Education Theory?

As an English major, I am no stranger to theoretical studies. My professors constantly reference the work of Derrida or Foucault or the other six million theorists that I can’t keep straight. When I read a text, I know that the general plot is only a small aspect to its greater message. It is necessary to analyze each text through a wide variety of critical theories and scholarly approaches. But hey, that’s just something that I do in my English courses. Or so I thought.

For me, the past week in ED324 resembled an English classroom much more than an Education one. As we embark on our studies with Pierre Bourdieu, it is becoming obvious to me that dynamics in the classroom (particularly those involving power) are just as rooted in theories as any novel I’ve read in my English courses. Like the books I’ve analyzed in these courses, there are seemingly ordinary events that happen in our everyday lives that can be heavily analyzed through theoretical frameworks. This week, we were exposed to Bourdieu’s theory of “field”. While the work of Bourdieu is complex, it was made more simple through a sports analogy. Bear with me.

In his theory, Bourdieu uses a “field” to explain the dynamics between groups of people and their varying level of power. For him, power is relational and people understand others based on the marked differences between them. For him, “fields” are semi-autonomous spheres in which people are placed. So let’s call the “field” a soccer field. In this field, players occupy certain positions based on their skills and what they bring to the team. These positions are determined by a players previous training, quality of play, physical condition, etc. Bourdieu would call this a player’s “habitus” or “system of embodied dispositions, and tendencies that organize the ways in which individuals perceive the social world around them and react to it”. Additionally, all of the players are expected to follow the rules set by the referee. Bourdieu calls these rules “doxa” or the “tacit presuppositions that organize action within the field”. However, players do not often agree on the rules set by the referee. In this case, they attempt to change them in order to benefit themselves. In the struggle to change “doxa”, Bourdieu claims that players make use of their capital in order to serve their best interests.

 

Capital is a tricky concept because while all people have capital, only a select few have valuable forms. For example, the cultural capital of knowing how to dress for an interview is arguably more important than the knowledge of how to change a tire, in regards to social mobility and accumulation of status. The person who knows to wear a suit and tie will be more capable of changing the doxa in regards to building financial wealth because he will ultimately land a powerful career and have more power and influence over others. Complex, I know.

In relation to our study with elite schooling, Bourdieu’s theory of field makes a lot of sense. Students who attend these types of institutions are building up their capital, or “improving their soccer skills” as the metaphor suggests, as a way to be in power post-graduation. Students who accumulate these unique and limited skills will eventually be the players who are capable of changing the rules, or “doxa”. The systems that are in place to benefit those with elite forms of capital once seemed so subtle. Who would have thought that there was an entire theory looking to expose them?

 

Citations: Bourdieu, Pierre. The State Nobility. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1996. Print.