A friend here suggested I read this and I’d just recently read The Sociological Imagination and still didn’t make the connection. It is funny how obvious things need to be before I see them, sometimes.
There was a lot of this that I really liked, but also some things I found very problematic (that isn’t the right word or anything like the word I want – but I can’t think of the right word at the moment – we will get there).
Start positive. I really liked that this played with some ideas from what I often refer to as behavioural economics – ideas about tipping points and ways to act as change agents in society. I also liked that he spoke of the ‘gift of pessimism’ – Although I like Gramsci on this too: ‘I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will’.
I also liked that he referred to Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By – but would have liked more on this – and that he drew pictures while listening to people that sought to show the relationships between them, relationships that displayed the problem (which is going to make what I have to say about not liking this book seem, perhaps, a bit odd). And I also quite liked that he talked about being creative as being the best way to solve problems. You know, we think being rational is the best way – and while it really annoys me that we too often draw a thick line between being logical and being creative, it is also clear that you can’t solve intractable problems unless you do act differently – so, creativity is mandatory, rather than optional.
The things I didn’t like relate to what Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic violence’. I’ve looked through the book and at no time does he talk about ‘power’ in a way that helps shed light on power as symbolic violence. He talks about people having power to change things, that this power is often not related to military or governmental power, but comes in unexpected places – and this is all good, but if we don’t understand the nature of power in society, I fear change is virtually impossible. To explain my concern here I want to quote a big chunk of one of my favourite bits of this book, his discussion of The Pied Piper.
“The moral of the story seemed clear: When you give a promise, you had best keep your word.
“Four decades later, when I read the story again, this was not the moral that caught my attention. What I saw was the power of a flutist to move a town, address an evil, and bring the powerful to accountability. Without any visible power or even prestige, much less a violent weapon, a flutist transformed a whole community. I was struck with the nonviolent power of music and the creative act. The moral of the story now seemed to be: Watch out for the flutist and his creative music for, like the invisible wind, they touch and move all that they encounter in their path.” p. 152
Like I said, one of my favourite bits of the book – however, while I really like this idea, I think it covers over the idea of symbolic violence in ways that I felt were pretty typical of the rest of the book too. So, what do I mean by symbolic violence? Well, it is the way society keeps people in power without needing to impose that power using real violence. That is, it is the way people are made to be convinced of the ‘rightness’ of the current situation, even when that current situation is badly against their own interests.
My favourite current example of this is the way grammar and English spelling is used to keep people in their place. It is the ‘there, their and they’re’ problem. It is so easy to humiliate people who misuse these homophones. And yet, I doubt anyone has ever been confused by the meaning of a sentence because one of these was misused. The sentence, ‘I am eating there cake’ is perfectly clear in its intended meaning – but the unintended use of the wrong ‘their’ displays a relation to grammar that socially locates (and disgraces) the writer. Here both the reader and the writer (when they are informed of they’re mistake – see, you still knew what I intended, despite also noticing the usage problem) diminish the standing of the person who has made the error. Symbolic violence here relates to our ability to follow the often arcane rules of usage of the language – and these rules are arcane because of the social effects they produce, rather than the lie that is they ‘make language easier to follow’ or ‘help avoid misunderstanding’. Here it is power relations that are being enacted and one person is being put in their place. A place that becomes embodied in them, a shame that silences – so much so that they believe themselves to be unworthy of being allowed to speak, or rather, certainly not to ‘write’.
This is violence that is enacted against us in ways that ends up being done with our own complicacy. And yet, often if we are to overcome grossly unfair social situations then finding ways to overcome these embodied habits and reactions of shame are primary tasks and not things that can be taken for granted as immediate gifts of the piper.
But how do we do this? And there is my problem. I think a lot of what is suggested in this book is really worthwhile – you know, start small, map relationships, be creative, notice the grey and not just the black and white – yes, all that. But what I feel is missing is a notion of understanding how symbolic violence encourages those most disadvantaged by a system to be its strongest supporters – just think of those most upset about Obama Care.
Oh, which reminds me of the other thing about this book I immediately didn’t like. It starts by talking about 9/11. I’d have really preferred it to not start with that. My problem here is that not nearly enough was said about 9/11 being an act of ‘blow back’, that too many people in the West see this as the greatest tragedy in the history of the world, when destroying the Middle East in retaliation and vengeance afterward ranks closer to the definition of ‘greatest tragedy’. Like I said, there is too little focus here on power, just as it is never quite clear what ‘peace’ means. Unless I missed it, it was never defined. And I do think that is a problem.
And now, look... Almost all of this is complaints – and that isn’t really what I wanted to do. There are good ideas here and it is worth the quick read that it is – but retain your gift of pessimism while reading it.