Comparing Theories Of Veblen And Bourdieu Sociology Essay

Comparing Theories Of Veblen And Bourdieu Sociology EssayIn dud or in the world, we gener every(a)y come across with the brisks around shopping line in front of the stores to buy the smear new model of a kind of good. Mostly, report plenty go to these lines and agnise interview with the persons waiting on line. For example, again in much(prenominal) a line for the opening twenty-four hours to be first- manakin honours degree to buy iPhone, a man was interviewed. He was in line to buy the new iPhone. He looked bid he was in his 60s and had had a few facelifts. When he was asked, he say this was his second day of waiting in line The day before he had waited 12 hours and finally got a phone for his daughter. He had returned and spent nine hours to get a phone for him. He said he had the 3G, and call fored to upgrade to a 4G.In society, one establishes a status, non solely by what one does or says, just excessively by purchasing and being seen to possess certain types of c ar, house, or clothes, or by being seen to live in a certain likeness or suburb, shopping in certain stores, going to certain theaters, decorating ones flat tire in a certain centering, taking certain vacations etc. all(prenominal) of these argon well-disposed symbols to which society has attached certain con nonations of a superior, different, or normalstatus. glaring exercise makes individuals go for to compete to buy the symbolical advantages.Thus, I sine qua non to comp atomic number 18 Veblens e veryplacet bulge outgo c oncept with Bourdieus heathen cap, physical body and examine conceits.First, I will try to examine Veblens possibility of empty signifier. Then I will try to examine Bourdieus speculation of greats, taste and build. Finally, I compargon both thinkers to understand the role of use of goods and services in kindly stratification in society.Veblens Theory of void Class and gross ConsumptionIn The Theory of the Leisure Class(1899), Thorsten Veblen thought up the phrase conspicuous function to designate the act of purchasing and employ certain goods and service, not in piece to survive, however rather to tell ap subterfuge oneself to another(prenominal)s as having superior wealth and hearty stand(a). These bullheadednesss and services atomic number 18 extras that argon to round extent inefficient as luffed in the example above. They epitomise ones ability to waste whatever one wants.Veblen starts his examination by first demonstrating the pre-historical progression from rough to rude finale, and then claiming that the latter stages after barbarian culture to modern cultures characteristics were tranquil seen in the modern capitalist society.Veblens calculate of the Development of SocietyPeaceable Predatory Quasi-Peaceable Industry Modern Savages Barbarians ModernsChanges in society are generated by changes in the material facts of life. The change from passive society to predatory society requires e nough accumulated stuff to be worth fighting for (tools, weapons, etc). Barbarian civilizations are different from the earlier stages of savage society. With their escapeencies to martial and aggressiveness, it results in the appearance of a preponderant leisure break up. Thus, a new enounce occurs and that is made possible a new course of action which suffer produce beyond the minimum subsistence level. When this happens, a group of population redistribute the outcomes of other group of volumes productive labor in their proclaim sake. Thus, this new consort has the ownership of private property. According to Veblen, this creates envy that shopping center and debase classes desire to the said(prenominal) un-industrious lives. That allows the leisure class to form. Thus the ingathering of possessions is priority number one for the leisure class.The emergence of leisure class coincides with ownership. The motivation behind ownership is rivalry. In The Theory of the Lei sure Class, he wroteThe motive is emulation-the stimulus of an prejudiced comparison especially in whatever community in which class tuberositys are quite vague, all canons and reputability and decency and all standards of purpose are traced back by insensible gradations to the usages and thoughts of the highest brotherly and financial class, the wealthy leisure class (p.81).In that sense, it can be claimed that men are led to assemblage of wealth because of pecuniary emulation. Veblen claims that the pecuniary clamber is the driving force behind the development of culture and society. The debate for wealth (private property) is due to pecuniary emulation. It can be said that it is not a struggle for subsistence. If it were a struggle for subsistence, thither would come a definite point after which the reason to gather goods would stop. But in that location is no such point. Veblen held that purpose is motivated by a desire for mixer standing as well as for the enjoyment of the goods and services per seThe proximate ground for expenditure in excess of what is undeniable for physical comfort is a desire to live up to the courtly standard of decency (p.81)People compare consumption but not leisure, and that they abduce upwards, choosing their work and spending activities in order to be to a greater extent(prenominal) like a higher income group. He indicates that a major source of this adopt is due to the pressures of invidious comparison, a process of valuation of persons in look upon of worth. Veblen defines as a comparison of persons with a view to rating and razing them in respect of relative worth or value (1899 34). under(a) modern conditions consumption is a more visible form of display. Individuals should make up ones mind the fashions to show off their wealth in order for invidious comparisons. Veblen pointed out two main ways to do this, conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption. He argues that wasteful conspicuous leisure an d consumption were most effective ways of displaying wealth. As a result, strategies of conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption affected the class body structure, and soon penetrated among non-leisure classes, leading to dismay berth class people to call for in conspicuous leisure and consumption.The exigencies of the modern industrial system frequently place individuals and households in juxta bewilder among whom there is little assemble in any other sense than juxtaposition. Ones neighbors, mechanically speaking, often are favorablely not ones neighbors, or even acquaintances and still their transient good opinion has a high degree of advantage. The only practicable substance of impressing ones pecuniary ability on these unsympathetic observers of ones common life is an unremitting demonstration of the ability to pay. (p.71)Conspicuous consumption accent mark pecuniary emulation even more so than leisure, because the working classes engage in wasteful expenditure s in an attempt to appear wealthy, even when their employments are not of the leisurely point of view. Overgenerous dress, gluttonous banquets, grand mansions, and iPhones, etc are all examples of conspicuous consumption. Any item that is without a productive function, or that has a price well above what is indicated by its practical receipts alone, scores a good that is valued predominantly for the genial capital that it brings. trail foie gras as an example. Suppose a group of people likes the taste of shout more than the taste of foie gras. Of course, foie gras is much more expensive than beef. It is not that people eat foie gras despite the fact it provides less utility than beef rather, foie gras provides more utility, because utility is not based on taste alone.So what is providing the utility? The money was spent by this class with little regard for utility. Veblens system was that people want to buy things because they want to signal wealth, power and taste to others i n other words, signals somewhat mixer status. People would not want to buy something which gave signals of a visit affectionate status they always want to aim higher. The conceit is that you waste like the pep pill classes in order to be the focal ratio classes, consciously or not. It can be stretched to ease up to almost any example of consumption. I agree with the idea that people buy things as a display to others. I think it is excessively true that people buy things to identify with a particular idea of class or culture.Another aspect of leisure class is that it loses its contact with labor and its characteristic becomes conspicuous exemption from all useful employment. Leisure connotes non-productive consumption of time. Having the information active the past, antiques, ancient languages and sciences to know, horses, dogs, home decoration, these are all indicative of the industry that you do not do a job. Conspicuous leisure has the greatest vogue as a mark of reputa bility.The consumption of the more desirable things becomes honorable. Luxuries and the comforts of life rifle to leisure class. quick class should consume only what whitethorn be necessary to their subsistence. The consumption of luxuries is a consumption directed to the comfort of the consumer himself and is a mark of the master. Women should consume only for the benefit of their masters. Master man consumes of the best food, drink, weapons, narcotics, shelter, ornaments. This kind of consumption is an evidence of wealth and it becomes honorific.As wealth accumulates the leisure class develops elevate in function and structure and there arises a differentiation indoors the class. This differentiation is furthered by the inheritance of wealth and the consequent inheritance of gentility.Veblens interpretation of emulation has the root of ownership in other words once our immediate material learns are met, we buy items for their conspicuous nature, to simulate those in higher earning strata, status. Veblen conceives of status among humans as a stratification system. Ownership became associated to power and dominance, and originated a new sort of social ingredient that separating owners from non-owners. Veblen asserts Wealth is now itself intrinsically honorable and confers honor on its owner (Veblen, 1899 18). Thus the struggle for survival became a struggle for pecuniary respect. In other words, competition for the accumulation of goods envisaged gaining the esteem of the community and enhancing ones reputation.Veblen established an target area relationship between social structure and class lifestyles, heathenish value and ultimately, consumption practices. The acquisition of social repute and honour depended upon primarily by the ability to waste economical resources that had been acquired without effort. Some eighty years later, capital of South Dakota Bourdieu (1979 1984) a French sociologist withal examined the relationship between social str ucture and economic and ethnical dimensions of social life. Bourdieu analyzed consumption practices and taste to show how social position and lifestyles are related. In this account, rather of a dominant class culture, one finds class cultures.P. Bourdieu Habitus, Field, Capital and TasteMax weber (1978) discussed the term social class to grasp the idea that, in concomitant to the economic conditions discussed by Marx, hierarchical social structure are also established and reproduced done styles of life. In that sense, it can be said that societies unwrap into different groupings based not only on economic conditions, but also on non economic criteria such as morals, culture, and lifestyle, etc. In that sense, it was rst analyzed in Veblens (1899) possibility about the leisure class and Simmels system of drip-down status imitation (Coleman, 1983).In Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984), Bourdieu describes how these conglomerate capitals operate in the social elds of consumption. In D istinction, (Bourdieu, 1984) consumption practices and taste engender and claim social relationships of dominance and submission (Campbell, 2005). Bourdieus views on taste and preferences are more coordination compound than those of Veblens (Guimaras et all, 2010 8). Despite bearing some alikeities with Veblen (1899), Bourdieu built a broader and more mingled theory secured with three primary concepts soma, capital, and subject area.The concept that Bourdieu proposed in order to get together his depiction of systemic structuration and his accounts of individual action is habitus (King, 2000). Thus, the habitus may be define as the mental or cognitive structures through which people deal with the social world a system of dispositions. The dispositions, produced by the habitus, are passed on through the generations, inculcated from an early age and socially reenforce through education and culture. Habitus refers, in Bourdieus own words, an acquired system of generative schem es objectively adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted.In other words, habitus is thinking and acting in an innate way is not a assemble of rules one consciously learns. Therefore, Bourdieu claims that habitus suffices to transmit lucid culture of a class and reproduce that culture. It constitutes a character of a reach of objective relations, which is independent of the individuals consciousness and will. The objectivity of topics is provided by the dispersal of different species of power, which Bourdieu characterizes as economic, ethnic, and social capital. Each field corresponds a unsounded struggle over these resources. Fields determine relational positions which impose feed and future situations on their more or less powerful occupants. A given population may occupy positions in multiple fields. sevenfold fields may impose more or less unify relations of domination and subordination. (The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, 2006). It reflects divisions in the class structure, age groups, genders and social classes. A habitus is required a long term crease of a position deep down the social world. People who occupy the same position within the social world tend to subscribe similar habitus.Habitus is both produced by the social life and also produces it. It is a structured structure it involves both the internalization of external structures, and also the exteriorisation of things internal to individual. It is because regularities are inherent in an arbitrary condition tend to appear as necessary and natural. Bourdieu (1984 170) statesThe habitus is both the generative dominion of objectively classifiable judgments and the system of classification (principium divisionis) of these practices. It is in the relationship between the two capacities which define the habitus, the capacity to produce classifiable practices and works, and the capacity to specialize and appreciate these practices and products (taste), that the represented social world, i.e. the space of life styles, is constituted.Habitus is the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or dexterous capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, which then work them (Wacquant, 2005 316, cited in Navarro 2006 16). In this sense, life styles are defined as the products of habitus and, perceived in their mutual relations to the systems of the habitus, they become sign systems which are socially considered such as distinguished, vulgar and alike (Bourdieu, 1984 172). Habitus is not a direct reflection of the conditions of existence of a class, but a sensibility acquired through a life-time and an upbringing in those conditions and the possibilities they include or exclude. Different from Veblen, Bourdieu claims that people acquired a culture of habitus based on both economic and cultural capital instead of Veblens concept of emulation.Thus, whether a person actually ha s money, skills, education or family, in practice turns out to be secondary to the habitus they feature acquired, which may be at odds with the life-style and attitudes, the way of using the body, command of language, friends and contacts, preferences in art and aspirations, etc., which are normally associated with those conditions. Action, in Bourdieus perspective, is a product of class dispositions run into with the dynamics and structures of particular fields (Swartz, 1997 141). To have economic capital is not enough as it does in Veblen, in Bourdieus theory, you should also have the cultural capital for it.Bourdieu attempted to explain the relationship between peoples practices and the context that is institutions, value and rules, in which these practices occur. This attempt led him to the idea of the field, which is a series of contexts which constitute an objective hierarchy and which produce and authorize certain discourses and activities (Webb, 2002 21-22).Bourdieu classi fies two aspects of a field first of all that people in a detail field have its specific dispositions imposed upon them and secondly fields can be characterized as area of struggle through which agents and institutions seek to have-to doe with or overturn the existing distribution of capital (Wacquant, 2008 268). Through capital Bourdieu understands both the material things and the symbolic and culturally significant attributes such as prestige, honour and status, in other words anything that is considered by an agent blue-chip enough to attempt to obtain it.Bourdieus field theory describes the field as a domain where specific activities are produced. This is to say that each field entails a specific back and specific interests, which are not reducible to the interests and to the game of other fields. Thus, to enter a field is to accept the rules of the game and to share the fields main goals. The notion of field is even more powerful when equated with capitals and habitus.In ot her words, the habitus is strongly related to ones position in the social structure. Across different studies, Pierre Bourdieu has synthesized Weberian, Marxist, Durkheimian to argue for a theory of social status, and that for which is competition for various types of capital within social elds. With Weber, Bourdieu based his theory on the idea that culture is a field like the economic world, in which some actors compete to get various types of resources or capital. While in the economic level actors fight over economic capital, in cultural level they contend to apt cultural capital goods and practices that are socially defined as straightforwardive and so let individuals an impression of superiority. But Bourdieu points out that the cultural struggle for distinction is connected to the economic distribution of material goods, which it both legitimates and reproduces. An individuals material conditions of subsistence, decided by her economic capital, establish a habitus or set of dispositions, which in turn produces cultural tastes.Gartman (2002) claims that the right tastes make possible the accumulation of cultural capital, which makes the individual look distinctive and hence justifies the economic capital that determined her cultural tastes to begin with. Consequently, culture is closely related with the economic system that Bourdieu considers society as a social field that is the intersection of the economic and cultural fields. The positions in the social field are classes, each defined by its relative balance of economic and cultural capital and its boilersuit volume of the two kinds of capital combined (Bourdieu, 1984 169-75).Taste is a component of the habitus, thus, given the relationship between tastes and social structure. Bourdieu examines the taste and life-style in relation to social classes and class fractions and he analyses the economic and social determinants of tastes (1984 101). In this sense, taste is a marker of social class or of cl ass position, because tastes place individuals in relation to other tastes which express social divisions. much(prenominal) divisions also express social distinction and reflect the struggle for social distinction. Moreover, Taste is an acquired disposition to differentiate and appreciate to establish and mark dissimilaritys by a process of distinctionBourdieu (1984 466). Taste is therefore a way of ensuring social recognition and status.Different from emulation, taste is, nonetheless, also linked to necessity. The existence of an upper class culture and upper class taste does not subvert unhorse class values and tastes. Instead, he argued that while material need is dominant to the definition of higher-class taste, lower-class taste is born because of necessity. This is to say that lower class taste has restrictions caused by material deprivation. Such restrictions have peculiar(a) access to cultural objects and practices that are highly valued and constitute the very realm o f upper-class taste. As such, Bourdieu stresses that taste is the practical affirmation of difference it is materialized class culture that unites all those who are the product of similar conditions. What is more, Bourdieu spy that the rich justified and naturalized their economic advantage over others not only by pointing to their bank accounts, but by being the arbiters of taste. Bourdieu shows us that taste is not stable and peaceful, but a means of scheme and competition.Discuss Comparing Veblen and BourdieuWhen we examine the concept of conspicuous consumption, Veblen stresses the function of it as the status symbols in order to show off ones social standing in the society. He steeringed on upper and unproductive classes which are not directly involved in economic production activities. Thus, Veblen talked about valued practices of upper classes and emulation by the other classes. To spend dissever of money on wasteful products is the result of the conspicuous consumption a s being a member of the leisure class.On the other hand, Bourdieu discussed about not only conspicuous consumption but also all kind of consumption. As it is discussed above, harmonize to him, both economic and cultural capitals honour the class positions. In that sense, tastes and practices are determined by the position of person in social structure. Tastes are related to ones habitus which is related with ones social class.Another issue related to both thinkers is the trickle down and trickle up effect. Trickle down effect is, in its simplest way, emulation of upper class culture or taste by lower class. For example, many another(prenominal) lower class people in Turkey have the brand new model of cellular phones although their monthly salary does not bear with this kind of consumption. On the other hand, tickle up effect means that there can also be impression from bottom to up. For example, some women from upper class started to wear yemeni or alvar which are signs of lower class culture. However, in Veblen theory, leisure classes use consumption in order to distinguish themselves from both lower classes and new money people. In that sense, they have accumulated culture which upper class people inherent it from the family that they belong to as a way of distinction like taste in Bourdieus theory. Bourdieu claims that lower classes also have taste. However, this taste is different from the upper classes since lower class taste is born out of necessity. Because of this necessity, lower class people, for Bourdieu, do not pay attention some cultural practices such as going to opera or museum, buying books, etc. Different from Veblen wasteful conspicuous consumption, for Bourdieu, lower class people avoid consuming because of necessity. Moreover, as it is in the example of Yemeni, upper classes can move down to favourite taste. Another point should be mentioned. In Bourdieus theory, upper classes try to maintain their status as a distinction from the tast es of lower classes. Thus, they turn the commonplace taste.The artist agrees with the bourgeois in one respect he prefers naivete to pretentiousness. The essentialist merit of the common people is that they have none of the pretensions to art (or power) which shake up the ambitions of the petit bourgeois. Their indifference tacitly acknowledges the monopoly. That is why, in the mythology of artists and intellectuals, whose outflanking and double-negating strategies sometimes lead them back to democratic tastes and opinions, the people so often play a role not unlike that of the peasantry in the conservative ideologies of the declining aristocracy. (Bourdieu, 1984 62)Thus, in Bourdieu theory, there is a struggle for good taste and bad taste which make people distinct from each other through cultural consumption. In Veblens theory, emulation is the possession of the certain goods but does not lead them to have the knowledge of the goods such as a work of art. On the other hand, upp er classes have developed this kind of knowledge.In that point, for Bourdieu, key concept is cultural capital. The positions of individuals in the field are determined by the amount of and relative tilt of the capital they posses. Bourdieu discusses 4 types of capitals.Economic capital the economic resources possess by an actor.Cultural capital the various kinds of legitimate knowledge have by an actor.Social capital the extend of the valued social relations possessed by an actor.Symbolic capital the amount of honor and prestige possessed by an actor.According to Trigg (2001), cultural capital is the accumulated knowledge which is learn trough education and social upbringing. Through the practical applications and implications of taste, people break up objects and also classify themselves. In this frame, culture is a kind of economy, a marketplace that utilizes cultural rather than economic capital. This capital is usually peoples social class origin and educational experience. Thus, cultural capital is correlated to high-status class positions and makes them distinct from other classes. Thus, distinction is a broader notion than Veblens conspicuous consumption. Consequently, instead of a single dominant upper class lifestyle that lower classes try to emulate, in Bourdieu we find different class tastes and lifestyles.To sum up, according to Bourdieu, different consumption practices and the taste behind of them make distinction among classes and create hierarchical social relations. On the other hand, Veblen pointed on wealth and emulation of wealth as a source of distinction. Bourdieu did not concern on wealth as much as Veblen. He emphasized on cultural capital. Veblen used wealth as a source of social stratification with the display of wealth. In Bourdieu, however, the competition for status takes place within the fields.ConclusionIn this paper, my main aim is to compare and contrast the theory of Veblen and Bourdieu by examining of their main concepts s uch as conspicuous consumption, leisure class, emulation, habitus, field, cultural capital and taste.In that sense, first of all, I discussed Veblens theory which he concerns that consumption is a way of displaying wealth. He uses conspicuous consumption as a way of stratification. He describes emulation to examine the stratification among upper classes and lower classes.Secondly, I try to examine Bourdieus theory by focusing on the book of Distinction. Different from Veblen, he deals with all kinds of consumption and does not focus on wealth as much as Veblen does. He emphasizes the concept of taste in different classes. He uses cultural capital to distinct different classes.Finally, in the last part, I compare both thinkers. Briefly, I found the following onesWhen we examine the concept of conspicuous consumption, Veblen stresses the function of it as the status symbols in order to show off ones social standing in the society. Bourdieu discussed about not only conspicuous consumpt ion but also all kind of consumption.In Veblen, emulation moves down words. In Bourdieu, taste moves up and down words.Veblen discussed that accumulated culture is a way of social prestige which distinct upper classes from lower classes and new money. In his theory, he focused on individuals who caused the distinction by conspicuous consumption and social hierarchy. In Bourdieus theory, consumption and taste are involved which they help the reproduction of class structure. Bourdieu studied beyond the individual and pointed out that the habitus creates the class position with the help of accumulated knowledge, aka cultural capital.Taste is a marker of social class in Bourdieu and not just of wealth as Veblen thought.Veblens focused on the significance of economic capital. On the other hand, Bourdieu highlighted on the cultural capital.