Social Stratification in Bourdieau's Perspective

By: Syamsul Kurniawan

A researcher should ideally master research maps, fully understand research methodology, and understand the characteristics of the community being studied, including the social structure. This paper provides an overview of this social structure and essential things that researchers must understand. From its perspective, this paper borrows Pierre Boudieau's theory.

The existence of humans as social beings in social life clearly cannot be separated from the possibility of social stratification. In fact, in religion, social stratification also occurs and even influences. For example, the existence of belief in a place is difficult to deny, and it often affects the social and cultural conditions that exist in the social environment, including influencing the existing social stratification.

Robert M.Z Lawang explained that social stratification classifies people in a specific social system into hierarchical layers based on power, privilege, or prestige qualifications. (Lawang 1985) Meanwhile, according to Pitirim A Sorokin, social stratification is the difference in population or society based on hierarchical (tiered) class layers. (Sorokin 1927)

A social stratification is a form of social practice, as a social practice during society. As understood, social stratification is generally measured from first, wealth (Capital), such as one's ownership of property, high income, and the like; second, power; for example, someone who has great power and authority often occupies better social strata than those who do not; third, honor (nobility) such as nobility, Habib, and so on; fourth, science (sciences), an example of someone who has a particular position amid society because of his advantages in terms of science or education that he takes.

As a consequence of social practice, social stratification can be divided into, first, open social stratification, namely the attitude of citizens who can experience social mobility, moving up to a higher social layer for those who have the ability, and vice versa. Second, closed social stratification, namely the existence of limits on a person on the possibility of moving positions from one social layer to another, is permanent. A concrete example of the second is birth which determines one's caste, especially in feudal society.

In constructing everyday social practice, we can analyze social stratification based on Pierre Bourdieu's theory. In this connection, social stratification is a dialectical dynamic between 'exterior internalization' and 'interior externalization' (Jenkins, 1992, p. 67). exists outside the social actor, while the interior is everything attached to the social actor. Thus, how social stratification is formed can be understood from both. In social practice, everything observed and experienced outside the social actor (interior) moves dynamically dialectically with the disclosure of everything internalized to become part of the self—social actors (interior).

Of course, social stratification exists in time and space. As a product of social practice, stratification cannot be understood outside the context of space and time, which Bourdieu calls 'tempo.' (Bourdieu 1997) The formation of this social stratification, due to this 'tempo,' obviously takes time and takes place in a particular space. Not immediately or naturally. Adaptation will require time and place for specific areas to be practiced in a social system. The practice is often regulated and driven unconsciously or not fully consciously.

According to Bourdieu, the social actions that form social stratification in this realm are more likely to result from individual improvisation and the ability to play a role in social interaction. In social life, most agents (individuals or groups, Bourdieu often also calls them actors) tend to accept the social world, likewise, with the social stratification in their midst. Agents need to rethink why they must do this and that, why this or that. The reason is that agents deal with their social world and become an integral part of their social world. In it, agents grow, learn and acquire a series of cultural practice competencies, including social roles and identities. These roles and social identities are formed and simultaneously develop social stratification.

Thus, social stratification is related to what Bourdieu formulated with '(habitus x capital) + field = social practice. (Bourdieu, 1984)

 

Social stratification as habitus

In Bourdieu's theory, Habitus is a durable and transposable system regarding what we accept, values, and how to act in the social world, likewise, with social stratification. Habitus is a scheme obtained by the agent through dismantling the conditions faced by the agent and conditions faced by the agent through the internalization of external constraints and various possibilities. In this case, social stratification as Habitus is a shared experience owned by the agent as a subject, despite its uniqueness.

Social stratification, as Habitus, includes cognitive and affective dimensions manifested in the disposition system. Thus, social stratification is also a set of dispositions. 'Disposition' in this case is: first, the result of a governing action; second, the way to be; and third, intention or inclination. (Bourdieu, 1997)

Decision-making by agents can be related to: first, the reflection of what the Habitus does; second, the choice of the situation; or third, an illusion, namely the unconscious doing something because he is trained and practiced continuously about his Habitus. In other words, a person's attitude and tendency to perceive, feel, act, and think about the social stratification around them is nothing but the result that is internalized thanks to the person's objective conditions. 

In short, Habitus functions as a framework that gives birth to and shapes a person's perceptions, representations, and actions (structuring structure) of the social stratification in their midst. Habitus, in this context, is a patterned rule, but humans do not have to be subject to specific regulations and, at the same time, have a focus on the goals and results of particular actions. However, goal-directedness only consciously intends to achieve the goal with mastery of exceptional intelligence. This is the case in the context of the formation of social stratification in society. (Bourdieu, 1984)

 

Social stratification occurs in a domain

In Bourdieu's view, Habitus underlies the field. So social stratification is also related to the domain. Moreover, denying how social stratification is closely related to systems and relationships (relationships) in a particular space and time is difficult. By digesting this realm, we can rationalize the social stratification that forms. Bourdieu said, 'To think in terms of field is to think relationally.' (Bourdieu, 1984) 

Based on Bourdieu's logic, social stratification is in a field where it is impossible to separate this field from social space. Social space in this context is an integral arena that contains a system of domains. According to Bourdieu, the social space is also a place of power contestation. There is an effort to struggle for resources (Capital) and fight for access to power. The struggle is to obtain a position in the realm. What about the agent position? The place of an agent in the arena is highly dependent on the amount of ownership (volume) of Capital it has, its composition, and changes in its size and design from time to time. (Bourdieu, 1984) In the field, reproduction or transformation occurs. (Webb, Schirato and Danaher 2002) In the context of the formation of social stratification, this is what happens.

 

Social Stratification Related to Capital

Bourdieu's Capital is social relations. Capital is a social energy that only exists and produces results in the realm of struggle where Capital produces and reproduces. One of them is the social stratification that is formed.

Bourdieu mentions several types of Capital at stake in the field: economic Capital, Social Capital, Cultural Capital, and symbolic Capital. (Ritzer 1996) Financial Capital includes the means of production (machinery, land, labor), materials (income and goods), and money. The latter is the most visible, can be used for any purpose, and is usually passed down from generation to generation. Social Capital is manifested through relationships and networks, which are helpful resources in determining and reproducing social positions. Then what is included in cultural Capital is the formal intellectual qualifications and family heritage produced. This Capital has, for example, diplomas, the knowledge obtained, cultural codes, ways of speaking, writing skills, manners of character, manners or manners, methods of getting along, and so on that play a role in determining reproducing social positions. At the same time, symbolic Capital is understood not to be separated from symbolic power, namely power that makes it possible to get equivalent to what is obtained through physical and economic strength, thanks to the special effects of mobilization. This model can be a house in an inclusive settlement, an office in a strategic trade center, a car with a driver, etc. However, it can also be in the form of conspicuous clues. 

Another example is the title listed on the business card, how to speak in front of subordinates, and so on, which shows the owner's status. These capitals all of which are at stake and contested in the realm. These three capitals are very potential to form social stratification.

As previously explained above, some social stratifications are open, and some are closed. Both are easy to understand because stratification is indeed formed due to contestation in the social sphere. "The field is also a field of struggles…" (the field is also an arena of struggle), Bordieau wrote. (Bourdieau and Wacquant, 1996). The structure of the realm guides and provides strategies for positional agents, individuals, or groups to maintain or increase positions in achieving social standing. In this regard, the formation of social stratification and the strategy of these agents depends on the position occupied and the Capital they have in that realm. "The strength and form of the procedure depend on the place the agent occupies in the power relationship (rapport de force). (Bourdieu, 1993)

 

According to Bourdieu, two types of strategies are relevant to social stratification: the reproductive system. Agents design this strategy to maintain or increase Capital in the future. This strategy is a set of practices; the amount and composition of production capital become the primary benchmark. Even social stratification is designed for this reason; second, the return strategy (reconversion strategies). This strategy is concerned with the movements of agents in the social space, which then constructs social stratification. The social space in which agents move is structured in two dimensions: the total amount of structured Capital and the formation of dominant and dominated types of money. 

Apart from these two strategies, other systems can construct social stratification. In this context, according to Bourdieu, are possible, such as biological investment strategies, inheritance strategies, educational strategies, and symbolic investment strategies. Natural investment strategies are seen in efforts, for example, to control the number of offspring. It is done to ensure the inheritance of Capital and facilitate the increase in social position. This strategy also relates to maintaining health, including food consumption choices, exercise, rest, recreation, and entertainment. The inheritance strategy serves to guarantee wealth, especially material. It is done because of the understanding that economic Capital is relatively more decisive in power relations. Educational systems are directed towards the goal that social actors have the appropriate skills needed in the social structure to receive group inheritance or even improve their social position. At the same time, the economic and symbolic investment strategies are directed directly to struggles in the social sphere. Economic and symbolic investment strategies are now required for social work. The financial investment strategy is directed at maintaining and increasing various types of Capital. Investment in this domain is not only financial Capital but also social Capital. This strategy is carried out to perpetuate and build long-term and short-term social relationships. In maintaining eternity, social relationships are transformed into long-lasting obligations, such as exchanging money, marriage, employment, provision of time, etc. Symbolic strategies are used to maintain or increase social recognition. This strategy aims to produce perceptions and judgments supporting its uniqueness, such as name inheritance. In addition to encouraging efforts to be respected, the inheritance of family names is also a significant element of symbolic Capital. 

Again, agents use strategy to maintain position (in social stratification), improve function, differentiate themselves, or acquire new posts in the realm. As explained, there will always be a social "battle" in the domain, where the constant who wins will be at the top of the pyramid of social stratification.***

 

References

Bourdieau, Pierre. 1984. Distinction; A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul LTd.

—. 1997. Outline of Theory of Practice. USA: Cambridge University Press.

—. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production; Essay on Art and Literature. Cambridge; UK: Polity Press.

Bourdieau, Pierre, and Loic J. Wacquant. 1996. An Innovation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge; UK: Polity Press.

Jenkins, Richard. 1992. Pierre Bourdieau. Newyork; USA: Routledge.

Lawang, Robert MZ. 1985. Materi Pokok Pengantar Sosiologi. Jakarta: Karunika, Universitas Terbuka.

Mutahir, Arizal. 2011. Intelektual Kolektif Pierre Bourdieau; Sebuah Gerakan Untuk Melawan Dominasi. Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana.

Ritzer, George. 1996. Sociological Theory. Newyork; USA: McGraw Hill Companies inc.

Sorokin, Pitirim Aleksandrovich. 1927. Social Mobility. California: Harper & Brothers.

Webb, Jenn, Tony Schirato, and Geof Danaher. 2002. Understanding Bourdieau. London; UK: Sage Publication.