This brings us to the next point of order within Bourdieu’s sociology: Who determines what is to be recognized and valued within the field? The answer to this is to be found in Bourdieu’s theory of “symbolic violence”. Symbolic violence does not constitute an act of intimidation. Moreover it is the power to impose one perception of reality as objective and real without those involved recognizing that the reality in question is quite random, nor that alternative perceptions have been excluded.
“Those involved” refers to both the dominant classes as well as the subordinates, which in turn means that neither the dominant party nor the oppressed are aware of the oppression being imposed. In fact, it is not even recognized as domination and oppression. In the eyes of the actors involved, there is only one perception of reality and worldview and it is accepted as the way of things, as undisputable as the laws of nature. The exercise of symbolic power is in other terms the authority to apply names and labels and through that naming establish the structure of the agents’ perception of reality.
Within a society, there is a consensus on the meaning of symbols, which in turn enables communication between members of the same group (Bourdieu, 2009). The meaning of the symbols, however, is constructed in favour of the dominant culture that further
legitimizes the established social order and the dominant class. Sub-cultures are then established within the hierarchy by how they relate to the ideology of the dominant culture and by how they diverge from it. The symbolic power is a transformed from the various forms of capital, and as such is rendered unrecognizable. In accordance with this, it is not the words
or symbols themselves that hold power, but the belief in the symbols and the authorized agent who expresses them.
There is no social agent who does not aspire, as far as circumstances permit, to have the power to name and to create the world through naming: gossip, slander, lies, insults, commendations, criticisms, arguments and praises are all daily and petty manifestations of the solemn and collective acts of naming, be they celebrations or condemnations, which are performed by generally
recognized authorities. (Bourdieu, 2009, p. 105)
An example of such authority is educational institutions and by Bourdieu’s analysis, every pedagogical act is an act of symbolic violence as this indeed names a perspective, knowledge or perception of reality as true and legitimate, in favour of another. This does not exclude neither nursery nor university. Palludan (2006) found that through the interaction between children and caregivers certain frameworks were established, and through the caregivers’ responses, the children were subtly, and in any likelihood not consciously so, encouraged to behave in certain ways.
Those who managed to appropriate the legitimate sense of practice, that is to say the preferred manner of behaviour, employed a certain way of moving and expressing
themselves. When interacting with the caregivers these children more often were treated as peers by the adults. Further, the dialogue between child and caregiver were characterized by a sense of equivalence, rather than the instructional tone the children who failed to appropriate this manner of behaviour received.
What is more, Palludan found that the children who were most adept at assuming the behaviour that earned them a status in the dialogue as an equal conversationalist, as opposed to the pupil-teacher relation, were usually children of the Danish majority. Conversely,
children of minority backgrounds appeared to struggle to position themselves as coequals in the interaction between caregiver and child. It appeared that the minority children’s attempts at positioning themselves as equals deviated from the legitimate practice and consequentially the caregivers failed to recognize their efforts and grant the desired response.
One might suppose that the majority children through their habitus, that is to say, not by the quality of being members of the majority group but through the transposal of previous experience, generate a practice that is recognized and valued by the caregivers.
The minority children possess a different set of dispositions, a different habitus, and while valid currency in the market that is constituted by the practices in that community, it is also one that is not appreciated nor acknowledged by the caregivers as legitimate practice.
Part of the process involved relates closely to Bourdieu’s theory on reproduction, which we shall explore further in relation to the Northern Ireland conflict.
Social interaction constitutes the social reality. If we think of speech as an action, the construction of reality is a struggle for legitimacy. It is a struggle to position one statement to be more valid than another, and for this statement to be perceived as real and true.
That said, it is not necessarily the language or symbols used that in themselves constitute the symbolic power, but how they are used and by whom that lends the power.
Likewise, the agent’s social position also serves to govern the words he or she has to the legitimate speech of the institution. It is only when used by the appropriate agent the words hold power, and any performative utterance by the unauthorized will fail to receive
recognition (Bourdieu, 2009).
The authorized agent might be a professor giving a lecture at a University, or a reporter on television. The doctor when examining a patient is an authorized agent by the capital he or she has gained by being in the possession of the cultural capital, as well as the
social capital of belonging to the group that is doctors. The realization of the Belfast Agreement10 provides us with another example of how the term works out in practice. In order for the Good Friday Agreement to happen, negotiations had to go through the correct channels, the authorized agents. A recruit of the IRA would not be in a position to call for a ceasefire, however the appointed leaders of the organization at the time were.
Likewise, and additionally as we have touched upon earlier, it also takes the
authorized agent to define the markers that constitutes the ethnic identity, as the definition of the ethnic identity also necessitates recognition by the collective. This means that the
construction of ethnicity, too, is an act of symbolic violence.
A very powerful conveyer of perceived legitimate reality is the media. Through television and radio broadcasts, newspapers and magazines, web sites and blogs particular perceptions of the world is distributed to the masses. Which stories to deign attention and which stories should be left untold, and just as important, the angle of the story are in large in the hands of the media. This is in part why some people might believe Norway to be the capital of Sweden11, or that all Scandinavians are blonde Vikings who spend their spare time gazing at the northern lights.