Pierre Bourdieu’s career and influence spanned areas of Anthropology, Education, Sociology, and Philosophy and is fairly unique in the realm of critical theorists in that his positions were largely based on data gathered through ethnographic research. Bourdieu’s early work in Anthropology laid the foundation for over two decades of grounded research in the social sciences.
While critical theorists following the Marxist train of thought tended to focus on the exchange of economic capital as the root of the social problems arising in a capitalist society. Bourdieu was dissatisfied with the limitations of two dimensional socio-economic analyses of less objective cultural considerations (Bourdieu 1977:3, 177).
The work of Pierre Bourdieu provides tools to address these and other matters which may be more useful and relevant when applied to the worlds of art and design.
In this paper I will explain some of the concepts and methodologies that Bourdieu applied to his “study of taste and cultural consumption”, followed by an attempt to apply these concepts to the world of product design and an assessment of this application.
Background
Bourdieu’s first published work in 1958 involved ethnographic fieldwork investigating the sociology of Algeria. This work described the dynamics of the struggle for position within identified cultural fields.
Over the course of more than two decades, Bourdieu continued to investigate the importance of cultural fields, and developed the concepts of Cultural and Symbolic Capital to describe the non-material aspects of capital that influence the cultural dynamic. Bourdieu expanded on these basic elements as they applied to a diverse range of subjects including; architecture, education and, most notably for the interest of this paper, the relationship of aesthetic preferences to culture and class (Jenkins:12-20). .
The concept of Cultural Capital was introduced by Bourdieu to describe the dispositions and habits of the dominant cultural faction which provide an advantage to those who already possess it and a disadvantage who do not have equal access to it (Harker:87).
Bourdieu also coined the phrase Symbolic Capital to signify economic capital which has been “transformed ” to non-material indications of lifestyle, such as; a refined fashion sense, or, a desirable affect in language. The ‘material’ origins of the effect are masked, which serves to enhance it’s efficacy (Bourdieu, 1977:183, and Harker:5).
Bourdieu’s General Model of Cultural Practice
Beginning in 1967 Bourdieu presented several articles and books investigating aspects of education that tend to reproduce the culture of the group or groups that control economic, social and political resources (Harker:87, 97, 229 – 232), these systems obviously favored those who had acquired traits of the dominant class. Awareness of this bias has had lasting effects in the world of education (including recent criticisms of standardized testing in American academic institutions) (Harker:9, 87, 97).
Through this work Bourdieu developed methodologies relating social disposition, various types of capital and the field of interest and applied them to a variety of social topics, including the analysis of “taste and cultural consumption” in the rarified world of Fine Arts.
In 1979 Bourdieu published La Distinction in France which was translated to English in 1984 as Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. In the introduction of Distinction Bourdieu’s defined his work as ‘the science of taste and cultural consumption’(Bourdieu, 1984). As the sub-title implies, Distinction is a critique of Kant’s model of a pure aesthetic (reference to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason), but Bourdieu also states a desire to “break with the ‘economism’ of Marxism, which reduces the social field to the economic field” and also to “break with the objectivism of Marxism, which tends to ignore the symbolic struggles within the social world” (Harker:4).
Bourdieu’s general formula which he applied to a variety of social dynamics and was used in his investigation regarding the relationship of aesthetic taste and cultural consumption in Distinction, is as follows: (Habitus x Capital) + Field = Practice (Bourdieu 1984:101).
Habitus
According to Bourdieu, “Habitus” refers to “a system of durable transposable dispositions which functions as the generative basis of structured, objectively unified practices” (Bourdieu 1979:vii). These dispositions effect and are effected by the objective structure of the habitus, and are shaped and reformulated by personal history. Dispositions are acquired within a social field and often operate on a subconscious level and may surface as automatic gestures or postures of the body. is often implied through that person’s sense of social distance or even in their body postures. “Thus one’s place and habitus forms the basis of …personal relationships, as well as transforming theoretical classes into real groups” (Harker p.11).
Capital
For Bourdieu the concept of capital is very broad and may refer to material things (economic and/or symbolic capital), or culturally significant non-material attributes such as prestige, status, or authority, along with culturally-valued taste and consumption patterns (Bourdieu, 1986:241-258). The value given to capital (within a field) is related to social and cultural characteristics of the habitus (Harker:13). Capital tends to amplify or multiply the effects of habitus.
Field. A field in Bourdieu’s terms is a social space in which one struggles for social position. Fields are defined by the stakes, power (politics), academic distinction (education) and may vary in regards to concreteness (Jenkins:84). Each field has a different logic and structure. Since habitus is not fully determined by structures, and that one can hold positions within multiple fields, or assume multiple positions within a field, there is considerable opportunity to maneuver utilizing various strategies (Harker:17).
Practice.
The practice can pertain to either an individual or a social group and is the result of the interaction between the habitus and the field it relates to (Bourdieu 1977:72).
These entities are malleable and inter-related changing over time. Habitus changes from individual to individual and from generation to generation and changes elated to the positions within a field change the dispositions and structure that form the habitus.
Bourdieu’s Project - Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
In Distinction Bourdieu addresses the Kantian questions regarding; what Art is, and, who is qualified to sanctify art as Art, creating boundaries and classifications in taste. Bourdieu approaches this problem by subjecting the culture of Art to empirical ethnographic social analysis. The principles of the subjective definition of what constitutes Art, or not, by the actors in the field, is then empirically constituted, and the definitions at work are objectified revealing that the boundaries and definitions are in fact arbitrary and subject to class relations (Jenkins:129). Bourdieu’s position is that the notion of distinction, with suggestions of originality and superiority are cultural positions engendered in the habitus in a similar manner as dining preferences, fashion sense, or other facets of culture (Harker:132-133). People learn or develop habits of cultural consumption.
Using the discovered understanding of the classifications of legitimacy, cultural products were divided in three zones: universal legitimacy, contested legitimacy and the non-legitimacy of personal taste. Tastes and preferences were similarly mapped, also in three categories: ‘legitimate’ taste, ‘middle-brow’ taste and ‘popular’ taste, which corresponds to education level and social class, creating a preliminary model of class life-styles (Jenkins:138).
Within this model, the working class aesthetic is a dominated aesthetic, with many references to the (culturally arbitrary) dominant aesthetic. Bourdieu claims that the working class is less able to adopt a point of view regarding aesthetic judgments, since these decisions are “distanced from necessity”. The middle and upper classes which are more comfortably distanced from necessity are allowed a “playful seriousness” – this assured aesthetic sense – the ability to assess distinction is acquired through conditioning associated with a particular class – uniting those with similar conditioning. This illustrates that taste is one of the key signifiers of social identity.
Correlations with the World of Product Design
(refer to Whilhem Wagenfeld, c. 1938, MoMA collection )
(refer to Peter Behrens, c. 1908, MoMA collection)
There are direct correlations between the class delineations within the worlds of Fine Art and Product Design. Like Fine Art, “High Brow” product design is defined by the rarified world of New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and Bourgeoisie collectors. The prevailing aesthetic of items in MoMA’s permanent collections modern, stark and geometric. This design is perceived and sold as clean and timeless. A bit of (secondhand) investigation suggests that this aesthetic, the equating of modern design to be good design, was …
“the brainchild of Edgar Kaufman Jr., son of the Pittsburgh department store magnates who commissioned Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater residence in, Mill Run, Pennsylvania. In 1946 Kaufman Jr. was appointed director of MoMA’s Department of Industrial Design, he conceived and orchestrated Good Design competitions and exhibitions in collaboration with the Chicago Merchandise Mart”(Vienne:22-23).
Veronique Vienne adds that “Kaufman Jr. was a staunch Modernist who conducted a one man campaign against what he sincerely believed to be the “bad” taste of the public”, and cites “Eva Zeisel, who won countless Good Design awards for her elegant ceramic pieces, as denounced the elitist aesthetic, and Milton Glaser who said, “Good Design stood for the elimination of story telling’. (Vienne:22).
The “Not-so-High-Brow” (or “High-Middle-Brow”) Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum, whose heritage, like design, is rooted in crafts, will exhibit work that is more timely and more representative of popular interests. The Cooper-Hewitt’s National Design Triennial Exhibition would be the equivalent of the Whitney Museum of Art’s Biennial Exhibit – showcasing the freshest talent of the day. This “High-Middle-Brow” is also defined by the trade press, such as in Art’s case, Art in America, or the world of design, ID magazine.
ID magazine’s Annual Design Awards, and the International Design Excellence Awards (known as IDEA awards) published annually in Innovation, the quarterly magazine published by the Industrial Designers Association of America (IDSA) help to establish these “fresh faces” on an annual basis. 
The aesthetics of award winners fall into three aesthetic categories:
MoMa Bound - Modern styled pieces that may be bound for MoMA’s permanent collection – time, and proven (commercial) success of the designers, will tell. Apple iPod –MoMA bound
Trendsetters – More form intense, trendy, fashionable design of the day. Since the prevailing popular design aesthetic is more fleeting or fashion-like. These products are less likely to be selected for MoMA’s permanent collection, but may be good contenders for the Cooper-Hewitt’s National Museum’s Design Triennial. exhibition museums are less likely
One Laptop per Child
Project, MIT Media lab
Announcement for an upcoming exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum
High Concept – Idealistic, sometimes futuristic, sometimes altruistic, awards not necessarily about form, for instance green designed products like
the One Laptop Per Child project.
Popular taste – The proletarian taste of the masses is usually ignored, regardless of any commercial success.
ShopVac Vacuum Cleaner, 2008, Shop Vac Corporation
Conclusion
Rather than discovering or defending an absolute definition, Bourdieu has shown how taste, the sanctifying of aesthetics, is relative to habitus of the dominant culture. In the worlds of Art and Design the purveyors of taste are those who possess symbolic and economic capital valued by the fields of their dominant culture usually in the form of advanced academic degrees and/or employment with recognized corporations — the curators of museums and jurors of art exhibits and design competitions. Although the definitions and the arbiters of taste are relative, the habitus and field of the dominant class has the inertia of history which is defended ruthlessly, especially by those aesthetic marshals who have traded hard earned economic capital for symbolic education credentials and cultural capital sometimes in the form of expensive lifestyles that denote cultural status.
Bourdieu’s concept of Distinction connotes differentiation, originality and superiority. One would expect an understanding of instances individual player’s ability and desire to break away from the prevailing set of probabilities in a field, especially in the world of academic literature in which similar objectives and demarcation exist for those presenting their ideas. Although the idea of statistical probability leaves the door open for such innovation, Bourdieu’s model presents an air of determinism negating possibilities that the field does not allow for, this is actually a criticism that Jenkins puts forward. Critic Arthur Danto offers a perspective which is perhaps more liberating regarding Bourdieu’s concept of the dynamic of agents within the field. Danto suggests that each claim within a field automatically suggests and includes three other alternative positions, ie; if position A is claimed, the position opposite of A is open for consideration, along with the possibilities that position A and it’s opposite claim are both true, or, that they are both false (Shusterman, 1999:217), supporting Bourdieu’s statement that the field “creates the creators”(Bourdieu, 1996:231). This perspective suggests that all possibilities exist within the field in effect waiting to be discovered by individual agents, like critic Arthur Danto, I’d like to believe that the individual has more autonomy (Shusterman, 1999:217), and leave room to attribute at least some credit to the genius and creativity of the individual. Bourdieu provides a structure to analyze cultural definitions of art while avoiding the problems associated with Kantian attempts to define subjective inherent or ‘pure’ qualities of art — but while avoidance may be a clever skill, it is not entirely satisfying.
