On Bourdieu's Symbolic Power

Before discussing Bourdieu's ''On Symbolic Power'', I should like to start with
analyzing Bourdieu's notion of power since in the theory of symbolic power, Bourdieu
''attempts to specify in theoretical terms the processes whereby, in all societies, order and
social restraint are produced by indirect, cultural mechanisms rather than by direct,
coercive social control''*. Bourdieu argued, ''while in previous ages people refused to
recognise it even where it was staring them in the face, without turning power into a
“circle whose centre is everywhere and nowhere”, we have to be able to discover it in
places where it is least visible, where it is most completely misrecognized''**. In
Bourdieu’s further definition, ''symbolic power is a power of constructing reality''.

Symbolic power includes implications that have discriminatory meanings such as

gender domination, racism etc. Symbolic power sustains its hegemony through the mis-
recognition of power relations a given field.

In the name of recognizing and understanding the magnitude of symbolic power and
its hegemony, for instance, consider the institution of science. We would like to(or may
be ''we get used to'') think science as a set of methods, a great body of scientific
knowledge, as it deals with set of truths. However, science, like other institutions-state,
family etc., is a social institution affected by all other institutions. So, in micro level-in
personal level, science as an institution integrated into other social institutions is,
therefore, influenced by the social structures in which a particular scientific resarch is
done. Hence, in the level of method, it is very reasonable and important to argue whether
science can be objective or not; however, once we step aside and observe those
categories of social institutions in which science is also included from a distance, one
can see how the hegemony of historically situated social structures govern a given field.

In order to better understand and recognize symbolic power, consider our social and
economical structure. We live in a capitalist society-doesn't matter which social class in
which we found ourselves- we are living as capitalists. Our lives turned commodities-our
experiences transformed into invesment forces which we think thay will bring us
profit(in all forms, like success, new social class, money etc.) from under existing
market conditions in relation to relations of production. What I argue is that, for
instance, the definition of ''success'' is very limited so that people obligated to play the
game by its rules-try to ingage a social activity under the expectation of the activity will
be profitable.

As a proof, think of about 10 years ago there was, like today, music courses in which
you can learn to play an instrument, painting courses, and tennis courses etc. However,
the main diffrence between today's courses(pivate or public funded) and before's is that
today, all the institutions that provide these services are now give you certificates for
whatever course you take. So, one chooses an extra-curricular activity not on the basis of
his/hers capacity or interest but rather thinking ''will it be useful, will it be profitable?''
We get to choose our experiences if we feel that they will be valuable under future
market conditions, regarding our experiences as to be assets.
 In conclusions, as Bourdieu argued that the engagement of cultural productions and
symbolic systems plays an essential role in the reproduction of social structures of
domination. Therefore, recognizing and deconstructing symbolic power enable for us to
see -as in Bourdieu's analysis of hierarchies of power- how cultural roles are more
dominant than economic forces in determining how hierarchies of power are situated.

*Richard Jenkins – Key sociologist Pierre Bourdieu

**Pierre Bourdieu – On Symbolic Power

Oğuz Gürerk