PL EN


2016 | 3 | 13-43
Article title

British Sociology, the Bourgeois Media-Sociology Hybrid and the Problem of Social Class

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This article advances the scandalous argument that we live in a post-social class modernity, and that the perpetual reinvention of class as the key concept for understanding social inequality is untenable. Class is not only a zombie concept but also an ideology that reflects a set of normative attitudes, beliefs and values that pervade sociology. Its starting point is that, sociology, once adept at imagining new ways to interpret the world, has become a subject field that wants to claim a radical space for itself while simultaneously relying on outworn theoretical frameworks and denying the work radicals do. The article begins by suggesting that the problem of class has its roots in the deep structure of sociology. Taking its cue from Jacques Rancière’s classic study The Philosopher and His Poor it develops the argument that if class was once upon a time the fundamental issue in the study of social inequality, today sociology urgently needs an alternative cognitive framework for thinking outside this paradigm which it uses to open up a critical space for its own intellectual claims rather than reflecting society in the round. After arguing that we a living at the ‘end of Class’, the critique explores the limits of the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who has replaced Marx and Weber as sociology’s key theoretician of class. It is argued that in Bourdieu’s sociology, contentment is permanently closed to ‘the working class’ that thumps about like a dinosaur that survived extinction, anachronistic proof of the power and privilege of the theorist and his sociology rather than proof of the usefulness of his ideas. The key to understanding the limits of this interpretation, it is argued, is that it assumes a ‘working class’ that has little or no agency. It is subsequently argued that sociology and the bourgeois media are coextensive. The specific function of the bourgeois media-sociology hybrid is to provide ideological legitimation of class inequality and of integrating individuals into sociology’s interpretation of social and cultural life. Focusing on the work of two self-identified ‘working class’ journalists who have successfully made the transition into the bourgeoisie and who seek solid validation of their new found status in the bourgeois media it is demonstrated that social inequality is neither expressed nor examined in a convincing way. Framing ‘working class’ worlds even more ‘working class’ than ‘working class’, the bourgeois media, at best, lay them bare for clichéd interpretation. Here the article argues vis-à-vis Quentin Skinner that words are not so much mere ‘reflections’ of the world, but ‘engines’ which actively play a role in moulding the worlds to which they refer. Drawing on Rancière’s idea of the partage du sensible (distribution of the sensible) it is argued thereafter that here thinking ends up as the very thought of inequality because by posing social inequality as the primary fact that needs to be explained the bourgeois media-sociology hybrid ends up explaining its necessity. The final part of the article offers some suggestions about how to rethink social inequality after class, and it concludes with the observation that the predicament facing sociology derives not just from its theoretical limits but also from its failure to give social inequality human meaning and the people who suffer it the proper respect by acknowledging their own interpretations of their own lives.
Publisher

Year
Issue
3
Pages
13-43
Physical description
Contributors
  • Sheffield Hallam University
References
  • Adorno T.W., Horkheimer M. (1944). The Culture Industry: the Enlightenment of MassDeception. [in:] Adorno T.W., Horkheimer M. (eds.) Dialectic of Enlightenment,http://ad3.wdfiles.com/local--files/start/Adorno.pdf [14.03.2016].
  • Alexander J. C. (1995). Fin de Siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problemof Reason. London and New York: Verso.
  • Ball S. J. (2003). It’s Not What You Know: Education and Social Capital. „Sociology Review”,November.
  • Banville J. (2016). Philip Marlowe’s Revolution. Review of Fredric Jameson’s RaymondChandler: The Detections of Totality. „New York Review of Books”, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/27/raymond-chandler-philip-marlowes-revolution/[14.03.2017].
  • Bauman Z. (1987). Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity and Intellectuals.Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Bauman Z. (1988). Freedom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Bauman Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
  • Bauman Z. (1985). Social Class. [in:] Kuper A., Kuper J. (eds.) The Social Science Encyclopedia.Volume I: A-K, Third Edition. London: Routledge, 2004, 111–115.
  • Beck U. (2002). Zombie Categories: Interview with Ulrich Beck. [in:] Beck U., Beck--Gernsheim E. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social andPolitical Consequences. London: Sage.
  • Blackshaw T. (2010). Leisure. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Blackshaw,T. (2013). Working-class Life in Northern England, 1945–2010: The Pre-Historyand After-Life of the Inbetweener Generation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Blackshaw T., Long J. (2005). What’s the Big Idea? A critical exploration of the conceptof social capital and its incorporation into leisure policy discourse. „Leisure Studies”,24 (3), 239–258.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:Routledge.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. „Sociological Theory”, 7 (1),14–25.
  • Bourdieu P. et al. (1999). The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in ContemporarySociety. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Bourdieu P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Brooks D. (2003). The Triumph of Hope over Self-Interest. „New York Times”, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-self-interest.html [20.03.2017].
  • Devine F., Snee H. (2015). Doing the Great British Class Survey. „The Sociological Review”,63 (2), 240–258.
  • Derrida J. (1990). Some Statements etc. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Danto A.C. (1998). The End of Art: A Philosophical Defense. „History and Theory”, 37(4), 127–143.
  • Foucault M. (1970). The Order of Things: The Archaeology of the Human Sciences. NewYork: Vintage.
  • Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth:Penguin.
  • Foucault M. (1986). The Care of the Self. Vol. 3 of The History of Sexuality. New York:Random House.
  • Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Hanley L. (2007). Estates: An Intimate History. London: Granta Books.
  • Hanley L. (2016). Respectable: The Experience of Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Hanley L. (2017). Parallel Lives: How the Brexit vote revealed Britain’s divided culture.„Guardian Review”, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/18/lynsey--hanley-brexit-britain-divided-culture-uses-of-literacy [20.02.2017].
  • Hoggart R. (1992 1957). The Uses of Literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • James C. (2009). The Revolt of the Pendulum: Essays 2005–2008. London: Picador.
  • Jenkins R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
  • Lane J. F. (2000). Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press.
  • Louis, E. (2016). Pierre Bourdieu: L’insoumission en heritage. Paris: Presses Universitairesde France.
  • Louis E. (2017a). The End of Eddy. London: Harvill Secker.
  • Louis E. (2017b). Books: Point of View. „Guardian Review”, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/11/edouard-louis-books-assult-elite-working-classes-culture[12.02.2017].
  • Macey D. (2004). Michel Foucault. London: Reaktion.
  • Martin S. (2005). ‘Culs-de-sac’, review of The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distributionof the Sensible. „Radical Philosophy”, 131, 39–44.
  • McKibbin R. (1998). Classes and Cultures 1918–1951. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
  • Noah C. (2015). The Myths of Cesar Chavez. „New York Review of Books”. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/10/08/myths-cesar-chavez/ [11.12.2016].
  • Panagia D. (2010). Partage du sensible: the distribution of the sensible. [in:] DerantyJ.-P. (ed.). Jacques Rancière: Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen.
  • Rancière J. (2004). The Philosopher and his Poor. Durham and London: Duke UniversityPress.
  • Rancière J. (2005). The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. London:Continuum.
  • Rancière J. (2009). Afterword / The Method of Equality: An Answer to Some Questions.[in:] Rockhill G.. Watts P. (eds.). Jacques Rancière: History, Politics, Aesthetics. Durhamand London: Duke University Press.
  • Ricks C. (1980). Clichés. [in:] Michaels L., Ricks C. (eds.). The State of the Language.Berkeley: University of California Press, 54–63.
  • Rojek C., Blackshaw T. (2013). The Labour of Leisure Reconsidered. [in:] T. Blackshaw(ed.). The Routledge International Handbook of Leisure Studies. London and NewYork: Routledge, 544–559.
  • Rosanvallon P. (2013). The Society of Equals. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  • Sartre J.-P. (1947). What is Literature? New York: Philosophical Library.
  • Savage M. et al. (2015). Social Class in the 21st Century. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
  • Skeggs B. (2009). Haunted by the Spectre of Judgement: Respectability, Value and Affect in Class Relations. [in:] Sveinsson K.P. (ed.). Who Cares about the White Working Class? Runnymede Trust, http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/WhoCaresAboutTheWhiteWorkingClass-2009.pdf [20.03.2017].
  • Skinner Q. (1980). Language and Social Change. [in:] Michaels L., Ricks C. (eds.). TheState of the Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp 562–78.
  • Skinner Q. (2002). Visions of Politics. Volume 1. Regarding Method. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
  • Sloterdijk P. (2013). You Must Change Your Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Steedman C. (2016). Wall in the Head. Review of Respectable: The Experience of Classby L. Hanley, „London Review of Books”, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/carolyn--steedman/wall-in-the-head [20.09.2016].
  • Swenson J. (2006). Jacques Rancière. [in:] Kritzman L.D. (ed.). The Columbia Historyof Twentieth-Century French Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,641–643.
  • Taylor, P. (2009). A Very English Playwright: The return of Alan Bennett. „IndependentReview”, 6th November.
  • Wacquant L. (1998). Pierre Bourdieu. [in:] Stones R. (ed.). Key Sociological Thinkers.Basingstoke: Macmillan, 215–229.
  • Webb J., Schirato T., Danaher G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
ISSN
2450-9078
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-b1cd34e3-a8f6-416e-b076-68a20bd61ed8
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.