In this original article Michael Burawoy (U. of California, Berkeley) examines #Bourdieu’s conception of symbolic domination as based on misrecognition and compare it with #Gramsci’s notion of hegemony based on consent. Drawing on ethnographic research in workplaces in the #USA and Hungary Burawoy shows how both theories are flawed. Gramsci does not appreciate the importance of mystification as a foundation for stable hegemony in advanced #capitalism while Bourdieu’s notion of misrecognition, based on the notion of habitus, is too deep to comprehend the fragility of state socialist regimes. This article examines the roots of domination, posing three related questions. If domination is rooted in a habitus of subjugation that is universal and deep, how can domination be challenged? If, on the other hand, domination is rooted in mystification that is historical and contingent, when does domination become transparent? Under what conditions, if any, does domination reveal itself for what it is, and the objective truth of the sociologist converge with the subjective experience of the worker? Comparative analysis, Burawoy persuasively argues, calls for a concept of domination that is more contingent than Bourdieu’s symbolic domination, yet deeper than Gramsci’s hegemony.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:31:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015