I guess he seeks to make a distinction between luck and excercising skill in selecting one's parents...
-Pete On Fri, 25 May 2012, Keith Hudson wrote: > The Guardian's leader writer is surely being perverse (or confused) in taking > issue with Nick Clegg's explanation of having had a lucky opportunity in life. > Nick Clegg* was simply saying that he was lucky to be born into a banker's > family and thus received a privileged education from his earliest years. He's > in complete agreement with Pierre Bourdieu's ideas. > (*For those who may not know, I'll mention that Nick Clegg is the leader of > the Lib-Dems and is the Deputy Prime Minister in the Coalition Government. If > anything, Clegg came from a much wealthier family than Cameron.) > > As it happens, I'm also very largely in agreement with Pierre Bourdieu. His > book, Distinction, has got to be one of the best sociological works of the > last century. His views are an almost direct extrapolation of Karl Marx's main > thesis (that the main technology of an economy broadly shapes the class > structure) albeit with the interlacing of much more anthropology than was > available to Marx. For anybody interested in reading more of Bourdieu, > Distinction may prove to be too abstract to read comfortably. Instead, I'd > recommend David Swartz's account, Culture and Power. For an even more succinct > summary of Bourdieu's ideas I'll copy a paragraph of the latter book: > > <<<< > Culture provides the very grounds for human communication and interaction; it > is also a source of domination. The arts, science, religion, indeed all > symbolic systems -- including language itself -- not only shape our > understanding of reality and form the basis for human communication, they also > help establish and maintain social hierarchies. > >>>> > > Pierre Bourdieu died in 2002. This was just a little bit too soon for him to > have found his ideas of social hierarchy amply confirmed with the rapidly > expanding fields of epigenetics -- in this case, that rank ordering in groups > (reflected in individual hormonal levels) can also be influenced by > inheritance, thus having a predispositional effect from birth before the other > factors he writes about come into play. > > Keith > > > At 05:32 25/05/2012, Mike wrote: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/24/in-praise-of-pierre-bour > > dieu > > > > In praise of ? Pierre Bourdieu > > > > His analysis of the role of education in the reproduction of social > > inequality challenges Nick Clegg's belief that he was 'lucky' in life > > > > ? guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 May 2012 22.05 BST > > Pierre Bourdieu's analysis of the role of education in the reproduction of > > social inequality challenges Nick Clegg's belief that he was "lucky" in > > life. Luck, says the French sociologist, has nothing to do with it. Just 10 > > years after his death, Mr Bourdieu's work is already a classic to rank > > alongside Foucault or Lacan. The recent publication of his courses at the > > Coll?ge de France has put his name back into the headlines. In contrast to > > those who trumpet self-determination, Mr Bourdieu focuses on the forces > > which shape an individual. If Mr Clegg really wants to "factor social > > mobility into the education system", he must recognise that the difference > > between success and failure is not luck but the ways in which social > > inequalities repeat themselves. The role of government is to break this > > vicious circle not to reinforce it. The drastic shrinking of the state is > > hardly the way to remedy what Mr Clegg called an absolute scandal. > > > > ______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
