID NOT care? I think that sometimes the language is overboard and promotes stereotypes.
Overall, I like reading Bauman’s book. I think maybe it was too loaded in his perspective and maybe he should have addressed the critics. If he had have done this, I would have thought that the work would have been more thorough. For example on p. 17 he says life’s necessities were “once upon a time obtained the hard way”. For example, a person living in poverty has to go through a very extensive and sometimes demeaning process to get food (i.e. food lines, food stamp office, etc) or clothes. This is getting life’s necessities in a hard way. His idea of the “hard way” is very culturally loaded. He took very hard lines on many issues. However, maybe that was Bauman’s goal.
I think Bauman is saying that our culture is out of balance regarding consumerism vs producer and that it has societal consequences.
For example, at the beginning he talks about how in the late 1920s society moved from producers to consumer (p. 7). How is this shift related to the Industrial Revolution? Before then people were more dependent on physical labor for production and consumption. Now with mass production maybe access to products became cheaper hence the producer to consumer shift. Also, I think that there is a relationship with the increased consumerism and more people working away from home (i.e. in factories). I know for myself when I’m away from home for long periods of time (vacation, conferences, ect.) to I begin to sift to a more consumer stance. At home I can balance my own production for consumption. I also think there is a connection between globalization and the global markets increasing consumerism (Bauman addresses this also).
He goes on later to talk about waste and excess (p. 38). This notion of waste and excess is also very cultural even within the US because from what I’ve experienced I feel that middle class Midwesterners tend to have a higher level of excess. This is seen in the big yards, large houses, and large vehicles. I think Midwesterners also tend to be larger people (height &/or weight)! I think know this is historical and related to topography. I’ve noticed compared to the east coast, people seem to have fewer cars and smaller dwellings. I’m not exactly sure about the west and south but I think it may be the same for similar reasons. I have not done or read studies or articles on this, but it would be interesting to find out more.
Would Bauman consider education consumption/consumerism? I think so. I don’t think he addresses education in particular, but I see some qualities of education reflected in the text. One example I’m thinking of when he explains that consumerism is a type of social arrangement that has a socializing effect (p. 28). This is the primary goal of education in the US. Also, at the beginning of chapter 2 he talks about reflexivity and personal excitement (p. 52). He is saying that people should be more thoughtful about their goals and life’s meaning. I think Parker Palmer also talks about this regarding the culture of teaching. He asks us to think about why we became teachers and to tap into the love of the work. Sometimes teachers get too caught up in external demands and forget why they joined the profession. Although there is always a call for reflexivity in teaching, but it is very difficult as it is a cultural shift.
I also can connect academic achievement to p. 68, because I think Bauman is discussing how a system is designed to get the results it is supposed to (such as education systems). Many kids that don’t do well in school underachieve because the system is under-serving them. It is a cultural mis-match and schools have a difficult time changing.
I love in Ch. 3 when he says “As a rule, they accept the short lifespan of things” (p 86) [regarding consumers]. The reason this connected with me is because teachers would tell me that they would wait out education initiatives because these initiatives would come and go like the wind (Bauman again discusses on p. 107). I believe that this is what many educators may say across the country. I noticed that things are not given a chance to work (3-5 years for change efforts) before they are completely discontinued. Instead of organizations reflecting on what has worked to move forward, a new model is introduced which does not take the learning from the old model. “Consuming life cannot be other than a life of rapid learning, but it also needs to be a life of swift forgetting” (p. 96)…
I enjoyed the section on Collateral Casualties of Consumerism because it talks a lot about intent vs. impact (i.e. war section) and how people don’t intend to do damage/hurt other people, but do so (sometimes large scale damage to other people and their lives). This problem is grounded in not enough perspective taking and relationship building in which the participants talk about their differences. As educators, we should be sure to attempt to instill this quality in our students and encourage them to use it regularly. Although I liked this session, the criticism I have with it is the politically loaded word terrorist (p. 118). “Terrorist” is heavily grounded in perspectives. Furthermore some of the text makes me uncomfortable due to its broad sweeping generalizations about people (“since those who planned and delivered it did not particularly care” p.119). Maybe they did care. Who is to say that they DID NOT care? I think that sometimes the language is overboard and promotes stereotypes.
Overall, I like reading Bauman’s book. I think maybe it was too loaded in his perspective and maybe he should have addressed the critics. If he had have done this, I would have thought that the work would have been more thorough. For example on p. 17 he says life’s necessities were “once upon a time obtained the hard way”. For example, a person living in poverty has to go through a very extensive and sometimes demeaning process to get food (i.e. food lines, food stamp office, etc) or clothes. This is getting life’s necessities in a hard way. His idea of the “hard way” is very culturally loaded. He took very hard lines on many issues. However, maybe that was Bauman’s goal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
