Bourdieu, Education, and Me

In my conceptualization of education research, several theoretical tenants of Bourdieu’s sociology are useful. My underlying research interests encompass how power is reflected in the discourse on race from postsecondary teacher educators who teach future education faculty. Bourdieu’s sociology connected to some of the concepts I think are important when researching race in the United States such as sociology as socioanalysis, field, reflection, and cultural capital.

Sociology as Socioanalysis

Bourdieu approaches sociology as socioanalysis. It is best described by using an analogy: the sociologist researcher is to the social unconscious of society as the psychoanalyst is to a patient’s unconscious (Swartz, 1997). This approach is similar to the notion of cultural encapsulation. Cultural encapsulation is when people are immersed in their culture and are unaware of cultural differences. Their level of cultural awareness is heightened when they are immersed for long periods of time in a different dominate culture (similar to what a psychoanalyst can do for a patient’s unconsciousness). The concept of sociology as socioanalysis is important when researching how race and racism encapsulate people. Researching power reflected in discourse brings the social unconscious to the social conscious because people tend to be culturally encapsulated.

Field

Not only do I have an interest in individual discourses, but also how these discourses interact in group dynamics. Field is important because can addresses racialized group dynamics. Field is described a social space where people are connected and negotiate cultural capital (Swartz, 1997).

Field is considered a “corrective against positivism”(p.119). This is important to me because I planned to use qualitative methods in research. Although important, I do not see field as a corrective but as a tool in the research toolbox. Neither field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. I think that positivistic ways of conducting research are is appropriate at times, but it depends on effects of politics of race the researcher is trying to illuminate. This is one reason why field is important as I think about conducting research about cultural/racial allies.

Field also “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate his point because this is my research interest. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes the work of these allies (and maybe even the allies themselves) may be elusive to the oppressed in how they resist racism. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine the concept of elusive racial allies could be successful because it encourages seeking out these kinds of underlying relationships for research. The types of research questions that can be constructed considering field are: Who are elusive racial allies? How and why do they consider themselves allies? If an ally is elusive in their relations, 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. These types of fields are sites where resistance as well as domination is linked (p. 121). This link (fields of struggle) is very important because racial actors are situated in these fields of struggle. Fields of struggle can be seen in what Omi and Winant calls racial projects. Racial projects are ways in which a reorganization and redistribution of resources along racial lines occur, and racial dynamics are concurrently interpreted, represented, or explained (Omi and Winant, 1994). Everyone is part of a field of struggle in racial projects at some points in our lives. As I think about studying racism, it is important to understand how racialized groups are situated in fields (resistance as well as dominated) within racial projects.

Reflection

Bourdieu’s reinforced the use of reflection in research and this resonated with me especially as I think about researching race in education. We all are part of fields of struggles at different times and this is a reason I think Bourdieu’s call for a reflexive practice of sociology is important (Swartz, 1997).

Bourdieu goes on to further call for researcher critical reflection on their theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (Swartz, 1997). Critical reflection is a deeper level of reflection because it calls for a self questioning of our own beliefs. 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 racial biases as they relate to racial projects. As race is a very fluid notion and very complex, it is important that researchers engage in a self interrogation of race and racism.

Cultural Capital

Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is the notion that culture is a power resource and it includes things such as cultural awareness, information about school systems, and education credentials (Swartz, 1997). He argues that education systems are principal institutions controlling the allocation of this cultural capital (status and privilege) (Swartz, 1997). Cultural capital is a very important concept to consider in educational research concerning race and racism.

One reason is because in education, sociocultural variables interact and some have more capital than others in various settings. Dominate sociocultural variables include things like direct eye contact, competition, a larger range of proximity, and low levels of touching. These ways of being are considered to have a higher level of capital in the dominate culture. This poses a problem in educational settings because not having a high level of cultural capital to navigate the dominate culture in schools creates a barrier to teaching and learning.

A way to deconstruct these barriers includes things like teachers teaching their students cultural capital. This is supported by Delpit (1995) who argues that educators should be explicit in their teaching of the culture of power. Instead, some educators penalize their students because they do not know (or know how to use) certain types of cultural capital. Many look at the culture their students possess as a deficit, instead of teaching cultural capital while being transparent about it.

In an education workshop I attended, many educators discussed practices that may contribute to teaching cultural capital. Carole Gupton (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can adjust their rules and parameters to be flexible, while maintaining beliefs that are important and non-negotiable to the integrity of the school (i.e., we cannot talk in the class no matter what). Namita Vatsa Eveloy (personal communication, September 30, 2008) explained that teachers can be upfront and explicit about their rules (cultural capital). However, educators must engage in a type of Bourdieuian critical reflection to understand their own rules and norms. Once this is done they can begin to explicitly teach cultural capital.

Critical reflection can cause disequilibrium in some because their beliefs may be challenged. In the workshop, Carole also explained that they may realize that some of these norms may not be important (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If educators do not come to this realization it may lead to misunderstandings in the classroom (i.e. a student tapping a pencil ends in the student attempting to hit the teacher) (C. Gupton, personal communication, September 30, 2008). If teachers do not have a working level of intercultural competence, they will have more misunderstandings and will not be able to teach cultural capital to their students.

Teaching cultural capital also reduces the effects of cultural adaptation. Some of these effects include (Collier, 1988):
o Heightened anxiety
o Withdrawal
o Fatigue
o Distractibility
o Disorientation
o Confusion in locus of control
o Silence or unresponsiveness
o Code-switching
o Resistance to change
For students, normal effects of cultural adaptation may look like disability. This symptom contributes to the over representation of African Americans and American Indians in special education.

The lack of transmission of cultural capital and intercultural competence is at the center of many of the racial and cultural inequities in education in the United States. There is a dire need to continue to research cultural capital in all levels of education because of these inequities. There are many aspects of cultural capital that education researchers can study. It would be important to understand more how faculty teach future education researchers about researching culture and cultural capital. I am considering related questions such as: How are teacher educators teaching future faculty about how to teach the notion of cultural capital in a social justice framework? How are postsecondary teachers using discourse to teach future education faculty about racial inequities in higher education as they relate to issues such as cultural capital mismatch in higher education?

Conclusion

Bourdieu’s sociology is very transferable to education research. Sociology as socioanalysis, field, reflection, and cultural capital can inform my theoretical stance about race research. As I continue to think about my dissertation, I will continue to be mindful of how philosophers in other countries can be helpful to understanding race research in the United States.

References
Collier, C. (1988). Assessing minority students with learning and behavior problems. Lindale, Texas: Hamilton Publications.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Culture and conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.