Homo academicus
Homo academicus is a sociological study published by Pierre Bourdieu in 1984, in which he deals with the hierarchies and social structures within French universities and colleges. "The aim of the sociological analysis of the university world is to subject the homo academicus , this classifier among classifiers, to its own evaluations."
Preface
With his Homo academicus, Pierre Bourdieu presents a sociological study that deals with the representation, position and distribution of power of academics in the university area (→ social area , social area ). Bourdieu saw the basic problem that scientists classify without reflecting the production conditions of their classification criteria. The overall aim of the study is to bring the influence of social determinisms on the scientific investigation criteria under control (the objectification of the objectifying subject). What is special about Bourdieu's study is that, in contrast to most texts, which “abstract from their respective context of production and use” (Bourdieu 1988: 14), they “convey their own context”. Bourdieu himself is part of the world, the mechanisms of which he reveals and which he criticizes (p. 13).
Bourdieu predicts that readers of the Homo academicus will react very differently to the study, depending on whether they are part of the university field described or confront it as a stranger. The latter can more easily get involved with the study and be instructed by it, because they do not feel affected by the possible criticism and thus behave “like in the theater, where you can laugh without realizing that you have a picture of your own Has mistakes in mind. ”(P. 14).
Bourdieu cites a method by which the scientist can be removed from his investigation in order to get the most objective result possible. In the scientific analysis, the “space of positions” and the “space of works” must be brought together. In other words: only when a work is in the ...
- subject-specific drawer is put (condition 1),
- which also contains the works of other university professors on the same subject area (condition 2),
- in this way the symbols of the new work are determined (condition 3) and
- In addition, a drawer is inserted into the entire "University" corpus (condition 4),
the text and the research result can make sense.
In this case the “space of works” would be brought together with the “ space of positions ” (p. 17). In the university environment, every professor has a position that affects, for example, his political position. For example, those professors would find themselves gathered in one place in the room who speak out against the student movements. The professors who speak out in favor of these movements find themselves in a completely different place in the room. In the university area there are scientists with outsider positions who deliberately exclude themselves from the university field and can still acquire power and prestige to a certain extent , such as Roland Barthes . However, these outsiders have to come to terms with the fact that they will never be able to attain the same power and position as their colleagues in institutions.
Bourdieu goes on to describe the generational change in subjects at universities. New disciplines ( linguistics , anthropology, etc.) threaten the dominance of the “time-honored” subjects (philosophy, literary studies, etc.) (p. 18). Bourdieu describes this as a “war of the subjects” (ibid.), In that almost every subject would like to distinguish itself from the other, but there is increasing connection between subjects.
Chapter 1: A "Book That Should Be Burned"?
introduction
The introduction to chapter 1 of his work can generally be seen as a justification for Bourdieu's investigation. At the beginning he makes it clear that problems arise when you make your topic a social world in which you are directly entangled. Bourdieu sees a further problem in the way of writing or presentation that occurs when one wants to convey scientific knowledge. This is particularly the case when using examples, as these are mostly fed from everyday knowledge, against which science tries to distinguish itself. At the same time, however, he is aware that the suspicion of denunciation cannot be dispelled because, in addition to the scientific analysis, he also uses proper names and anecdotes. Another problem arises from the fact that he writes his work about the group of people to which his colleagues and his immediate environment belong. He puts himself in a complicated position because the academic world, in which objectification is the central instrument, could feel attacked if it now itself becomes the object of objectification. At the end he points out that his analysis results in a freedom for the human being, since he can now order himself in his field and see through this structure.
Chapter 1.1: The construction work and its effects
Bourdieu intends to investigate a world to which he himself, as a sociologist, is linked. The problem arises here that the subject has to make himself the object of investigation. There is a risk, however, of working to your own advantage and hiding it under the guise of science. He sees recourse to objective procedures as the solution to this problem. From this follows a responsibility of the scientist in the construction of his work and the arrangement of his survey design. In addition to the responsibility of the scientist, which results from the construction of his work, Bourdieu also emphasizes the role of intuition , which gives the scientist an opportunity to discover groundbreaking innovations.
- Doing something without knowing exactly what you are doing - this opens up the chance to discover something in what you have done: something you did not know beforehand. (P. 39)
Intuition is understood as a more or less controlled form of pre-scientific knowledge. In the course of research, the break with primary intuition is completely natural. Scientific work is seen as a dialectical process in which difficulties arise in the course of research, from which ever new hypotheses arise. A concretization of the hypothesis only develops gradually in the course of the research. The essential importance of scientific objectification is based on the possibility of objectifying the objectification. The instrument of this objectification is the generation of a code . Bourdieu distinguishes between everyday perception and constructed code. Within the constructed code, a distinction can also be made between the scientific-normative code, which is based on existing conditions in social reality, and the purely constructed code, the code that creates a new criterion on its own. The origin of the codes is often hidden in scientific practice in order to avoid discussions about their relevance. In addition, two effects can be observed in the construction and dissemination of the codes: on the one hand, an officialization effect, which means that what cannot be objectified is objectified, and, on the other hand, an institutionalization and homogenization effect, which results in the dissemination and continuous use of the codes in practice is meant. For sociology, the consequence of this knowledge is to ensure that there is no clear separation between unofficial attributions and scientific terms and that these are often mixed up. The problem that arises from this, that transferring what has been empirically found back to the apparently scientific, objective level does not make sense, since this is shortening and therefore not meaningful, is solved by making everyday language criteria the subject of sociological analysis.
Chapter 1.2: Empirical and Epistemic Individual
Bourdieu points out two possible misunderstandings that can arise when reading sociological texts, and describes these as a danger, since the 'constructed language' (here the scientific language) can lead to the reader misunderstanding the author, because they use the language functionally as well as in colloquial use. Bourdieu also criticizes the fact that the rhetoric used does not always refer to scientifically clearly defined facts. Therefore, he emphasizes that it is important to use less embellishments, as they would lose the scientific depth.
The empirical individual (→ empiricism ) merely describes a marking without great importance and without great information content. It [the individual] is differentiated, but without specifying exactly in what it differentiates itself. The epistemic or constructed individual, on the other hand, differs through clearly defined finite characteristics such as age or gender. The constructed individual refers not only to the everyday practical space, but within a constructed space that has previously been created by certain features.
With regard to Bourdieu's scientific method, it should be noted that "the scientific view [...] represents the systematic totalization that can be achieved with the given state of the means of knowledge and the most possible objectification of the historical data material". (P. 76). This represents Bourdieu's goal, because knowledge cannot be gained either by being stuck in the structures in which one lingers, or by an “absolute perspective of a divine spectator” (because one is always involved in the structures). The more open one is to the field, the greater the knowledge about the space and the individuals in the field.
Chapter 2: Dispute of the Faculties
Chapter 2.1: Consent and distancing
Pierre Bourdieu sees the social world as a multi-dimensional social space. In this, the actors take relative positions, which are endowed by status (power). This power is determined by the abundance and size of types of capital.
This space can be reduced to two dimensions for better understanding. This can be represented by a two-dimensional coordinate system, where the status hierarchy is arranged vertically and the cultural dimension is arranged horizontally. For example, For example, a commercial entrepreneur has much less cultural capital than a university professor and is therefore positioned very far to the left on this imaginary horizontal axis.
These positions are then taken against the background of the disposition of the other types of capital (e.g. distinctive language, physical forms of expression, clothing, style, behavior). This also includes the so-called symbolic capital , which is bestowed through prestige, decorations, privileges and positions.
In addition to the social space, there is a power field. Here there is a distinction between many different fields (university field, political field, etc.).
The individual faculties are located differently in the social space.
The natural science faculties bring a lot of economic , but relatively little cultural capital .
The philosophical faculty, on the other hand, accumulates a little less economic capital, but a lot of cultural capital, while the law faculty has a lot of economic capital and, relatively speaking, little cultural capital.
Medicine has a little more cultural and a little less economic capital than law school.
The university field is homologous to the social space and reproduces it. Not all professors are distributed in the same way in the university field, they are located in different poles depending on the faculty they belong to. Bourdieu differentiates here between the natural sciences, philosophy, law and medicine. The professors show differences in social integration and respectability, depending on which faculty they belong to and where they are arranged in the university field. This means that the more economic capital they have to show, the higher the social respectability actors have. Bourdieu also refers in this context to the different values of social and economic capital. Economic capital gives significantly more power than cultural capital and is more often present in the faculties of law and medicine. This explains the ranking of the faculties established by Bourdieu.
In order to present the characteristics of the individual poles within the university field, Bourdieu uses the method of correspondence analysis with the aim of establishing a comparative sociology. In his study, Bourdieu examines 405 Parisian professors from the disciplines of natural sciences, philosophy, law and medicine. On the basis of this study he created several tables in which the characteristics of the indicators for inherited and acquired cultural and economic capital of the respondents are shown. Relevant indicators are the capital of scientific prestige, capital of intercultural prominence, capital of economic and political power, political attitudes, social determinants of the chances of access to the positions taken, educational-specific determinants, university power capital and capital of scientific power.
Summarizing results are that the political power pole of the university field is characterized by large families, the election of a right-wing party, Catholicism, attending private educational institutions, etc. The intercultural pole, on the other hand, is characterized by a left-wing conviction and Jewish identity.
The Poles' attitudes towards science are also noteworthy. The natural sciences and the philosophical faculty are characterized by a low striving for power. The focus here is on free thinking and research. In the Faculties of Law and Medicine, however, a distinction is made between research and teaching. In addition, social reason and religion prevail.
The professors can be divided into two poles: the pole of political-economic power and that of cultural prestige. Bourdieu contrasts the concept of power with that of prestige. The characteristic properties increase as one moves from the natural science faculty to the law and medical faculties. These two positions within the power field result in two contrary attitudes towards science.
The distribution structure of the various faculties has a chiastic shape and the structure of the power field is homologous to the scientifically dominant but socially dominated faculties and the scientifically dominated but socially dominant faculties.
Furthermore, the university field is organized according to two principles of legitimation: On the one hand there is the social hierarchy (corresponding to inherited capital and current ownership of economic capital), on the other hand the cultural hierarchy (with the capital of scientific authority ). This opposition is reflected in two competing principles of legitimation: a genuinely secular and political principle and a principle based on the autonomy of the scientific and intellectual order.
These observable contrasts between economic and cultural power explain why two oppositions between these two poles with deep-seated and general dispositions underlying a lifestyle can be observed.
Chapter 2.2: Scientific and social competence
How is the power field reflected in the university field?
As already described, university professors, according to Bourdieu, generally have more cultural capital; However, it is possible to differentiate between the following faculties: natural sciences, philosophical faculty, law, medicine. Bourdieu foresees a distribution of the professors of the various faculties between the two poles “cultural prestige” and “political-economic power”. The “secular” dominated faculties (natural sciences, philosophical faculty) stand in contrast to the socially dominant faculties (medicine, law). "The contrast between the two faculties, between academic competencies and social competencies, is also found within each of the socially dominant faculties." (P. 117)
The room of the faculties
According to Bourdieu, the room of the faculties is divided into 2 poles. The culturally dominant faculties are on the left and the socio-economically dominant faculties are on the right. Examples are the faculties of philosophy, education, psychology and social sciences for the left side of the faculty room. On the right side we find the law, medicine and theology faculties.
The members of the culturally dominant faculties have a relative surplus of academic power and therefore occupy university-internal offices and positions with a more academic focus. Their function is to produce scientific knowledge. Furthermore, they question current organizational structures and show alternatives and improvements to innovations that can replace those old organizational structures. This enlightening-critical type of employee has, in relation to the socio-economically dominant faculties, a greater scope of action (more autonomy).
The members of the socio-economically dominant faculties have much more social than economic capital (money and relationships, for example). They also have social mandates, ie they hold positions in socially relevant positions outside the university. E.g. One should think of the doctor, who is bound by law to a certain code of conduct, economic and social changes and, as a private or public doctor, occupies an important position in society. The special positions imply rights and duties. Therefore, their actions are determined by the interests of society as a whole (less autonomy) and form a clear contrast to the members of the culturally dominant faculties. Furthermore, there is a dependency on society, since without mandates the types of capital of these members would decrease drastically. So they are always caught in the tension between external and self-determination and have to adapt their scientific orientation to the socially relevant.
Reproduction of the social space
Bourdieu assumes that there is a homology between the spaces of a society. This means that the structures of the overall social system (social space) are reproduced in its subsystems (Fig. 1). It can therefore be assumed that the social space is homologous to the space of the faculties and this in turn is homologous to the space of the respective faculties. That means, within the faculties we find the same structure that I described above. We find a pole of culturally dominant professors and a pole of socio-economically dominant professors within a faculty (be it a culturally dominant or a socio-economic faculty). Inter-faculty disputes were mentioned above and intra-faculty disputes will now be discussed.
Intra-faculty disputes
As indicated, one can speak of 2 different professors profiles in this case. On the one hand there are the professors of the culturally dominant medical faculty and the professors of the socio-economic medical faculty (Fig. 2). Using an example chosen by Bourdieu himself, the medical faculty, the two types of professors are compared below.
| Characteristic | Type 1: Basic researcher (science) | Type 2: Clinician (Art) |
|---|---|---|
| Social determinants | Comes from poorer, socially disadvantaged classes | Rather from the elderly, higher in the social hierarchy |
| Professor salary only | Professor salary and mandate salary | |
| Researcher (self-employed) | Senior researcher and private doctor | |
| Seldom lives in “chic” neighborhoods | Lives in “chic” neighborhoods | |
| Less represented in the “Who's Who” | Represented in the “Who's Who” | |
| Political classification | More like links (relationally) | More rightly conservative |
| Scientific prestige | High | Rather low |
| Socio-economic power | Low | High |
| Orderly character | Heretic: | Order fanatics: |
| seeks reforms | Recognizes orders | |
| Questions methods | Wants to reproduce / protect orders | |
| Wants to establish newer methods | Reproduction of one's own habitus and beliefs + attitudes | |
| Career path | Research career (risky) | Research manager with additional titles and offices in various socially relevant positions |
| Has a lot of autonomy | safe but determined career | |
| Subordinates to the structural conditions | ||
| Manages / reproduces this order |
As you can see from this comparison, we have 2 types, as they could not be more opposing. One type is devoted to the system and wants to protect it, reproduce it and benefit from it etc., the other type wants to change it and innovate and is convinced that it is serving a higher goal. Conservative professors meet fundamentally critical professors. The fact that there are conflicts in this constellation cannot be denied, but the question that arises afterwards is which conflicts these are.
Intra-faculty disputes (using the example of the medical faculty)
From Bourdieu's descriptions, three basic levels can be derived on which the disputes are located. The levels are as follows
- The general level
- The dispute over cultural prestige
- The dispute over socio-economic capital, social societal influence, the provision of resources
To (1): Here are questions such as "Which branch of medicine is more respected?", "Whose capital is more valuable?" And "How important is a position within the faculty, science and society?" It is about the value of the respective dominant capital / positions / positions within society / university / faculty. Everyone wants to increase the value of their existing capital in order to gain more power. Points 2 and 3 result from this in passing.
To (2): The dispute over cultural prestige is basically about the power struggle on a scientific level. The attempt is made to influence the distribution of scarce positions and resources at the faculty / university / within society in its own favor. (Based on the homology of the rooms, this can also be seen for a room of more culturally dominant or socio-economically dominant professors, who are in continuous competition with one another.)
Regarding (3) In addition to points 1 and 2, the importance of one's own mandate, the importance of one's own person and the associated resources are clarified. The distribution of research contracts / mandates / positions and the associated potentially attainable social and economic capital is tried to influence in its favor.
Methods
In his empirical review of the university field, Bourdieu used various indicators such as: B. school attendance or the number of publications on the types of capital, z. B. the capital of university power (see above), which he checked with the help of relevant journals, chronicles, lists of publications or yearbooks, etc. This resulted in a multitude of data for each professor, which Bourdieu and his research team investigated again and which, depending on their significance, were weighted differently or partially discarded if coding difficulties arose.
Chapter 3: Types of Capital and Forms of Power
The philosophical and human sciences faculty is divided into two types of actors: intellectual prominence and legitimate education. This structure is representative of the entire room. The intellectual prominence stands for the area of research, the legitimate education for the area of worldly power. "Membership in a CNRS commission " or "Membership in a jury for admission to the ENS " served as indicators for the respective power holders in the scientific field (university power) ; for the power category of scientific prestige, for example, “publisher of a book series” or “more than five mention in the Citation Index ”.
Chapter 3.1: The structure of the space of power forms
In his studies of the philosophical and human sciences faculties, Bourdieu found many social determinants. The universities are represented differently in the area of power: The Collège de France and the Sorbonne have a higher degree of academic profile than EPHE or Nanterre , for example . As far as the social background of university professors is concerned, the sons of farmers, workers and employees generally have poorer chances of being represented high up in the area of power - in contrast to the sons of elementary school teachers or industrialists. But not only the professional background of the parents, but also the living situation is important for the position in the area of power according to Bourdieu: According to his research, social success increases with proximity to the big city bourgeoisie . There is more of an opportunity to go to private educational institutions than in rural areas.
Chapter 3.2: The ordinary professors and the reproduction of the corporation
According to Bourdieu, the starting point for power is the position that someone holds in university structures. These positions and structures of rule should be preserved ( reproduction ). The power over the reproductive instances of the university body secures its owners a statutory authority. This is a kind of functional attribute that is far more related to the position within the hierarchy than to the extraordinary characteristics of the people. The range of the semi-institutionalized power depends on obvious power attributes and exchange opportunities from the various positions.
The ruling principle is: whoever has capital gets capital. University capital accumulation takes time. The reproduction of the hierarchy presupposes orderly succession; this order is now threatened precisely by the introduction of power acquired elsewhere. This leads to a "fight of all against all". This struggle contributes to the reproduction of order as a system of time intervals. Wherever power is hardly institutionalized, the establishment of these relationships (authority) presupposes the expectation and the "art of letting go". University power is based on the ability to hold hope and act on objective probabilities. The reproduction of the corporation is thus based primarily on career expectations: "Only those who hold on to something will be held".
Chapter 3.3: Time and Power
According to Bourdieu, the relationship of dependency between the patron and his clientele is determined by the position or disposition of the patron and the current market situation. Here, the boss has to find a balance between promoting his clientele and curbing the fact that they gain strength too quickly. Two important decisions are relevant to university success: the choice of thèse and the choice of the patron. In both cases the decision depends on the habitus and is extremely crucial for the career. According to Bourdieu, university success requires compliance with certain rules of the game. There is no room for criticism and progress at the universities, so there is a kind of anti-intellectualism here. This anti-intellectualism is already a specific incorporated form of culture (habitus). The following internalized properties and criteria can be found among the actors who are positioned on the pole of the university field, which represents worldly power. Belonging to the lower to middle class, originating from the teaching environment, the school curriculum, has been internalized, according to your own self-image you see yourself as a defender of French culture and language. The knowledge of these people is canonized and standardized and therefore also forms a legitimation. There is an interdependence between the field and the habitus: According to their habitus, the people develop an affinity for certain institutions that address precisely those actors based on their attributes. In this way, a canon of knowledge is gradually formed, which provides a limited perspective, which in turn preserves this canon of knowledge, which is why it remains unchanged. The power of these actors within the university field lies in the fact that they hold positions of influence and it is precisely this influence that has an effect on the other pole of the university field. Therefore, the researcher is concerned about the benevolence of his donors. Thus those who submit to this canon are successful.
Chapter 3.4: The established heretics
The opposing powers that exist in the university field are represented by those university members who have pursued a model career and those who have settled at the research pole and virtually do not participate in the regular "university operations". In most cases, the latter enjoy a great reputation and a level of awareness far beyond the university field. If you teach, do so at the Ecole pratique des hautes études or the Collège de France , which are marginal institutions from a university perspective. The disciplines in which they are active are also more marginal and remote from the recognized courses, or those of the canonical disciplines that have been methodically renewed.
The premise and consequence of this position at the research pole is an outsider position, ergo the renunciation of power over the university reproductive institutions and the associated securities. The necessary willingness to take risks is drawn from a socially and geographically privileged origin of the people concerned.
This contrast within the university field - research orientation vs. Teaching-orientation - reproduces “the structural contrast between the freedoms and uninhibitedness of the artist's life” and the “dry and unimaginative rigor of the homo academicus ” (Bourdieu 1988: 184). The ranking at these two poles is nevertheless based on the amount of capital, which, however, is accumulated by the respective relatives according to different principles: symbolic capital is therefore countered by hierarchical principles of a purely university nature to accumulated capital.
At the Ecole pratique des hautes études, the accumulation of university members leads to a structural dissonance, which Bourdieu calls the “institutional effect”: the mere existence of symbolic capital means that the institution lacks the reputation with which it can equip its members and products; demands and reality drift apart. This leads to countermeasures on the part of the EPHE: With PR policy and the compulsive break with academic norms - autonomy in relation to journalism - by the members, the institution tries to rehabilitate itself by establishing power in the intellectual field. The resulting great influence of journalistic norms and claims paradoxically only leads to the perpetuation of the ambivalent position of the EPHE, which opens the prospect of quick fame to impatient candidates for university positions who reject the model career.
Chapter 3.5: Opponents as accomplices
The social contradictions that prevailed in France between the “Oblates of the High Priesthood” (Bourdieu 1988: 190) and the Ecole des hautes études manifested themselves in the opposition of modernism to fundamentalism. These pairs of opposites compete with each other, but are also mutually dependent, in dealing with the forms of power “intellectual prestige” and secular, social power.
The university teachers examined were generally satisfied with their position in the field of these forms of power. The social contradictions that reflect the various forms of power existed between the spokesmen of the “new criticism” (writers, critics, philosophers and social scientists) and the “lectores” (recognized university teachers, former graduates of the École normal superiors).
Chapter 3.6: The aggiornamento
Pierre Bourdieu refers in this section to the struggle between the old and the new disciplines in the university. For him, this struggle and the penetration of the new disciplines into the individual universities has shifted “the symbolic balance of power within the entire educational system” (Bourdieu 1988: 198). The new disciplines increasingly asserted themselves against the old ones and thus gradually established themselves at the universities and thus came ever closer to their goal of taking control of the area of the old subjects. They are supported in their project on the one hand by a broad intellectual public and on the other hand by a strong growth in the student body. They form the minimum contingent of active and followers who need the new disciplines in order to be able to establish themselves sustainably at the university. The new disciplines, which are classified negatively in a double sense, i.e. are not counted among the natural sciences or the humanities, attempt this further by trying to combine the appearance of scientific rigor with literary elegance. However, this also means that the criteria for publications are shifting. Not only are products of "middle culture" sold as an authentic achievement of the avant-garde , or changed patterns of thought and expression or new questions and views emerge, but the focus moves away from the actual research and its results towards criteria of financial gain . The research and evaluation of the results takes place only to a limited extent. Rather, the producers are interested in earning money quickly for their laboratories through their respective publications. With the establishment of these new disciplines, a plurality of worlds emerges, which shakes the unified universe of the university.
Chapter 3.7: Statements and statements
The positions of the homo academicus in the university area are, among other things, connected to various political positions. Bourdieu describes that they are almost identical to the incidents of the political conflicts of May 1968 . This includes the aspect that the professors defend their status for a “strictly controlled student audience” (Bourdieu 1988: 210). This audience depends on the value of the products that the professors publish, just as they depend on the stability of the market.
This means that all those involved have to fight for their capital by asserting themselves in the market against other subjects; this makes the dependence on the market clear above all.
Chapter 4: Defending the Corporation and Breaking the Balances
The chapter “Defense of the corporation and the collapse of the equilibrium” describes the disintegration of the university field and the associated strategies for the defense of the university corporation that wanted to counteract the collapse.
Bourdieu is of the opinion that the structure of the university field is represented by the level of power relations between the actors. If this balance of power is disrupted, the structure of the university field will also change. The university field is conditioned by the global processes of change in the social field. Morphological changes in particular have a major influence on the university field: the growth in the student clientele in the 1960s resulted in an uneven increase in various parts of the teaching body, which in turn led to a changed balance of power between the faculties and disciplines. The consequence of this expansion movement and the change in the balance between teachers and students was a change in the recruitment and career conditions within the university field.
Thus, the recruiting measures within the various disciplines changed, but only in the sense that the balance of power within the structure was not endangered. For this reason, so-called functional equivalences were used, so that implicit recruitment criteria such as B. educational title, age, gender was waived. These measures were different in relation to the classic and new disciplines. One example of this is the classical subject of French literature , which in the run-up to it had a very high proportion of agrégés who attended one of the grandes écoles , but now recruited more teachers who did not attend any of the grandes écoles. Although the technical level has now been lowered, the group of teachers was still limited to agrégés who guarantee a certain technical level. The recruiting measures that had the least likelihood of diminishing one's own academic status or of not reproducing it were always used. Since the new disciplines had different structures, they had to use other measures for themselves.
The old recruiting system produced interchangeable teaching staff who had internalized the university habitus in order to ensure their own reproduction. Due to the increasing number of students and as a result of the lack of manpower reserves, teachers were recruited without this university habitus. So the recruiting system changed. Although the principles of recruiting were random and intuitive, they hired people with specific qualities and titles. In the course of the 1968 uprisings , the different university generations showed solidarity with one another. The teachers of the old system strove to maintain and restore the old system. This endeavor proved to be futile as the new recruiting system became more popular.
For the entire chapter "Defense of the corporation and the collapse of the equilibrium", all changes that the university system faced must be understood as the main feature. The change from the old recruiting system to the new is to be understood by this. The result were university changes that questioned the old hierarchy and thus also the old system and threatened to destroy them. This dilemma is the main aspect of this chapter.
Chapter 5: The Critical Moment
The social scientist does not deal directly with an event / object in the context of its creation, but posthumously . There is a risk that the researcher will assume a privileged moment in history. Ultimately, a crisis leads to a rupture with what has preceded it, and so there is a need to relegate this crisis to a series of previous events.
“The aim of the scientific intention, on the other hand, is to put the extraordinary, extra-ordinary event back into the series of everyday events in the context of which it is explained.” (Gilcher-Holtey 2001: 123) Deriving from this, Bourdieu's interest in knowledge can be formulated as follows: Among which Conditions can critical tensions in a field (local crises) turn into a general crisis situation (critical moment)? Then the individual crises that lead to a general crisis are presented.
Chapter 5.1: A specific contradiction
The expansion of education and the subsequent devaluation of educational titles resulted in a disproportion between expectations or hopes and objective opportunities; especially among the upper class students. In addition, there was a risk of disappointment among the middle-class students, as they did not have the social capital to use the devalued titles. Even among the teachers who were employed because of the onslaught of students, there was tensions or a disproportion between the level of aspiration (habitus, knowledge, career, etc.) and frustrating experience, which led to a secret resentment that was institutional mood was added.
Chapters 5.2 and 5.3: The synchronization and the crisis as revelation
Under these conditions, in the run-up to the May Movement of 1968, the individual local crises condensed into phases and had an acceleration effect . Critical events (e.g. the “Night of the Barricades” on May 10, 1968) played a special role, as they helped to transform local crises into a general crisis. Critical events synchronize the perception of heterogeneous groups, as the actors are exposed to the same situations and emotions. Even with contemporaries with very different backgrounds, there is always an aspect that unites both and evokes the feeling of group identity.
The moment when a general crisis arises is called the “critical moment”, which not only represents a visible break, but is perceived as an open time in which all futures appear possible. One's own social location is no longer perceived realistically and the uncertainty of the future now appears promising, as it makes everything possible for everyone.
Chapters 5.4 and 5.5: Published opinions and the illusion of spontaneity
Political occasions on which opinions are drawn up lead to the crisis creating a common political problem. Bourdieu says that "whether you want to or not, whether you know it or not, you [have to] or [situated] within the space" (Bourdieu 1988: 239). As a result of these political occasions, the actor is forced to make public statements and to evaluate the decisions of the other actors. The politicization effect [the process in which the political principle of the view and structure of the social world tends to triumph over all other principles] brings people together who previously disagreed, or it drives people apart who differ greatly in their values and attitudes close ones. In everyday life, the genuine principle of political decision-making represents only the visible reinforcement of factors that - such as dispositions and interests - are tied to the respective position. The principle enables the systematic and generalized application of specific criteria to all problems. Bourdieu emphasizes that the supposed spontaneous meetings are an illusion. The focus of every group meeting is the reproduction of one's own class and thus the prevailing habitus .
expenditure
-
Homo academicus , Les Éditions de Minuit, Le sens commun series , Paris 1984, ISBN 2-7073-0696-7 .
- Homo academicus. , translated by Bernd Schwibs. Suhrkamp-Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. 1988, ISBN 978-3-518-57893-3 .
- Homo academicus. , translated by Bernd Schwibs. Suhrkamp-Verlag ( paperback science ), Frankfurt a. M. 1992, ISBN 978-3-518-28602-9 .