Investigation of the influence of social structure on ideology in the works of Pierre Bourdieu

Kozyrev Maksim Sergeevich PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of Theory and Methodology of Public Administration of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 140032, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Poselok Malakhovka, ul. , ul. 1-Ya komsomol'skaya, 9/2,, kv. 9 Max-han@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) is one of the outstanding and influential sociologists and philosophers of our time, whose scientific heritage is very rich and multifaceted. However, if the results of his research on social reproduction and structuring, interaction in the political field are analyzed quite fully, then the topic of reflection of social structure in ideology has not so often become the subject of attention of scientists studying his work. In this regard, the author undertook to fill in the gap and find out how, according to Pierre Bourdieu, social positions, forces and their alignment are reflected in ideology.

Results and discussion

First of all, it is necessary to outline one of the central concepts of his scientific work ? habitus, which is a scheme of perception, thinking and behavior ^{[1, p.59]}. This phenomenon is formed under the influence of the social conditions in which a person is from his very birth. These are internalized dispositions. Habitus, influenced by past experience, constantly generates new experience, which then transforms it. Accordingly, the metamorphoses of habitus are determined by the social trajectory of the agent ^{[2; 3, p.101-102]}, those social statuses that he changes during his life. It is not the result of the actor's freedom of choice, but the choice is forced, necessary, imposed by social conditions. In accordance with the habitus , claims are formed: "But it is enough even to briefly recall the social conditions of the formation of the demand for "personal opinion" and the implementation of this claim to show: in contrast to the naive belief in formal equality before politics, the "popular" view is more realistic when it sees no other choice for the most deprived strata" ^{[4, p.113]}.

Bourdieu paid special attention to taste as an external manifestation of habitus. For example, intellectuals with large cultural and small economic capital gravitate towards everything revolutionary and at the same time ascetic (low-cost) in art due to their position as "poor relatives".

The representation of habitus only as a reflection of the social status of the agent would not be true. It is thanks to him that social relations are reproduced, the social hierarchy is maintained ^{[5, 6]}. In this sense, we can safely oppose Bourdieu's critics, who believe that he does not offer a convincing description of the reproduction of capitalism saturated with internal conflicts and contradictions ^[7]. It is precisely the concept of habitus that can explain why agents, despite the obvious injustice of the social order towards them, continue, as a rule, unconsciously to support it: "Reproduction strategies are based not on conscious and rational intention, but on the dispositions of habitus, which spontaneously seeks to reproduce the conditions of its own production" ^{[8, p.93, P.104]}. Reproducing itself through habitus, an agent or group reproduces the existing social order.

There is no doubt that there are economic and political mechanisms for the reproduction of capitalist relations, to which Pierre Bourdieu paid much less research attention than he would like. But this does not mean that he denies their influence at all. In this regard, it can be assumed that Bourdieu acted in accordance with his habitus (the scientist devoted most of his life to pedagogical activity), describing in great detail, for example, the school system as key in the formation of perception, thinking and behavior patterns and the main institutional mechanism of social reproduction ^[9].

The next key concept is capital, which represents resources. There are three main types of capital: economic (income and property), social (involvement in social networks, connections, "blat") and cultural (physical characteristics of a person, education, cultural goods). Bourdieu also singled out symbolic (trust, prestige, reputation) ^{[10, p. 231]} and political capital. The latter is a kind of cultural and is based on recognition and faith on the part of agents, who thereby endow power over themselves ^{[8, p.201]}.

Capital is characterized by volume, scarcity and the ability to convert into other forms of capital. Scarcity allows you to extract additional rent and increases the possibility of conversion. For example, the possession of a rare but in-demand profession allows you to transform cultural capital into economic capital with great efficiency, i.e. to demand higher wages compared to agents with similar educational and qualification characteristics. Or the necessary acquaintance (social capital) becomes decisive when moving up the career ladder in the state apparatus, which marks an increase in economic and power capital.

The volume and structure of capital is a sign of a class (social group) and determines its position in the social structure. In particular, entrepreneurs have large economic capital, but small cultural capital. The intelligentsia has the opposite situation.

In addition to capital, habitus becomes a marker of social structuring, according to Burde. According to it, we determine whether one or another agent belongs to our circle ^{[11, C. 121]}. In turn, as mentioned above, habitus forms taste. Thus, the owners of a large cultural capital have more chances to become museum visitors than those who are deprived of this capital ^{[4, pp.63-64]}.

As a result, it can be concluded that individuals of a social group adequately identified by a sociologist will have not only identical volumes and capital structures, but also similar habits and tastes. Their individual social trajectories will be special cases of the group trajectory ^{[2; 3, p.101]}.

Groups and their agents compete for certain resources and benefits in an institutionalized social field, which is described by Bourdieu as "such a multidimensional space of positions in which any existing position can be determined based on a multidimensional coordinate system, the values of which correlate with the corresponding various variables: thus, the agents in them are distributed in the first dimension — by the total amount of capital they have, and in the second — by the combinations of their capitals, i.e. by the relative weight of various types of capital in the total set of property" ^{[4, p.57]}. The field is also assigned to one of the key concepts.

Fields, as well as capitals, are very diverse. Bourdieu highlights the fields of economics, politics, culture, literature, law, etc. Each of them has a set of specific rules, including institutionalized ones. The correspondence of the habitus and the form of capital to a particular field determines the success of the activities of agents and groups in it. In the field of art, obviously, an agent with a large cultural capital will feel like a fish in water, and the field of politics is the realm of various party apparatchiks and functionaries, "national" leaders.

Any autonomous field after its appearance immediately becomes the object of the claims of "professionals", i.e. those who are most adapted to this field. The desire to privatize not only capital, but also fields is one of the factors of social interaction. Such is, for example, the ideological field in which specialists are fighting for the monopoly of legitimate ideological production.

But the autonomy of the ideological field is not absolute or in any way close to such a quality. In ideological systems, the structure of the field of social classes is reproduced in an unrecognizable form ^{[8, p.93, p.186]}. The mechanism of such assimilation (or determination) is twofold, although this duality is dialectical in nature.

On the one hand, the representations of agents vary depending on their position and habitus. The latter is formed during a long experience in some position in the social world. Therefore, occupying a certain position in the social hierarchy of classes, the agent will reproduce it in the ideological field. For example, a peasant is unlikely to be interested in the nuances of the reform of modern Russian higher education or housing and communal services in large cities due to the fact that these areas are not an element of his social reproduction. And the desire for conservatism, the designation of the established social order as a natural prerogative of the ruling elite, which is more than satisfied with the existing social situation ^{[8, p.94]}. But these illustrations are relatively crude. The influence of habitus is thinner. Many of its components, perceived as innate rather than acquired, reproduce the social hierarchy implicitly, unconsciously. In particular, for a number of social groups, higher education is not valuable in itself. Their experience does not allow them to see the gains that it gives. Training seems to them only a long–term and useless burden for the sole purpose of obtaining a diploma of higher education, which can give some employment opportunities. Such students are poorly prepared to study at the university due to, at least, insufficient motivation. As a result, students from "good" families become excellent students who were able to give their offspring not only motives for learning, but also to transfer the appropriate cultural capital, i.e. in this way it is possible to observe how social dispositions are reproduced in the university environment, instilling in agents confidence in their naturalness.

On the other hand, the struggle in the ideological field reproduces in euphemized forms the economic and political struggle between classes ^{[8, p.94]}. The ruling class, as the owner of the means of ideological production (for example, mass media, school education), occupies a dominant position in the ideological field. To one degree or another, he seeks to impose his vision and attitude on everyone else: "Different classes and their factions are included in the symbolic struggle for imposing a definition of the social world that best meets their interests, and the field of ideological views reproduces in a transformed form the field of social positions" ^{[8, p.92]}. At the same time, Bourdieu makes one reservation here. In his opinion, only the legitimate government is able to ensure its dominance, including in the ideological field: "It is the belief in the legitimacy of words and the one who utters them, the belief that the producer does not belong to the words he produced, that turns the power of words and slogans into the power to maintain or overthrow order" ^{[8, p.95]}.

However, the mechanism of legitimization by the ideology of those in power is described by him very inconsistently. In particular, it should be emphasized once again that, according to Bourdieu, the struggle in the ideological field is for the imposition of a legitimate vision of the social world: "The actual ideological consequence of this is the suggestion of political classification systems under the legitimate guise of philosophical, religious, legal and other taxonomies. The power of symbolic systems rests on the fact that power relations are expressed and manifested in them only in a transformed and unrecognizable form of meaning relations (transference)" ^{[8, p.95]}. But, as follows from another passage of his work, the legitimacy of views is gained only when they have become a product of objective reality, and the role of propaganda is denied altogether.: "More specifically, the legitimization of the social order is not the product of a consciously directed action of propaganda or symbolic suggestion, as some believe; it follows from the fact that agents apply to the objective structures of the social world the structures of perception and evaluation generated by these objective structures, and therefore there is a tendency to take the social world for granted" ^{[8, P.80]}.

From this it follows that the successful legitimization will be carried out by the ideology that most closely represents the existing social order to reality. But in this case, there is no question of imposition. Moreover, everything happens almost by itself: "the actual ideological function of the field of ideological production is performed almost automatically on the basis of structural homology between the field of ideological production and the field of class struggle" ^{[8, p.94]}.

Another judgment of Bourdieu allows us to somewhat correct this conclusion: "These schemes (such as pairs of adjectives used to express the vast majority of social judgments) are the product of the incorporation of the structures to which they are applied, and the recognition of their absolute legitimacy is nothing more than the perception of the ordinary world order as going by itself, which sums up the seemingly immaculate coincidence of objective and incorporated structures" ^{[8, p.25]}.

Apparently, imposition in the ideological field can be carried out, but only through mimicry under social reality. In order to gain legitimacy, the ideologist must give the proclaimed ideological attitudes the appearance of their conformity to objective structures. In this case, the stability of the imposed social order depends on the dexterity of manipulators in constructing ideologies, including werewolves. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the refusal of propaganda of rigid ideological schemes on the part of the modern Russian ruling elite. Although, judging by some publications ^{[12; 13]}, it is not easy for them. The nature of habitus is such that its action cannot be fully realized. All kinds of reservations shed light on the actual worldview of the ruling class.

In addition to the above, the duality of the determination of ideology manifests itself in the fact that professional ideologists seek to take advantage of the opportunities that delegation of authority to define the social world provides them ^{[8, pp.92-93]}. Ideology will reflect not only the dispositions and oppositions of the ruling elite, but also its creators, who are constructing their own vision of the social world.

A number of Bourdieu's private remarks concerning some nuances of interaction in the ideological field are valuable for this work.

Firstly, it is the attitude to history, which is implicitly conditioned by the position of the present. Justification or condemnation of the past depends on how much it corresponds to the goals of the struggle. The intensity of the use of history (and interest in it in general) as a tool is due to the volume, structure, forms of capital (primarily cultural), as well as the habit of agents actualizing it (they must recognize themselves in it, identify with it) ^{[4, pp.280-301]}.

Secondly, the upper classes identify the real and the ideal, because they do not suffer from the cruelty of modern society. The eschatological representation of history is not their vision. Paradise for the ruling elite is already on earth, and history is approaching its final triumph ^{[14, p.32]}.

Thirdly, the success of a group leader depends not so much on their merits and personal qualities, as on how much the group can recognize itself in him, i.e. the behavior of the leader must correspond to the habitus of the group to represent the interests of which he claims ^{[4, 200-10]}.

Conclusion

As a result of a retrospective analysis of Bourdieu's work devoted to the topic of the influence of social structure on ideology, the following provisions are put forward.

1. Social interaction (competition) of agents and groups is carried out in autonomous fields (cultural, political, economic, ideological, etc.). Interaction strategies (line of behavior) are based on habitus (stable, often unconscious, patterns of perception, thinking and behavior formed under the influence of social conditions) and available capital subjects. The latter differ not only in form (economic, symbolic, political, cultural, etc.) and volume, but in the possibilities of their conversion (for example, with the help of "blat", the right acquaintances, you can get a high position in the state apparatus, thereby converting social capital into economic and power). Fields are also not equilibrium and their properties are in many ways similar to the properties of capitals.

The basis of the stability of the formed social order is the desire of social groups and agents to spontaneously reproduce themselves. An important element in this process is habitus. It is he who is the basis of social reproduction. The spontaneity of this process can be illustrated by the example of education. In particular, it is people from families who were able to pass on a considerable cultural capital to their children who become successful at school or university. They are the most prepared for learning both motivationally and intellectually. However, these social characteristics are perceived as innate. As a result, one can observe the implicit reproduction of the social hierarchy, from the side perceived as natural.

It should be noted that although Bourdieu did not describe other mechanisms of reproduction of the social structure (for example, economic or political), he did not deny their existence. They were left out of the brackets of his research efforts.

In addition to spontaneous reproduction, groups seek to monopolize access to capital from which they derive maximum benefit and which is the main reason for its own reproduction, as well as differences from other groups. The creation of schools of two corridors (elite and mass) is an illustration of this process.

2. The ideological field reproduces the social structure in an unrecognizable form. The mechanism of assimilation is twofold: firstly, by occupying a certain position in the social hierarchy of classes, the agent will reproduce it in the ideological field; secondly, the struggle in the ideological field reproduces in euphemized forms the economic and political struggle between classes (the ruling elite seeks to impose its worldview on everyone else).

One of the main functions of ideology is the legitimization of domination, which is carried out for the most part spontaneously (almost automatically). However, this Bourdieu mechanism is described inconsistently. Because spontaneity calls into question the very possibility of imposition. It is possible to get out of this contradiction if we proceed from the fact that imposition in the ideological field can only be carried out through mimicry under social reality. In order to gain legitimacy, the ideologist must give the proclaimed ideological attitudes the appearance of their conformity to objective structures.

Among other things, the ideology reflects not only the attitudes of the ruling elite, but also professional creators who seek to take advantage of the delegation of authority to define the social world.

3. Bourdieu has a number of private comments that are very valuable for the purposes of this work.

Firstly, the attitude to history is implicitly conditioned by the position of the present. The interest in history as an instrument of ideological struggle and the intensity of its use depends on the structure and volume of capital, as well as the habitus of agents.

Secondly, the upper classes identify the real and the ideal, because they do not suffer from the cruelty of modern society.

Thirdly, the success of the leader of the group depends not so much on their merits and personal qualities, but on how much the group can recognize itself in him, i.e. the behavior of the leader must correspond to the habitus of the group whose interests he claims to represent.

In general, it can be argued that, despite accusations of Bourdieu's lack of a macrosociological theory, his work went beyond empirical sociology and became a significant milestone for social philosophy. In any nascent scientific concept claiming the prefix "macro", there are often gaps and contradictions that can be filled and resolved only in the process of very laborious research work, which is beyond the power of one person or even one scientific school. Bourdieu's concept has not escaped this dysfunction either.