BRAC University Journal, Vol. X1, No. 1, 2016, pp. 1-9


Dr. Rifat Mahbub Assistant Professor Department of English and , BRAC University email: [email protected] and Kazi Farzana Shoily MA student of English Department of English and Humanities, BRAC University email: [email protected]


This article examines the relevance of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories to cultural studies. His key concepts such as cultural , , field and symbolic violence are introduced and explained in relation to their prospects and limitations in the study of . We will argue that Bourdieu, though from a different vantage point than the key theoretical figures of cultural studies such as , questions the of cultural productions and consumptions. Importantly, his persistent argument that cultural productions (, and ) accrue their symbolic and social mainly through the of the users is fundamental to how he challenges the hierarchy of the traditional notion of “high”, “low”, “elite” and “mass” . Thus, “culture” for him is inherently a site of constant social struggle for change which perhaps is the key theoretical argument of cultural studies as an academic discipline. While this “bridge” between culture and makes Bourdieu theoretically important in the field of cultural studies, we will further argue the methodological significance of Bourdieu’s own work of studying people’s “” empirically in his key tract La (1984). Since cultural studies as a discipline has an enduring interest in the of people belonging to different social groups in the forms of studies about their food habits, spatial positions, and medium of leisure in particular in the urban contexts, Bourdieu’s theories, when used adaptively, can be particularly insightful. We will conclude this paper by examining why Bourdieu will be useful in cultural studies in the 21st century’s urban Bangladesh defined by both the expansion of lives and the “new ”.

Key words: Pierre Bourdieu, Cultural Studies, Culture, , Bangladesh.

Introduction fields to locate mainly, though not exclusively, the “social” or material meanings of their studies French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is a well- (Mander 1987; Moi 1989). This emphasis on established theoretical figure in the Eurocentric “social” is the key to understand Bourdieu’s studies of sociology, and increasingly his theories of knowledge which might also have led are in use even in areas about which he had little to to a relatively late recognition in the field of say (such as the and the cultural studies compared to, for example, his sociology of migration). From the mid-, contemporary . many theorists and critics of various academic fields within the broad remit of social such Bourdieu, to start with, is a material structuralist. as feminist studies, cultural studies and media and Unlike many of his contemporary , communications have suggested the appropriate- most notably Foucault and Derrida, Bourdieu had ness of Bourdieu’s theories in their respective little dialogue with poststructuralism and post- Dr. Rifat Mahbub and Kazi Farzana Shoily that ruled the post-1980s’ academic consumptions of cultures. Contrarily, his text for circles of humanities and interdisciplinary studies. the interpretation of does not He more or less remained outside the circle of core necessarily exempt it from a notion of plurality and cultural theorists in his ‘Cultural Studies: Two fluidity and the rapidly changing meanings of Paradigms’ (1980), Stuart Hall, the founding figure “culture” in the late-modern western . of cultural studies as a discipline in Britain, charted Rather, later paragraphs will argue, the notion of down the ‘moments’ and ‘ruptures’ cultural capital has been incorporated in varied giving birth to the study of culture but Bourdieu fields. didn’t figure prominently in Hall’s narrative. Hall maintained that from the 1950s to 1980s, cultural Bourdieu’s significance was recognized, belatedly, studies as an academic discipline has largely been in cultural studies due to reasons similar to certain shaped by “cultural” and “structuralist” theoretical schools of feminists accepting Bourdieu to take up paradigms. The culturalist paradigm comprises the the social seriously in their studies of gender as a shift in the definition of “culture” from collections cultural and social practice. In his much quoted of () to culture as collective essay “Notes on Deconstructing the Popular”, Hall experiences. As British cultural theorist Raymond (1981) takes on the term with a Williams (1958) suggested famously, “culture is range of social underpinnings. Popular culture is a ordinary”. By contrast, the structuralist mode, site of struggle and resistance between social primarily imported by British academia from groups of unequal power relations. The study of French philosophers, provides challenging nuances cultural studies, or in this case that of popular to the study of cultures by bringing the issue of culture, will lose its credential if the issue of to interpret people’s collective societal struggle is not addressed with importance. experiences. Structuralists such as linguist Though Hall does not mention Bourdieu here and Marxist theorist Louis either, the essay clearly shows how cultural studies Althusser argue that without understanding the engage with traditional and changing social forces effect of ideology, the effectiveness of culture as and the subtle resistances within it. reproduction power cannot be fully grasped (67- 69). It was Hall, however who gave the post-1980s John Fiske, a key theorist of and popular theoretical canon of cultural studies to the central culture, takes on many of Stuart Hall’s concerns figures of poststructuralism. He suggested, quite about simplistic derivation of the term “popular”. rightly, that Michel Foucault’s power and Using Bourdieu’s cultural capital, he develops the knowledge, ’s of term ‘popular cultural capital’ which according to subjectivity and ’s hegemony him “consists of the meanings and pleasures would be the next theoretical paradigms of cultural available to the subordinate to express and promote studies as a field of discursive heterogeneity. Hall their interest” (1987, 509). Television as a key further noted that even if marginally, there would means of providing contemporary pleasure needs to be a return to the more classical ‘political take heterogenous cultural registers seriously since ’ of culture, urging to return to the profit of television media, unlike most original study of base/ superstructure to understand commercial products, depends on its capacity to culture as a fundamentally economic thus social cater to various social groups rather than on the class phenomenon. singular investment of . Jostein Gripsurd uses Bourdieu’s ideas of taste as a mark According to communications theorist Mary S. of social distinction to develop his argument on the Mader (1987), the reason of this distance between new forms of cultural and inequalities Bourdieu and the early theorists of cultural studies in the fields of , cultural consumption and mainly lies in their contrasting definitions of social struggles. He is wary of the simplistic “culture”. She argues that Bourdieu uses culture in postmodern notion of the blurred relation of “high” its restrictive and traditional sense of social and “low” cultures. He argues that despite the cultivations of “high arts”. This restrictive notion expansion of , people with strong of culture is contrary to how initial prominent academic and cultural backgrounds can have thinkers such as Raymond Williams and Stuart “double access” to cultures. In other words, they Hall offered as an inclusive of culture and are in a position to choose from a range of cultural its anthropological etymology its fluidity and options. People without such “privilege” are resistance within the late-industrial productions and confined to “single accessed” pleasure: pleasures

2 The Place of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theories in (Popular) Cultural Studies confined or closer to the person’s inherited social “objectified” or institutionalized cultural capital group. Bourdieu’s references regarding the they may be equal to one another. Objectified changing theoretical terrains of the cultural studies cultural capital is transmitted “materially” both in from the late 1980s increasingly utilize the the form of economic capital (money) and in the empirical analysis of the consumption of cultures form of symbolic capital (ownership or by social groups. of a particular collections of , paintings, or a car). While both embodied and objectified cultural Bourdieu’s Key Terms capital are strongly tied to the determination of one's background, institutionalized cultural capital Cultural Capital is the individually acquired one, ideally through academic qualifications. In Bourdieu's words “[by] Cultural capital is undoubtedly the key concept that conferring institutional recognition on the cultural puts Bourdieu at the centre of the post-1960s capital possessed by any given agent, the academic Eurocentric of the . qualification also makes it possible to compare Bourdieu first uses the concept of cultural capital in qualification holders and even to exchange them relation to his . Based on his (by substituting one for another in succession)” empirical in the 1960s expansion of (265). school education in , he argues that despite the state-assumed liberal position to provide Cultural capital is clearly a bigger and more standard compulsory education, individuals’ powerful force of social distinction than academic academic qualifications will vary. The , capital. Cultural capital is not necessarily mere according to him, is not based on “meritocracy” or “high culture” (such as collections of canonical an individual’s educational acumen; rather the literature, or paintings), rather it denotes the web of difference comes from the social class and family social, material, educational connections that belongings of the individuals. “Cultural capital” makes societal aristocrats (and later on academic includes the basic elements that individuals elites) enjoy traditional cultural paradigms, unconsciously inherit from their family and social reinforcing both the products and the consumers' class. These elements range from an individual’s marks of traditional . Education class- (such as middle-class (educational qualifications, and social ) to access to books and education at an networks) definitely gives people access to cultural early age and can have a lasting impact on an (as well as social) mobility, though education alone individual’s manner, taste, choice, habits and cannot provide all the fineries of being rich in leisure. cultural capital. While in Bourdieusian topology cultural capital aligns closer to what is usually According to Bourdieu, cultural capital can have considered “high culture”, for the culturalist three forms— embodied, objectified, and definition of culture (as ordinary experience), he institutionalized. Embodied cultural form is the has a different term: habitus. “long-lasting of the mind and body” (Bourdieu 262). Amongst its three forms, the Habitus embodied one is “unconscious” but the most powerful one is based on the family logic of Close to the embodied version of cultural capital is “transmission” from one generation to another. Bourdieu's most ambiguous term “habitus”. Some forms of cultural capital (such as ability to Habitus and cultural capital overlap since both read widely, or appreciate “high culture” in the operate within the boundaries of culture, society, forms of and music) are mainly exercised family, shared dispositions and individual's in families. Children belonging to families with “practical sense” of doing things (Bourdieu and strong of cultural capital find “high Waquant 166, 25 & 120). Habitus situates an culture” easier to access than others without the individual within a social boundary since it is same privilege. For them the access is “natural”. “defined by the possession of the minimum of Therefore, cultural capital in the embodied form is economic and cultural capital necessary actually to the sharpest marker of social distinction. For perceive and seize the ‘potential opportunities’ example, pronunciations, accents and formally offered to all” (124). Through habitus, vocabularies can be markers of two individuals’ Bourdieu proves himself an alternative different social/familial origins, though in terms of to Sartre, a compatriot and one of the key

3 Dr. Rifat Mahbub and Kazi Farzana Shoily philosopher thinkers of the mid-20th century. relation to the space they occupy in the field. Sartre's philosophical work championed an Therefore the “” is determined when agents individual's (and intellectual's) capacity to go have internalized these field-specific rules which beyond the boundaries of society, commitments allow them to formulate practices and habits based and disciplines. Bourdieu, by contrast, argues that on the strategic requirements of the “game”. By even if individuals apparently make independent naming the contexts of social relations of power choices their choices/decisions are implicitly bound and the “field” of struggle, Bourdieu clearly by their positions in society, partly based on the centralises analogies of “game” in relation to his value of their accrued capital. key theories of capital and habitus. “Fields” are the building blocks of the social world within which Habitus is ironically more pervasive and more we inhabit, play our game, struggle, survive and changeable than cultural capital. Change of societal win or lose accordingly. “A capital does not exist norms may result in gradual shifts and changes in and function except in relation to a field” collective habitus. It is through changes in habitus (Bourdieu and Waquant 1997, 101). However, in that many social and cultural exceptions are which field what forms of capital are useful depend normalised with the passage of time. British on the nature and rules of the fields. For example, sociologist of education Diane Reay (2004) argues in the field of education, knowledge and academic that habitus can best be understood as a changing qualifications may be more relevant a capital than factor in particular in the contexts of globalisation money. The opposite may be the case in the field of with rapid cultural shifts. Within the field of business. based on people's social cultural studies, habitus is perhaps most useful in networks may be the most useful capital when the context of how Bourdieu himself applied the someone changes the ‘field’ and enters a new field term in his empirical research. In his major work as it happens with immigrant populations. Social on the relationship between social class and “taste” beings for Bourdieu are agents of actions and Bourdieu argues that many of individuals' tastes (of food, what music they prefer to listen, what they do The strategies of agents depend on their for leisure) are based on their class/cultural (and position in the field, that is, in the specific often gender) habitus. Taking a strong point of capital, and on the perception that they have of departure from the western Kantian philosophy of the field depending on the point of view they as a mark of individuality, Bourdieu take on the field as a view taken from a point argues that many of our mundane and aesthetic in the field (101). habits are based on what come to us “naturally”, or what we can take for granted. In the context of Bourdieu not only sees relationality— which is at 1960s' France, Bourdieu thus shows that people the heart of his theoretical arguments— between belonging to certain professions are similar in what fields, capital, habitus and social agents, however, they eat, drink and do for leisure. Habitus is deeply he argues that different fields comprising the social ingrained in culture. It has an oeuvre of naturalness worlds are also relational. In other words, that may justify since some people according to Bourdieu the epistemological and may seem to be naturally disposed to appreciate symbolic demarcations between the fields of pure finer things in life while others are not (Social “arts” and pure “” are arbitrarily made, Theory Rewired 2011). partly to establish authority of each field and its agents, and partly to produce legitimate successors Field in different fields.

Bourdieu repeatedly uses references from “game” Bourdieu presents many of his key ideas related to (such as “feel for the game”, or investment in the fields and their arbitrary boundaries in his writings game) to elucidate social relations, power struggles about the “fields” of such as and reversal of power between different social and literature. Writing about the historical groups. The game is constituent of a field which is autonomization of the fields of determined by relational values among agents or and arts, Bourdieu argues that the establishment of individual who occupy positions within a field. and literature as a pure aesthetic field has an fields might refer to a range of institutions such as enduring history of power struggle between artists art, science and . Each field consists of and patrons. Later on the struggle expanded and specific rules which are pertinent to agents in involved artists and other professionals, and

4 The Place of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theories in (Popular) Cultural Studies proliferated as commodity instead of aesthetic Symbolic Violence symbols. In other words, Bourdieu observes the symbolic and cultural value of art in relation to its Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic violence” is varied consequences of conflict that arise from similar to Marx's false consciousness, Gramsci's exposure to myriad social groups and contexts: hegemony and Althusser's concept of ideology. In each of the three notions society seems to function This movement towards artistic autonomy through a space of shared, repetitive— thereby accelerated abruptly with the Industrial internalized— meaning. There seems to reside Revolution and the Romantic reaction. The contrariness in these notions. In Marxian terms, the development of a veritable false consciousness seems to encompass a falsity and, in particular, the relationship between the within the functionality of the subject performing daily press and literature, encouraging the within a certain normative. Here norm becomes the mass production of works produced by quasi consequence of falsity. Hence these notions are industrial methods—such as the serialized similar (but not the same) because symbolic story (or, in other fields, melodrama and violence like other forms of pervasive and vaudeville) coincides with the extension of the insidious (often “soft”) violence, works through public, resulting from the expansion of “consent”. Bourdieu is of course aware of the primary education, which turned new classes “risk” of using consent in defining violence: (including women) into consumers of culture. The development of the system of cultural Symbolic violence, [...], is the violence which production is accompanied by a process of is exercised upon a social agent with his or her differentiation generated by the diversity of the complicity [italics in original]. Now, this idiom publics at which the different categories of is dangerous because it may open the door to producers aim their products. Symbolic goods scholastic discussions on whether power are a two-faced reality, a commodity and a comes “from below”, or why the agents symbolic object. Their specifically cultural “desires” the condition imposed upon him, etc value and their commercial value remain (167). relatively independent, although the economic sanction may come to reinforce their cultural Symbolic violence is consensual because of the consecration (Bourdieu 2-3). rule of misrecognition. Misrecognition is the acceptance of what social beings take as “normal”: Two points are pertinent here. First, the above being born in a social world, we accept a whole quote traces the complex history of the breakdown range of postulates, axioms, which go without of “high” and “low” cultures in advanced countries saying and require no inculcating, Wacquant adds like France due to rapid changes brought on by importantly, that this fact of internalising certain , the rise of and practices without any formal inculcation makes urbanisation, mechanical means of producing arts Bourdieu's symbolic violence different from in “quasi industrial method” for pleasure- issues Gramsci's hegemony based on the concept of that make cultural studies a distinct body of “conviction”. For Bourdieu, is not a knowledge. Secondly, the expansion of cultural “purposive action of or symbolic reproduction, or mass production heightens rather imposition”, rather “social subjects comprehend the social world which comprehends them” (484). The than obsoletes the debate about authenticity of art. idea is reminiscent of Althusser’s contention of the Art and literature is primarily symbolic goods in ISA/RSA (Ideological State Apparatus/ Repressive the sense that they bear marks of individuals' taste State Apparatus) scheme. The interrelation between and judgements. The rise of new and art the frameworks is similar to the symbolic violence forms can only accentuate the debate about who where the repressive setup (RSA) which is direct in consume what forms of cultural reproduction. its appropriation of discipline is resonant of its Moreover, the debate includes consideration of ideological setup (ISA) which inculcates the how trends reflect on people’s family background, normative. level of education, social associations and personal “choices”. Like the field of art and literature, each In his much cited Reproduction in Education, “field” is a constant scope of expansion and Society and Culture (1977), Bourdieu introduces struggle between different sub-fields. his axiomatic theories of education and social

5 Dr. Rifat Mahbub and Kazi Farzana Shoily reproduction through a definition of symbolic feminist sociologist Bev Skeggs argues, the mark violence. Every power, according to Bourdieu, can of classiness in contemporary urban lives is not be inflict “symbolic violence” if that power can only about having “resources’ (such as money and successfully legitimize its powerful position by wealth), it is also about knowing the art of concealing its internal power relations. All spending and investing. In many societies the “new pedagogic actions are forms of symbolic violence middle class” can suffer from a similar crisis of since education is a legitimised yet culturally reputation that Skeggs associates with the British arbitrary power relation in most societies. For white working class: example, it has been argued that the establishment of institutional education in the mid-18th century's Working class selves have historically been unable to resource themselves in the same Indian subcontinent by the British Raj had been an way. They do not have access to the right example of the imposition of the “cultural cultural capital at an early stage, as most arbitrary” from the powerful, albeit from a liberal- educationalists point out very clearly. And meritocratic standpoint (Mahbub 2014). Through sometimes when they do get access to the right misrecognition, social agents (or groups) recognise cultural capital, they don’t know how to their own and others' positions in relation to them. operationalize it. They don’t know how to put From the reproduction of class system and class the culture to use and that becomes absolutely privilege, Bourdieu extends his concept of key, so it’s not just a matter of having the right symbolic violence to theorise gender inequality and culture, it is about knowing how to use it. the perpetuation of male dominance over females. (970) Bourdieu that challenging symbolic violence is possible from a “ Feminist sociologists such as Bev Skeggs (1997, challenging practically the immediate agreement of 2004, 2005), Angela MacRobbie (2004) and Brigit embodied and objective structures” and Fowler (1999) have consistently employed questioning the production and reproduction of Bourdieu within cultural studies to understand the symbolic capital (174). nuanced relationship between popular/print media, the shift to consumer culture and contemporary Bourdieu in Media and Cultural Studies social class formations. These researchers argue that the relationship between social class and media Bourdieu, primarily a sociologist, emphasised is not restricted to what people dominantly enjoy heavily on empirical research to understand and on TV, or to their ability to interpret different critique the social world as an . It is not layers of semiotic meanings. The relationship only with his pioneering empirical in the La depends on how different social groups are Distinction on French people's , food habit represented and under what historical . and leisure that Bourdieu established his direct interest in measuring people's “taste” as a socially In many Asian contexts as well, Bourdieu's structured position; in his other writings as well, he theories (in particular symbolic violence and showed how even can be a factor in relation habitus) are getting prominence in addressing to class. These empirical and their issues of popular culture such as television theoretical arguments opened new dimensions in programmes. Weing Udasmoro (2013), for the study of social groups’ somewhat non- example, writing about the contemporary economic persuasions in understanding their Indonesian context, argues that popular television complex social struggles. drama serials routinely (re)produce the norms of symbolic violence of gender relations based on the However, over time, Bourdieu's rigid class-based moral judgements of “good” versus “fallen” specification of people's choices (such as cricket as women. Media, therefore, much in the way a gentleman's game, or football as a game of the Bourdieu theorises other forms of liberal power British working class) have given way to such as education, is a power of change and postmodern celebration of cultural mishmash and . Often, it reproduces what one aims to the rise of popular, mass and consumer cultures. change. In Bangladeshi television Yet often it is within this fluid context of context, there is a trend to represent “Old Dhaka” social/cultural hyper-ambiguous consciousness that and its in dramas, telefilms and daily class-based distinctions take place. As British soaps (such as Arman bhai the Gentleman; Old

6 The Place of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theories in (Popular) Cultural Studies versus New)1. While this media representation of economic expansion. Bourdieu has little faith in the communities of Old Dhaka (often derogatively new century's utopian view that the apparent free known as Dhakaiya) strongly suggests the shifts in flow of cultures, capital and movements, the landscape of television drama towards the technological revolution and the rise of inclusiveness of different social groups and away “knowledge capital” will bring fundamental from the standard Dhaka middle class, these kinds changes to the cultural/social inequalities within of dramas are often essentialist, overstressing their and across nation states even if the power of state is “differences” (such as Bangla pronunciations, or questionable in the new millennium. Poignantly, certain cultural practices) from the dominant cultural theorists (see Fernandez 1987) interested in standard. This matter of stressing the difference by the domains of virtual media and techno-based arts making popular culture suggestive of inclusiveness often share Bourdieu's concern that the egalitarian has also been partially discussed by Bourdieu. belief that the would be the true level- playing field for world is problematic It is surprising that despite his lifelong interest in on many fronts, not least because cultural issues, Bourdieu directly takes on popular depends hugely on economic, material and culture and “television” quite belatedly in the mid- knowledge-based resources. 1990s. His short text Television published in French in 1996 and translated in English in 1998 is Conclusion perhaps the least known and cited of his key texts. Focusing mainly on programmes based on The statement below shows how the nascent journalism (such as and news analysis), context of any discursive study allows a fluidity of Bourdieu, typical for his academic commitment, meaning formation. This viewpoint, for Bourdieu, maintains considerable scepticism about media's has been the crux of his observations. It explains “democratic” performances, although he rightly the necessity of questioning boundaries that are asserts that television aims to have something for mostly random in their formulation: all. The comment below is exemplary of this aspect: I have spent my entire life fighting arbitrary boundaries that are pure products of academic “With television,” Bourdieu writes, “we are reproduction and have no epistemological dealing with an instrument that offers, foundation whatsoever, between sociology and theoretically, the possibility of reaching , sociology and history, sociology everybody” (14). Television thus has a great and , the and the deal of promise as a tool for the democratic sociology of education, the sociology of dissemination of information. Of course, it has and the sociology of , etc. (Bourdieu hardly ever fulfilled this promise: it is instead 149) one of those things in social life that “nobody wants but seem somehow to have been willed” Bourdieu obviously did not mention cultural (45). Bourdieu’s analysis suggests that the studies in this list of unbridled/interdisciplinary problem with television is structural, and so academic domains. As someone passionate about who wish to make use of the breaking the arbitrary boundaries of knowledge, power of television to reach the public should Bourdieu might welcome the new and applied do so cautiously, on their own terms as much ways his thoughts, theories and concepts use as possible rather than on the terms that different branches of knowledge. “Culture” both as television is increasingly imposing on the a map of collective life (habitus) and manner of entire sphere of culture (Szeman 105). distinctive lifestyle (cultural capital) are at the heart of Bourdieusian epistemology. Unpicking the The note of caution that Bourdieu maintains for cultural (and social) construction of what is television as a form of “cultural ” is considered as “pure” (aesthetic) versus “cheap” similar to how he criticised certain key terms of the (vulgar) taste has been the thrust of his empirical 21st century such as globalisation and neoliberal analysis. Stuart Hall defines a cultural studies theorist as someone who “must respect the necessary displacement of culture” and who 1 Both the comedy dramas were telecast on Bangladeshi simultaneously is irritated by “its failure to private television channels in 2014 and 2012, reconcile itself with other questions that matter” respectively.

7 Dr. Rifat Mahbub and Kazi Farzana Shoily within bigger forces of power and politics (Hall Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992) An 284). Similar to how Hall envisions a cultural Invitation to reflexive sociology. theorist the oeuvre of Bourdieu relentlessly Cambridge: Polity Press. questions the old and emerging hierarchies of culture as a socio-political, colonial and neo- Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (2001) Neoliberal colonial force. newspeak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate. Retrieved from http://loicwacquant.net/assets/ Bourdieu’s detractors routinely take him to task for Papers/NEOLIBERALNEWSPEAK.pdf. his sole emphasis on social class as the key source of cultural, material, social and symbolic Fernandez, M. (1997) PostColonial Media Theory. inequalities. Yet we suggest that this strong Art Journal, 58 (3), 59-73. emphasis on social class within the realm of cultural consumption makes Bourdieu particularly Fowler, B. (1999) Pierre Bourdieu's sociological relevant to the study of culture in contemporary theory of culture. Variant. 2 (8), 1-4. Bangladesh. In many crucial ways, the contemporary Bangladeshi is Fiske, J. (1989) The popular economy. In J. Storey unlike its previous phases. In the 21st century, (Ed.) Cultural studies and popular culture: A Bangladesh has become one of the countries reader (537-555). 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson. identified with the new global middle classes (Guarin and Knorringa 2013), with its Asian (if not Gripsurd, J. (1989) High culture revisited. Cultural globally) shared characteristics of earning and Studies, 3 (2), 194-207. spending disposable money on goods rich in symbolic value (such as branded items, mobile Hall, S. (1980) Cultural studies: two paradigm. phones). Yet, characteristically, the expansions of Media, Culture and Society, 2 (1), 57-72. the middle classes aggravate the tensions between “old” and “new” middle classes, partly based on Hall, S. (1981) Notes on deconstructing the their material (in)stability and partly based on their ‘Popular’. In J. Storey (Ed.) Cultural studies cultural and symbolic distinctions. Bourdieu, and popular culture: A reader (477-488). 2nd though eventually French in his theoretical and ed. Harlow: Pearson. empirical practices, has much to offer us to understand the globalised yet unique cultural shifts Hall, S. (1992) “Cultural studies and its theoretical in contemporary Bangladesh. legacies”. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, P. Treichler (Eds.) Cultural Studies (277-294). References London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A social critique Mander, S. M. (1987) Bourdieu, the sociology of of the judgement of taste. (R. Nice, Trans). culture and cultural studies: A critique, Euro- London: Routledge. pean Journal of Communications, 2, 427-53.

Bourdieu, P. (1985) The value of symbolic Mahbub, Rifat. (2014) Education As Capital: goods. In The field of cultural reproduction: Educated Bangladeshi Immigrant Women in Essays on art and literature. New York: 21st Century Britain. Unpublished PhD diss., Columbia UP. York: University of York.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In John Moi, T. (1991) Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of theory and theory and Pierre Bourdieu's Sociology of research for the sociology of education (241- culture. New Literary History, 22 (4), 1017- 258). New York: Greenwood. 1049.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, Jean-C. (1990) McRobbie, A. (2004) Notes on “what not to wear” Reproduction in education, society and and post-feminist symbolic violence. In L. culture. (R. Nice, Trans). London: Sage. Adkins and B. Skeggs (Eds.). Feminism after (Original work was published in 1977). Bourdieu (99-109). Oxford: Blackwell.

8 The Place of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theories in (Popular) Cultural Studies

Raymond, W. (1989 [1958]) “Culture is ordinary”. journals.yorku.ca/index.php/topia/article/down In Resources of hope: Culture, , load/81/75. socialism (3-14). London: Verso. Skeggs, B. (1997) Formations of class and gender:

Becoming respectable. London: Sage. Reay, D. (2004) ‘“It’s all becoming a habitus”: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in Skeggs, B. (2004) Class, Self, culture. London: educational research’, British Journal of Routledge. Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431- 444. Skeggs, B. (2005) “The making of class and gender Rewired. “Pierre Bourdieu”. through visualizing moral subject formation”, Sociology, 39 (5), 965-982. Retrieved from http://theory.routledgesoc.com/ profile/pierre-bourdieu. Udasmoro, W. (2013) “Symbolic violence in everyday narrations: gender construction in Szeman, I. (2000) “Review of Pierre Bourdieu's On Indonesian television”, Asian Journal of Social Television”. Retrieved from http//:topia. Science and Humanities, 2 (3), 155-165.