What do you think?
Rate this book
Los herederos: Los estudiantes y la cultura
Esta obra se ha convertido en un clasico moderno de la sociologia, que interesa tanto por sus contenidos como por la estrategia analitica que propone. La diferencia del aporte realizado por el libro de Bourdieu y Passeron consistio en explicar los mecanismos de eleccion de elegidos y de produccion de las percepciones sociales de su justificacion y, por lo tanto, de aceptacion sumisa de la seleccion social por los propios perjudicados.Los estudios sobre el sistema escolar y las practicas culturales, temas predilectos de las primeras investigaciones del grupo formado en torno a Bourdieu, rompieron con los encuadres habituales para tratar esas cuestiones. Vincular la "escuela liberadora" con los mecanismos de violencia simbolica que legitiman las relaciones de dominacion y de desigualdad social les valieron innumerables y feroces criticas. Transcurrido algun tiempo, Bourdieu recordaria que sus tesis se convirtieron en un hecho social y que posibilitaron el planteamiento de iniciativas encaminadas a reformar los sistemas educativos: "Es porque conocemos las leyes de la reproduccion por lo que tenemos alguna oportunidad de minimizar la accion reproductora de la institucion escolar."
216 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
39 people are currently reading
1060 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Bourdieu
352 books1,319 followersBourdieu pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the concepts of habitus, field or location, and symbolic violence to reveal the dynamics of power relations in social life. His work emphasized the role of practice and embodiment or forms in social dynamics and worldview construction, often in opposition to universalized Western philosophical traditions. He built upon the theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Georges Canguilhem, Karl Marx, Gaston Bachelard, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Erwin Panofsky, and Marcel Mauss. A notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations.
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
December 19, 2023
There is a curious paradox in ‘democratic’ education systems – most clearly seen in how decidedly undemocratic the spoils of those systems are divided. In this analysis of a series of surveys of students at French universities in the early 1960s, Bourdieu illuminates how a seemingly open and fair competitive system of education (everyone can study the hardest subjects, everyone can display their learning on the same exam) can be used as a means of ensuring certain classes are insulated from failure while other classes are eliminated or self-eliminated even before taking the exam. This is a depressing read – but an important one with many important ideas I feel it is necessary to understand.
Take as an example gender access to education. There was a time when it might have seemed reasonable to assume that providing ‘equal access’ to both sexes would be enough to allow girls an equal chance at academic success – this has proven to be far from the case. In Australia equal access has resulted in continued disadvantage for girls. Girls are still virtually excluded from the subjects that are most likely to lead to professional careers, something which a glance at the school subjects with more than 70 per cent girls enrolled compared to the subjects with more than 70 per cent boys enrolled makes all too clear (boys do physics, which leads to engineering, girls do biology which probably wont lead anywhere).
The amusing thing in all of this is the ‘concern’ displayed today about girls ‘out-competing’ boys and talk of feminism having ‘gone too far’ and the need to ‘readdress the balance’. No one asks just which boys are failing at school – it is certainly not all boys – and the fact that the difference between male and female earnings is starting to increase again (despite girls being much more likely to complete secondary schooling and to go to university) ought to be the trump card in this debate, and yet is rarely even mentioned.
Access alone is never enough. Without mechanisms to overcome self-relegation, self-exclusion and active encouragement of those who will need to struggle to learn due to their real cultural disadvantages, equal access merely displays cultural advantaged dressed in the borrowed gowns of merit and giftedness.
What is true of the sexes is at least as true of the social classes. However, I had hoped that much of the problem with the difference between the social classes would be overcome if only equal economic resources were directed towards working class kids as are directed towards upper class kids. This expectation, of course, would be utopian enough – the idea that working class kids might be given an equal start with upper class kids through a redistribution of resources toward those with the most need would be enough to cause a revolution in Australia. The fact is that the even Labor Party (that greatest of all misnomers) has continued the policy of increasingly providing more resources to private schools at the expense of state schools.
Bourdieu makes it clear that even if there was equal economic resources provided to the schools of the rich and the poor, the poor would still be substantially worse off. This is because what is asked of students at school is often not what is taught to students at school. As he says, “In the present state of society and of pedagogical traditions, the transmission of the techniques and habits of thought required by the school is first and foremost the work of the home environment.” (p.73) These habits and techniques obtained by some at home and others not at all, provide advantages that accumulate throughout schooling. This is an essential point to grasp and he makes it most clearly here:
“ For individuals from the most deprived backgrounds, the school remains the one and only path to culture, at every level of education. As such, it would be the royal road to the democratisation of culture if it did not consecrate the initial cultural inequities by ignoring them and if it did not – for example, by denigrating a piece of academic work as too ‘academic’ – often devalue the culture it transmits, in favour of the inherited culture which does not bear the vulgar mark of effort and so has every appearance of ease and grace.” (p.21)
That is, economic advantage gives access to cultural advantage, an advantage those without such advantages increasingly feel the effect of throughout schooling. One gets a much better understanding of culture from direct experience than is possible vicariously. This means that working class kids tend to lack the ‘ease and grace’ which upper class kids are effortlessly able to display. What is learned by having been lived (that is, effortlessly) is always going to appear more natural than that which one has had to struggle over.
What is interesting here is that upper class kids generally know more about all culture and not just about high culture. He explains this by discussing the difference between the classes in their access to culture and what this then means – essentially, a broader and deeper understanding of culture in any of its forms.
“Furthermore, a good knowledge of classical drama does not have the same significance among children of Parisian senior executives, who combine it with a good knowledge of avant-garde theatre and even middle-brow theatre (theatre de boulevard), as it does among the children of manual workers in Lille of Clermont-Ferrand, who have a similar knowledge of classical theatre but know nothing of avant-garde or middle-brow theatre. It is quite apparent that a purely scholastic culture is not simply a partial culture or part of a culture, but an inferior culture, because the very elements of which it is composed do not have the same significance they would have in a larger whole.” (p.19)
And therefore,
“Those who believe that everyone would be given equal access to the highest level of education and the highest culture, once the same economic means were provided for all those who have the requisite ‘gifts’, have stopped halfway in their analysis of the obstacles; they ignore the fact that the abilities measured by scholastic criteria stem not so much from natural ‘gifts’ (which must remain hypothetical so long as educational inequalities can be traced to other causes), but from the greater or lesser affinity between class cultural habits and the demands of the educational system or the criteria which define success within it.” (p.22)
Before I move on I want to add one of my favourite quotes from the book:
“In 1963, of the eighteen first-prize winners (of whom fifteen were the children of senior executives or members of the professions and three the sons of shopkeepers), thirteen said they intended to go into teaching or research, thereby expressing their appreciation of a university system that had appreciated them at their true worth. All of them gave reading as their favourite pastime, and their preferred authors all belonged to the small circle of the consecrated avant-garde of the time: Camus, Malraux, Valery, Kafka, Proust. Eleven said they particularly liked classical music and the theatre; cinema and jazz achieved only second place. . . . Thus, every year, in their plans for the future, the young prize-winners reveal the same virtues that are celebrated in obituaries.” (p.43)
The point this book makes over and over again is that the unfairness of this system is hidden by illusions of merit and intellectual gifts – when, in fact, for the children of the working classes to succeed there needs to have been an unbroken string of ‘miracles’. As a society, one of our favourite games is ‘blame the victim’, so that single mothers, drug addicts and the unemployed are somehow responsible for all social ills. Blaming working class kids for the difficulties the school system provides them seems a particularly cruel example.
Is it possible to fix this situation? The answer is probably no – not least because we do not really have the will to fix it. Those who succeed at school want to believe that it was due to their own abilities, rather than any privileges fate has dealt them. Bourdieu makes the remarkably telling observation that no one (not working class or upper class) ever wanted to declare their family background. Our obsession with our own ‘agency’ – the idea that we have gotten here on our own merits – blinds us to the hurdles placed in the way of the most able from the working class and the protective environments provided to those who ‘fail’ from the upper classes. The world, indeed, is ill-divided.
Working class kids are least likely to have access to the culture that is prized at school and therefore depend the most on school to provide access to that culture. But school turns its nose up at the ‘overly learned’ way working class kids display this culture – Bourdieu’s point is to ask how can it be otherwise? These are kids who, by definition, have been excluded from the riches of our culture – and so therefore it is the role of school (or it ought to be if we lived in anything that could reasonably be called a democracy) to provide this access.
Bourdieu makes it clear that this is not merely about providing extra money to working class schools – a mistake often done here in Australia in our response to Aboriginal disadvantage, chuck enough money at it and that ought to fix it – but that it requires much, much more than merely a redistribution of resources is never noticed. “That is why the most effective way of serving the system while believing one is fighting it is to attribute all inequities in educational opportunity solely to economic inequalities or to a conscious political aim.” (p.27)
And further:
“If it is accepted that truly democratic education is education which sets itself the unconditional goal of enabling the greatest possible number of individuals to appropriate, in the shortest possible time, as completely and as perfectly as possible, the greatest possible number of the abilities which constitute school culture at a given moment, then it is clear that it is opposed both to traditional education, which aims to train and select the well-born elite, and to technocratic education, aimed at mass production of made-to-measure specialists. But it is not sufficient to take as one’s goal the true democratisation of education. In the absence of a rational pedagogy doing everything required to neutralize the effect of the social factors of cultural inequity, methodically and continuously, from kindergarten to university, the political project of giving everyone equal educational opportunity cannot overcome the real inequities, even when it deploys every institutional and economic means.” (pp.75-76)
What would fix the problem? Recognising the differences in needs of the various participants and providing additional pedagogical support for those in most need of it (you know, the exact opposite of what actually happens). But this is, as I’ve said, utopianism. We have discovered a means of perpetuating a caste system without the need for seemingly arbitrary distinction due to birth; a caste system where it is almost impossible for the untouchables to not blame themselves for their low status.
There is a very interesting discussion here on how differently the classes experience university life. This kind of life has an unreality to it that is experienced (even though both equally as unreal) differently by the social classes. The upper classes, with much less risk of failure, are able to approach university study as dilettantes – something Stephen Fry’s latest biography makes very clear. If you are from the working class the idea that this has all got to lead somewhere is always all too clearly front of mind. A point beautifully made here:
“When the occupational future is clearly and firmly linked to the present, that is, to study, scholastic exercises are immediately subordinated to the occupational tasks which give them a meaning and a raison d’être; by contrast, the Arts student, haunted by the uncertainty and vagueness of his future, is forced to identify scholastic exercises with intellectual adventure in order to preserve the meaningfulness of his undertaking. The philosophy student does not and cannot see himself as a future philosophy teacher, because he needs to forget that destination in order to reach it.” (pp.58-59)
Yet another thought provoking read from Bourdieu.
More Quotes:
“The chances of entering higher education can be seen as a product of a selection process which, throughout the school system, is applied with very unequal severity, depending on the student’s social origin. In fact, for the most disadvantaged classes, it is purely and simply a matter of elimination. A senior executive’s son is eighty times more likely to enter university than a farm worker’s son, and forty times more likely than an industrial worker’s son; and he is twice as likely to enter a university as a lower-rank executive’s son.” Page 2
“Educational obstacles are not sufficient to explain how ‘educational death rates’ can differ so widely between one social class and another.” Page 8
“A further index of the influence of family background is seen in the fact that the proportion of students who say they followed their family’s advice about the choice of subjects for the first or second part of the baccalaureat rises with social origin, whereas the teacher’s role correspondingly declines.” Page 14
“For the children of peasants, manual workers, clerks, or small shopkeepers, the acquisition of culture is an acculturation.” Page 22
“Social advantages or disadvantages weigh so heavily on educational careers and, more generally, on all cultural life, because, perceived or unperceived, they are always cumulative.” Page 24
“The weight of cultural heredity is such that it is possible to possess exclusively without even having to exclude others, since everything takes place as if the only people excluded were those who excluded themselves.” Page 27
“When class fractions who previously made little use of the school system enter the race for academic qualifications, the effect is to force the groups whose reproduction was mainly or exclusively achieved through education to step up their investments so as to maintain the relative scarcity of their qualifications and, consequently, their position in the class structure.” Page 77
Take as an example gender access to education. There was a time when it might have seemed reasonable to assume that providing ‘equal access’ to both sexes would be enough to allow girls an equal chance at academic success – this has proven to be far from the case. In Australia equal access has resulted in continued disadvantage for girls. Girls are still virtually excluded from the subjects that are most likely to lead to professional careers, something which a glance at the school subjects with more than 70 per cent girls enrolled compared to the subjects with more than 70 per cent boys enrolled makes all too clear (boys do physics, which leads to engineering, girls do biology which probably wont lead anywhere).
The amusing thing in all of this is the ‘concern’ displayed today about girls ‘out-competing’ boys and talk of feminism having ‘gone too far’ and the need to ‘readdress the balance’. No one asks just which boys are failing at school – it is certainly not all boys – and the fact that the difference between male and female earnings is starting to increase again (despite girls being much more likely to complete secondary schooling and to go to university) ought to be the trump card in this debate, and yet is rarely even mentioned.
Access alone is never enough. Without mechanisms to overcome self-relegation, self-exclusion and active encouragement of those who will need to struggle to learn due to their real cultural disadvantages, equal access merely displays cultural advantaged dressed in the borrowed gowns of merit and giftedness.
What is true of the sexes is at least as true of the social classes. However, I had hoped that much of the problem with the difference between the social classes would be overcome if only equal economic resources were directed towards working class kids as are directed towards upper class kids. This expectation, of course, would be utopian enough – the idea that working class kids might be given an equal start with upper class kids through a redistribution of resources toward those with the most need would be enough to cause a revolution in Australia. The fact is that the even Labor Party (that greatest of all misnomers) has continued the policy of increasingly providing more resources to private schools at the expense of state schools.
Bourdieu makes it clear that even if there was equal economic resources provided to the schools of the rich and the poor, the poor would still be substantially worse off. This is because what is asked of students at school is often not what is taught to students at school. As he says, “In the present state of society and of pedagogical traditions, the transmission of the techniques and habits of thought required by the school is first and foremost the work of the home environment.” (p.73) These habits and techniques obtained by some at home and others not at all, provide advantages that accumulate throughout schooling. This is an essential point to grasp and he makes it most clearly here:
“ For individuals from the most deprived backgrounds, the school remains the one and only path to culture, at every level of education. As such, it would be the royal road to the democratisation of culture if it did not consecrate the initial cultural inequities by ignoring them and if it did not – for example, by denigrating a piece of academic work as too ‘academic’ – often devalue the culture it transmits, in favour of the inherited culture which does not bear the vulgar mark of effort and so has every appearance of ease and grace.” (p.21)
That is, economic advantage gives access to cultural advantage, an advantage those without such advantages increasingly feel the effect of throughout schooling. One gets a much better understanding of culture from direct experience than is possible vicariously. This means that working class kids tend to lack the ‘ease and grace’ which upper class kids are effortlessly able to display. What is learned by having been lived (that is, effortlessly) is always going to appear more natural than that which one has had to struggle over.
What is interesting here is that upper class kids generally know more about all culture and not just about high culture. He explains this by discussing the difference between the classes in their access to culture and what this then means – essentially, a broader and deeper understanding of culture in any of its forms.
“Furthermore, a good knowledge of classical drama does not have the same significance among children of Parisian senior executives, who combine it with a good knowledge of avant-garde theatre and even middle-brow theatre (theatre de boulevard), as it does among the children of manual workers in Lille of Clermont-Ferrand, who have a similar knowledge of classical theatre but know nothing of avant-garde or middle-brow theatre. It is quite apparent that a purely scholastic culture is not simply a partial culture or part of a culture, but an inferior culture, because the very elements of which it is composed do not have the same significance they would have in a larger whole.” (p.19)
And therefore,
“Those who believe that everyone would be given equal access to the highest level of education and the highest culture, once the same economic means were provided for all those who have the requisite ‘gifts’, have stopped halfway in their analysis of the obstacles; they ignore the fact that the abilities measured by scholastic criteria stem not so much from natural ‘gifts’ (which must remain hypothetical so long as educational inequalities can be traced to other causes), but from the greater or lesser affinity between class cultural habits and the demands of the educational system or the criteria which define success within it.” (p.22)
Before I move on I want to add one of my favourite quotes from the book:
“In 1963, of the eighteen first-prize winners (of whom fifteen were the children of senior executives or members of the professions and three the sons of shopkeepers), thirteen said they intended to go into teaching or research, thereby expressing their appreciation of a university system that had appreciated them at their true worth. All of them gave reading as their favourite pastime, and their preferred authors all belonged to the small circle of the consecrated avant-garde of the time: Camus, Malraux, Valery, Kafka, Proust. Eleven said they particularly liked classical music and the theatre; cinema and jazz achieved only second place. . . . Thus, every year, in their plans for the future, the young prize-winners reveal the same virtues that are celebrated in obituaries.” (p.43)
The point this book makes over and over again is that the unfairness of this system is hidden by illusions of merit and intellectual gifts – when, in fact, for the children of the working classes to succeed there needs to have been an unbroken string of ‘miracles’. As a society, one of our favourite games is ‘blame the victim’, so that single mothers, drug addicts and the unemployed are somehow responsible for all social ills. Blaming working class kids for the difficulties the school system provides them seems a particularly cruel example.
Is it possible to fix this situation? The answer is probably no – not least because we do not really have the will to fix it. Those who succeed at school want to believe that it was due to their own abilities, rather than any privileges fate has dealt them. Bourdieu makes the remarkably telling observation that no one (not working class or upper class) ever wanted to declare their family background. Our obsession with our own ‘agency’ – the idea that we have gotten here on our own merits – blinds us to the hurdles placed in the way of the most able from the working class and the protective environments provided to those who ‘fail’ from the upper classes. The world, indeed, is ill-divided.
Working class kids are least likely to have access to the culture that is prized at school and therefore depend the most on school to provide access to that culture. But school turns its nose up at the ‘overly learned’ way working class kids display this culture – Bourdieu’s point is to ask how can it be otherwise? These are kids who, by definition, have been excluded from the riches of our culture – and so therefore it is the role of school (or it ought to be if we lived in anything that could reasonably be called a democracy) to provide this access.
Bourdieu makes it clear that this is not merely about providing extra money to working class schools – a mistake often done here in Australia in our response to Aboriginal disadvantage, chuck enough money at it and that ought to fix it – but that it requires much, much more than merely a redistribution of resources is never noticed. “That is why the most effective way of serving the system while believing one is fighting it is to attribute all inequities in educational opportunity solely to economic inequalities or to a conscious political aim.” (p.27)
And further:
“If it is accepted that truly democratic education is education which sets itself the unconditional goal of enabling the greatest possible number of individuals to appropriate, in the shortest possible time, as completely and as perfectly as possible, the greatest possible number of the abilities which constitute school culture at a given moment, then it is clear that it is opposed both to traditional education, which aims to train and select the well-born elite, and to technocratic education, aimed at mass production of made-to-measure specialists. But it is not sufficient to take as one’s goal the true democratisation of education. In the absence of a rational pedagogy doing everything required to neutralize the effect of the social factors of cultural inequity, methodically and continuously, from kindergarten to university, the political project of giving everyone equal educational opportunity cannot overcome the real inequities, even when it deploys every institutional and economic means.” (pp.75-76)
What would fix the problem? Recognising the differences in needs of the various participants and providing additional pedagogical support for those in most need of it (you know, the exact opposite of what actually happens). But this is, as I’ve said, utopianism. We have discovered a means of perpetuating a caste system without the need for seemingly arbitrary distinction due to birth; a caste system where it is almost impossible for the untouchables to not blame themselves for their low status.
There is a very interesting discussion here on how differently the classes experience university life. This kind of life has an unreality to it that is experienced (even though both equally as unreal) differently by the social classes. The upper classes, with much less risk of failure, are able to approach university study as dilettantes – something Stephen Fry’s latest biography makes very clear. If you are from the working class the idea that this has all got to lead somewhere is always all too clearly front of mind. A point beautifully made here:
“When the occupational future is clearly and firmly linked to the present, that is, to study, scholastic exercises are immediately subordinated to the occupational tasks which give them a meaning and a raison d’être; by contrast, the Arts student, haunted by the uncertainty and vagueness of his future, is forced to identify scholastic exercises with intellectual adventure in order to preserve the meaningfulness of his undertaking. The philosophy student does not and cannot see himself as a future philosophy teacher, because he needs to forget that destination in order to reach it.” (pp.58-59)
Yet another thought provoking read from Bourdieu.
More Quotes:
“The chances of entering higher education can be seen as a product of a selection process which, throughout the school system, is applied with very unequal severity, depending on the student’s social origin. In fact, for the most disadvantaged classes, it is purely and simply a matter of elimination. A senior executive’s son is eighty times more likely to enter university than a farm worker’s son, and forty times more likely than an industrial worker’s son; and he is twice as likely to enter a university as a lower-rank executive’s son.” Page 2
“Educational obstacles are not sufficient to explain how ‘educational death rates’ can differ so widely between one social class and another.” Page 8
“A further index of the influence of family background is seen in the fact that the proportion of students who say they followed their family’s advice about the choice of subjects for the first or second part of the baccalaureat rises with social origin, whereas the teacher’s role correspondingly declines.” Page 14
“For the children of peasants, manual workers, clerks, or small shopkeepers, the acquisition of culture is an acculturation.” Page 22
“Social advantages or disadvantages weigh so heavily on educational careers and, more generally, on all cultural life, because, perceived or unperceived, they are always cumulative.” Page 24
“The weight of cultural heredity is such that it is possible to possess exclusively without even having to exclude others, since everything takes place as if the only people excluded were those who excluded themselves.” Page 27
“When class fractions who previously made little use of the school system enter the race for academic qualifications, the effect is to force the groups whose reproduction was mainly or exclusively achieved through education to step up their investments so as to maintain the relative scarcity of their qualifications and, consequently, their position in the class structure.” Page 77
July 10, 2022
daddy bourdieu 😩
May 6, 2021
Prophétie autoréalisatrice ?
'Si l'école aime à proclamer sa fonction d'instrument démocratique de la mobilité sociale, elle a aussi pour fonction de légitimer - et donc, dans une certaine mesure, de perpétuer - les inégalités de chances devant la culture en transmuant par les critères de jugement qu'elle emploie, les privilèges socialement conditionnés en mérites ou en « dons » personnels. À partir des statistiques qui mesurent l'inégalité des chances d'accès à l'enseignement supérieur selon l'origine sociale et le sexe et en s'appuyant sur l'étude empirique des attitudes des étudiants et de professeurs ainsi que sur l'analyse des règles - souvent non écrites - du jeu universitaire, on peut mettre en évidence, par-delà l'influence des inégalités économiques, le rôle de l'héritage culturel, capital subtil fait de savoirs, de savoir-faire et de savoir-dire, que les enfants des classes favorisées doivent à leur milieu familial et qui constitue un patrimoine d'autant plus rentable que professeurs et étudiants répugnent à le percevoir comme un produit social. La première édition de cet ouvrage est parue en 1964.'
----
'Le constat de départ des Héritiers, écrit avec Jean-Claude Passeron, fait état de l’inégale représentation des différentes classes sociales dans l’enseignement supérieur : « Le système scolaire opère, objectivement, une élimination d’autant plus totale que l’on va vers les classes les plus défavorisées. » Pour mettre au jour les mécanismes par lesquels se produit cette élimination, les auteurs s’appuient sur un corpus détaillé d’enquêtes, de statistiques et d’études monographiques.
Selon Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, l’origine sociale des étudiants est le plus important facteur de différenciation (plus que le sexe, l’âge, l’affiliation religieuse…) et c’est davantage aux facteurs culturels qu’aux facteurs économiques qu’il faut en imputer les raisons.
Chez les enfants des professions libérales et des cadres supérieurs, la culture est acquise naturellement et « comme par osmose » grâce à l’environnement familial : bibliothèques, fréquentation des musées, théâtres, concerts… Mais pour les enfants des classes sociales défavorisées, l’école reste la seule voie d’accès à cette culture que, précisément, elle véhicule et valorise dans la réussite des études…'
----------
'Quarante ans après sa parution, que reste-t-il de ce petit livre, présentant un corpus de statistiques et d'enquêtes sociologiques sur les étudiants, écrit à quatre mains par deux jeunes sociologues ? Au fil du temps, la paternité va en revenir à Pierre Bourdieu, dont les travaux ultérieurs creuseront les notions qui y sont présentées : celles par exemple de capital culturel, de culture légitime ou de violence symbolique. En matière d'éducation, la problématique contenue dans l'ouvrage est même appelée aujourd'hui par les sociologues la théorie bourdieusienne. Quant au terme d'héritier, il est quasiment passé dans le langage courant pour désigner les enfants de familles cultivées, dont on sait que, pour beaucoup, ils n'auront pas de problèmes à l'école et feront de brillantes études.
Les Héritiers a fait l'effet d'un véritable pavé dans la mare, en dévoilant les mécanismes d'un fait empirique que tout le monde constatait plus ou moins secrètement : à l'école, les bons élèves se recrutaient dans les milieux aisés et cultivés (l'un allant souvent avec l'autre), alors que les enfants d'ouvriers attestaient de parcours scolaires médiocres. A l'université ne se retrouvaient plus guère alors que les enfants de la bourgeoisie. Pour les auteurs, c'est aux facteurs culturels, davantage qu'économiques, qu'il fallait imputer ce constat. Les enfants de cadres et de professions libérales bénéficient d'un capital culturel (conversations, bibliothèques, fréquentation des musées, voyages...) fourni par l'environnement familial dans lequel la culture est acquise « comme par osmose ». Or l'école légitime précisément ce type de culture qui « présuppose implicitement un corps de savoirs, savoir-faire et surtout de savoir-dire qui constitue le patrimoine des classes cultivées ». Pour les enfants de milieux populaires, par contre, l'acquisition de la culture scolaire nécessite une véritable acculturation, les apprentissages sont vécus comme des artifices, éloignés de toute réalité concrète. Ce que les enseignants considèrent alors comme une absence de dons de leur part n'est souvent que le résultat d'une socialisation différente. D'où la violence symbolique d'une institution (l'école) qui, au final, redouble les inégalités sociales en pérennisant une véritable aristocratie scolaire (qui peut ainsi s'autoreproduire ; le thème sera développé en 1970 par les mêmes auteurs dans La Reproduction), et en participant aussi à la fabrication de l'échec scolaire.
Bien sûr, les critiques ont fusé à propos de ce livre, comme d'ailleurs à propos de toute la sociologie de Bourdieu, accusée d'être teintée d'idéologie marxiste et d'établir des déterminismes qui laissent peu de place à l'initiative des acteurs et à leurs stratégies. Il n'empêche que le livre a eu une influence considérable d'une part sur la sociologie de l'éducation : partant de ce constat, les sociologues se sont mis à chercher par quels mécanismes fins (attitudes des maîtres, classes de niveau ou hétérogénéité, rapport au savoir) se construisaient effectivement les inégalités ; d'autre part sur la réflexion des politiques (dans les mesures de démocratisation par exemple), des enseignants et même du grand public...'
- Martine Fournier sur Les Héritiers - Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, 1964, rééd. Minuit, coll. « Le sens commun », 1994.
In their study, Bourdieu and Passeron observe that, at least in their own time, the main characteristic of student life is unrealism.
According to them, a way to address some flaws in the educative institution might be not to rely on a handicap system for students with a cultural deficit — which would pervert the evaluation system and the appreciation of the aptitudes which is the aim of evaluation — but, instead, to develop an education system taking the milieu/social background of 'underprivileged' students into account in order to rationalize the teaching process, centering it on the acquisition of epistemological methods dispelling the received idea of the praeternatural superiority of certain members among the students, or the mystique surrounding the university professors, which some of them enjoy greatly, parading as gurus or universal geniuses instead of doing their jobs. Les Héritiers advocates the providing of tools for the student to build a know-how, allowing the student to make steady progress.
'Si l'école aime à proclamer sa fonction d'instrument démocratique de la mobilité sociale, elle a aussi pour fonction de légitimer - et donc, dans une certaine mesure, de perpétuer - les inégalités de chances devant la culture en transmuant par les critères de jugement qu'elle emploie, les privilèges socialement conditionnés en mérites ou en « dons » personnels. À partir des statistiques qui mesurent l'inégalité des chances d'accès à l'enseignement supérieur selon l'origine sociale et le sexe et en s'appuyant sur l'étude empirique des attitudes des étudiants et de professeurs ainsi que sur l'analyse des règles - souvent non écrites - du jeu universitaire, on peut mettre en évidence, par-delà l'influence des inégalités économiques, le rôle de l'héritage culturel, capital subtil fait de savoirs, de savoir-faire et de savoir-dire, que les enfants des classes favorisées doivent à leur milieu familial et qui constitue un patrimoine d'autant plus rentable que professeurs et étudiants répugnent à le percevoir comme un produit social. La première édition de cet ouvrage est parue en 1964.'
----
'Le constat de départ des Héritiers, écrit avec Jean-Claude Passeron, fait état de l’inégale représentation des différentes classes sociales dans l’enseignement supérieur : « Le système scolaire opère, objectivement, une élimination d’autant plus totale que l’on va vers les classes les plus défavorisées. » Pour mettre au jour les mécanismes par lesquels se produit cette élimination, les auteurs s’appuient sur un corpus détaillé d’enquêtes, de statistiques et d’études monographiques.
Selon Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, l’origine sociale des étudiants est le plus important facteur de différenciation (plus que le sexe, l’âge, l’affiliation religieuse…) et c’est davantage aux facteurs culturels qu’aux facteurs économiques qu’il faut en imputer les raisons.
Chez les enfants des professions libérales et des cadres supérieurs, la culture est acquise naturellement et « comme par osmose » grâce à l’environnement familial : bibliothèques, fréquentation des musées, théâtres, concerts… Mais pour les enfants des classes sociales défavorisées, l’école reste la seule voie d’accès à cette culture que, précisément, elle véhicule et valorise dans la réussite des études…'
----------
'Quarante ans après sa parution, que reste-t-il de ce petit livre, présentant un corpus de statistiques et d'enquêtes sociologiques sur les étudiants, écrit à quatre mains par deux jeunes sociologues ? Au fil du temps, la paternité va en revenir à Pierre Bourdieu, dont les travaux ultérieurs creuseront les notions qui y sont présentées : celles par exemple de capital culturel, de culture légitime ou de violence symbolique. En matière d'éducation, la problématique contenue dans l'ouvrage est même appelée aujourd'hui par les sociologues la théorie bourdieusienne. Quant au terme d'héritier, il est quasiment passé dans le langage courant pour désigner les enfants de familles cultivées, dont on sait que, pour beaucoup, ils n'auront pas de problèmes à l'école et feront de brillantes études.
Les Héritiers a fait l'effet d'un véritable pavé dans la mare, en dévoilant les mécanismes d'un fait empirique que tout le monde constatait plus ou moins secrètement : à l'école, les bons élèves se recrutaient dans les milieux aisés et cultivés (l'un allant souvent avec l'autre), alors que les enfants d'ouvriers attestaient de parcours scolaires médiocres. A l'université ne se retrouvaient plus guère alors que les enfants de la bourgeoisie. Pour les auteurs, c'est aux facteurs culturels, davantage qu'économiques, qu'il fallait imputer ce constat. Les enfants de cadres et de professions libérales bénéficient d'un capital culturel (conversations, bibliothèques, fréquentation des musées, voyages...) fourni par l'environnement familial dans lequel la culture est acquise « comme par osmose ». Or l'école légitime précisément ce type de culture qui « présuppose implicitement un corps de savoirs, savoir-faire et surtout de savoir-dire qui constitue le patrimoine des classes cultivées ». Pour les enfants de milieux populaires, par contre, l'acquisition de la culture scolaire nécessite une véritable acculturation, les apprentissages sont vécus comme des artifices, éloignés de toute réalité concrète. Ce que les enseignants considèrent alors comme une absence de dons de leur part n'est souvent que le résultat d'une socialisation différente. D'où la violence symbolique d'une institution (l'école) qui, au final, redouble les inégalités sociales en pérennisant une véritable aristocratie scolaire (qui peut ainsi s'autoreproduire ; le thème sera développé en 1970 par les mêmes auteurs dans La Reproduction), et en participant aussi à la fabrication de l'échec scolaire.
Bien sûr, les critiques ont fusé à propos de ce livre, comme d'ailleurs à propos de toute la sociologie de Bourdieu, accusée d'être teintée d'idéologie marxiste et d'établir des déterminismes qui laissent peu de place à l'initiative des acteurs et à leurs stratégies. Il n'empêche que le livre a eu une influence considérable d'une part sur la sociologie de l'éducation : partant de ce constat, les sociologues se sont mis à chercher par quels mécanismes fins (attitudes des maîtres, classes de niveau ou hétérogénéité, rapport au savoir) se construisaient effectivement les inégalités ; d'autre part sur la réflexion des politiques (dans les mesures de démocratisation par exemple), des enseignants et même du grand public...'
- Martine Fournier sur Les Héritiers - Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, 1964, rééd. Minuit, coll. « Le sens commun », 1994.
In their study, Bourdieu and Passeron observe that, at least in their own time, the main characteristic of student life is unrealism.
According to them, a way to address some flaws in the educative institution might be not to rely on a handicap system for students with a cultural deficit — which would pervert the evaluation system and the appreciation of the aptitudes which is the aim of evaluation — but, instead, to develop an education system taking the milieu/social background of 'underprivileged' students into account in order to rationalize the teaching process, centering it on the acquisition of epistemological methods dispelling the received idea of the praeternatural superiority of certain members among the students, or the mystique surrounding the university professors, which some of them enjoy greatly, parading as gurus or universal geniuses instead of doing their jobs. Les Héritiers advocates the providing of tools for the student to build a know-how, allowing the student to make steady progress.
Want to read
August 10, 2024Türkçe çeviriyi okumayı 56. sayfada bırakıyorum. İngilizcesini buldum metnin, oradan devam edeceğim.
Kitabın çevirisi berbat. Öncelikle üslup belirlenmemiş. Kimi yerde Arapça, Farsça kökenli sözcükler yoğun kullanılmış, bazen parantez içinde açıklamaları verilmiş bu sözcüklerin. Kimi yerde Türkçe tercih edilmiş. Yazarın anlatım dili ağdalı herhalde, o etkiyi vermek için uğramışlar ama olmamış bence. Neredeyse her paragrafta anlamak için 4-5 kez okunması gereken bir cümle grubu var.
İngilizce metinden bir örnekle anlatayım ne demek istediğimi. İkinci bölümün başlığı "Ciddi Oyunlar ve Ciddiyetin Oyunları", İngilizce metinde başlık "Games Students Play".
Örnek cümle;
"And, by virtue of its strong organization, their corporation was able to lay down the law and impose its will on the teachers, who were forced to go along with whatever pupils wanted."
Kitaptaki çeviri;
"İyi örgütlenmesi sayesinde kuralları koyan ve öğrencileri hangi yoldan geçmelerini istiyorlarsa oradan geçmek mecburiyetinde olan hocalara kendi arzularını dayatan, onların birliğiydi."
Google Translate yardımıyla çeviri;
"Ve güçlü örgütlenmeleri sayesinde, öğrenci(lerin) birliği kanun koyabiliyor ve öğretmenlere kendi iradelerini dayatabiliyorlardı; öğretmenler de öğrencilerin istekleri doğrultusunda hareket etmek zorunda kalıyorlardı."
İngiliz çevirilerin çoğu zaman basitleştirildiğini biliyorum ama Türkçe çeviriyi okuyup anlamak imkansız.
Kitabın çevirisi berbat. Öncelikle üslup belirlenmemiş. Kimi yerde Arapça, Farsça kökenli sözcükler yoğun kullanılmış, bazen parantez içinde açıklamaları verilmiş bu sözcüklerin. Kimi yerde Türkçe tercih edilmiş. Yazarın anlatım dili ağdalı herhalde, o etkiyi vermek için uğramışlar ama olmamış bence. Neredeyse her paragrafta anlamak için 4-5 kez okunması gereken bir cümle grubu var.
İngilizce metinden bir örnekle anlatayım ne demek istediğimi. İkinci bölümün başlığı "Ciddi Oyunlar ve Ciddiyetin Oyunları", İngilizce metinde başlık "Games Students Play".
Örnek cümle;
"And, by virtue of its strong organization, their corporation was able to lay down the law and impose its will on the teachers, who were forced to go along with whatever pupils wanted."
Kitaptaki çeviri;
"İyi örgütlenmesi sayesinde kuralları koyan ve öğrencileri hangi yoldan geçmelerini istiyorlarsa oradan geçmek mecburiyetinde olan hocalara kendi arzularını dayatan, onların birliğiydi."
Google Translate yardımıyla çeviri;
"Ve güçlü örgütlenmeleri sayesinde, öğrenci(lerin) birliği kanun koyabiliyor ve öğretmenlere kendi iradelerini dayatabiliyorlardı; öğretmenler de öğrencilerin istekleri doğrultusunda hareket etmek zorunda kalıyorlardı."
İngiliz çevirilerin çoğu zaman basitleştirildiğini biliyorum ama Türkçe çeviriyi okuyup anlamak imkansız.
December 2, 2024
Observar, investigar, criticar, escribir y re-pensar es un ejercicio que Bourdieu hace en “Los herederos”, ejercicio que se vuelve crucial no importa cuánto te interese el sistema educativo porque invita a pensar, en este caso, cuán injustas pueden ser las instituciones con nosotros.
Si bien la lectura es un poco compleja (está traducido del francés sumado a que tiene ganas de escribir difícil) se entiende el argumento general del libro. Es una gran crítica a la universidad en la Francia de los 70’ e incluso cuestiona a los militantes de izquierda que luego son los protagonistas del Mayo Francés, no por su posicionamiento ideológico sino por cómo idealizan al sistema educativo.
Partiendo de las estadísticas, Bourdieu plantea una tensión irresuelta entre una cantidad tan baja de estudiantes universitarios de clases bajas en contraste con cómo está estructurada la sociedad, es decir, la mayor parte de la sociedad estadísticamente es de clase baja y en la universidad no llegan a ser ni el 6%. ¿Por qué pasa esto?
Las ideas más importantes con las que hay responder a esta pregunta son dos: el origen social y la vivencia de los estudios. Con el origen social Bourdieu nos trae una noción importantísima que sirve no solo para la comprender a los estudiantes en la escuela, sino también para la mayoría de los individuos en las instituciones, porque todos venimos al mundo con una serie de conocimientos adquiridos a temprana edad y un status económico. Capital cultural y capital económico son para el autor los dos condicionamientos indisociables de nuestro ser social, por eso un estudiante que se cría asistiendo a teatros y entrenándose en las finas artes se siente como un “pez en el agua” cuando llega a la universidad.
Ahora bien, acá importa la segunda idea de este libro que refiere al trato que la universidad le da a esta diferencia en el origen social. El sistema educativo universitario francés en vez de reconocer lo distintos que son los estudiantes entre sí, la educación que recibieron de chicos, qué fue lo que tuvieron que atravesar en sus primeros años de vida, trata a «todos por igual» y, haciéndolo, elimina el origen social y hace más laboriosa la vida del estudiante de clase baja en la institución.
Por eso es que es inevitable que las personas tengamos orígenes sociales distintos pero lo que sí es evitable es cómo se los trata en la universidad, cómo se los reconoce y los valida. Esta diferencia hace que los estudiantes de clase alta vivan los estudios como un “eterno aprender” y sean estos aprendices de brujo que solo les interesa la universidad como un fin y no un medio para su vida.
En fin, un libro que interpela a los que somos universitarios sobre nuestros propios privilegios y cómo, aunque nos veamos como progresistas y súper democráticos, podemos cargar con prejuicios y reproducir esquemas de desigualdad social.
Si bien la lectura es un poco compleja (está traducido del francés sumado a que tiene ganas de escribir difícil) se entiende el argumento general del libro. Es una gran crítica a la universidad en la Francia de los 70’ e incluso cuestiona a los militantes de izquierda que luego son los protagonistas del Mayo Francés, no por su posicionamiento ideológico sino por cómo idealizan al sistema educativo.
Partiendo de las estadísticas, Bourdieu plantea una tensión irresuelta entre una cantidad tan baja de estudiantes universitarios de clases bajas en contraste con cómo está estructurada la sociedad, es decir, la mayor parte de la sociedad estadísticamente es de clase baja y en la universidad no llegan a ser ni el 6%. ¿Por qué pasa esto?
Las ideas más importantes con las que hay responder a esta pregunta son dos: el origen social y la vivencia de los estudios. Con el origen social Bourdieu nos trae una noción importantísima que sirve no solo para la comprender a los estudiantes en la escuela, sino también para la mayoría de los individuos en las instituciones, porque todos venimos al mundo con una serie de conocimientos adquiridos a temprana edad y un status económico. Capital cultural y capital económico son para el autor los dos condicionamientos indisociables de nuestro ser social, por eso un estudiante que se cría asistiendo a teatros y entrenándose en las finas artes se siente como un “pez en el agua” cuando llega a la universidad.
Ahora bien, acá importa la segunda idea de este libro que refiere al trato que la universidad le da a esta diferencia en el origen social. El sistema educativo universitario francés en vez de reconocer lo distintos que son los estudiantes entre sí, la educación que recibieron de chicos, qué fue lo que tuvieron que atravesar en sus primeros años de vida, trata a «todos por igual» y, haciéndolo, elimina el origen social y hace más laboriosa la vida del estudiante de clase baja en la institución.
Por eso es que es inevitable que las personas tengamos orígenes sociales distintos pero lo que sí es evitable es cómo se los trata en la universidad, cómo se los reconoce y los valida. Esta diferencia hace que los estudiantes de clase alta vivan los estudios como un “eterno aprender” y sean estos aprendices de brujo que solo les interesa la universidad como un fin y no un medio para su vida.
En fin, un libro que interpela a los que somos universitarios sobre nuestros propios privilegios y cómo, aunque nos veamos como progresistas y súper democráticos, podemos cargar con prejuicios y reproducir esquemas de desigualdad social.
February 22, 2021
« Les étudiants peuvent avoir en commun des pratiques, sans que l’on puisse en conclure qu’ils en ont une expérience identique et surtout collective. »
June 30, 2024
Of all the differentiating factors, social origin is doubtless the one whose influence bears most strongly on the student world, more strongly, at any rate, than sex or age, and certainly more than any clearly perceived factor, such as religious affiliation. (8)
All teaching, and more especially the teaching of culture (even scientific culture), implicitly presupposes a body of knowledge, skills, and, above all, modes of expression which constitute the heritage of the cultivated classes. (21)
Those who believe that everyone would be given equal access to the highest level of education and the highest culture, once the same economic means were provided for all those who have the requisite "gifts", have stopped halfway in their analysis of the obstacles; they ignore the fact that the abilities measured by scholastic criteria stem not so much from natural "gifts" (...) but from the greater or lesser affinity between class cultural habits and the demands of the educational system or the criteria which define success within it. (...) they must assimilate a whole set of knowledge and techniques which are never completely separable from social values often contrary to those of their class of origin. (22)
(...) the successes of a few too often cause it to be forgotten that they have only been able to overcome their cultural disadvantages by virtue of exceptional abilities and certain exceptional features of their family backgrounds. (23)
The petit-bourgeois student (...) will be judged by the criteria of the cultivated elite, which many teachers readily make their own, even and especially when their membership in the "elite" dates from their entry in the teaching profession. (24)
In short, the potency of the social factors of inequality is such that even if the equalization of economic resources could be achieved, the university system would not cease to consecrate inequalities by transforming social privilege into individual gifts or merits. (27)
As an adolescent and an apprentice, the student, more than anyone else, looks for guides to orient his thinking and his lifestyle. He is therefore particularly susceptible to the prestige of the examples which, as a future intellectual, he can only seek in the intellectual world; and, often enough, in that section of the intellectual world with which his daily practice brings him into direct contact, in other words, his university teachers. (40)
The teacher always has the task of creating the propensity to consume knowledge, as well as the task of satisfying it. (42)
But, on the one hand, the student, haunted by the anxious need to be something or somebody, is inclines toward a permanent self-questioning and, on the other hand, the teachers, imbued with the essentialist spirit which pervades an institution charged with establishing unquestioned hierarchies, feel entitled to judge the students whole being, all the more so because they perceive the students production, whether an exposé or a dissertation, as an excercise, a fictious "performance", whole sole purpose is to manifest virtual and final that is, essential, capacities. (44-45)
More generally, to study is not to produce, but to produce a capacity to produce. (55)
The relation that students have to their futures, that is, to their studies, varies as a direct function of the objective chances which individuals of their class have of entering higher education, so that upper-class students can be satisfied with vague projects because they have never really had to choose to do what they are doing (...) whereas lower-class students cannot fail to wonder what they are doing because they are less likely to forget that they might not have been able to do it. (63)
Blindness to social inequalities both obliges and allows one to explain all inequalities, particularly those in educational achievement, as natural inequalities, unequal giftedness. Such an attitude is part of the logic of a system which is based on the postulate of the formal equality of all pupils, as a precondition of its operation, and cannot recognize any inequalities other than those arising from individual gifts. (67)
But rational pedagogy is still to be invented, and can in no way be confused with the pedagogies we know at present, which, having only psychological foundations, in fact serve a system which does not and will not recognize social differences. So nothing is further from our minds than an appeal to so-called scientific pedagogy, which, while apparently increasing the formal rationality of teaching, would allow real inequalities to weigh more heavily than ever, with more justifications than ever. A truly rational pedagogy would have to be based on an analysis of the relative costs of the different modes of teaching (...) and the different types of pedagogic action by the teacher (...) It would have to take account of the context of the teaching or the vocational goals of the training, and, when considering the different types of pedagogic relation, it would have to bear in mind their differential efficiency according to students´social origins. In all cases, it would be dependent on the knowledge that is obtained of socially conditions cultural inequality and on the decision to reduce it. (73-74)
The strategies which one group employs to try to escape down classing and to return to their class trajectory, and which the other group employs to rebuild the interrupted path of a hoped-for trajectory, are today one of the most important factors in the transformation of social structure. (90)
In the present state of the system, the exclusion of the great mass of working-class and lower-middle-class children takes place not at the moment of entry into sixieme, but steadily and impalpably, all through the first years of secondary schooling, through hidden forms of elimination such as repeated years (equivalent to a deferred elimination); relegation into second-class courses, entailing a stigmatization that tends to induce proleptic recognition of scholastic and social destiny; and finally the awarding of devalued certificates. (91)
The reproduction of the social structure can take place in and through a competitive struggle leading to a simple displacement of the structures of distributions, so long and only so long as the members of the dominated classes enter the struggle in extended order, (...). Competitive struggle is the form of class struggle which the dominated classes allow to be imposed on them when they accept the stakes offered by the dominant classes. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue of the initial handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase, in which they are beaten before they start as the constancy of the gasps testifies, implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the goals pursued by those whom they pursue, by the mere fact of taking part. (97).
All teaching, and more especially the teaching of culture (even scientific culture), implicitly presupposes a body of knowledge, skills, and, above all, modes of expression which constitute the heritage of the cultivated classes. (21)
Those who believe that everyone would be given equal access to the highest level of education and the highest culture, once the same economic means were provided for all those who have the requisite "gifts", have stopped halfway in their analysis of the obstacles; they ignore the fact that the abilities measured by scholastic criteria stem not so much from natural "gifts" (...) but from the greater or lesser affinity between class cultural habits and the demands of the educational system or the criteria which define success within it. (...) they must assimilate a whole set of knowledge and techniques which are never completely separable from social values often contrary to those of their class of origin. (22)
(...) the successes of a few too often cause it to be forgotten that they have only been able to overcome their cultural disadvantages by virtue of exceptional abilities and certain exceptional features of their family backgrounds. (23)
The petit-bourgeois student (...) will be judged by the criteria of the cultivated elite, which many teachers readily make their own, even and especially when their membership in the "elite" dates from their entry in the teaching profession. (24)
In short, the potency of the social factors of inequality is such that even if the equalization of economic resources could be achieved, the university system would not cease to consecrate inequalities by transforming social privilege into individual gifts or merits. (27)
As an adolescent and an apprentice, the student, more than anyone else, looks for guides to orient his thinking and his lifestyle. He is therefore particularly susceptible to the prestige of the examples which, as a future intellectual, he can only seek in the intellectual world; and, often enough, in that section of the intellectual world with which his daily practice brings him into direct contact, in other words, his university teachers. (40)
The teacher always has the task of creating the propensity to consume knowledge, as well as the task of satisfying it. (42)
But, on the one hand, the student, haunted by the anxious need to be something or somebody, is inclines toward a permanent self-questioning and, on the other hand, the teachers, imbued with the essentialist spirit which pervades an institution charged with establishing unquestioned hierarchies, feel entitled to judge the students whole being, all the more so because they perceive the students production, whether an exposé or a dissertation, as an excercise, a fictious "performance", whole sole purpose is to manifest virtual and final that is, essential, capacities. (44-45)
More generally, to study is not to produce, but to produce a capacity to produce. (55)
The relation that students have to their futures, that is, to their studies, varies as a direct function of the objective chances which individuals of their class have of entering higher education, so that upper-class students can be satisfied with vague projects because they have never really had to choose to do what they are doing (...) whereas lower-class students cannot fail to wonder what they are doing because they are less likely to forget that they might not have been able to do it. (63)
Blindness to social inequalities both obliges and allows one to explain all inequalities, particularly those in educational achievement, as natural inequalities, unequal giftedness. Such an attitude is part of the logic of a system which is based on the postulate of the formal equality of all pupils, as a precondition of its operation, and cannot recognize any inequalities other than those arising from individual gifts. (67)
But rational pedagogy is still to be invented, and can in no way be confused with the pedagogies we know at present, which, having only psychological foundations, in fact serve a system which does not and will not recognize social differences. So nothing is further from our minds than an appeal to so-called scientific pedagogy, which, while apparently increasing the formal rationality of teaching, would allow real inequalities to weigh more heavily than ever, with more justifications than ever. A truly rational pedagogy would have to be based on an analysis of the relative costs of the different modes of teaching (...) and the different types of pedagogic action by the teacher (...) It would have to take account of the context of the teaching or the vocational goals of the training, and, when considering the different types of pedagogic relation, it would have to bear in mind their differential efficiency according to students´social origins. In all cases, it would be dependent on the knowledge that is obtained of socially conditions cultural inequality and on the decision to reduce it. (73-74)
The strategies which one group employs to try to escape down classing and to return to their class trajectory, and which the other group employs to rebuild the interrupted path of a hoped-for trajectory, are today one of the most important factors in the transformation of social structure. (90)
In the present state of the system, the exclusion of the great mass of working-class and lower-middle-class children takes place not at the moment of entry into sixieme, but steadily and impalpably, all through the first years of secondary schooling, through hidden forms of elimination such as repeated years (equivalent to a deferred elimination); relegation into second-class courses, entailing a stigmatization that tends to induce proleptic recognition of scholastic and social destiny; and finally the awarding of devalued certificates. (91)
The reproduction of the social structure can take place in and through a competitive struggle leading to a simple displacement of the structures of distributions, so long and only so long as the members of the dominated classes enter the struggle in extended order, (...). Competitive struggle is the form of class struggle which the dominated classes allow to be imposed on them when they accept the stakes offered by the dominant classes. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue of the initial handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase, in which they are beaten before they start as the constancy of the gasps testifies, implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the goals pursued by those whom they pursue, by the mere fact of taking part. (97).
August 10, 2024
Une porte d'entrée accessible à l'œuvre bourdieusienne, notamment en raison de sa rédaction en début de carrière et de son statut co-écrit.
La dissection des conditionnements sociaux, manifestes ou non, rend compte avec minutie des divergences dans l'appréhension de la vie étudiante. L'analyse n'est par conséquent pas uniquement factuelle : grâce à de nombreux témoignages, les sociologues mettent aussi en lumière le rapport ressenti à l'éducation, ainsi que les mécanismes qui sous-tendent le "mythe" de l'étudiant.
Une critique avisée sur la "condition étudiante" qui interroge sur sa légitimité en tant que "classe" à proprement parler, en raison des disparités internes entre l'ensemble de ses membres et de leur conscience plus ou moins aiguë d'appartenir à une communauté sociale, celle des étudiants.
La dissection des conditionnements sociaux, manifestes ou non, rend compte avec minutie des divergences dans l'appréhension de la vie étudiante. L'analyse n'est par conséquent pas uniquement factuelle : grâce à de nombreux témoignages, les sociologues mettent aussi en lumière le rapport ressenti à l'éducation, ainsi que les mécanismes qui sous-tendent le "mythe" de l'étudiant.
Une critique avisée sur la "condition étudiante" qui interroge sur sa légitimité en tant que "classe" à proprement parler, en raison des disparités internes entre l'ensemble de ses membres et de leur conscience plus ou moins aiguë d'appartenir à une communauté sociale, celle des étudiants.
Read
December 14, 2023Acho que a ideia que mais me afetou durante a leitura d'Os Herdeiros foi a distinção que o Bourdieu e o Passeron fazem entre os estudantes diletantes e os estudantes esforçados - os cu de ferro. Me afetei porque, de uma forma, me encontro no rasgo atlântico entre estas duas categorias.
De um lado, o diletantismo, caracterizado pelo amor descompromissado, multifacetado, inconstante, romântico, pelas artes e pelo conhecimento, próprio aos estudantes de classes altas, serviria de adjetivo para uma parcela considerável de minha trajetória acadêmica. Durante a escola, participava das aulas que queria, enquanto dormia nas que não despertavam interesse, sem por isso perder pontos no boletim. Ostentava um dom, que nada mais era do que privilégio social e cultural despercebido.
Na universidade, a coisa mudou um pouco: graduação em universidade pública era um território desconhecido por mim e pelos meus, mas ainda assim a âncora da classe me manteve no prumo. Coisas de aparente simplicidade (falar inglês, baixar torrents, morar perto do campus, possuir uma câmera...) garantiram o processo contínuo de transmutação de privilégio em aparente mérito - para não falar de aspectos evidentes de cor e gênero. De fato, um processo mediado por esforço próprio, mas que não era em nenhum grau hercúleo, muito semelhante ao compromisso de todos meus colegas. Nesse período, diletantismo cabe menos, mas ainda assim existia um estofo de tempo que me garantia a liberdade da experimentação - leia-se, a garantia do dinheiro de meus pais, e o acordo informal de que ele continuaria a chegar até o final da graduação.
No mestrado cruzei o atlântico e me mudei para a França - e o descompromisso não veio junto. Acontece que é preciso de cinco ou seis reais para se comprar um euro, e a taxa de câmbio financeira também incide sobre o capital cultural. Aqui as instituições não refletem o meu acúmulo (próprio da minha classe brasileira), mas todo um outro repertório social que não diz respeito nem a mim nem a minha família e cuja falta me negou bolsas de estudo e inscrições em certas universidades. No novo cenário, neste novo tempo, fazer o dobro é ainda faltar com o mínimo, porque o que é cobrado não é esforço (o intervalo da pedagogia racional de que falam os autores no final do livro), mas a adequação a um mundo do qual eu não faço parte. Constatação que, no entanto, não me impediu em meus esforços de escrita e pesquisa, na ilusão de que poderia controlar minha trajetória, como já fiz outrora.
De um lado, o diletantismo, caracterizado pelo amor descompromissado, multifacetado, inconstante, romântico, pelas artes e pelo conhecimento, próprio aos estudantes de classes altas, serviria de adjetivo para uma parcela considerável de minha trajetória acadêmica. Durante a escola, participava das aulas que queria, enquanto dormia nas que não despertavam interesse, sem por isso perder pontos no boletim. Ostentava um dom, que nada mais era do que privilégio social e cultural despercebido.
Na universidade, a coisa mudou um pouco: graduação em universidade pública era um território desconhecido por mim e pelos meus, mas ainda assim a âncora da classe me manteve no prumo. Coisas de aparente simplicidade (falar inglês, baixar torrents, morar perto do campus, possuir uma câmera...) garantiram o processo contínuo de transmutação de privilégio em aparente mérito - para não falar de aspectos evidentes de cor e gênero. De fato, um processo mediado por esforço próprio, mas que não era em nenhum grau hercúleo, muito semelhante ao compromisso de todos meus colegas. Nesse período, diletantismo cabe menos, mas ainda assim existia um estofo de tempo que me garantia a liberdade da experimentação - leia-se, a garantia do dinheiro de meus pais, e o acordo informal de que ele continuaria a chegar até o final da graduação.
No mestrado cruzei o atlântico e me mudei para a França - e o descompromisso não veio junto. Acontece que é preciso de cinco ou seis reais para se comprar um euro, e a taxa de câmbio financeira também incide sobre o capital cultural. Aqui as instituições não refletem o meu acúmulo (próprio da minha classe brasileira), mas todo um outro repertório social que não diz respeito nem a mim nem a minha família e cuja falta me negou bolsas de estudo e inscrições em certas universidades. No novo cenário, neste novo tempo, fazer o dobro é ainda faltar com o mínimo, porque o que é cobrado não é esforço (o intervalo da pedagogia racional de que falam os autores no final do livro), mas a adequação a um mundo do qual eu não faço parte. Constatação que, no entanto, não me impediu em meus esforços de escrita e pesquisa, na ilusão de que poderia controlar minha trajetória, como já fiz outrora.
June 30, 2025
wjo effe frans boek gelezen??? oke talent 🥳 was echt mega interesting ma kende da mannetje zijn theorie enz al op voorhand door mijn vakken maar nog altijd was best moeilijk geschreven en daarom maar 3 sterren want inhoud was top maar heb sommige zinnen echt 15x moeten lezen voor ik die begreep + De laatste pagina’s waren gwn tabellen/grafieken met beetje uitleg maar die vond ik ook minder interessant!!!
parcialmente-leídos
January 14, 2018La escuela lleva a cabo la reproducción de la estructura socio-cultural, es decir de la estructura de relaciones entre los grupos sociales y de la cultura de las clases dominantes. Lo hace a través de la inculcación de valores pertenecientes a esa cultura (así la legitima), la selección de grupos en función de su asimilación de dicha cultura arbitraria, y por lo tanto la designación (desigual e injusta) de los herederos de tales valores culturales. Esto es la educación para Bourdieu, el modo más grave de violencia simbólica. La escuela reproduce las desigualdades sociales como si fueran parte de un orden natural, como si estuvieran dadas por las diferencias entre dotes naturales.
Esta reproducción se da a través de la violencia simbólica y la arbitrariedad cultural, que se instrumentaliza a través de los elementos que conforma el aparato escolar:
* Acción pedagógica: Es imponer e inculcar ciertos valores culturales según un modelo arbitrario, presentándolos como legítimos mientras se disimula las relaciones de fuerza que hay detrás.
* Autoridad pedagógica: Poder arbitrario de imposición que intenta legitimar como verdadero lo que transmite por el hecho de transmitirlo legítimamente.
* Trabajo pedagógico: Tiene como objetivo la creación de un hábito, es decir, que el alumno interiorice la arbitrariedad cultural para que luego la reproduzca y transmita durante el resto de su vida.
* Sistema de enseñanza: Conformado institucionalmente por personas y cosas, busca la autorreprodución perfecta a través de la homogeneidad, rutina, consenso, programación, y de la prohibición implícita de la heterodoxia.
* Autoridad escolar: Forma institucionalizada de la autoridad pedagógica. Se distingue en que le viene al agente por legitimación expresa del sistema de enseñanza y por tanto incuestionable.
* Trabajo escolar: Opera del mismo modo que el trabajo pedagógico pero legitimado por el sistema de enseñanza.
La escuela inculca el sistema de valores dominantes, selecciona por criterios culturales a “los grupos dominantes” y a sus “herederos” (mediante exámenes, calificaciones, tests), asegura a la sociedad y sobre todo a los padres que tal selectividad es legítima, y prepara a los individuos para que después de la escolarización o desaparezcan sus efectos y continúe actuando la arbitrariedad cultural inculcada. Así, el sistema es legitimado, incluso por las propias víctimas.
Para Bourdieu y Passeron, la razón del fracaso de la escuela está en la falta de verdadera comunicación pedagógica: ni el profesor se hace entender con su lengua académico-burguesa ni los modelos de cultura que propone, venidos de la tradición ilustrada, son interiorizados plenamente por quienes están en otra frecuencia cultural. Así el poder social es conservado perpetuamente por los mismos grupos.
Algo similar a lo que ocurre con la cultura pasa con la lengua. Los distintos códigos lingüísticos, determinados muchas veces por la primera educación de clase, tienen distinto valor social. La escuela impone uno de ellos como norma lingüística, como forma correcta de hablar.
El examen es otra herramienta importante para la reproducción de desigualdades. Bajo su apariencia de instrumento de igualdad, el examen funciona como dispositivo de segregación, pues no solo elimina y selecciona a los que se someten a él sino a los que el propio sistema excluye previamente y a los que se autoeliminan por falta de esperanza de éxito o miedo (por sentirse destinados, a raíz de su clase social y educación previa, a renunciar a los exámenes o a exámenes menos difíciles propios de estudios de segundo orden).
Así, la escuela transforma ventajas sociales preexistentes en ventajas escolares, las cuales a su vez vuelven a otorgar ventajas sociales.
En la conclusión tocan algunos temas interesantes, menciono un par de ellos:
Hablan de la problemática de los concursos u otros mecanismos de selección de candidatos ciegos a la clase sociocultural de los postulantes pero aún así injustos por naturaleza pues convierten los privilegios de clase en méritos individuales: es decir, ignora que la desigualdad es previa y los miembros de clases más altas vienen con una serie de ventajas que los predisponen a ganar estos concursos. Aún así, no encuentran ningún otro sistema mejor para la selección (aunque enfatizan que en la enseñanza propiamente dicha se debe introducir la consideración de las desigualdades reales).
También hablan de la ideología carismática: aquella propia de las clases privilegiadas y a la que también es muy vulnerable la burguesía (incluyendo los docentes). Esta ideología legitima los privilegios culturales y herencias sociales al interpretarlos como talento individual o mérito personal. Es un tipo de esencialismo que refuerza los determinismos sociales.
P.D.: Cada vez que me encuentro con un texto escrito hace ya un tiempo (en este caso 60 años, no tanto como en otros casos pero bastante) y que parece explicar más o menos adecuadamente algún aspecto de la realidad actual, flasheo un poco pensando en los textos teóricos visionarios pero ignotos que estarán siendo escritos ahora mismo y de los que probablemente yo muera sin saber nada.
Esta reproducción se da a través de la violencia simbólica y la arbitrariedad cultural, que se instrumentaliza a través de los elementos que conforma el aparato escolar:
* Acción pedagógica: Es imponer e inculcar ciertos valores culturales según un modelo arbitrario, presentándolos como legítimos mientras se disimula las relaciones de fuerza que hay detrás.
* Autoridad pedagógica: Poder arbitrario de imposición que intenta legitimar como verdadero lo que transmite por el hecho de transmitirlo legítimamente.
* Trabajo pedagógico: Tiene como objetivo la creación de un hábito, es decir, que el alumno interiorice la arbitrariedad cultural para que luego la reproduzca y transmita durante el resto de su vida.
* Sistema de enseñanza: Conformado institucionalmente por personas y cosas, busca la autorreprodución perfecta a través de la homogeneidad, rutina, consenso, programación, y de la prohibición implícita de la heterodoxia.
* Autoridad escolar: Forma institucionalizada de la autoridad pedagógica. Se distingue en que le viene al agente por legitimación expresa del sistema de enseñanza y por tanto incuestionable.
* Trabajo escolar: Opera del mismo modo que el trabajo pedagógico pero legitimado por el sistema de enseñanza.
La escuela inculca el sistema de valores dominantes, selecciona por criterios culturales a “los grupos dominantes” y a sus “herederos” (mediante exámenes, calificaciones, tests), asegura a la sociedad y sobre todo a los padres que tal selectividad es legítima, y prepara a los individuos para que después de la escolarización o desaparezcan sus efectos y continúe actuando la arbitrariedad cultural inculcada. Así, el sistema es legitimado, incluso por las propias víctimas.
Para Bourdieu y Passeron, la razón del fracaso de la escuela está en la falta de verdadera comunicación pedagógica: ni el profesor se hace entender con su lengua académico-burguesa ni los modelos de cultura que propone, venidos de la tradición ilustrada, son interiorizados plenamente por quienes están en otra frecuencia cultural. Así el poder social es conservado perpetuamente por los mismos grupos.
Algo similar a lo que ocurre con la cultura pasa con la lengua. Los distintos códigos lingüísticos, determinados muchas veces por la primera educación de clase, tienen distinto valor social. La escuela impone uno de ellos como norma lingüística, como forma correcta de hablar.
El examen es otra herramienta importante para la reproducción de desigualdades. Bajo su apariencia de instrumento de igualdad, el examen funciona como dispositivo de segregación, pues no solo elimina y selecciona a los que se someten a él sino a los que el propio sistema excluye previamente y a los que se autoeliminan por falta de esperanza de éxito o miedo (por sentirse destinados, a raíz de su clase social y educación previa, a renunciar a los exámenes o a exámenes menos difíciles propios de estudios de segundo orden).
Así, la escuela transforma ventajas sociales preexistentes en ventajas escolares, las cuales a su vez vuelven a otorgar ventajas sociales.
En la conclusión tocan algunos temas interesantes, menciono un par de ellos:
Hablan de la problemática de los concursos u otros mecanismos de selección de candidatos ciegos a la clase sociocultural de los postulantes pero aún así injustos por naturaleza pues convierten los privilegios de clase en méritos individuales: es decir, ignora que la desigualdad es previa y los miembros de clases más altas vienen con una serie de ventajas que los predisponen a ganar estos concursos. Aún así, no encuentran ningún otro sistema mejor para la selección (aunque enfatizan que en la enseñanza propiamente dicha se debe introducir la consideración de las desigualdades reales).
También hablan de la ideología carismática: aquella propia de las clases privilegiadas y a la que también es muy vulnerable la burguesía (incluyendo los docentes). Esta ideología legitima los privilegios culturales y herencias sociales al interpretarlos como talento individual o mérito personal. Es un tipo de esencialismo que refuerza los determinismos sociales.
P.D.: Cada vez que me encuentro con un texto escrito hace ya un tiempo (en este caso 60 años, no tanto como en otros casos pero bastante) y que parece explicar más o menos adecuadamente algún aspecto de la realidad actual, flasheo un poco pensando en los textos teóricos visionarios pero ignotos que estarán siendo escritos ahora mismo y de los que probablemente yo muera sin saber nada.
December 1, 2024
Premier chapitre top, après un peu redondant et pompeux dans le style d'écriture
August 3, 2023
Highly recommended for students who feel lost on campus. This book reveals a cruel reality on cultural privilege or arbitrary that starts from child birth but unfolds in school. Nonetheless, don't feel ashamed for your inferior performances in high culture than peers especially when they grow up in higher social class——inequality in all fields is so common that we may ignore it from time to time.
February 1, 2022
Si lo promocionasen como un Best Seller, este libro la rompería. Contra la cruel mentira que solemos aceptar.
July 17, 2025
Pourquoi les enfants de cadres ont « 80% » de fois plus de chance de faire des études supérieures que les enfants d’agriculteurs ?
Des 1964, Pierre Bourdieu et Jean Claude Passeron se penchent dans la France d’après guerre sur la question de ce qu’ils appellent la « mortalité scolaire ». Comment se fait il que certains enfants semblent plus à même de faire des études que d’autres ? Pourquoi certains réussissent-ils mieux que les autres ? Les auteurs reconnaissent que s’il existe bien des inégalités à la naissance (certains enfants sont brillants de naissance) mais aussi des inégalités de revenus entre les foyers, qui priveraient certains enfants de d’accéder à l’enseignement supérieur, celles-ci ne sauraient être exclusivement à l’origine de la composition du tissu social estudiantin français. C’est alors la culture, ses codes, son enseignement, son utilité et sa transmission qui sont mis à l’honneur dans ce livre.
« Les héritiers », c’est ainsi que Bourdieu et Passeron entendent nommer ces enfants issus de milieux privilégiés où la culture est à la fois un sesame, une plus value mais aussi et surtout un véritable héritage que l’on peut, semble-t-il faire fructifier ou au contraire dilapider… Cet héritage permet à ses détenteurs de performer et d’évoluer dans un monde étudiant et scolaire qui leur est favorable et dont ils maîtrisent presque naturellement les codes. Il n’est pas ici question de déterminisme, les auteurs ne manquent pas de souligner que dans tous les cas il faut faire preuve d’une « énergie sorelienne et d’une ambition rastignacienne » pour parvenir à s’en sortir, toutefois certains semblent plus à même de se fondre dans le moule de l’éducation.
Il semble toutefois nécessaire de replacer le livre dans la bibliographie de son auteur le plus connu. En 1979 paraît la distinction de Pierre Bourdieu. Considéré comme un véritable bijou de la sociologie française et mondiale, l’œuvre fait entrer son auteur au Collège de France.
Un lecteur avisé, ayant a priori consulté la Distinction, se rendra rapidement compte que les Héritiers (qui fait seulement une petite centaine de pages hors appendices) est une version parcellaire du chapitre réservé à la culture scolaire dans la distinction. En effet, les Héritiers développent déjà les concepts de « capital culturel » « capital économique » de stratégie familiale, ou encore de valeur du goût « fonctionnel vs distinctif ».
La ou les Héritiers apporte une vraie valeur ajoutée c’est dans sa sociologie de l’étudiant français et de son rapport à l’école ainsi qu’à ses professeurs etc… Toutefois, force est de constater que ces analyses si elles sont intéressantes semblent dépassées en raison de nombreux événements : mai 68, avènement des réseaux sociaux et d’internet en général…
Cependant cela reste pertinent pour comprendre la france estudiantine des années 1960 ante mai 1968.
Concernant la méthode, pas d’ethnographie uniquement des analyses quantitatives et statistiques qui pour un court ouvrage font parfaitement l’affaire.
En somme, les Héritiers est un petit livre d’une grande richesse, qui peut être à mon sens une bonne porte d’entrée à la sociologie du XXe ou aux livres de P.Bourdieu pour les passionnés de sociologie. Néanmoins, un public plus « occasionnel » pourrait se tourner vers la distinction nettement plus riche et complet.
Des 1964, Pierre Bourdieu et Jean Claude Passeron se penchent dans la France d’après guerre sur la question de ce qu’ils appellent la « mortalité scolaire ». Comment se fait il que certains enfants semblent plus à même de faire des études que d’autres ? Pourquoi certains réussissent-ils mieux que les autres ? Les auteurs reconnaissent que s’il existe bien des inégalités à la naissance (certains enfants sont brillants de naissance) mais aussi des inégalités de revenus entre les foyers, qui priveraient certains enfants de d’accéder à l’enseignement supérieur, celles-ci ne sauraient être exclusivement à l’origine de la composition du tissu social estudiantin français. C’est alors la culture, ses codes, son enseignement, son utilité et sa transmission qui sont mis à l’honneur dans ce livre.
« Les héritiers », c’est ainsi que Bourdieu et Passeron entendent nommer ces enfants issus de milieux privilégiés où la culture est à la fois un sesame, une plus value mais aussi et surtout un véritable héritage que l’on peut, semble-t-il faire fructifier ou au contraire dilapider… Cet héritage permet à ses détenteurs de performer et d’évoluer dans un monde étudiant et scolaire qui leur est favorable et dont ils maîtrisent presque naturellement les codes. Il n’est pas ici question de déterminisme, les auteurs ne manquent pas de souligner que dans tous les cas il faut faire preuve d’une « énergie sorelienne et d’une ambition rastignacienne » pour parvenir à s’en sortir, toutefois certains semblent plus à même de se fondre dans le moule de l’éducation.
Il semble toutefois nécessaire de replacer le livre dans la bibliographie de son auteur le plus connu. En 1979 paraît la distinction de Pierre Bourdieu. Considéré comme un véritable bijou de la sociologie française et mondiale, l’œuvre fait entrer son auteur au Collège de France.
Un lecteur avisé, ayant a priori consulté la Distinction, se rendra rapidement compte que les Héritiers (qui fait seulement une petite centaine de pages hors appendices) est une version parcellaire du chapitre réservé à la culture scolaire dans la distinction. En effet, les Héritiers développent déjà les concepts de « capital culturel » « capital économique » de stratégie familiale, ou encore de valeur du goût « fonctionnel vs distinctif ».
La ou les Héritiers apporte une vraie valeur ajoutée c’est dans sa sociologie de l’étudiant français et de son rapport à l’école ainsi qu’à ses professeurs etc… Toutefois, force est de constater que ces analyses si elles sont intéressantes semblent dépassées en raison de nombreux événements : mai 68, avènement des réseaux sociaux et d’internet en général…
Cependant cela reste pertinent pour comprendre la france estudiantine des années 1960 ante mai 1968.
Concernant la méthode, pas d’ethnographie uniquement des analyses quantitatives et statistiques qui pour un court ouvrage font parfaitement l’affaire.
En somme, les Héritiers est un petit livre d’une grande richesse, qui peut être à mon sens une bonne porte d’entrée à la sociologie du XXe ou aux livres de P.Bourdieu pour les passionnés de sociologie. Néanmoins, un public plus « occasionnel » pourrait se tourner vers la distinction nettement plus riche et complet.
November 21, 2019
Estudio sociológico acerca de los estudiantes en 1964, situado en la efervescencia previa al famoso mayo del 68. La teoría que soporta al cúmulo de datos y se pueden extraer numerosas lecciones metodológicas de este texto.
La manera de presentar los hallazgos revela el cuidadoso esmero para construir una objetivación que vaya más allá de una cooncordancia con las intuiciones: profundiza y analiza. El libro es suscinto pero justo y es producto de un trabajo que pretende develar las lògicas no del homo academicus (aunque sí un poco) sino tratar de pintar de cuerpo completo qué, cómo y para qué se es estudiante.
La manera de presentar los hallazgos revela el cuidadoso esmero para construir una objetivación que vaya más allá de una cooncordancia con las intuiciones: profundiza y analiza. El libro es suscinto pero justo y es producto de un trabajo que pretende develar las lògicas no del homo academicus (aunque sí un poco) sino tratar de pintar de cuerpo completo qué, cómo y para qué se es estudiante.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 6, 2024
Análisis detallado (y empírico) sobre las condiciones de los estudiantes universitarios dependiendo de su origen socioeconómico.
Una de las cosas que más me quedó grabada, porque pude extrapolarlo a mi experiencia, fue el postulado de que los estudiantes privilegiados, dada su condición, tienen más posibilidades de abstraerse de las actividades curriculares, puesto que tienen intereses más misceláneos. Los estudiantes menos privilegiados, por el contrario, ven a la universidad como una puerta de entrada que no pueden desaprovechar.
Una de las cosas que más me quedó grabada, porque pude extrapolarlo a mi experiencia, fue el postulado de que los estudiantes privilegiados, dada su condición, tienen más posibilidades de abstraerse de las actividades curriculares, puesto que tienen intereses más misceláneos. Los estudiantes menos privilegiados, por el contrario, ven a la universidad como una puerta de entrada que no pueden desaprovechar.
October 16, 2020
Livre intéressant sur l’analyse des différentes chances à l’école selon son milieu social de naissance qui démontre bien le rapport aux habitudes culturelles que certains jeunes ont dès le plus jeune âge, le rapport dilettant qu’entretiennent ces jeunes avec l’art et les autres disciplines. Analyse très pertinente qui n’est pas assez extrapolé mais qui, si on le fait, montre bien certaines tendances philistines qu’ont certaines personnes venus de milieu socioculturels davantage avantagés.
November 28, 2018
Su propuesta es imopactante y esclarecedora.
No cabe, en mi opinión, esperanza de cambio a nivel global... pero al menos quienes tomen consciencia de las determinantes sociológicas en la educación, podrían variar su práctica e ideología de manera liberadora.
No cabe, en mi opinión, esperanza de cambio a nivel global... pero al menos quienes tomen consciencia de las determinantes sociológicas en la educación, podrían variar su práctica e ideología de manera liberadora.
August 8, 2020
“Köylü, işçi, ücretli, küçük esnafın erkek çocukları için tedrisî kültüre nüfuz etmek aslında akültürasyondur. Bazıları için seçkinlerin kültürüne nüfuz etmek bir fetih iken, üst ve orta sınıf için bu bir mirastır.”
February 23, 2021
Increíble análisis del funcionamiento del sistema escolar en el capitalismo, el rol del estado en el mismo y cómo a través de ambos se perpetúa la desigualdad de clases entre estudiantes.
January 11, 2023
8/10 denso
Read
March 18, 2023« Vouloir être et vouloir se choisir, c'est d'abord se refuser à être ce qu'on n'a pas choisi d'être. »
November 12, 2023
Un ouvrage qui nécessite plusieurs lectures.
May 8, 2024
indispensable !
October 20, 2024
ce qu’il manque à staps
April 9, 2025
obviamente hay que tener en cuenta el contexto (Francia, 1964), pero creo que tiene muchas cosas rescatables y aplicables a los tiempos modernos
June 22, 2025
Me sentí desnuda👍👍
August 10, 2025
je l'avais lu en me disant "ouaaah" à 17 ans donc ça doit être cool
September 9, 2025
vraiment des moments biens on a rigolé
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews