That's why he talked about different kinds of capital. It was by monopolizing capital that fractions exercised power and domination. (MY story isn't the story of the horrible professionals, scientists, etc. against the poor little guy, as you seem to have interpreted it. Though I can see how you thought that, given that I stoppped writing and would continue later. My point was to put this resistance, first, in the best light possible - and later complicate it. Corey Robin's discussion of the way that reactionary conservatives can never get away from accepting some of the advances of enlightement liberalism is instructive here..... but more later)
Anyway, for B, there was economic domination through the possession of capital. But people who didn't possess capital - artists, intellectuals, etc. -- engaged in their own form of domination (sometimes in the name of resisting those who possessed economic capital) by wielding cultural capital in order to exercise their own form of domination over others and/or resistance to economic domination.
"Projection onto a single axis, in order to construct the continuous, linear, homogenous, one-dimensional series with which the social hierarchy is normally identified, implies an extremely difficult (and, if it is unwitting, extremely dangerous) operation, whereby the different types of capital are reduced to a single standard. This abstract operation has an objective basis in the possibility, which is always available, of converting one type of capital into another; however, the exchange rates vary in accordance with the power relation between the holders of the different forms of capital. By obliging one to formulate the principle of the convertibility of the different kinds of capital, which is the precondition for reducing the space to one dimension, the construction of a two-dimensional space makes it clear that the exchange rate of the different kinds of capital is one of the fundamental stakes in the struggles between class fractions whose power and privileges are linked to one or the other of these types. In particular, this exchange rate is a stake in the struggle over the dominant principle of domination (economic capital, cultural capital or social capital), which goes on at all times between the different fractions of the dominant class."
At 09:56 AM 1/29/2013, Wojtek S wrote:
>Shag: "Anti-intellectualism, understood in the best light possible, is
>the suspicion that professionalism, expertism, scientism, rationalism,
>academics, intellectuals, all this science stuff -- it is a sham,
>just another way to exercise subordination of one social strate over
>others."
>
>[WS:] I think that professionalism, rationalism etc. is far too
>amorphous, diverse, going two ways, and inconsistent to evoke such a
>strong popular reaction, except perhaps in certain other academics and
>intellectuals who use such claims to make bombastic claims and market
>their own intellectual commodity.
>
>The roots of popular aversion is not rationality (i.e. rebellion
>against domination, as you suggest) but aesthetics, as Bourdieu
>suggested in "Distinctions" In short, he claimed that aesthetic
>preferences become an integral part of class fraction distinctions
>(class fraction is a distinct subgroup of a socio-economic class in a
>Marxist sense). So it is beer-and-crackers vs. cheese-and-wine,
>football and NASCAR vs. ballet and opera, Hummer vs. Prius, Hollywood
>vs. Sundance, heartland (or fly-over country) vs. big city, gun rights
>vs. gun control and so on.
>
>
>
>--
>Wojtek
>
>"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)