22 responses so far ↓

• 1 Miko // Feb 14, 2007 at 8:37 am

  Dishing it out: on my way back from the LSAT on Saturday, the event with swallowed my life whole and didn’t give it back until three days afterward, we saw a man begging for money at a freeway onramp. The biggest stress in my life for the last, oh, 6 months had been a test I had to pay more than that man probably made in a whole week to take. The realization, however, did not lessen my stress.

• 2 amelia // Feb 14, 2007 at 8:57 am

  i have to question a definition of violence that is so broad that it levels so many things that it ends up being practically meaningless. while i recognize the value in the proposed project here (the idea of women perpetuating destructive ideas of womanhood against themselves, often more virulently than men do, is something feminism has been dealing with since its beginnings), it seems that it runs the danger of either paralyzing us because we see violence absolutely everywhere (i think miko’s example is a case in point; how could that homeless man asking for money at a freeway onramp being complicit in any violence involved in her paying for an exam? and does it not mitigate the matter that miko may actually use the education made available to her in order to help the disadvantaged [true most lawyers don’t; but some do]?). or, if it doesn’t paralyze us, it runs the risk of distracting us from real instances of violence by focusing us on (potentially imaginary) social violences that are, it seems to me, an unavoidable part of a value system. any value system could be interpreted, from the outside, to perpetuate “violence” with the “victim’s” consent. as could any human behavior, since all human behavior arises in a complex psychological and social context which will almost invariable leave one commiting this kind of “violence” against someone–often without realizing that they are doing so (does bourdieu theorize that the perpetrator of this violence is ignorant of what they do? the examples you give are, in my opinion, situations in which the perpetrators do not conceive of what they are doing as violent. if the perpetrators are unaware that what they do is violent, how does that change the dynamic?).

  sorry to go on.

  obviously i do not accept bourdieu’s definition as i find it very problematic. but if i did, then it seems apparent that every single one of us participates in this form of violence–dishing it out, taking it, and standing on the sideline. which is part of why i have a problem with the idea.

• 3 Johnny // Feb 14, 2007 at 9:10 am

  Ah Bourdieu! I am also partial to the anti-intellectual intellectuals. There is something very invigorating about deconstructive philosophers, historians and social scientists. I mean it doesn’t take long in academia until you either become assimilated into the self-posturing elitism of the borglike intelligentsia, or find refuge with the academic outcasts who are bold enough to be impious at the throne of Western Occidentialism

  -insert here a moment of silence for Neitzsche who taught us how to philosophize with a hammer-

  Okay, enough worthless praise, on the the question at hand! It’s hard to find examples of symbolic violence that are not class, gender, or race specific. I think that is very interesting because it shows both progress in our ability to reveal symbolic violence, yet I also think it may conceals other types by holding it outside of our expectations.

  I am going to go out on a limb and say that the “culture industry” is a form of symbolic violence. The term “culture industry” comes from the Dialectic of Enlightenment and is one of my favorite chapters. In there Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the way capitalism represents human beings to themselves is an increasingly exploitive mechanism which attempts to grow into all spheres of culture.

  For example, think about how leisure time is represented. From the moment one is off of work they are either watching TV, going out to eat, or surfing the web. Don’t get me started on vacations or Vegas. I am as guilty as most, I LOVE the Internet, movies, TV etc. My only point is that there doesn’t seem to be any aspect of our culture that is not embedded with materialistic consumerism. In fact, the more one listens to the news the more they will hear themselves called “consumers” rather than “citizens.”

  Maybe, my point is too strong. I mean how could all these things perpetuate a symbolic violence? I guess, I think that one’s self-understanding as a “consumer” is a degradation of human beings into a means, rather than an end, to use Kantian language. I don’t think it is a healthy perspective, yet to resist it is more difficult than it appears.

• 4 John // Feb 14, 2007 at 9:46 am

  insert here a moment of silence for Neitzsche who taught us how to philosophize with a hammer

  This is great, Johnny. I feel like my toolbox is all mallets and big chisels. No needle-nose pliers or tiny drill bits for subtle, more nuanced discussions. Yet.

  Amelia, are you suggesting that the idea that at least some people are complicit in their own oppression is completely without merit? I agree that the idea can be problematic when taken to the extreme (as with most theories), but I still find symbolic violence highly useful because it forces us to examine the cultural practices we perpetuate and the societal structures we support.

  Here’s another example (which may tie into Johnny’s discussion on consumerism): let’s say I buy something from a business that destroys the environment, mistreats its employees, and exploits overseas labor. Could my action be interpreted as doing harm to all three? Or is it completely disconnected? Does my ignorance of the company’s actions/inactions lessen the ultimate influence of my purchase?

  I don’t have problems with Bourdieu’s broad definition of social violence (it meshes with my Buddhist-influenced ideas of ‘harm’, which is also expansively defined). And not all violences are equal, of course, and there’s still plenty of room for lots of compassionate action. But it does “seem apparent [to me] that every single one of us participates in this form of violence,” and I take this very seriously. One of the driving motivations in life is to minimize my negative impact on others and this earth (and to maximize the positive).

• 5 Bored in Vernal // Feb 14, 2007 at 9:48 am

  Never having read Bourdieu, I wonder what he suggests for those who might be the victims of “symbolic violence.” Is it possible for one to stand up against the violent treatment of a system and yet remain a part of the system? Must one necessarily remove oneself from the system in protest?

  (you can probably tell I am thinking specifically in terms of the LDS Church)

• 6 nee // Feb 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

  While violence can be used as a word to describe an action against an individual, I lean towards it’s common usage which is to describe physical harm or the attempt thereof.

  There are numerous words and phrases which more succinctly apply to what is described. One that comes to mind is manipulation. Another is projecting.

• 7 Johnny // Feb 14, 2007 at 11:15 am

  amelia,

  I think your concerns are justified. I have thought similar things when reading Bordieu and thinkers like him. It seemed to me that you had two basic criticisms. 1) That the definition of violence becomes so broad that it lacks a definitive meaning. 2) That symbolic violence becomes so pervasive that it presents an overly pessimistic view.

  I do think these objections can be answered though. You are right to say that if a definition is too broad that it becomes meaningless. Yet, we seem to want to distinguish between physical and psychological forms of violence. And if Bordieu is able to articulate a clear definition and show how it applies in some cases and not in others, then it appears that such a definition wouldn’t be over-generalized.

  Also, I agree that this can lead to pessimism. The world has and will always be a messy place. However, I find that this pessimism is only overbearing if it leads people to say that good acts are impossible without indirectly perpetuating symbolic violence. That is one way that thinkers like Bordieu are read, but I reject that reading. Just because the world is a very messy place, doesn’t mean we should get discouraged or can’t make it better here and there.

  Oh well, those are just some ways I try think through the important criticisms that deconstructive thinkers are often accused of.

• 8 Mana // Feb 14, 2007 at 12:44 pm

  Bourdieu, in the Logic of Practice lists the following examples for “Symbolic Violence”: obligation, personal loyalty, hospitality, gifts, debts, piety. So yeah based on this definition I see “symbolic violence” all over. I’m guilty of “obligation, personal loyalty and hospitality” and I’ve rejected “gifts, debs and piety” a while ago.

  I do agree with Bourdieu’s theory of language as a mechanism of power. After all he’s the French Noam Chomsky.

  Bourdieu goes a bit too far to claim symbolic violence is ingrained into our sub-conscious, into our structures of cognition. I disagree with this because individuals have the ability to independently make observations and conclusions about their environment. For example, when I worked in social services I had clients who had schizophrenia and who heard voices. Some of them were able to tell that those voices were not real and could distinguish a real presence from a presence created by a misfiring in the brain. This was usually based on personal observations of their environment.

  There is a whole range of human emotions and actions that are highly personal and based on personal observation. That’s not to say that some people don’t fall victim to brainwashing, and other types of emotional manipulation. I agree that certain structures are power-based, and religious groups are heavily dependent on the emotional manipulation of their members. Also I’ll agree that some people allow themselves to be victimized, but I don’t think there’s a “universal tendency” for people to allow themselves to be victimized. Some people are true victims.

  Oh and I posted because Johnny asked me to (maybe because I called him a Socialist once ;P), but I don’t really think Bourdieu is highly convincing overall. He’s one who was heavily involved in politics, his theories are highly rhetorical (just like Chomsky–but I like Chomsky) and I’m always skeptical of the “symbolic violence” of political involvement.

• 9 Johnny // Feb 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  Mana,

  You did call me a socialist once, but not without good reason

• 10 John // Feb 14, 2007 at 3:20 pm

  I’m still not as versed in Bourdieu as I’d like (one reason why I ventured this post, and I’m grateful for all of your feedback). Responding to both BiV and Mana: to the best of my understanding, Bourdieu is concerned with the agency of individual actors. In fact, he’s tries in large part to mediate between objectivists (who see our realities as primarily determined by social forces) and subjectivists (who see individuals as creating their own realities through their agency). Individuals are largely predisposed to act in certain ways because of their social and cultural circumstances, but at the same time have the power (although it is generally constrained) to transform the environment in which they are embedded.

  BiV, I’ll try to find out in some more detail how Bourdieu might respond to your question (unless someone else wants to field it).

  I am still very attracted to the basic idea of hidden social structures that facilitate the oppression of others/ourselves. I think it’s a very useful concept that has the potential to be abused (which seems to be the point of most people here), but I think it has some utility as well.

• 11 amelia // Feb 14, 2007 at 3:55 pm

  John writes:

  “Amelia, are you suggesting that the idea that at least some people are complicit in their own oppression is completely without merit?”

  of course not. and i didn’t say that. in fact my comment about feminism being concerned with women perpetuating destructive social attitudes even more virulently than men do was meant as an acknowledgement of the merit in this idea. the problem i see in this theory (and obviously i have only a partial understanding of it because i haven’t read bourdieu’s work) is it’s possible dulling effects–either in the direction of distracting us from what i would consider more serious and more real forms of violence or paralyzing us in the universality of violence this theory, in my opinion, creates.

  in your new example: yes. you are complicit. by supporting a company that does harm by way of your purchase, you too are doing harm. while your ignorance does not nullify the negative consequences of that company’s practices, it does leave you more blameless (you may be guilty of ignorance, even willful ignorance, but not of actively harming the environment or abusing the company’s workers).

  the problem as i see it is that this form of “violence” (if you want to call it that, and i do not which is why i put it in quotes) is inescapable. even on an individual level. you may live so as to minimize the harm you do–and i respect that goal–but until you have absolutely perfect self-awareness and absolutely perfect self-control (both of which i believe would require perfect isolation), i do not think you can avoid harm and, by extension, “symbolic violence.”

  and if it is inescapable on the individual level, how do we deal with it on the cultural and social level? human beings are not only inherently but first social creatures. we can not survive alone. and human interaction will necessarily create this kind of “violence.” i appreciate the effort to call attention to the ways in which we manipulate and exploit and damage each other. but i find it dangerous to read “violence” into value systems and social structures simply because they may appear “violent” from one perspective. we all of us make concessions in order to exist in community. and certainly some of those concessions are unconscious, allowing for us to be read as unconsciously complicit in our own “victimization.” but i think we have to be incredibly careful before we point at another person’s value system and cry “violence” and try to rescue the “victim” from their own lack of awareness.

• 12 amelia // Feb 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm

  johnny #7:

  you are correct in identifying my two main critiques. you write:

  “Yet, we seem to want to distinguish between physical and psychological forms of violence. And if Bordieu is able to articulate a clear definition and show how it applies in some cases and not in others, then it appears that such a definition wouldn‚Äôt be over-generalized.”

  i recognize the value in differentiating between physical and psychological violence. the important thing here would be recognizing instances in which the same thing may not be “violent” psychologically in one circumstance even if it is in another. which points to the real problem with trying to define psychological violence. i can recognize physical violence, as i am sure most of us can. but who gets to say what is psychologically violent? even if there is a definition? i grew up in the mormon church being taught to dress modestly, complete with the unsavory implications that john articulated as an example of “symbolic violence” in his post. yet i do not think i was a victim of any form of “violence.” nor do i think i was (or am) complicit in any form of “violence.” i reject the teaching of modesty in dress as a form of violence precisely because it was not consciously used as such. that teaching was not meant to hurt or damage. the problem did not lay in the existence of the teaching nor in the incorporation of the teaching. the problem lay in the communication of the teaching–in its language, which (like human beings) exists in a complex and convoluted context. and i cannot call something “violent” when the harm that it causes arises as a side-effect of imperfect human communication and understanding.

  which is all a very long way of saying that, while i value the effort to acknowledge the existence of psychological violence, i do not think it is something that can be categorically defined or identified.

  as to the problem with pessimism: my problem is not that this idea of “symbolic violence” will lead to a pessimistic view of the world, but rather that it will paralyze us in the face of that view. if i am correct that almost any value system or social structure can be read as symbolically “violent” (and i think that when pushed to an extreme the theory as presented here leads to that conclusion; i realize that this is an extreme conclusion, but i also believe very firmly in the deconstructionist project of pushing theories to their extreme in order to identify where they break down), then it becomes impossible to do anything productive because every action, every attempt to establish a more pure value system or social structure, will simply result in the symbolic violation of other human beings. as i said in response to john, human beings are first, and inherently, social beings and must be able to exist in a community. to identify and then probably dismiss as ‚Äúviolent‚Äù the means that create communities is to challenge the very idea of community itself. and that is, in my mind, akin to collective suicide.

• 13 John // Feb 14, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  Because I’m interested in the practical application of the idea (which is why I’m not happy with discussions of theory that stay theory-bound), I would stop well short of taking the idea to its extreme. Jana and I love Bourdieu’s symbolic violence critique and use it regularly, and you know us well enough to know that we have a pretty engaged approach to social change–we’re anything but paralyzed by our view. Nor are we all that pessimistic, or detached from community. Not much of a theoretical response, I know, but it’s an anecdotal argument from lived, applied theory.

• 14 amelia // Feb 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm

  and it’s a valid response. the danger remains, however, of dismissing an approach other than your own as “violent” when in fact it may be only another person’s means of building and maintaining community. that sounds more harsh than i mean it to be. but i do think the practical application of theories such as these can lead us to dismiss others or belief systems (in this instance as “violent”), even when we seek to help, in a way that is ultimately counterproductive because it fails to acknowledge the complexities of human interactions.

• 15 Miko // Feb 15, 2007 at 9:08 am

  I, too, have never read (nor heard of until now) Bourdieu. Although, he does sound like he might go well with a nice steak.

  I tend to agree with Amelia. It seems to me that these conceptions of symbolic violence have a place to be discussed as such (I own an Apple computer, marking me as belonging to a singular class of people whose daily routines do nothing but violence). I have a problem with women who perpetuation patriarchal values unknowningly. However, too much emphasis on the symbolic violence that we do every day could definitely desensitize us to the actual violence that we are not complicit in every day but which still happens. Every day.

  I once read an argument about sex and violence. The gist of it was that all acts of sex are acts of violence. While, when I was reading it, I found the arguments cogent and convincing, I could not help but disregard it as soon as I put the book down. Believing that kind of thing would cause me to be unable to enjoy a very enjoyable thing. I find that the symbolic violence argument must be the same. It is a good thing to be aware of and to discuss, but we simply cannot apply it every moment or else it would paralyze us, causing us to be unable to act (because nearly every act can be seen as doing violence to someone or something else).

  This is the problem I find with most modern philosophers: they seem to be very interesting when I read them, but I cannot apply them in my day-to-day. Either because doing so would paralyze me or because they are impractical (see: Kant).

  Johnny: you discuss the culture industry. Ever read Adbusters? I like this concept of culture as “industry”. I don’t, however, think it is anything new. The whole concept of culture has served to keep societies together (in general). Societies survive because they surpress unwanted ideas and encourage wanted ideas. The fact that the culture industry of today is at it’s core consumeristic is simply an irony. We call it a culture industry because as modern people, “industry” is a concept that we understand. It is a system of creating, marketing, and distributing. So this seems to fit very well with our concept of “culture”. However, if we lived 1500 or 2000 years ago, our Bourdieu might have used the analogy of culture as religion. Relgion being, at that time, a system of distributing certain ideas and quashing others. I don’t see Las Vegas of today as being any different from the local pilgrimage site. It is far enough away to require effort to reach, it is a place well known by all in the society, and it is seen as some kind of epitome of culture, a visit to which marks one as special. I also don’t find it problematic to compare consumerism to religion or Vegas to Reims. Especially when it comes to philosophy, these become clear societal constructs for controlling the culture.

• 16 John Remy // Feb 15, 2007 at 10:23 am

  I did a little research in the Oxford English Dictionary on the word “violence.” Although the primary definition is explicit about physical harm, others are expansive enough to include all sorts of harm, injury, oppression, and even twisting of meaning. I thought you all might get a kick out of the example attached to the fourth definition:

  Undue constraint applied to some natural process, habit, etc., so as to prevent its free development or exercise. Now used in political contexts with varying degrees of appropriateness…[At the Labour Party Conference] much violence was done to the word violence, which it appears can be used to describe almost anything you do not care for.

  Still, I’m concerned that everyone seems to be responding to the idea of overapplying the concept of symbolic violence. By making this the focal point of our discussion, it ultimately devalues (or even dismisses) the concept as a whole and leaves us none the richer for what limited insights it can provide.

• 17 nee // Feb 15, 2007 at 11:20 am

  John R, regarding your final paragraph on #16, I guess my question would be who is overapplying, us or Bourdieu?

  If many people read the definition and agree, yeah, those are bad things to do to people but feel Bourdieu is stretching the general definition of violence, then it seems to his choice of words distracted from the focus point. Then again, I don’t know what his focal point was in saying that. If it was that we need to identify manipulation and oppression, then I wholehearted agree. Let’s identify and change it. If it was to equate such actions with violence, the message will probably get lost with a lot of people who don’t personally define violence that way.

  I don’t know when Bourdieu wrote that definition. Maybe at that time, it came across differently in the context of the culture. We’re in a culture now where many are exhausted because ideas are constantly taken to extremes and stretched out… by the media, by the govt, by lawyers, by us. As a result, many of us do have a kneejerk reaction when we see things that are overapplied. If a signifcant number of people miss a point an author wished to convey then the point needs to be conveyed in a different way for that audience.

  I hope that wasn’t totally convoluted. Do you know what I mean?

• 18 John // Feb 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm

  Nee, good points, all. The question of cultural context is a huge one. Bourdieu introduced the idea in the midst of a decades long philosophical conversation (primarily in Europe) between those who argue that human actions are determined by society and those who say that we are primarily free agents (it’s ironic that people felt his idea was paralyzing, because in the context of his other ideas and in the midst of this larger debate, he’s actually trying to convince the structuralists that humans have some measure of agency). It was also produced in the middle of his prodigious body of work and is intimately connected to other concepts. It was also translated out of French into English. Then I took it completely out of context and defined it in my own words using my own examples.

  I’m still determined to bring the philosophical ideas I find most intriguing to Mind on Fire, but I’m beginning to understand that the task is trickier than I first thought.

• 19 amelia // Feb 16, 2007 at 5:19 pm

  it’s always so fun when someone tells you your chosen career is a bunch of “phony balony,” don’t you think john? i especially like it when it’s a relative who’s doing it, though it usually takes the shape of said relative asserting that people with degrees are so stupid they had to buy a piece of paper that gives them undeserved qualifications.
  

• 20 John // Feb 16, 2007 at 11:30 pm

  Well said, amelia. I’m not even there yet, and I’m already getting used to it.

  In fact, most of my favorite labels are “phony balony” or at least a waste of a life to most people: Mormon, atheist, feminist, intellectual, blogger, writer. I’m also considering journalist, which I have recently learned polls as one of the least respected jobs in the American public mind (added insult to the injury of not paying well).

• 21 Miko // Feb 18, 2007 at 5:41 pm

  So, I just read On Male Domination, which was linked to above, but I have relinked, in case, because I’m slow. I presume this is a translation, because from his name, I’m guessing Bourdieu writes in French. However, having read many translation so French philosophers, this is a really good one.

  Your definition above, John, notwithstanding, I think a more appropriate term would be “symbolic subjugation”. My dictionary as “physical harm” or the metaphorical equivilent. Regardless, as nee indicates, it is such a charged word that it almost makes it difficult to discuss. So, mentally replacing all of your symbolic violences above with subjugations, I wholeheartedly agree with this guy. Modernity aside, it is very important to understand the constructs of society in terms of what is “right” or “natural”; we rarely stop to think that these are simply “accepted”.

  Bourdieu’s point of stepping back from the constructs in which we live our lives to see what might be the case if we had different constructs is a very valuable exercise. As with much of modern philosophy, it’s difficult to practice if no one else does…

• 22 John // Feb 18, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  Miko, you’re right–it is a translation. It seems that Bourdieu’s use of “violence” seems to impede communication more than encourage it (though I don’t have any problem with how he uses it). But I do like that he challenges us to question our basic assumptions and to look critically at even the most fundamental social structures.

Leave a Comment