Theory,Culture&Society Teory,Culture&Societycatersfortheresurgenceofinterestin culturewithincontemporarysocialscienceandthehumanities. Building on the heritage of classical social theory, the series examines ways in which this tradition has been reshaped by a new generation of theorists.Theory,Culture&Societywillalsopublishtheoretically informedanalysesofeverydaylife,popularculture,andnew intellectual movements. EDITOR:MikeFeatherstone,TeessidePolytechnic SERIESEDITORIALBOARD RoyBoyne,NewcastleuponTynePolytechnic MikeHepworth,UniversityofAberdeen ScottLash,University of Lancaster RolandRobertson,Universityof Pittsburgh BryanS.Turner,University of Essex Alsointhisseries The Tourist Gaze LeisureandTravelinContemporary Societies JohnUrry GlobalCulture Nationalism,GlobalizationandModernity editedbyMikeFeatherstone TbereofModernityandPostmodemity editedby BryanS.Turner Reproduction inEducation,Society and Culture PierreBourdieu and Jean-ClaudePasseron translatedfromthe Frenchby RichardNice witha Forewordby TomBoUomore Prefacetothe1990editionby Pierre Bourdieu ( SagePublicationsC\ london'NewburyParkNewDelhi in association withTheory,Culture & Socety L ;e9 (10D . i SagePublications1977, 1990.Reprinted19 OriginalFrencheditioncopyright1970 byEditions deMinuit,Paris.First Englisheditioncopyright1977 bySagePublicationsLtd.Reissued 1990 withnew introduction1990 byPierreBourdieu,EnglishtranslationLoisWacquant. Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedina retrievalsystem,transmittedorutilizedinanyform orbyanymeans,electronic, mechanical,photocopying,recordingor otherwise,withoutpermissionin writing fromthePublishers. SAGEPublicationsLtd @ 28BannerStreet LondonECIY8QE SAGEPublicationsInc 2111 WestHillcrestDrive NewburyPark, California91320 SAGEPublicationsIndia PLtd 32,M-BlockMarket GreaterKailah- I NewDelhi 110 048 publishedin associationwithTheory,Culture& Soiety, Departmentof Administrative and Social Studies, TeessidePolytechnic BrtishLibraryCataloguing inPublication data Bourdieu,Pierre Reproduction in education, society and culture.- (heory, cultureandsociety). I. Soialisation.Role of educationalinstitutions I.TitleII.Passeron,Jean-ClaudeIII.SerieIV.L reproduction.English 370.19 ISBN0-8039-8319-0 ISBN0-8039-8320-pbl LibraryofCongresscatalogcardIum 9.265 PrintedinGreatBritainby.BilingandSnsLtd,Worster .,,; CONTENTS Prefacetothe1990EditionPierre Bourdieuvii ForewordTomBottomorexiv ForewordtotheFrenchEdition bythe Authorsxviii Translator'sNotexxiii AbouttheAuthorand Translatorxxvii BokI:Foundationsof a Theoryof SymbolicViolence BookII: .KeepingOrder69 ICulturalCapitalandPeagogicCommunication71 Unequ SelectionandUnequalSelectedness From tieLogicof theSystemtotheLogicofits Transformations 1T Literate Tradition andSoial Conservation107 PedagogicAuthorityand the AuthortyofLanguage Languageand RelationtoLanguage ConversationandConservation 3Exclusionand Selection141 TheExaminationwithintheStructureandHistoryof theEducational System ExaminationandUnexaminedExclusion TechnicalSelectionandSocialSelection"viContents 4DependencethroughIndepndence TheParticularFunctionsof'theGeneralInterest' UndifferentiatedFunctionsandIndifferenceto Differences TheIdeologicalFunctionoftheEducationalSystem 177 Appendix:TheChangngStructureofHigherEducation Opportunities:RedistributionorTranslation?221 GlossaryofInstitutionsandTitles235 Bibliography237 Index243 .listofTables TableI,p.74 Table2,p.75 Table3,p.79 Table4,p.81 Table5, p. 81 Table6,p.84 Table7, p.86 Table8, p.98 Table9,p.98 Table10,p.225 listof Figures Figure1, at end Figure2, p.92 Figure3,p.96 ACADEMIC ORDERANDSOCIALORDER Peface tothe1990eition Reproduction,Iamtold,hasmadeitswayamongthemostwidely citedbooks;!the'author'svanity'wouldinclinemetoacceptthis consecration without further ado ...if the lucidity of the sociologist, based on a few casesofdirect encounter, did notlead meto surmise thata numberof the references to itwerepurely classifcatory, and, for some,negative,so thatit may bethatthisbook obtained in part forwrongreasonstherecognitionwhich itperhapshadevery right reasontobeget. Among the causes of the success of this study - which hopefully will no longer be read i n complete isolation from those of my other works towhich itiscloselylinked2 - themostobviousisarguably,along with the timing of its publication in the midst of a period of academic upheaval, its title, which quickly made it the emblem of a new current ofanalysis.Thecounterpartforthismoreorlessacknowledged positionoftheoreticalleadershipthatcritics,andparticularlythe most critical and simplistic of them,3 thrust upon thebook by falling for the efect onabel, however, was an extraordinary simplifcationifnot outright distortion - of thescientifc thesis it propoundedand oftheempiricalinquiriesitcontained(in alanguagewhich,Imust concede, did at times reach peaks of density and difculty, particularly in the frst part devoted to a tentative exposition, more geometrico, of atheoryofsymbolicviolence).Itsadvocatesandadversariesalike havefrequentlyjoinedinreducinganinvolvedanalysisofthe extremelysophisticatedmechanismsbywhichtheschoolsystem contributes to reproducing the strcture of the distribution of cultural capitaland,throughit,thesocialstructure(andAis,onlytothe extenttowhichthisrelationalstructureitself,asasystemof positional differences anddistances, dependsuponthis distribution) totheahistoricalviewthatsocietyreproducesitselfmechanically, viiiReproduction: InEducation.SocietyandCulture identicaltoitself,withouttransformationordeformation,andby excluding all individual mobility.Itwas no doubt easier, once such a mutilation hadbeeneffected, to chargethe theory with being unable toaccommodatechangeortotakeittotaskforignoringthe resistanceofthedominated- somany(mis)interpretationsthatI haveexplicitly and repeatedly rejected, and which a close reading of the book, along with the empirical research in which it was grounded, shouldsufcetoput aside. Toexplainsuchmisreadings,Icouldbecontenttoinvokethose interestsandpassionsthatarecommonlycalledpolitical:analyses guided by the will to know and explain, at the cost of a constant effort tosurmountthepassions,ofencontradictory,thattheacademic institutionnecessarilyinstillsinthosewhoareitsproductandwho live off it, if not for it, are thusreadin thelogic of the trial,perceived throughinitialprejudice,fororagainst,asmerepoliticaltheses inspired by an originay bias for denunciation or legitimation. Owing tothephilosophical moodof the moment, such" political"readings werealsooftencompoundedwitha "theoretical"or,tobemore precise,atheoreticistreading:whentheEnglishtranslationofthe book appeared (nearly a decade after the French original), the British intellectualuniversewasundertheswayoftheGrandTheorof Althusserian philosophers who had amplifed the simplifed"theses" theyhadreadinThe Inheritors and Reproductionby "generalizing" themundertheidiomoftheIdeologicalStateApparatuses. Noneofthishelpedtoattractthereader'sattentiontothe painstaking empirical research andto the concrete feld descriptions in which the theoretical propositions were rooted and which qualified andnuanced them from numerous angles. Thus in a series of studies publishedin1965underthetitlePedagogicalRelationandCommunication, and which are still unavailable in full English translation to this day,4we developed a perspective on classroom interactions and onnegotiationsovertheproductionandthe receptionoflanguage which anticipated, and standsmuch closer to, ethnomethodological constructivism (and inparticular to a book such as LangageUse and Prefacetothe19 Editionix School Perormance by AaronCicourel and his colleagues published sometenyearslater)5thantothekindofstructuralismthat Reproduction isroutinelyassociatedwith.Inthis work,weexamined thesocialconstruction ofthemultilevelsocial relation of classroom understanding in and through misunderstanding to reveal the process wherebystudentsandteacherscometoagree,byasortoftacit transaction tacitlyguidedby the concernto minimize costs and risks inasituationthatneithercontrolsfully,onaminimalworking defnition of the situation of communication. Also, in another related study entitled 'The Categories of Professorial Judgment'published a fewyearsleforetheEnglishtranslationofReprodction,6we attemptedtoretracethesocialgenesisandfunctioningofthe practicaltaxonomies,inseparablysocialandacademic,through whichprofessorsfabricatean image of their students, of theirschool perormance and of their academic value, and act to (re )produce, via formsofcooptationbasedonthesecategories,thefacultyasan institution. Thisindicates how much the labelling of Reprodction as astucturalistworkowestoignoranceofthe empiricalworkwhich underlaysit.7 ToappraisejustlytheefortofrupturethatresultedinReproduction, one must bear in mind what the dominant theoretical climate ofthe1960swas:8thenotionof"mutation"hadbecomethe buzzword of many a sociologist, especially among those who claimed todissectthe effectsofthenewmassmedia;9othersprophesied the vanishing of social differences and 'the end of ideology' others still, frmbelieversintheextraordinary'mobility'ofAmericansociety, proclaiming thedemise of class, heldthat ascriptionwasfnally and forevergivingwayto'achievement.'AgainstaUthesenotions, Reproduction soughtto propose a model of the social mediations and processeswhichtend,behind thebacksofthe agentsengaged in the schoolsystem- - andofenteachers,studentsandtheirpa',ents against their wil , to ensure the transmission of cultural capital across generations and to stamp pre-existing diferences in inherited cultural capital with a meritocratic seal of academic consecration by virtue of x xi Reprodction: In Edcation.Society andCulture the special symbolic potencyof thetitle (credential).Functioning in the manner of a huge classifcatory machine which inscrib chages within the purview ofthe structure,the school helpsto makeand to impose the legitimate exclusions and inclusions which form the basis ofthesocialorder.InmymostrecentbookTeStateNobilty,IQ which brings together the results of a whole array of investigations on therelationsbetweeneliteschools,professorialpractices,andwhat we may want to designate by the short-hand term of the ruling class, someofwhichwereundertakenwellpriortowritingthis'workof youth'thatReprodctionis,Ihaveshownthateducationaltitles credentialsfulfl,inadiferenthistoricalcontext,asocialfunction quiteanalogoustothatwhichbefellnobilitytitlesinfeudalsociety. Thespecificsymbolicefcacyof educationaltitles liesin.thatitnot onlyguaranteestechnicalcompetencybutalso,asthepublic attestation of'gifts'or individual'merits,' consecrates atruesocial essence.Whencethe ambiguity ofthe'progress'which hastakenus from the collective and hereditary statuses of the nobility stricto censu totoday'sschoolnobility:ifthedegreeofachievementandof technical profciency actually required of the dominant has no doubt never been higher, it nevertheless remains that it continues to stand in very close statistical relationship to social origins, to birth, that is, to ascription.And,insocietieswhichclaimtorecognizeindividuals only as equals in right, the educational system apd its moder nobility only contribute to disguise, and thus legitimize, ina more subtle way thearbitrarinessofthedistributionof powersandprivilegeswhich perpetuates itselfthroughthesociallyunevenallocationofschool titlesanddegrees. But one must go beyond the misunderstandings that were inscribed in thechallengethat Reprodction represented,atleastinintention, forthegreatantinomiesthatstructuretheunderstandingofthe academicsociologist,thosewhichopposetheoryandresearch, internalandexternalanalysis, objectivismandsubjectivism,andso on. To come to a correct measure of the change of perspective (or, to useamorepompousterm,ofparadigm)towhichReproduction Peface tothe1990 Edition contributed,itismorefruitfultofocus,notontheso-called theoretical issuesand polemics that owe much oftheir existence and oftheir persistence to the logic of academic reproduction, but rather ontherangeofworksthathaveemergedsinceandhaveentirely renewed our knowledge and understanding of the school, in both the United States and Great Britain. Such studies, at once empirical and theoretical, as Cookson and Persell's Preparing/or Power: America's EliteBoardingSchools,JeannieOakes'KeepingTrack,Brintand Karabel'shistorialsociologofcommunitycollegesorMichelle Fine's ongoing research on ghetto schools, to name but afew,1Ihave madeusawarethatAmericansociety, which waalmostinvaiably described,inthesixties,i.e.,atthetimewhenwebegaourfrst researchoneducation,asthepromisedlandofsocialfluidityand individualachievement(incontradistinctiontotheolderEuropean societies ensconsedin the conservatismandsocialrigidities of their nobilities and bourgeoisies), also has its "elite schools"and its lesser educational institutions equally devoted, like their European counterparts, to the perpetuation and legitimation of social hierarchies. Thus wenowknowthat.inAmericanolessthaninEurope,credentials contributetoensuringthereproductionofsocialinequalityby safeguardingthepreservationofthestructureofthedistributionof powersthroughaconstantre-distributionofpeopleandtitles characterized,behindtheimpeccableappearanceofequityand meritocracy,byasystematicbiasinfavourofthepossessorsof inheritedculturalcapital.Thisempiricalvalidationofthemodel outlined in Reproductionin the verysociety that was fQr so long held up as its living refutation would appear to be worth all the proofs and proceduresofconventionalempiricistmethodology.Andweshall notdespairthatAmericalosesyetanotherparcel ofits'exceptionalism' when this loss contributes to the greater unity of social science. PierreBourdieu ( CollegedeFrance,Paris,May1989 (TranslationbyLoic J.D.Wacquant) xii xiii Reproduction: In Education,SocietyandCulture NOTES I[Translator'sNote]Thisnewpaperbackeditionofthe nominationofthebookasa"CitationClassic"bytheInstitute bookmarksthe forScientifc Index(seeCurrent InformationwhichputsouttheSocialScienceCitation Contents/Socaland BehavioralSciences 21(8), 20 February1988). 2.Amongothers,The Inheritors(withJ.-C,Passeron,Chicago, TheUniversityof ChicagoPress,1979[1964]);L'amourdel'art(Paris,EditionsdeMinuit,1966); Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul; Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1984 [1979]); and especiallyOutline ofATheoryof Pactice(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,1977). 3. I have in mind here, among others, the book by Stanley Aronowitz and Henri A. Giroux, EdcationUnderSiege:TeConservative,Lieral,a. nd Radcal DebateOver Schooling(London,RoutledgeandKegan Paul, 1985), whose subtitle alone reveals a petition of methodologicalprinciple that immediately voids the claim of sociology to the autonomy of science by adopting, as with classe, a purely political taxonomy, and furthermore apurelyAnglo-American one. 4.PierreBourdieu,Jean-ClaudePasseronetMoniquedeSaintMartin(e), Rapportpedagogiqueetcommunication(ParisandTheHague,Mouton,1965). Portionsofthisvolumeappearedas:PierreBourdieuandJean-ClaudePasseron, "Languageand PedagogiclSituation,"and PierreBourdieu, Jean-ClaudePaseron andMoniquedeSaintMartin,"StudentsandtheLanguageofTeaching,"inD. McCallumandU.Ozolins(eds)MelboureWorkigPapers1980,(Melbourne, University of Melboure, Department of Education, 1980, pp. 36-77 and pp. 78-124). 5.A.V.Cicourel,K.H.Jennings,S.H.M. Jennings,K.C.W.Leiter,R.McKay, H. Mehan,and D.R. Roth,lnguageUse andSchool Perorance (NewYork, Acdemic Ps,1974). 6. Pierr Bourdieu and Monique de Saint Martin, "L categories de I'entendement professoral,"Actes de /arechercheensciences sociales, 3 (May1975), pp.68-93 (ec. "TeCategoriofProfessorialJudgment,"inPierreBourdeu,Homo Academicus, Cambridge,PolityPress,andStanfor,StanfordUniversityPs,1988 [1984], pp. 194-225).AnevenearlierpieewasPierreBourdieu,"SystemsofEducationand Systems of Thought," Interational Social ScienceJolral, 19(3), (1967), pp. 338-358. 7. For an early examination ofthe scentifc contributon and limits of structuralism, seePierreBourdieu,"Structuralismand TheoryofSociologcalKnowlege,"Social Research, 35(4), (Winter 1968), pp. 681-706. Sealso Pierre Bourdieu, "From Rule to Strategies,"Cultural Anthropology,I-I(February1986), pp.110-120,and"Social Spaceand Symbolic Power," Sociologica Teor, 7-1 (Spring1989), pp. 14-25. 8.Indeed,afullappreciationoftheplaceofReprodctionamongworksinthe sociologyofeducationwhichproliferatedrapidly,especiallyintheUnitedStates Preface to the1990 Edition during the 19705, in the direction it had charted (e.g. Randall Collins, "Functional and ConflictTheoriesofEducationalStratifcation,"American SociologicalReview36, 1971, pp. 1002-1019, and Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling inCapitalist America: Edcational Reform and the Contradictions ofEconomic Life, New York, Basic Books, 1976), requiresthat one pays notice to the original date ofpublication of this bookand ofits companionvolumeThe Inheritors(1970 and1964respectively). 9.PierreBourdieuandJean-ClaudePasseron,"Sociologuesdesmythologieset mythologiesdesociologues,"Lestempsmoderes,211(December1963),pp. 998-1021. 10.PierreBourdieu,Lanoblessed'Etat:GrandesEcolesetespritdecorps(Paris, Editionsde Minuit, 1989). II.PeterW.Cookson,Jr.,andCarolynHodgesPersell,PreparingforPower: America'sEliteBoardingSchools(NewYork,BasicBooks,1985);JeannieOakes, Keeping Track: HowSchools Structure Inequality (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985); Steven Brint and Jerome Karabel, The DivertedDream:Community Colleges and thePromiseofEducationalOpportunityinAmerica./900-1985(NewYork,Oxford University Press,1989); Michelle Fine,"Silencing in PublicSchools," Language Arts, 64-2,1987, pp. 157-174. See also Randall Collins, The Credential Society: A Historical SociologyofEdcationandStratiication(NewYork,AcademicPress,1976);Julia Wrigley,Class.Politics.andPblicSchools.Chicago1900-1950(NewBrunswick, RutgersUniversityPress,1982);MichaelW.Apple,TeachersandTexts: APolitical EconomyofClass andGendr Relations in Edcation (London,Routledge andKegan Paul, 1986). soci%gie xv FOREWORD TeworkofPierrBourdieuandhiscolleagueattheCentrede europeenneinParisisalreadywellknowntosomeEnglish speakingsociologistsandculturalhistorians,andperhapsespeciallyto thosewhohavebeeninvestigatingthecontextanddevelopmentof workingclassculture.Butithasnotpreviously been fully accessibleto thelargeraudienceofthosewhosestudiesmayinvolve,inaless direct way,problemsconcerningthemaintenanceofasystemofpowerby meansofthetransmissionofculture.TheappearanceofanEngish translationofLareprduction,byPierreBourdieuandJean-Claude Passeron,isthereforeparticularlywelcome;forinthisbookthetheoreticalideaswhichhaveguidedtheresearchonculturalreproduction overtepastdecadeorsoareclearlyandcomprehensively expounded, andsomeoftheimportantresultsofthatresearcharcommunicated. Thetwopartsofthebook,theoreticalandempirical,astheautors makeclearin their foreword, are verycloselyconnected,thetheoretical propositionsarisingononesidefromthe needs of research, andon the othersidebeingconstructedorelaboratedinordertomakepossible empiricaltsting. Thefrstimportantcharacteristicofthiswork,then,canbe seenin thecontinuousinterplaybetweentheoryandresearch; the overcoming inanongoingcollectiveenterpriseofthatdivisionbetweentheconstructionoftheoreticalmodelsby'thikers'andtheuseofsuch models,inaderivativeway,by'researchers',whichhassoofenbeen criticizedas amajor failingofsociology as ascience. It may wellbetat thedivisioncanonlybetranscendedeffectivelybythiskindoflongterminvolvementintheexplorationofaparticularbroaddomainof Reproduction: In Education,SocietyandCulture sociallife,byagroupofresearcherswhoacquiretosomeextentthe quaitiesofa'school'ofthought.In the present case thischaracteristic isevidentnotonlyinthebooksthatBourdieuandhiscolleagueshave publised,butespeciallyintherecentlyestablishedjoural Actesdel rechercheensciencessoci/eswhichseemstoconveyeveninitstitle tenotionofacontinuingprocessoftheoretical-empiricalinvestigation.Iamsure,atanyrate,thatthiskindofperanentand systematicorganizationofresearchactivitieswillprovemorefrutful thantheintermittentlaunchingevenoflargescaleresearchprojects, thougthesetoohaveasoneoftheirmostvaluablefeaturesovera limitedperiodoftimeaninescapableinteractionbetween,and mergngof,theactivitiesoftheoreticalconstructionandempirica study. Teprincipaltheoreticalpropositionfromwhichthisworkbegns is tat'everypowerwhichmanagestoimposemeanigsandtoimpose them as legitimateby concealingthe power relationswhich arethebasis ofitsforce,addsitsownspecifcallysymbolicforcetothosepower relations',Toputthisinthecontextofthetheoryfromwhichit derives,and whichitdevelopspowerfully in newdirections, we can say thatnotonlyare'therulingideas,ineveryage,theideas ofthe ruling class',buttattherlingideasthemselvesreinforcetheruleofthat class,andthattheysucceedindoingsobyestablishingthemselvesas 'legitimate',thatis,byconcealingtheirbasisinthe(economicand political)power oftherulingclass.FromthisinitialpropositionBourdieuandPasserongoontoformulateothers,conceringespecially 'pedagogicaction'(thatis,educationinthebroadestsense,encompasSingmorethantheprocess offormaleducation) which isdefmedasthe 'imposition ofa culturalarbitrary(anarbitrarculturalscheme which is actually,thoughnotinappearance,based upon power) byanarbitrary power'.Teconcept ofpedagogicactionis thendevelopedina seriesof furtherpropositionsandcommentaries,whichbringout,withagreat D wealthofdetail,thediverseaspectsofthisactionwhichneedtobe analyzed.Perhapsthemostimportantconceptionsthatshouldbe mentionedherearethosewhichconcertheSigifcantpartthatthe xvi xvii Forewrd reproductionofculturethroughpedagogicactionplaysinthereproductionofthewholesocialsystem(orsocialformation),and thosedealing withthe'arbitrary'characterofculture,whichisarbitrarynotsimply initscontent,butalsoinitsform,sinceitisimposedbyanarbitrary power,notderivedfromgeneraprinciples asaproduct of thought. Inthesecondpartof the bookthesetheoreticalpropositions are not 'applied'toempiricalreality(tosaythiswouldbetodistortthe relationbetweentheoryandresearchthatisembodied,asIhave indicated,inthisinvestigation);rather,weare shown how, in analysing aparticularsystemofpedagogicaction(primarily,inthiscase,the formaleducationalsystem)inFrance,thetheoreticalpropositionscan gverisetoempiricallytestablepropositions,whiletheconfrontation withan empiricalphenomenonstimulates the constructionormodifcationoftheoreticalpropositions.Thereismuchthatisorignalinthis analyis,butperhapswhatismostnotableisitsbreadth;itisnot confnedtoanexaminationofthesocialselectionofstudentsat differentlevelsoftheeducationalsystem,nortoadiscussionofclass differencesinlinguisticcodes(here expressedmorecomprehensivelyas 'linguisticandculturalcapital'),butobservesclosely theactualprocess ofpedagogicaction,especiallyintheuniversities,andsetsallthese phenomenainawiderframeworkofthehistoricaltransformationsof theeducationalsystem.Itwouldundoubtedlybeofthegreatestinteresttohavesimilar investigationsin other societies,andindue course thepossibilityofcomparisonswhichmightreveal stillmore clearly the diversewaysinwhichculturalreproductioncontributestomaintaining the )owerofdominantgoups. Tereisan importanttheoreticalquestionposedbythisstudywhich deseresfurtherconsideration.Inthefrstpartof thebooktheauthors referfrequentlytotheimpositionofanarbitrarculturalscheme,and ofaparticulartypeofpedagogicaction,by'dominantgroupsand classes',andinthesecondparttheymakeuse ofsocialclasscategories inexaminingsocialselectionintheeducationalsystem.Thesepropositionsandanalysesevidentlypresupposeatheoryofclassesand'dominantgoups'(fractionsofclassesorelites),bothinthesenseofa Reproduction:InEducation.SocietyandCulture generalconceptionofthedivisionofsocietiesintosuchgroupsand classeswhichresultsintheimpositionofacultureandinpedagogc actionassymbolicviolence,andinthenarrowersenseofasetof derivedpropositionswhichdefnethedominantclassesandgroupsina particularsocietyand thuslink thespecifcmanifestations ofpedagogic actionwiththebasiccharacteristicsof adeterminatesocialstructure. Fromanoteraspect,ofcourse,itmaybesaidthattheanalysisof pedagogicaction,andofthewholeprocessofculturalreproduction, itselfgeneratesormodifestheoreticalconceptionsofthestructureof dominantandsubordinateclassesandgroups.Hence,thiskindof researchmaylead,asinthestudiescontainedinthe secondpartofthe book,toaconfration(orin somecasesaquestioning)of atheory of classrelationsinitiallytakenforgranted.Itwouldbeinterestingto pursuefurthertheexaminationofsuchproblems:toask, forexample, whatchangesinculturalreproductionoccurwithchanges(ifthere are such)inthecompositionofdominantclasses' andgroups,orwiththe growthinsizeofthemiddleclasses(inwhateverwaythisistobe conceivedtheoretically),orwithchangesinthenatureandsituationof theworkingclass,orsectionsofit.Theauthorsmentionoccasionally thepedagogicactionof'dominatedclasss',withwhichwecould associatethenotionofa'counter-culture',andthisaspctoftheir subjectisdoubtlessone that will be developedmore fully inthe future, alongwiththe theoreticaldiscussion ofclassrelations. Thusthiswholeprojectofcontinuingresearchrevealsnewfeatures intheanalysisofsocialclassesandpoliticalpower.Arisingprobably fromtheintenseinterestinculturaldominanceandcultural revolution tatemergedinradicalmovementsadecadeago,theseinvestigations connectculturalphenomenafrmlywiththestructuralcharacteristics ofasociety,andbegntoshowhowacultureproducedbythis structure inturhelpsto maintain it. TomBottomore (Universit of Sussex,1976 xix FOREWORDTOTHEFRENCHEDITION Tear gmentof th wor i twobook, at frst sightverydissimilar intheirmodeofpresentation,souldnotsugestthecommonconceptionofthedivisionofintellectuallabourbetweentepiecemeal tasksofempiricalinquiryandaself-sufcienttheoreticalactivity. Unikeamerecatalogueofactualrelationsorasummaoftheoretical statements:thebodyofpropositionspresentedinBookIiteoutcomeofaneforttooranizeintoasystemamenabletologcal verifcationontheonehandpropositionswhichwereconstructedin andfortheoprationsofourrsearchorwereseentoblogcally requiredasagroundforitsfndings,and onthe otherhandtheoretical propositionswhichenabledustoconstruct,bydeductionor spcifcation,propositions amenabletodirectempirical verfcation.1 Aferthisprocessofmutualrectifcation,theanalysesinBookII maybeseenastheapplication,toaparticularhistoricalcase,of prncipleswhosegeneralitywouldsupportother applications, althoug those analyseswerein fact thestartingpoint fortheconstructionof the prnCiplesstatedinBookI.Becausete frstbookgves thei coherence tostudieswhichapproachtheeducationasystemfromadfferent angeeachtime(dealing insuccssionwithitsfunctionsofcommunication,inculcationofalegtimateculture,selection,andlegtimation), eachchapterleads,byvariousroutes,tothesame principle of intelligbility,i.e.thesystemofrelationsbetweentheeducationalsystemand thestructureofrelationsbetweentheclases,thefocalpointofthe theoryoftheeducationalsystemwhichprogessivelyconstituteditself assuchasitscapacitytoconstructthefactswasafirmedinourwork on the facts. Tebodyofpropositions inBook Iistheproduct ofa longseres of transformations,alltendingto replaceexistingpropositions with other. morepowerfuloneswhichinturngeneratednewpropositionslinked Forewordto frenchEdition totheprinciplesbymoreandcloserrelations.Ourmemoryofthat processwouldsuficetodissuadeusfromputtingforwardthepresent stateofformulationofthissystemofprinciplesasanecessaronethoughtheyarelinkedbynecessaryrelationsdidwenotknow that thisistrueofeverybodyofpropositionsandeventeorems consideredatamomentin itshistory. The guidelineswhichdetermined howfarwepursuedourenquirieswereimpliedin theveryprojectof writingthebook:teunevendevelopmentofitsvariousmomentscan onlybejustifedintermsofourintentionofpursuingtheregression towardstheprinciples or the specificationofconsequencesasfaras was necessaryinordertorelatetheanalysesinBookIItotheirtheoretical basis. Settingasidetheincongruousoptionofdevising,anartifcial laguage.itisimpossibletoeliminatecompletelytheideologicalovertoneswhichallsociologcalvocabularyineyitablyawakensinthe reader,howevermanywarngsaccompanyit.Ofall the possibleways ofreadingthistext,theworstwouldnodoubtbethemoralizing reading,whichwouldexploittheethicalconnotationsordinary languageattachestotechnicaltermslike'legitimacy' or'authorty'and transformstatementsoffactintojustificationsordenunciations;or wouldtakeobjectiveeffectsfortheintentional,conscious,deliberate actionofindividualsorgroups,andseemaliciousmystificationor culpablenaivetywherewespeakonlyofconceamentormisrecognition?Aquitedifferent typeofmisunderstandingisliabletoarisefrom theuseoftermssuchas'violence'or'arbitrariness,3whch,perhaps morethantheotherconceptsusedinthistext,lendthemselvesto multiplereadingsbecausetheyoccupyapositionatonceambiguous andpre-eminentintheideologicalfeld,by virtueof themultipliCity of theirpresentorpastusesor,moreexactly,thediversityofthepOSitions occupiedbyteirpastorpresentusersintheintellectualorpolitical felds.Wemust claimtherigt to usetetermarbitrarinesstodeSignate thatandonlythatwhchisyieldedbythedefnition\e give it,without beingobligedtodealwithal theproblemsdirectly orindirectlyevoked bytheconcept,stilllesstoenterintothetwilightdebatesinwhichall xxXXI Reprduction:In Education,SocietyandClture philosopherscanthinkthemselvesscientistsandallscientistsphilosophers,andtheneo-Saussurianorpara-Chomskiadiscussionsofthe arbitrarinessand/ornecessityofthesigand/orsigsystemorthe naturallimitsof culturalvariations,discussionsand debates which owe mostoftheirsuccesstotefact tat they revamp the dreariest topics" oftheschooltradition,fromphuseiandnomotonatureandcuture. Whenwedefnea'culturalarbitrary'bythefactthatitcannotbe deducedfromanyprinciple,wesimplygiveourselvesthemeansof constitutingpdagogcactioninitsobjectivereality,5byrecourseto a logcalconstructdevoidofanysociologicalor, afortiori,psychologcal referent.Wetherebyposethequestionoftesocial conditions capable ofexcludingthelogcalquestionof thepossibilityofanactionwhich cannotachieveitsspecifceffectunlessitsobjectivetruthasthe impositionofacuturalarbitraryisobjectivelymisrecogized.T questioncanintur be spcifedasthequestionof the institutional and socialconditionsenablinganinstitutiontodeclare its pedagogicaction explicitlyassuch,withoutbetrayingtheobjective truth ofitspractice. Becausethetermarbitrarinessapplies, in another of itsuses, to purede factopower,i.e.anotherconstructequallydevoidofanysociologcal referent, thankstowhich it is possibleto posethequestionof thesocial andinstitutionalconditionscapableofimposingmisrecogitionof ths defactopowerandterebyitsrecogitionaslegitimateautority,it hastheadvantageofcontinuallyrecallingtomindtheprimordial relationshipbetweenthearbitrarnessoftheimpositionandthearbitrarinessofthecontentimposed.Theterm'symbolicviolence',which explicitlysttesthebrakmadewithal spontaneousrepresentations andspontaneistconceptionsofpedagogcaction,recommendeditself tousasameansofindicatingthetheoreticalunityofal actons characterizedbythetwofoldarbitrarnessofsymbolicimposition;it alsosigifesthefactthatthisgeneraltheoryofactionsofsymbolic violence(whetherexertedbythehealer,thesorcerer,thepriest,the prophet,thepropagandist,theteacher,thepsychiatristorthe psychoanalyst)belongstoageneraltheoryofviolenceandlegitimate violence,asidirectly attestedby the interchangeability of the different Forewordto FenchEditiun formsofsocialviolenceandindirectlybythehomologybetweenthe school system's monopoly of legitiate symbolic violence and the State's monopolyof thelegtmateuse of physical volence. Tosewhochoosetoseeinsuchaprojectonlytheefectofa politicalbiasor temperamentalirredentismwllnotfail to sugest that onehastobeblindtotheself-videnceofcommonsensetoseekto gaspthesociafunctionsofpdagogicviolenceadtoconstitute symbolicvolenca a formofsodalviolenceat the very timewen the withering-awayofthemost'authoritarian'mode ofipositionandthe abandonmentofthecrudest techniquesofcoercionwouldseemmore thanevertojustifoptiisticfaithinthemoralizationofhistorby tesheereffectsoftechnicalprogessandeconomicgrowth.Tat wouldbetoigorethesociologicalquestionofthesocialconditions wichmustbe fulflledbefore itbecomespossibleto state scientifcally tesocialfunctionsof aninstitution:it isno accident thatthemoment oftransitionfromruthlessmethodsofimpositiontomoresubtle methodsisdoubtlessthemostfavourablemoment for bringng tolight teobjectivetruthoftatimposition.Tesocialconditionswhich requirethetransmissionofpowerandprvilegestotake,morethanin anyothersociety,theindirectpathsofacademicconsecration,or wichpreventpdaogicviolencefrommanifestingitselfasthesocial volencitobjectivelyis,are also theconditionswhichmake itposible to stateexplicitlyteobjective truth ofpdagogcaction,whatever the degreeofharshnessofitsmetods.If'thereisnosciencebutofthe hdden',itisclearwhysociologialliedwiththehistorcalforces which,ineveryepoch,oblige the truth of power relations to come into teopen, ifonlyby forcing themto mask themselvesyetfurther. xxiiReproduction:InEducation,SocietyandCulture NOTES 1.Thetheoryofpedagogicactionpresentedhereisgroundedinatheoryof therelationsbetweenobjectivestructures,thehabitusandpractice,whichwl be setoutmorefullyinaforthcomingbookbyPierreBourdieu(seeTranslator's Note). 2.I.e.'meconnaissnce',theprocsswherebypowerrelatonsareperceived notforwhattheyobjectivelyarebutinaformwhichrendersthemlegtimatein theeyesofthebeholder.Te(admittedly'artifcial')term'misrecogition'has beenadoptedbecauseitpreservesthelinkwith'recognition'(reconnissnce)in thesenseof'ratification"andisconsistentwittheusageofothertranslators (trans.). 3.arbitraire:translated,accordingtocontext,as"arbitrariness'or'arbitrary' (as in'cultural abitrary')(trans.). 4.lesplustristestopiques:apassingshotatClaudeLev-Strauss,authorof Tistes tropiques(trans.). 5.I.e.theactionofteachingoreducating.consideredasageneralsocia process,neitherlimitedtotheschoolnor evennecessrilypercived as education. Inthistranslationtheword'pedagogy'istobeunderstoodinthesnseof educativepractice,whoseprinciplesmayormaynotbeexplicitlyforulated (trans.). TRASLATOR'SNOTE TeavbilityofReproductioninEngishisaneventofsomeimportanceforAngo-Americansociolog- andnotonlythe'sociolog ofeducation'.Theremarkswhichfollow,whichseektorelatethisbook toitscontextinthecollectiveresearchledbyPierreBourdieuatthe CentreforEuropeanSociolog(CES),innowaydetractfromits sigifcance:onthecontrary,byrefusingtose Reproductionasa'last word',butsituatingitintheprocessof researchinwhchitrepresentsa momentofprovisionalstock-taking,theysouldonlyenhanceits utilit. Appendedtotvolumeisaselectivelistofworksonapectsof thesociologofeducationandculture,producedsince1964bymembersofteCES;teyarereferredtobydateandnumberhereandin thenotestothetext.Someoftheseworksoffercomplementary applicationsandanalyses,oterscarrfurtherthetheoreticalanalyses presntedhere,andothershelpto gound and rectifythegeneraltheory ofsymbolicpower,ofwhichthesociologofeducationionlyone dimension. Areasofspecifcallyeducationalactivitywhich Reproductionmaps outmorethaitexplores- scientficandtechnicaleducation- are dealtwithmorefullybyClaudeGrigon(1971,1;1975,11;1976,4) andMoniquedeSaintMartin(1971, 2).Otherareaswhichhavebeen studiedmoreintensivelyincludetheclssespnratoires(1969, 1), religouseducation(1974,4)andclassroom disorder(1972,4). ApointofreferencetowhichReproductionconstantlyretursis thestructuralhomologybetweentheschoolsystefandtheChurch. ThishomologisexpoundedmorefullybyPiereBourweuintwo articlesonWeber'ssociologofreligion(1971,5;1971,6).Religion andeducation,consideredsociologically,constitute'felds'- offorces xxivxxvReproduction: In Education,SocietyandCulture comparableintheirfunctioningtomagneticfelds.Thisconcepthas beenelaboratedandappliedinotherareasinPierreBourdieu'ssubsequentwork:seeinparticular1971, 4(ontheintellectualfeld); 1973,2(themarketinsymbolicgoods);1975,3(theintersectionof literatureandpower),1975,4(philosophyandpower);1976,1(the scientificfield).RecentarticlesbyLucBoltanski(1975,1) andBourdieu(1975,8) explorefelds (thestripcartoon, haute couture) margnal tothesphereofhighculturebutwhereasimilarlogcprevails.The studiesofFlaubert,AmielandHeidegger(1975,3; 1975,2;1975,4) seektoshowatthelevelofthe'author'howindividual strategcomes totermswiththeobjectivestructuresofthefeld.Those who suppose thatthemethodologicaluseofthe'culturaarbitrary'implies asellingshortofscientifc culturewill fnd thatte article on thescientific feld (1976,1)specifestheconditionsinwhichtheplayofinterestsand strategieswithinafeldcannonethelessworktotheadvancementof scientifc knowledge. Teagentsinvolvedinagivenfeldsharea'misrecogition'ofthe truerelationsbetweenthestructureofthatfeldandthestructuresof economicandpoliticalpower;inthereligousfeld thismisrecogition isthefoundationofbelief, aconceptamenabletotransferintothe analysisofotherfelds.Theprocessofmisrecognition, formulated in a relativelyabstractwayinReproduction,isgaspedmoreconcretelyin 1975,9,anaalysisofthewayinwhich teachrs' judgements on their pupilstransmute social classifcations into school classifcations (and, in averydifferentculturalcontext,inBourdieu'santhropolOgical studies inKabylesociety,in1977, 1).Theseanalysesmayalsobereadin relationtothediscussion of the institutional and social positions ofthe variouscategoriesofteacherswhichpredisposethemtowardsspecifc ideologesandpractices(Chapter4).Analysesofthesituationofthe teachingprofessionintherelationshipbetweentheschoolsystemand theeconomy,dealingmorefullywiththedynamicsofthatrelationship,are to befound, inparticular, in 1971,9; 1973,5; 1974,3. Theroleofclasslinguistic'codes'isanaysedfurtherin1975,7, whichcontainsafullerdiscussionoftheworkofBasilBersteinin Transltor'$ Note relationtotheworkofW.Labov, anda fuller expositionofthe theory oflanguage which underpinsthe researchin Chpter 2. Te discourseof teaching,the'languageofauthority',isdeatwithfurtherin1975,5, wherethereisacritiqueofJ.L.Austin'snotionofthe'illocutionary force'ofutterances,argungthatthe power of the speechact resides in the social authority delegated to a legitimate spokesman. ThusthetheorysetoutinReproductionhasbeendevelopedin wayswhichhaveconstantlyaugenteditsexplaatorpowerand whichdspelthe vestiges of functionalism or abstract objectivism whch thersidualone-sidednessofsomeoftheexpositionsin Reproduction mayhaveallowedtoremain.Thecentralconceptofthehabitus receivesitsfullestdevelopmentin1972,1(thework referredtoin the Foreword,note1).TheforthcomingEngishtranslation(Outlineof a Teorof Pactice.1977, 1) containsadditionalchapterson'practical logc',symboliccapital,andthedifferentmodesofdomination.The analysisinChapter3 of Reproduction of the dialecticof objective class futureandsubjectiveexperenceistakenfurtherin1974, 1.Onthe socialorignofthe'pure'aestheticcapabilityandtecompetence requiredfordecodingaworkofart,see1971, 3(cf.also1968,1). Habitus as 'taste'is anatomized in 1976,3. TeAppendixcontainsaaccountofthe'translation'ofte structureofobjectiveeducationalchanceswhich,whileitselfremaining relatively'objectivist',atleastmakesitpossible to pose thequestionof therolewhichindividualandclassstrategyplayinthisprocess.As subsequentstudiesbyBourdieuandBoltanski (1971, 9 1973,4; 1975, 6)haveshown,thisprocessresultsfromtheplayofantagonistic interestscompetingontheterrainofsymbolicproduction,especially forcommandoftheeducationalsystemandtheproftsitgves.Enlargementofthefeld- withoutanychangeinitsstructueintegratespreviouslyexcludedclasses,enablingandconstrainingthemto engageincompetitioninwhichthedefnitionofthestakesandthe (possiblemodesofstrugge(therangeofstrateges)proper to thatfeld arethemselvesatstakeithestruge.See,forexample,1972,2(on marriagestrateges);1973,4(reconversionofeconomicintosymbolic xxviReproduction:In Education,SocietyandCulture capital),1975,6(theinfationofqualifcations).The task of sociolog inbringngthesemechanismstolightisdefnedasoneof'deconsecration'(Actesdelrecherche en sciencessociles.I,p.2). Theterm'msrecogition'epitomizesthetranslator'squandary;in Frenchmeconnaissnceisasiplewordthoughgvenaspecific scientifcsense.Hereaselsewhereacloudingof the originaltext seems unavoidable.Itishopedthatrecurrenceandcontextwillgve familiaritytotermswhichhaveoftenbeenpreferredtotheuse oftoo readilyrecogizable'native'notions.Thustheterm'pedagogy'isno wilfulgallicismbutthesignofthebreakwithmerelypsychologcal accountsoftheteacher-pupilrelation(seealsotheEnglistranslation ofDurkeim'sEducationandSociolog).SuchFrenchusagesahave beenretained,whetherforthesakeofbrevity(forthenamesof institutions,seeGlossary)ormerelyinadvertently,willnot,it ishoped, obscurethe relevance of Reproductionto our own educational systems. ThosewhosupposethisworktreatsonlyofFranceshouldremember Marx'sadmonitiontohis German readerswhenwritingonEngand:De te fabulnartur. RichardNice Birmingham,UK.1976 ABOUTTHEAUTHORS andTranslator PIERREBOURDIEUwasbornin1930inFrance.Afterstudyatthe EcoleNormaleSuprieure, hebecameagregeinPhilosophy.Helectured intheFacultyQfLettersinAlgeria1959-60,attheUniversityof Paris 1960-62,andattheUniversityofLille1962-64.Heispresently DirectorofStudiesattheEcoledesHautesEtude.sand Directorofthe CentreforEuropeanSociology,Paris.HeistheEditorofthejournal ActesdelaRechercheenSciencesSocia/es.andistheauthorof Sociologlede/'lgerie(1958),TheAlgerians(1962),TravailettravailleursenAlgerie(1964),LeDeracinement(withAbdelMalekSayad, 1964), Les etudintset leurs etudes(with Jean-Claude Passeron, 196), LesHeritiers (with Jean-Claude Passeron,1964),Un Art moyen(1965), L 'mourde/'rt(with A.Darbel,1966), Le Metierdesociologue(With Jean-laudePasseronandJean-ClaudeChamboredon,1968), Esquisse d'unetMoriedefapratique(1972),andnumerousarticlesonthe sociologyofeducation. JEAN-CLAUDEPASSERONwasbornin1930inFrance,andalso becameagregeinPhilosophyafterstudyattheEcoleNormaleSuperieure.HehastaughtattheSorbonneiParis,and attheUniversity ofNantes.Since1968hehasbeenattheexperimentalUniversityof Vincennes,wherehesetupanddirectedtheSOCiologyDepartment. Since1960hehascollaboratedinworkattheCentreforEuropean SociologywithPierreBourdieu, particulary in directing researchin the sociologyofeducationandinthepublicationofworkarisingfromit, notablyiLesHeritiers(withPierreBourdieu,1964)andLReproduction(withPierreBourdieu,Frenchedition,1970).Hehasalso publishedLaReformedeI'Universite(withG.Antoin,1966), and has prefacedanddirectedtranslations,iparticularthatoLRichardHoggart'sTheUsesof Literacy(French edition,1970). RICHARDNICEwasbornin1948inLondon,andtookhisB.A.i EnglishatKing'sColege,Cambridge.Hehastaughtforfouryears intheFrencheducationalsystem- attheUniversityofParis,the EcoleNormaleSuperieure,andelsewhereiParis, ard also iBrittany. He now teachesFrenchat theUniversityofSurrey, UK. Book! FOUNDATIONS OF A THEORY OF SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE L capitaineJonathan, Etantagededix-huitans, Capture un jourunpelican Dansuneiled'ExtremeOrient. L plicande Jonathan, Au matin, pond un oeuf toutblanc Et i en sortunplican Lui ressemblantetonnament. Et cdeuxieme plican Pond,I son t6ur,unoeuftout blanc D'ousor,im!vitablement, Un autrequi enfaitautant. Celapeut durer tres longtemps Si }'on ne fait pas d'omelette avant. ROBERTDESNOS Oantejeus,Oantefables Prolixityandrigmarolemightbesomewhatcurtailedifeveryorator wererequiredtostateatthebeginningofhisspeechthepointhe wishestomake. I.-J.Rousseau, Le gouvernement de Pologne Thelegislator,beingunabletoappealeithertoforceortoreason, mustresorttoanauthorityofadifferentorder,capableofconstrainingwithoutviolenceandpersuadingwithoutconvincing.This iswhathas.inallages,compelledthefathersofnationstohave recourseto divine intervention. 1.-1.Rousseau, TheSocilContract Abbrevitions used inBook I PApedagogic action PAupedagogicauthority PWpedagogic work SAuschoolauthority ESeducationalsystem WSgte workofschooling Tepurposeof thesegraphical conventions is to remindthereader that theconceptstheystandforarethemselvesashorthandforsystemsof logcalrelationswhichcouldnotbesetoutin fullineachproposition, althoughtheywererequiredforteconstruction of thesepropositions andarethepreconditionforanadequatereading.Thisdevicehasnot beenextendedtoallthe'systemic'conceptsusedhere(e.g.cultural arbitrary,symbolicviolence,relationofpedagogiccommunication, modeofimposition,modeofinculcation,legtimaw,ethos,cultural capital,habitus,socialreproduction,culturalreproduction),butonly becausewewishedtoavoidmakingthetextunnecessarilydifcultto read. 3 5 4Reproduction:In Education,Society and Culture 0Everypowertoexertsymbolicviolence,i.e.everpowerwhich managestoimposemeaningsandtoim{osethemaslegitimateby concealingthepowerrelationswhicharethebasisof itsforce,addsits ownspecifically symbolic force to those power relations. Gloss1:Torefusethisaxiom,whichstatessimultaneously therelative autonomyandtherelativedependenceofsymbolicrelationswith respecttopowerrelations,wouldamounttodenyingthepossibilityof ascienceofsociology.Allthetheoriesimplicitlyorexplicitlyconstructedonthebasisofotheraxiomsleadoneeithertomakethe creativefreedomofindividualsthesourceofsymbolicaction,consideredasautonomousfromtheobjectiveconditionsinwhichitisperformed,ortoannihilatesymbolicactionassuch,byrefusingitany autonomywithrespecttoitsmaterialconditionsofexistence.Oneis thereforeentitledtoregardthisaxiomasaprincipleofthetheoryof sociologcalknowledge. Gloss2:Oneonlyhastocomparetheclassicaltheoriesofthefoundationsofpower,thoseofMarx,DurkheimandWeber,toseethatthe conditionswhichenableeachofthemtobeconstitutedexcludethe possibilityoftheobject-constructioncarriedoutbytheothertwo. Thus,MarxisopposedtoDurkheiminthatheseestheproductofa classdomihationwhereDurkheim(whomostclearlyrevealshissocial philosophywhendealingwiththe sociologyofeducation, theprivileged locusoft1leillusionofconsensus)seesonlytheeffectofan undivided socialconstraint.Inanotherrespect,MarxandDurkheimareopposed toWeberinthatbytheirmethodologicalobjectivismthey counterthe temptationtoseeinrelationsofforceinter-individualrelationsof infuenceordominationandtorepresentthedifferentformsofpower (political,economic,religiOUS,etc.)assomanysociologcallyundifferentiatedmodalitiesofoneagent'spredominance(Macht)over another.Finally,becausehisreactionagainstartifcialistconceptionsof thesocialorderleadsDurkheimtoemphasizetheexteralityofconstraint,whereasMarx,conceredtorevealtherelationsofviolence Foundations of aTeory of SymbolicViolence underlyingtheideologiesoflegtimacy,tendsinhisanalysisofthe effectsofthedominantideologytominimizetherealeffcacyofthe symbolicstrengtheningofpowerrelations(rapportsdeforce)thatis impliedintherecognitionbythedominatedofthelegitimacyof domination,WeberisopposedtobothDurkheimandMarxinthatheis theonlyonewhoexplicitlytakesashisobjectthespecifccontribution thatrepresentationsoflegitimacymaketotheexerciseandperpetuationofpower,evenif,confnedwithinapsycho-sociologicalconceptionofthoserepresentations,hecannot,asMarxdoes,inquireinto thefunctionsfulflledinsocialrelationsbymisrecognition(meconnaissance) oftheobjectivetruthofthoserelationsaspowerrelations. 1.THETWOFOLDARBITRARINESS OFPEDAGOGICACTION 1.Allpdagogicaction(PA)is,objectively,symbolicviolenceinsofar as it is the imposition of a cultural arbitrar byan arbitrar power. Gloss:Thepropositions which follow(uptoand including thoseof the thirddegree)refertoallPAs,whetherexertedby alltheeducated membersofasocialformationorgroup(diffuseeducation),bythe family-groupmemberstowhomthecultureofagrouporclassallots thistask(familyeducation)orbythesystemofagentsexplicitly mandatedforthispurposebyaninstitutiondirectlyorindirectly, exclusivelyorpartiallyeducativeinfunction(institutionalizededucation),and,unlessotherwisestated,whetherthatPAseekstoreproduce theculturalarbitraryofthedominantorofthedominatedclasses.In otherwords,therangeofthesepropositionsisdefinedby thefact that theyapplytoanysocialformation,understoodasasystemofpower relationsandsenserelationsbetweengroupsorclasses.Itfollowsthat inthefrstthreesections,wehaverefrainedfromextensiveuseof examplesdrawnfromthecaseofadominant,schoolPA,toavoideven 67Reproduction:In Education,SocietyandClture implicitlysuggestinganyrestrictionsonthevalidityofthe propositions conceringallPAs.Wehavekeptforitslogicalplace(fourthdegree propositions)specificationoftheformsndeffectsofaJfarriedO withintheframeworkofaschoolinstitution;onlyinthelastproposition(4.3.)doweexpresslycharacterizetheschoolPAwhichreproducesthedominantculture,contributingtherebytothereproduction ofthestructureofthepowerrelationswithinasocialformationin which thedominant system of education tends to secure amonopoly of legitimate symbolic violence. 1.1.PAis,objectively,symbolicviolencefirstinsofarasthepower relationsbetween the groupsor classesmaking upasocilformationare thebasisofthearbitrarypowerwhichisthepreconditionforthe establishmentofarelationofpedagogiccommunication,i.e.forthe impositionandincu.lcationofaculturalarbitrarby an arbitrarymode ofimpositionandinculcation(education). Gloss:Thus, thepower relationswhichconstitutepatrilinealand matrilinealsocialformationsaredirectlymanifestedinthetypesofP A correspondingtoeachsuccessionalsystem.Inamatrilineasystem, wherethefatherhasnojuridicalauthorityoverhis son andthe son no rightsoverhisfather'sgoodsand prvileges,the father hasonlyaffective or moral sanctions to back up his PA (althougtegroup will ganthim itssupportinthelastinstance,ifhisprerogativesarethreatened)and cannot haverecoursetothejuridicalassistancewhichheisguaranteed when,forexample,heseeksto afrhis righttothesexualservicesof hsspous.Bycontrast,inapatrilinealsystem,inwhichtheson, enjoyingexplicit,juridicallysanctionedrightsoverhisfather'sgoods andprivileges,standsinacompetitiveandevenconflictualrelationto him(asthenephewdoes,vis-a-visthematernaluncle,inamatrilineal system),thefather'representsthepowerofsocietyasaforceinthe domesticgroup'andsoisabletomakeuseofjuridicalsanctionsin imposinghisPA(cf.FortesandGoody)Althoughtherecanbeno questionofigoringthespecifcally biological dimension of the relation Foundatinsof aTeoryof SymbolicViolence ofpedagogicimposition,i.e.biologicallyconditionedchildhooddependence,itisnotpossibletoleaveoutofaccounttesocialdeterminationswhichspecifyineverycasetheadult-childrelationship, includingthosecasesinwhichtheeducators,arenoneotherthanthe biologcalparents(e.g.thedeterminationsderivingfromthestructure of thefailyorthefamily'spositioninthesocialstructure). 1. 1.1.Insofarasitisasymbolicpowerwhich,bydefinition,isnever redUCibletotheimpositionofforce,PAcanproduceitsownspecificalysymboliceffectonlytotheextentthatitisexertedwithina relationofpedagogiccommunication. 1.1.2 Insofarasitissymbolicviolence,PAcanproduceitsown specificallysymboliceffectonlywhenprovidedwiththesocilconditionsforimpositionandinculcation,i.e.thepwer reltionsthatare not implied in aformal definition of communication. 11.3.Inanygivensocilformation,the PAwhich thepowerrelations betweenthegoupsorclassesmakingup thatsocialformationputinto thedominantpositionwithinthesystemofPAs isthe onewhichmost fully,thoughalwaysindirectly,corespondstotheobjectiveinterests (materil,symbolicand,intherespectconsieredhere,pedagogic)of thedominantgroupsorclasses,bothbyitsmodeofimpositionandby itsdelimitationofwhatandon whom,itimposes. Gloss:Thesymbolicstrengthofapedagogicagencyisdefinedbyits weightinthestructureofthepowerrelationsandsymbolicrelations (thelatteralwaysexpressingtheforer) betweenthe agencies exerting anactionofsymbolicvolence.Thisstructureintumexpressesthe powerrelationsbetweenthegroupsorclassesmakingupthesocial formationinquestion.Itisthrougthemediationoftseffectof dominationbythedominantPAthatthedifferetPAscarriedon withinthedifferentgroupsorclassesobjectivelyandindirectlycollaborateinthedominanceofthedominant classes(e.g.theinculcation 1.2.2.Theselectionofmeaningswhich objectivelydefnes agoup's or aclass'scultureas asymbolic system issocio-logicallynecessary insofar asthatcultureowesitsexistencetothe socil conditions ofwhich i is theproductanditsintelligbilitto the coherence and functions of the structure of the signifing reltions which constitute it 9 8Reproductin:In Education,Sciety andClture bythedominatedPAsofknowledgesorstyleswhosevalueonthe economic orsmbolic marketi dermedbythe dominant PA). 1.2.PAis.objectively,symbolicviolenceinasecond senseinsofaras thedelimitatonobjectivelyentailedbythefactofimpsingand inculcatingcertainmening,treatedbyselectionandbythecorespndingexclusionaswrthyofbeigreproducedbyPA,re-produces (ibothsenses)thearbitrarselectionagouporclssobjectively mkesin and through its cultural arbitrar. 12.1Theselectionofmeaningswhich objectively defines a goup's or a class's cultue as asymbolic systemisarbitrary insofar as thestructure andfunctionsofthatculturecannotbededucedfromanyuniverl principle.whetherphysical,biologicalorspiritual.notbeinglinkedby anysortofinteralrelationto'thenatureofthing'orany'human nture: Foundtionsof tTeory of SymbolicViolence duction,withalltherestructuringsadreinterretationsconnected withtheirperpetuationinchangedsocialconditions(e.g. allthedegrees distinguishablebetweenthequasi-perfectreproductionofcultureina traditionalsocietyandtereinterpretativereproductionoftheJesuit colleges'humanistculture.suitedtotheneeds of asalonaristocracy. in andthroughtheacademiccultureofthenineteenthcenturybourgeois lycees).ThusthegeneSisamnesiawhichfindsexpressioninthenaive illusionthatthingshaveawaysbeenastheyare',aswellasinthe substantialistusesmadeofthenotionoftheculturalunconscious,can leadtotheeterizingandtherebythe'naturalizing'ofsignifying relations whicharethe productof history. 1.2.3.Inanygvensocialformationtheculturalarbitrarwhichthe powerrelationsbetweenthegroupsorclassesmakingupthatsocial formationputintothedominantpositionwithin thesystem of cultural arbitrariesistheonewhichmostfully.thoughalwaysindirectly, expressestheobjectiveinterests(materilandsymbolic)ofthe dominant goupsor classes. Gloss:Te'choices'whichconstituteaculture('choices'whichnoone makes)appearasarbitrarwhenrelatedbythecomparativemethodto thesumtotalofpresentorpastculturesor.by imaginary variation, to theuniverseofpossiblecultures;theyrevealthei necessityassoona theyarerelatedtothesocialconditionsoftheiremergenceandperpetuation.Misunderstandingsoverthenotionofarbitrariness (particulary confusion betweenarbitrarinessand gratuitousness) derive, atbest,fromthefactthatapurelysynchronicgraspofculturalfacts (suchasanthropologstsaregenerallycondemnedto)necessarilyinducesnegectofallthatthesefactsowetotheirsocialconditionsof existence,i.e.thesociaconditionsoftheirproductionandrepro1.3.Theobjectivedegeeof arbitrariness(inthesenseofpropOSition 1.1.) of a PA 's power of impositionriseswiththe degree of arbitrariness (in the sense ofproposition 1. 2) ofthe cultureimposed. Gloss:ThesociologicaltheoryofPAdistinguishesbetweenthearbitrarinessoftheimpositionandthearbitrarinessofthecontentimposed,onlysoastobringoutthesociologcalimplicationsofthe rlationshipbetweentwo logicalfctions, namelyapurepowerrelationshipastheobjectivetruthoftheimpositionandatotallyarbitrary cultureatheobjectivetruthofthemeaningsimposed.Thelogical constructofapowerrelationmanifestingitselfnakedlyhasnomore sociologicalexistencethandoesthelogicalconstruct, ofmeaningsthat areonlyculturalarbitrariness.Totakethistwofoldtheoreticalconstructionforanempircallyobservablerealitywouldbetocondemn oneselftonavebeliefeitherintheexclUSivelyphysicalforceofpower, efect selm 1110Reproduction:In Education.SocietyandClture asimplereversalofidealistbeliefinthetotallyautonomousmigtof riht,orintheradicalarbitrarinessofall meanings, asimplereversal of idealistbeliefin'theintrinsicstrengthofthe true idea'.There is noPA whichdoesnot inculcatesome meanings notdeducible from auniversal principle(logcalreasonorbiologicalnature):authorityplays apart in alpedagog,evenwhenthemostuniversameanings(scienceortechnolog)aretobeinculcated.Thereisnopowerrelation,however, mechanicalandruthlesswhichdoesnotadditionallyexertasymbolic effect.ItfoUowsthatPA,alwaysobjectivelysituated between the two unattainablepolesofpureforceandpurereason,has themoreneed to resorttodirectmeansofconstraintthelessthemeaningsitimposes imposethemselvesbyteirownforce,Lebytheforceofbiological natureor logical reason. 1.3.1ThePAwhosearbitrarpowertoimposeaculturalarbitrar restsinthelastanalysisonthepowerrelationsbetweenthegoupsor classesmakingupthe' socilformationinwhichiscariedon(by1.1 and12)contributes,byreproducingtheculturalarbitrarwhichit inculcatestowardsreproducingthepower reltions which arethe basis ofitspowerofarbitrarimposition(thesocialreproductionfunction ofculturalreproduction). 1.3.2.1nanygvensocialformation the different PAs.which can never bedefinedindependentlyoftheirmemberhipinasystemofPAs subjectedtotheeffectofdominationbythedominantPA,tendto reprducethesystemofculturalarbitraries characteristic ofthatsocial formation,therebycontributingtothereproductionofthepower relationswhichputthatculturalarbitrarintothedominantposition. Gloss:Intraditionallydefiningthe'systemofeducation'asthesum totaloftheinstitutionalorcustomarymechanismsensuringthetransmissionfromonegenerationtoanotherofthecultureinheritedfrom thepast(Le.theaccumulatedinformation),theclassicaltheoriestend to severculturalreproductionfromits function of social reproduction, Foundations of aTeoryof SymbolicViolence that is,toignorethespecificeffectofsymbolicrelationsinthereproductionofpowerrelations.Suchtheorieswhich,asis' seenwithDurkheim,simplytransposetothecaseofclasssocietiesthe representation ofcultureandculturaltransmissionmostwidespreadamonganthropologists,relyontheimplicitpremissthat thedifferentPAsatworkin asocialformationcollaborateharmoniouslyinreproducingacultural capitalconceivedofasthejointlyownedpropertyofthewhole 'society'.Inreality,becausetheycorespondtothematerialand symbolicinterestsofgroupsorclassesdifferentlysituatedwithinthe powerrelations,thesePAsalwaystendtoreproducethestructureof thedistributionofculturalcapitaamongthesegroupsorclasses, therebycontributingtothereproductionoftesocialstructure.The lawsofthemarketwhichfixesthe economicor symbolic value,Le.the valuequaculturalcapital,oftheculturalarbitrariesproducedbythe dfferentPAsandthusoftheproductsofthosePAs(educated individuals),areoneof the mechanisms - more orless determinant accordingtothetypeofsocialformationthroughwhichsocialreproduction,defnedas the reproduction of the structureof the relations of forcebetweentheclasses,is accomplished. 2_PEDAGICAUHOR 2.Insofarasitisapowerofsmbolicviolence,exertedwithina relationofpedagogiccommunicationwhichcanproduceitsown, specificallysymboliceffectonlybecausethearbitrarpowerwhich makesimpositionpossibleisneverseeninits ful truth (in the senseof propOSition1.1);andinsofarasitistheinculcationofacultural arbitrary,carriedonwithinarelationofpedgogiccommunication wichcanproduceitsown,specificallypedagogconlybecause thearbitrarinessofthecontentinculcatedisneverin itsfull truth (inthesenseofproposition1 .2)- PAnecessarilyimplies,asasocial conditionofitsexercise,pdagogicauthorty(PAu)andtherelative 12 13 Reprduction:In Education,Scityand Clture autonomyof theagencycommissioned to exerciseit. Gloss1:Thetheoryof PAproducestheconceptof PAuintevery oprationby which, in identifyingthe objectivetruthofPA as violence, itbringsoutthecontradictionbetweenthatobjectivetruthandthe agents'practice,whichobjectivelymanifests the misrecognition of that truth(whatevertheexperences or ideologes accompanying thosepractices).Tusthequestion is posed:what are the socialconditionsfor the establishmentof arelationof pedagogic communication conceaingthe powerrelationswhichmakeitpossibleand thereby adding the specifc forceofitslegtimateauthortytotheforceitderivesfromthose relations?Theideaofa PAexercisedwithout P Auisalogical contradictionandasociologicalimpossibility;a PA which aimed tounveil, in itsveryexercise,itsobjectiverealityof violenceand thereby todestroy thebasisoftheagent's PAu,wouldbeself-destructive.Teparadoxof Epimenidestheliarwould appearin anewform:either you believeI'm notlyingwhenItellyoueducationisviolenceandmyteachingisn't legitimate,soyoucan'tbelieveme;oryoubelieveI'mlyingandmy teachingislegitimate,soyoustilcan'tbelievewhatIsaywhenItell youitis violence. Todrawoutalltheimplicationsofthisparadoxweonlyhaveto thinkoftheviciouscirc1es awaiting anyone who migtseek to base his pedagogicpracticeonthetheoreticaltruthofallpedagogcpractice:it isonething toteach'cultural relativism', that is" the arbitrary character ofallculture,toindividualswho havealready been educated according totheprinciplesoftheculturalarbitraryofagrouporclass;itwould bequiteanothertoclaimtobegvingarelativisticeducation,i.e. actuallytoproduceacultivated man whowas the nativeofall cultures. Theproblemsposedbysituations of earlybilingualism or biculturalism giveonlyafaintideaoftheinsurmountablecontradictionsfacedbya PAc1aimingtotakeasitspracticaldidacticprinciplethetheoretical afrmationofthearbitrarinessoflinguisticorculturalcodes.Thisis a proofperabsurdumthatevery PArequiresasteconditionofits exercisethesocial misrecognitionof the objective truthofPA. Foundations of aTeorof SymbolicViolenc Gloss2:PAnecessarilygvesrse,inandthroughitsexercise,to experienceswhichmayremainunformulatedandbe expressed only in practices,ormaymakethemselvesexplicitinideolOges.butwhichin eithercasecontributetowardsmaskingtheobjectivetruthof PA:the ideologesofPAasnon-violentactionwhetherinSocraticand neo-Socraticmythsofnon-directieteaching,Roussauisticmythsof naturaleducation,orpseudo-Freudianmythsofnon-repressiveeducationrevealinitsclearestfortegenericfunctionofeducational ideologes,inevading,bythegratuitousnegationofoneofitsterms, thecontradictionbetweentheobjectivetruthof PAand the necessary (inevtable)representationoftsarbitraractionasnecessary ('natural'). 2.1.Insofarasitisanarbitarypowertoimposewhich,bythemere factofbeingmisrecogizedassuch,isobjectivelyrecognizedasa legitimteauthorit,PAu,apowertoexertsymbolicviolencewhich manifestsitselfintheformof a rigttoimposelegitimately,reinforces thearbitrar pwer which establishesit and whichitconcels. Gloss1:To spak of recognitionof the legtimacyofPAis nottoenter theproblematicofthepsychologcalgenesisofrepresentationsof legitimacytowhichWeber'sanalysesareliabletolead;still less is it to engagein an attempttogroundsovereigty in anyprnciplewhatsoever, whetherphysical,biologcalorspiritual,inshort,tolegtimatelegtimacy.Wearesimplydrawingouttheimplicationsofthefactthat PA implies PAu,i.e.that it 'isaccepted', in thesense in which acurrency is accepted,andaso,moregeneraly,asymbolicsystemsuchasalanguage,anartisticstyleor evenastyle ofdress.Inthissense,recogition of PAcanneverbecompletelyreducedtoapsychologcalact, stillless toconsciousacquiescence,asisattestedbythefactthatitisnever moretotalthanwhentotallyunconscious.Todescrberecognitionof PAasafreedecisionto allow oneself tobe cultivat& or, conversely, as anabuseofpowerinficted on the natural self, i.e.tomake recogition oflegtimacyafreeorextortedactofrecogition,wouldbejustas 1415Reproduction:InEducation,Societyand Culture naiveastogoalongwiththetheoresoftesocialcontractorthe metaphysicsofcultureconceivedasalogicalsystemofchoices,when they situatethearbitraryselectionofsignifyingrelationsconstitutiveof aculture in anoriginal,hencemythical,locus. Tus,tosaythatcertainagentsrecognizethelegitimacyofa pedagogicagencyissimplytosaythatthecompletedefnitionofthe powerrelationshipwithinwhichtheyareobjectivelyplacedimplies thattheseagentsareunabletorealizethebasisofthatrelationship althougteirpractices,evenwhencontradicted bytherationalizations ' ofdiscourseorthecertaintiesofexperience,objectivelytakeaccount ofthenecessityoftherelationsof force(cf.theoutlawwhoobjectively gantstheforceoflawtothelawhetransgresses in themerefactthat, byhidinginordertotransgressit, headaptshisconducttothe sanctionswhichtelawhastheforceto imposeon him). Gloss2:Theweightofrepresentationsoflegitimacy,particularlyof thelegtimacyoftedominantPA,withinthesystemofteinstruments(symbolicornot)securingandperpetuatingthedominationof onegrouporclassoverothersishistoricallyvariable.Therelative strengthofthereinforcementgventothebalanceofpowerbetween thegroupsorclassesbysymbolicrelationsexpressingthosepower relationsriseswith(1)thedegreetowhichthestateofthebalanceof powerhindersthedominantclassesfrominvoJdngthebrutefactof dominationastheprinciplelegtimatingtheirdomination;and (2)the degreeofunifcationoftemarketonwhichthesymbolicandeconomicvalueoftheproductsofthedifferent PAsisconstituted(e .g. the diferencesinthesetworespectsbetweenthedominationofone societyoveranoterandthedominationofoneclassoveranother withinthesamesocialformation,or,inthelattercase,between feudalismandbourgeois democracywiththe continuous increase in the weigtoftheschoolwithinthesystemofthemechanismsofsocial reproduction). Recognitionofthelegtimacyofadominationalwaysconstitutesa - historicallyvariableforcewhichstrengthenstheestablished Foundtionsof aTeoryof SymbolicViolence balanceofpowerbecause,inpreventingapprehensionofthepower relationsaspowerrelations,ittendstopreventthedominatedgroups orclassesfromsecuringallthe strength thatreaizationoftheirstrength would gvethem. 2.1.1.PowerrelationsarethebasisnotonlyofPAbutalsoofthe misrecogitionofthetrthaboutPA,a misrecogitionwhichamounts torecogitionofthelegtimacy of PAand,assuch,istheconditionfor theexerciseof PA. Gloss1:Thus,asthechiefinstrumentofthetransubstantiationof powerrelationsintolegtimateauthority,PApresentsaprivileged objectforanaysisofthesocialbasisoftheparadoxesofdomination andlegtimacy(e.g.thepartplayedintheIndo-Europeantradition by thebrutefactofsexual,warlikeormagcalpotencyasevidenceof legtimateauthority can beseen in the structureofgenesismythsand in the ambivalencesofthe vocabulary ofsovereigty). Gloss2:Weleaveittootherstodecidewhetertherelationsbetween powerrelationsandsenserelationsare,inthelastanalysis,sense relationsorpowerrelations. 2.1.1.1.PowerrelationsdeterineaPA 'scharacteristicmodeofimposition,definedasthesystemof themeansrequiredforthe imposition ofaculturalarbitrarand fortheconcealmentof thetwofoldarbitrarnessoftheimposition,i.e.asahistoricalcombinationoftheinstmentsofsymbolicviolenceandtheinstrmentsofconcealment(i.e. legtimation)ofthatviolence. Gloss1:Telinkbetweenthetwosensesofthe arbitrariness inherent inPA(asinproposition1.1and1.2)can beseen, interalia, in thefact thatthelikelihoodofthearbitrarinessofagvenmodeofimposinga culturalarbitrarybeingatleastpartiallyreveaed assuch, riseswith the degeetowhich(1)theculturalarbitraryofthegrouporclassunder1617Reproduction:In Education,SocietyandCulture gointhatPAisremotefromtheculturalarbitrarywhichthePA inculcates;and(2)thesocialdefnitionofthelegtimatemodeof impositionrulesoutrecourse to the most direct forms of coercion.Te exprienceacategoryofagentshasofthearbitrarinessofPA depends notonlyonitscharacterizationinthistwofoldrespectbutalso on the convergenceofthesecharacterizations(e.g.theattitudeoftheConfucianliterati to a cultural domination based on the colonizers'military force)ortheirdivergence(e.g.inpresent-dayFrance,thedetached attitudeworkng-classchildrenmanifesttowardsschoolsanctions,both becausetheirdistancefromthecultureinculcatedtendstomakethem feelthearbitrarinessoftheinculcationasinevitable,and,inanother respect,becausetheculturalarbitraryoftheirclasshaslessroomfor moraindigationatformsofrepressionwhich anticipatethe sanctions most probablefor their class). Everyculturalarbitraryimpliesasocialdefinitionofthelegtimate modeofimposingculturalarbitrariness and, in particular, of the degee towhichthearbitrarypowerwhichmakesPApossible can reveal itself assuchwithoutannihlatingthespecifi c effect ofPA.Tus, whereas in certainsocietiesrecoursetotechniquesof coercion(smackingoreven gving'lines')issufcienttodisqualifytheteachingagent,corporal punishments(theEnglishpublicschool'scat-o'-nine-tails,theschoolmaster'scaneortheKoranschoolteacher's[a/aqa)appearsimplyas attributesof teacherlylegtimacyinatradition;l culturewherethereis nodangeroftheir betraying the objective truth of aPA of which this is the legtimate mode of imposition. Gloss2:Awarenessofthearbitrarinessofaparticularmodeofimpositionoragvenculturalarbitrarydoesnotimplyapprehensionof thetwofoldarbitrarinessofPA.Onthecontrary,themostradical challengestoapedagogcpowerarealwaysinspiredbytheselfdestructiveUtopiaofapedagogwithoutarbitrarinessorby the spontaneistUtopiawhichaccordstheindividualthepowertofndwithin himselftheprincipleofhisown'fulflment'.AlltheseUtopiasconstituteaninstrumentofideologcalstruggleforgroupswhoseek, Foundation of aTeorofSymbolicViolence troughdenunciationofapedagogclegtimacy,tosecureforthemselvesthemonopolyofthelegitimatemodeofimpoSition(e.g.inthe eighteenthcentury,theroleofdiscourseon'tolerance'ithecritique withwhichthenewstrataofintellectualsstrovetodestroythelegitimacyoftheChurch'spowerofsymbolicimposition).Theideaofa 'culturallyfree'PA,exemptfromarbitrarinessinboth the content and themannerofitsimposition,presupposesamisrecogitionofthe objectivetruthofPAinwhichthereisstillexpressedtheobjective truthofa violence whose specifcity liesinthefact that itgenerates the illusion that it is notviolence. Itwouldthereforebepointlesstocounterposetothedefnitionof PAtheexperiencewhichtheeducatorsandtheeducatedmayhaveof PA,particularlyofthosemodesofimpositionmost capable (at agven momentintime)ofmaskingthearbitrarinessofPA(non-directive teaching):thiswouldbetoforgetthat'thereisnoliberaleducation' (Durkheim)andthatonemust not take for an abolition of thetwofold arbitrarinessofPAtheformitassumeswhen resorting,forexample,to 'liberal'methodsinordertoinculcate'libera'dispositions. ITe'soft approach'maybetheonlyeffectivewayofexercisingthepowerof symbolicviolenceinadeterminatestateofthe power relations, and of variablytolerantdispositionstowardstheexpliCit,crude manifestation of arbitrariness. Ifsomepeoplearenowadaysabletobelieveinthepossibilityofa PAwithoutobligationorpunishent,thisistheeffectofanethnocentrismwhichinducesthemnottoperceiveassuchthesanctionsof themodeofimpositioncharacteristicofoursocieties.Tooverwhelm togainpossessionofthatsubtle withdrawalofaffection, one'spupilswithaffection,asAmericanprimaryschool teachers do,by theuseof diminutivesandaffectionatequalifers,by insistent appeal to anaffectiveunderstanding,etc.is instrumentofrepression,theapedagogc techniquewhichisnolessarbitrary(inthesenseofpropositionl.l) thancorporalpunisentordisrace.Theobjective"truthofthis type ofPAishardertoperceivebecause,ontheonehand,thetechniques employedconcealthesocialsigifcanceofthepedagogicrelation -18 19 Reproduction:InEducation,SocietyandClture underthegiseofa purely psychologcalrelationship and,ontheother hand,theirplaceinthesystemofauthoritytechniquesmakngup the dominantmodeofimpositionhelpstopreventagentsformedbythis modeofimpositionfromseeingtheirarbitrarycharacter.Indeed,the simutaneityof thechangesinauthorityrelationships whch accompany achangeinpowerrelationscapableofbringngaboutariseinthe thresholdoftoleranceforthe explicit, crude manifestationof arbitrariness,andwhichinsocialuniversesasdifferentastheChurch,the school,thefamily,thepsychiatrichospitaloreventhefn orte anny,al tendtosubstitutethe'softapproach'(non-directive methods, 'invisiblepedagogy',dialogue,participation,'humanrelations')forthe 'strongann',revealstheinterdependencewhichconstitutesintoa sstemtetechniquesforiposigsymbolicviolencecharacteristicof thetraditionalmodeofimpositionaswellasthoseofthemodewhich tendstotake its placeinthesamefunction. 2.1.1.2.Inaygivensocialforation,theagencieswhichobjectively laclaimtothelegitimateeerciseofapowerofsymbolic imposition and,insodoing,tendtoclaimthemonopolyonlegitimacy,necessarilyenterintorelationsofcompetition,i.e.powerreltionsand smbolicrelationswhosestrctureepressesinitsownlogcthestate of the balanceofpowerbeteenthe goupsor classes. Gloss1:Thiscompetitionissociologicallynecessarybecauselegtimacyisindivisible:thereisnoagencytolegtimatethelegtimacygvingagencies,becauseclaimstolegitimacyderivetheirrelative strength,inthelastanalysis,fromthestrengthof thegoups or classes whosematerialandsymbolicintereststheydirectlyoridirectlyexpress. Gloss2:Althoughtherelationsofcompetitionbetweenthedifferent agenciesobeythespecifclogcofthefeldoflegtimacyconsidered (e.g.political,religousorcultural),therelativeautonomyofthefeld nevertotallyexcludesdependenceonpowerrelations.Thespecific Foundationsof aTeoryof SymbolicViolence formtakenbytheconflictsbetweenthelegitimacy-claimingagenciesin agivenfeldisalwaysthesymbolicexpression,moreorlesstransfgured,oftherelationsofforcewhicharesetupinthisfeld between these agenciesandwhich areneverindependentoftherelations offorce externaltothefeld(e.g. thedialecticof excommunication,heresy, and challengestoorthodoxyinliterary, religousorpoliticalhistory).2 2.1.2.Insofarastherelationofpedagogccommunicationwithin whichPAiscaredonpresupposesPAuinorderto be setup,itis not reducibleta pureandsimplerelationofcommunication. Gloss1:Contrarytocommon-senseprejudiceandvariousscholarly theorieswhichmakeattentionconditionalonunderstanding,inreal learningsituations(includinglanguagelearning)recognitionofthe legtimacyoftheactoftransmission,i.e.ofthePAuofthetransmitter, conditionsthereceptionoftheinformationand, evenmore, theaccomplishmentofthetransformativeactioncapableoftransformingthat information into amentalformation(training). Gloss2:PAusostronglymarksall aspectsoftherelation of pedagogc communicationthatthisrelationshipisoften experienced or conceived alongthelinesoftheprimordialrelationofpedagogiccommunication, Le.therelationshpbetweenparentsandchildrenor,moregenerally, betweengenerations.Thetendencytore-establishwithanyperson investedwithPAuthearchetypalrelationshipwiththefatherisso strongthatanyonewhoteaches,howeveryoung, tendsto betreatedas afather;e.g.TeLawsofManu:'Tatbrahmanawhoisthegverof spiritualbirthandtheteacheroftheprescribeddutiesbecomesbylaw thefatherofanagedman,eventhoughehimselfbeachild';and Freud:'We understandnow ourrelationswithourteachers.Tese men, whowerenotevenfathersthemselves,becameforuspaternalsubstitutes.Thatiswhytheystruckassomature,soifaccessiblyadult, evenwhentheywerestillveryyoung.Wetransferredontothemthe respect andhopes the omniscient father ofour childhood inspired in us, ,} 20 21 Reprodction:InEducation,ScietyandClture andwe started to treat them as we used totreat ourfather at home.' 2.1.2.1.InsofaraseverPAthatiseerted commands aPAufom the outset,therelationofpedaogiccommunicationowesitsspecifc characterstics to the fact that it is entirely dispensed from thenecessit ofproducingtheconditionsforitsownestablishmentandperetuation. Gloss:Theprofessionalideologwhichtransmutestherelationof pedagogccommunicationintoanelectiveencounterbetweenthe 'master'andthe'disciple'inducesteacherstomisrecogizeitheir professionalpracticeordeny in their discoursethe objective conditions ofthatpractice,andtobehaveobjectively,asWebersays,like'little prophetsinthepayoftheState'.Contrarytowhatisprocaimedby suchideology,therelationofpedagogccommunicationdiffersfrom the'variousformsofcommunicativerelationsetupbyagentsor agencieswhich,seekingtoexertapowerofsymbolicviolenceinthe absenceofanyprevious,permanentauthority,areobligedtowinand endlesslyrewinthe social recognition thatPAu confers fromthe outset, onceandforall.Thisexplainswhyagents or institutionswho,without commandingaPAufromtheoutset,presumetoexercisethe powerof symbolicviolence(propagandists,publicists,scientifcpopularizers, healers,etc.),tendtoseeksocial respectabilitybyusurping thedirect or invertedappearancesoflegtimatepractice,likethesorcerer,whose actionstandsinahomologousrelationtothePA ofthepriest(e.g.the 'scientificror'educationa'guaranteesinvokedbypublicityandeven scientifcpopularization). 2.1.2.2.BecauseeverPAthatiseertedcommandsbydefnitiona PAu,thepedagogictansmitters are from the outset desigated asft to transmitthatwhichtheytransmit,henceenttledtoimposeitsreceptionandtestitsinculcationbymeansofsocillyapprovedorguaranteed sanctions. Foundationsof aTeoryof SmbolicViolence Gloss 1:TeconceptofPAuclearlyhasnonormativecontent.Tosay thattherelationofpedagogccommunicationpresupposesthePAuof thepedagogicagency(agentorinstitution)innowayprejudgesthe valueintrinsicallyattachedtothatPAu,sincePAuhaspreciselythe effectofensuringthe social value of the PA, regardless of the'intrinsic' valueoftheagencyexertingit,andwhatever,forexample,thedegree oftechnicalorcharismaticqualifcationofthetransmitter.Withthe conceptofPAuweareabletoescapethepre-sociologicalillusionof creditingthepersonofthetransmitterwththetechnicalcompetence orprsonalauthoritywhichis,inreality,automaticallyconferredon everypedagogictransmitterbythetraditionallyandinstitutionally guaranteedpositionheoccupiesinarelation of pedagogiccommunication. Gloss2:Becausethesendingofamessagewithinarelationofpedagogiccommunicationalwaystransmitsatleasttheaffrmationofthe valueofthePA,thePAuwhichguaranteesthecommunication always tendstoeliminatethequestionoftheinformativeefciencyofthe communication.Poofthattherelationofpedagogiccommunicationis irreducibletoaformallydefnedrelationofcommunicationandthat theinformationalcontentofthemessagedoes notexhaustthecontent ofthecommunication,maybeseeninthefactthattherelationof pedagogccommunicationcanbemaintainedassuchevenwhenthe informationtransmittedtendstowardszero,asinthelimitingcaseof initiatory teaching or, closer to home, in someliterary education. 2.1.2.3.BecauseeverPAthatiseertedcommandsbydefnitiona PAu,thepedreceiversaredisposedfromthe outset to recolize thelegtimacyoftheinformationtransmittedandthePAuofthe pedagogc transmitters,hence to receive and interalize the messae. e"l2.1.2.4.Inanygivensocialformation,thespecifcallysymbolicforce ofthesanctions,physicalorsymbolic,positiveornegative,juridically garanteedornot,whichensure,strengthenandlastinglyconsecrate 2223 Reproduction:InEducation,SocietyandCulture theeffectofaPA,is geaterthemorethe goupsorclassestowhich theyareappledaredisposedtorecogizethePAuwhichimposes them. 2.1.3.InanygensocilforationthelegitimatePA,i.e.thePA . endowedwiththedominantlegtimacy,isnothingotherthanthe abitaimpositonofthedominantculturalarbitrarinsofarasitis mirecogizedinitsobjectivetruthasthedominantPAandthe imposition of the dominant culture (by 1. 1.3 and 2.1). Gloss:Temonopolyonthedominantculturallegitimacyisalways theobjectofcompetitionbetweeninstitutionsoragents.Ifollows fromthisthattheimpositionofacultural orthodoxy corresponds toa particularformofthestructureofthefeldofcompetition,whose particularitybecomesfullyapparentonlywhencomparedwithother possibleformssuchaseclecticismand syncretism,the academicanswer totheproblemsraisedby competitionfor legtimacy in the intellectual orartisticfeldandcompetitionbetweenthevaluesandideologesof different fractionsof the dominant classes. 2.2.InsofarasitisinvestedwithaPAu,PAtendstoproducemisrecognitionoftheobjectivetrthofculturalarbitrarnessbecase, beingrecognizedasalegtimateagencyotimposition,ittendsto producerecognitionoftheculturalarbitraritinculcatesaslegitimate culture. 2.2.1.InsofaraseverPAthatisexertedcommandsaPAufomthe outset,therelationofpedagogiccommunicationwithinwhichPAis caredontendstoproducethelegtimcyofwhatittransmits,by designatingwhatittransmitsbythemerefactoftransmittingit legitimately- asworthyoftransmission,asopposedtowhatitdoes not transmit. Gloss1:TisisthebasisofthesociologicalpossibilityofPA,which Foundations of aTeor of SymbolicViolence inquiryintotheabsolutebeginningofPAaninquiryasfctitious in itsownwayasthespeculationwhichrunsintothe dead-endsofthe socialcontractorthe'pre-linguisticsituation'- wouldleadoneto regardaslogcallyimpossible,asisshownbytheparadoxofthe Euthydemus,which rests on thehidden postulate of aPAwithout PAu: whatyouknow,youdon'tneedtolearn;whatyoudon'tknow,you can't learn, becauseyou don't knowwhatyou needto lear. Gloss2:Ifonereducestherelationofpedagogiccommunicationtoa pureandsimplerelationofcommunication,oneisunabletounderstandthesocialconditionsofitsspecifcallysymbolicandspecifcally pedagogicefcacywhichlie preciselyinconcealment of the' fact thatit isnotasimplerelationofcommunication;bythesametokenoneis obligedtoassumea'needforinformation'inthereceivers,aneed, moreover,informedastotheinformationfttosatisfyitandpreexisting thesocialand pedagogic conditionsof its production. 2.2.2.Inanygivensocilformation,legitimateculture,i.e.the culture endowedwiththedominantlegitimacy,isnothingotherthanthe dominantcultural arbitrrinsofaras it ismisrcogied in itsobjective tthasaculturalarbitradathedominantculturalarbitrar (by 1.2.3and2.2). Gloss:TheculturalarbitrariesreproducedbythedifferentPAcan neverbedefmedidependentlyoftheirplaceinasystemofcultural arbitraresmoreorlessintegateddependingonthesocialformation butawayssubjecttothedominationofthedominantculturalarbitrary.Failuretorecogizethisfactisthesourceofthecontradictions bothofideologconcerningthecultureofdominatedclassesand nationsandofdrawing-roomchatteraboutcultural'alienation'and 'dis-alienation'.Blindnesstowhatthelegtimateculureandthe dominatedcultureowetothestructureoftheirsymbolicrelations,i.e.to thestructureof therelationof dominationbetweentheclasses,inspires ontheonehadthe'cultureforthemasses'progamme of 'liberating' 24 thedominatedclassesbygvmgthemthemeansofappropriating legitimateculture assuch, with allit owes to itsfunctions of distinction andlegtimation(e.g. thecurriculaofthe Universitespopulires1orthe JacobindefenceoftheteachingofLtin);andontheotherhandthe populstprojectofdecreeingthelegtimacyofthe culturalarbitraryof thedominatedclassesasconstituted in andbythe fact ofitsdominated position,canonizingitas'popularculture'.Tsantinomyofthe dominatedideolog,whichisdirectlyexpressedinthepracticeand discourseofthedomnatedclasses(intheform,forexample,of alterationbetweenasenseofculturalunworthinessandaggressive depreciationofthedominantculture)andwhichspokesmen,whether ornormandatedbytheseclasses,reproduceand amplify(complicating it with the contradictions oftheir own relation tothe dominated classes andtheircontradctions,e.g.proletkult),canoutlivethesocialconditionswhichproduceit,asisattestedbytheideologiesandeventhe culturalpoliciesofformerlydominatedclassesornations,which oscilthedominantcassesornationsandtheaimofrehabilitatingthe survivals of the dominated culture. Reproductin:In EduCtion,Sciety andClture Foundationsof aTeorof SymbolicViolence 2S or againthedelimitationof the syllabus and legal conditions of employmentinaneducationalinstitution),'alinotcontractualinthe contract'ofdelegation.To speak ofdelegationof authority is simply to namethesocialconditionsfortheexerciseofaPA,i.e.cultural proximitybetweentheculturalarbitraryimposedbythatPAandthe cultural arbitraries ofthe goups or classes subjectedto it. Inthissense,anyactionofsymbolicviolencewhichsucceedsm imposingitself(Leinimposingmisrecognitionof the violencewhichis itsobjectivetruth)objectivelypresupposesadelegationofauthority. Tus,contrarytopopularorsemi-learnedrepresentationswhichcredit publicityorpropagandaand, moregenerally,the messages conveyedby temodernmedia,withthepowertomanipulateifnottocreate opinions,thesesymbolicactionscanworkonly tothe extenttat they encounterandreinforce predispositions(e.gthe relationship betweena newspaperanditsreaders).Tereisno'intrinsicstrengthofthetrue idea';nordoweseegroundsforbelief in the strength of the false idea, howeveroftenrepeated.Itisalwayspowerrelationswhichdefmethe limitswithinwhichthepersuasiveforceofasymbolicpowercanact (e.g.thelimitsontheefcacyofanyrevolutionarypreachingor propagandaappliedtotheprivileged classes). Similarly,propheticaction,Le.anactionwhich,lkethatofthe latebetweentheaimofrecoveringthecultural heritagebequeathedby 2.3.Everagency(agentorinstitution)eertngaPA commands PAu religousprophet, an auctor claimng to fnd the source ofhisauctoritasonlyinitscapacitasthemandatedrepresentativeofthegroupsor classeswhoseculturalarbitraryitimposesin aClordancewith amodeof impositondefinedbythatarbitrar,i.e.as thedelegated holder of the rghtto exercise symbolic violence. Gloss:'Delegationofauthority'doesnotimplytheexistenceofan explicitagreement,stilllessacodifedcontract,betweenagroupor classandapedagogcagency,athough,eveninthecaseofthefamily PAofatraditionasociety,thepedagogcagency'sPAumaybejuridicallyrecogizedandsanctioned(cf.Glossonproposition1.1).Even whencertainaspectsoftheagency'sPAuareexpliCitlycodifed(e.g. thecodifcationoftherightofviolenceonwhichpatriapotestasis based,orthejuridicallimitationsonpaternalPAu in modernsocieties, withinhimselfmustapparentlyconstitutethetransmitter'sPAuex nihilo andprogessivelywintheadherenceofhis public, succeeds ony totheextentthatit restsonaprior(thoughvirtualandtacit)delegationofauthority.Ifoneisnottoresorttothemiracleofanabsolute begnning(whichtheWeberantheoryofcharismatends to require), it isnecessarytopositthatthesuccessfulprophetistheonewho formulatesforthegroupsorclassesheaddressesamessagewhichthe objective conditions determiningthematerial and symbolic interests of those groupshavepredisposedthemtoattendtoandtakein.Iother words,theapparentrelationshipbetweenprophec{nditsaudience mustbereversed:thereligousorpoliticalprophetalwayspreachesto the converted and follows his dciples at least as much as they follow him, 27 26 Reproduction:InEducatin,SocietyandClture sincehislessonsarelistenedtoandheardonlybyagentswho,by everythingtheyare,haveobjectivelymadatedhimtogivethem lessons.Thougonemustnotforgettheeffectsofpropheticquasisystematization,withitsallusionsandellipsesconducivetopseudounderstandingandmisunderstanding,thefactremainsthatthelikelihoodofsuccessforthepropheticmessagecannotbededucedfrom the intrinsicproperiesofthemessage(cf.therelativespreadof ChristianityandIslam).Averbalizationwhich,simply by stating them, consecrates,i.e.sanctifiesandsanctions,theexpectationsit meets,can additsownspecifcallysymbolicstrengthtothepre-existingpower relationsonlybecauseitdrawsitsstrengthfromthetacitdelegation it isgrantedbythegroupsorclassesinvolved inthosepower relations. 2.3.1.Apedagogcagencycommandsthe PAu enabling ittolegtimate thecultural arbitrary that itinculcates,only within the limits laiddown bythatculturalarbitrar,i.e.ttheextentthatbothinitsmodeof imposing(thelegtimatemode)andinitsdelimitationofwhatit imposes,thoseentitledtoimposeit(thelegtimateeducator)and thoseonwhomitisimposed (the legitimate addressees),it reproduces thefundamentalprnciples of thecultural arbitrarthat a goup or class producesasworthyofreproduction,bothby its ver eistece and by thefactofdelegatingtoanagnctheauthortrequiredinorderto reproduce it. Gloss:Itisalltooeasytoperceivethelimitationsinherentinthe delegation whentheyareexplicitly defined,asthey arewheneverPA is exertedbyanacademicinstitution;buttheyarealsoobServedinthe caseofthePAofthefamilygoup(bothinthedominantandinthe dominatedgroupsorclasses).Thedefnitionofthelegtimateeducators,thelegtimatescopeoftheirPAanditslegitimatemodeof imposition,takesverydifferentforms,forexample,dependingonthe kinshipstructureandthemodeofsuccession,consideredasamodeof transmissionofpowerandeconomicgoods (e.g.thedifferentformsof divisionofpedagogclaburamongthekininpatrilineal or matrilineal Foundationsof aTeoryof SymbolicViolence societies,orinthedifferentclassesofthesamesocialformation).Itis noaccidentthatthechildren'supbringingitheobjectofconflicting representationsandasourceoftensionorconfictwheneverfamilies cohabitorwheneverlineagesorgenerationsbelongingtodifferent classescohabitwithinthesamefamily(forexample,theextremecase ofconfictsovertherightofadultsfromonefamilytoexertaPA, especiallyphysicalrepression,onthechildrenofanotherfamily;this confictoverthelegitimateboundariesoffamilyPAawaysowesits specificformtotherelativepositionin theclass structure of thefamily groups involved). 2.3.1.1.ThedelegationoftherightofsymbolicviolencewhichestablishesthePAuofapedagogicagency isalways a limiteddelegation; l:e. thedelegationtoapedagogicagencyofsch authorit as it requires in ordertoinculcateaculturalarbitrarlegitimately,inaccorancewith themodeofimpositiondefnedbythatarbitrary,entailstheimpossibiitforthatagencyoffreelydefiningthemodeofimposition,the contentimposedandthe public on which it imposes it (the prncipleof thelmitedautonomy of pedagogc agencies). 2.3.1.2.Inanygvensocialforationthesanctions,materialorsymbolic,positiveornegative,jurdicallyguaranteed or not,thrughwhich PAuisepressed,and whichensure,strngthen and lastingly consecrate theeffectofa PA,aremorelikelytoberecognizedalegitimate,i.e. hfl egreatersymbolcforce(by2.1.2.4),whentheyareappliedto goupsorclassesforwhomthesesnctionsarmorelikelytobe confredbythesanctionsofthemarketonwhichtheeconomic and socialvalueoftheproductsofthedifferentPAsisdeterined(the realitprincipleor law of the market). Gloss1:Therecognitionagrouporclassobjecti

lyaccordsapedagogicagencyisalways(whateverthepsychologicalorideological variationsofthecorrespondingexperience)afunctionofthedegreeto whichthemarketvalueandsymbolicvalueofitsmembersdependon 28 29 Reproduction:In EduCtion,Societyand CultUre theirtransformationahdconsecrationbythatagency'sPA.Itis thereforeunderstandablethatthemedievalnobilityshouldhavehadlittle interestinScholasticeducationandthat,incontrast,therulingclasses oftheGreekcity-statesshouldhavehadrecoursetotheservicesof the Sophistsorrhetors;andagain,thatinmodemsocietiesthemiddle classes,andmore preciselytose middle-class fractions whose ascension most directlydepends on the School, differfromtheworkingclasses by anacademicdocilitywhichisexpressedin,amongothertings,their particularsensitivitytothesymboliceffectofpunisentsor rewards andmorepreciselyto the social-certification effect ofacademic qualifcations. Gloss2.;Themoreunifiedthemarketonwhichthevalueofthe productsofthedifferentPAsisdetermned,themorethegroupsor classeswhichhaveundergoneaPAinculcatingadominatedcultural arbitraryarelikelyto havethevaluelessness oftheirculturalattainment brougthometothembothbytheanony