I find Pierre Bourdieu’s discussion on the concept of “consciousness” in Masculine Domination and it’s inadequacy to address the depth of problems of male domination very interesting, radical, and profound. Bourdieu strongly emphasizes the larger social structure which creates dispositions in people who then themselves perpetuate false ideas of domination. Bourdieu also criticizes the notion and language of “consciousness” (derived from Marx when he spoke of “false consciousness”), believing it disregards the social force’s true and durable effects. Bourdieu does not think that one can merely speak of consciousness (or maybe not at all) because of domination’s “opacity and inertia that stem from the embedding of social structures in the bodies” (40).
This concept is interesting as the language Bourdieu uses is entirely physical. Opacity, inertia, and bodies are all words that refer to the physical world, concepts that are used in sciences and observations like Physics. Here Bourdieu evokes the dense and impenetrable state that social constructions impose on physical bodies and thereby become internalized. The habitus creates people’s dispositions which are an internal embodiment of the social structure itself. This is very independent and different from a discussion of ideologies and “ideas” that people possess about the world. Rather, the socialization Bourdieu discusses is much deeper and problematic than that as it becomes integrated within our body itself. This idea of the body and physical world is exemplified by Bourdieu’s discussion of our perceptions of physical attributes in the world as oppositional (female or male) and our perceptions of own bodies solely based on created dispositions (not by biological differences). Bourdieu claims that these constructions are not mere “mental representations” of a system that only exists in thought but rather a “system of structures durably embedded in things and in bodies” (41).
“The symbolic revolution called for by the feminist movement cannot be reduced to a simple conversion of consciousness and wills. Because the foundation of symbolic violence lies not in mystified consciousness that only need to be enlightened but in dispositions attuned to the structure of domination of which they are a product…” (41).
Here Bourdieu makes a large and direct attack on previous feminist ideology. He also threatens one’s notion on the possibility to break free of this system of domination through a reversal of the overarching discourse. As this system cannot be simply reduced to consciousness and wills, that is the ability to mentally become aware and recognize the falsity of power relations imposed on us, one must overcome a much deeper internalization that is “attuned” with a structure of domination. We and our bodies are therefore already aligned and in sync with the structure. This alignment and bodily internalization makes domination much more difficult to address. Recognizing Bourdieu’s idea and the truth it possibly holds, leaves me slightly nervous about the difficulty to address these problems in modern society if they are of the nature of embodiment.
Bourdieu says that this domination can be “broken through by a radical transformation of the social conditions of production of the dispositions that lead the dominated to take the point of the dominant on the dominant and on themselves…the complicity of dispositions depends profoundly, for its perpetuation or transformation on the perpetuation or transformation of the structures which those dispositions are the product” (42). Thus, what is most dangerous and most pertinent to Bourdieu is the transformation of a higher supra-structure of socialization that in turn effects the actual disposition of peoples who perpetuate the structure as it becomes them themselves. The dispositions are inseparable from the structures that produce and reproduce them. However, this proposition of radical transformation of the structure is intimidating because it signifies that transformation of the structure itself is not sufficient. The transformation of the structure must be accompanied by the transformation of the already created disposition that is embodied in actual bodies.
The possession of the body by the structure is such an extreme invasion of what we conceive of our personal self. It is no longer an issue of simply the mind governed by certain indoctrinated ideologies that we must try to break free of but a body governed by the structure. A body possessed and dictated by social systems of domination (man over woman) that has been taken under this system of thought without conscious consent. This is a statement of the structure’s ability to affect the physical world. It is the symbolic system for Bourdieu that has this deep effect. These elaborate symbolic systems are not in result of the physical existence and arrangement of life. These symbols have been produced from a construction in itself and in turn create and shape the physical world.
[…] first one deals with Marx’s concept of consciousness and, especially, false consciousness. It’s […]