Home
Cultural Studies

An Explanation of Pierre Bourdieu's "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste"

Pierre Bourdieu: Distinction and the Sociology of Taste

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste

Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction (1979) remains a foundational pillar of modern sociology. It challenges the "ideology of natural taste"—the belief that our preferences for art, music, or food are personal, innate gifts of the soul. Through extensive statistical analysis of 1960s French society, Bourdieu demonstrates that taste is a highly regulated social tool that reproduces class hierarchies.

The Core Thesis: Social subjects classify themselves by the distinctions they make between the beautiful and the ugly, the refined and the vulgar. These judgments are not neutral; they are weapons used to maintain social distance and justify power structures.

1. The Multi-Dimensional Social Space

Bourdieu moves beyond the simplistic Marxist definition of class (based solely on money). He argues that our position in society is defined by our total volume of "Capital."

  • Economic Capital: Financial resources, property, and income.
  • Cultural Capital: Intellectual qualifications, "good manners," linguistic fluency, and familiarity with high art. This is often "embodied" (in how you speak) or "institutionalized" (in your university degrees).
  • Social Capital: Networks of influence and social connections.
  • Symbolic Capital: Prestige, honor, and recognition.

The Power of the Habitus

The Habitus is the internalized system of dispositions acquired through early childhood socialization. It is the "social made body." It determines our "feel for the game." For the wealthy, the habitus feels like "natural" ease in museums or galas. For the working class, it manifests as a pragmatic "choice of the necessary," favoring the filling over the delicate, and the relatable over the abstract.

2. Cultural Nobility and the Two Aesthetics

Bourdieu identifies a sharp divide in how different classes approach the world, which he categorizes into two distinct aesthetics.

The Aesthetic Mode Class Orientation The Primary Focus Social Function
The Pure Gaze Dominant (Intellectuals/Elite) Style, Manner, and Form Asserts distance from "common" reality.
The Popular Aesthetic Working Class / Lower Middle Function, Subject, and Morality Seeks immediate emotional resonance.

3. The Sociology of Daily Life

Bourdieu proves that class is visible in the most mundane choices:

  • Food: The working class prefers heavy, "solid" foods (potatoes, pork) that provide strength for labor. The elite prefer light, refined, "exotic" dishes, prioritizing the manner of serving over the quantity of food.
  • Body: The elite view the body as an aesthetic object to be sculpted (slenderness, posture). The working class often views the body as a tool for labor, emphasizing strength and physical presence.
  • Home: Elite home decor emphasizes "purity" and "authenticity" (minimalism, antiques), while popular taste favors "warmth," comfort, and imitation luxuries that provide a sense of abundance.

Detailed Summary Analysis: The Architecture of Distinction

At its core, Distinction is a study of Symbolic Violence. Bourdieu argues that the dominant classes do not just rule through money or law; they rule by defining what "Good Taste" is. By elevating their own cultural preferences (such as opera, abstract painting, or "refined" speech) to the status of universal excellence, they effectively "consecrate" their own lifestyle while stigmatizing the lifestyle of others as "vulgar" or "uneducated."

This process is self-reinforcing. The educational system plays a critical role as a "great classifier." Schools pretend to reward merit, but they actually reward Cultural Capital. A child from a home filled with books and "correct" grammar enters the school with a massive head start. Because the school values the "Pure Gaze" and intellectual detachment, it naturally favors the children of the elite, while children from working-class backgrounds find the school culture alienating and "boring." When these students fail, the system tells them it is due to a lack of "intelligence," but Bourdieu argues it is a lack of socialized cultural familiarity.

Bourdieu also introduces the concept of Homology. This means that if you know a person's position on the social map, you can predict their tastes across seemingly unrelated fields. A taste for "difficult" jazz is often homologically linked to a preference for a specific type of furniture, a specific political stance, and even a specific way of dressing. All these choices work together to signal a singular class identity.

The ultimate tragedy described in the book is that the working classes often participate in their own subordination. By accepting that "High Culture" is superior—even if they don't understand it—they validate the very hierarchy that keeps them at the bottom. Bourdieu concludes that "Taste" is the supreme classifier: it classifies the classifier. Every time we judge something as "tacky," "pretentious," or "sophisticated," we are not describing the object itself, but our own position in a never-ending social struggle for prestige.

4. Detailed FAQ: Understanding the Nuances

Q: Does Bourdieu think some art is "objectively" better?
No. Bourdieu is a social relativist regarding taste. He doesn't care if a painting is "good." He cares about why society agrees it is good and how that agreement benefits those already in power.
Q: What is the "Choice of the Necessary"?
This is the working-class habitus. Because resources are limited, people learn to love what they can afford. They develop a taste for the filling, the sturdy, and the functional. Eventually, this necessity is transformed into a virtue: "We are real people who like real, unpretentious things."
Q: How does "Pretension" work in the middle class?
Bourdieu describes the "Petite Bourgeoisie" as being caught in the middle. They suffer from "cultural goodwill"—they desperately want to be seen as elite, so they imitate the upper classes (buying prints of famous art, for example), but they often lack the "ease" of the truly wealthy, leading to what Bourdieu calls "pretension."
Q: Is this still relevant in the age of the Internet?
Extremely. While the *objects* of taste have changed (e.g., niche aesthetic "cores" on TikTok), the *logic* is the same. Knowing the "right" obscure memes or "aesthetic" brands is a form of digital cultural capital used to create social distinction today.

Final Summary of Key Points:

  • Taste is Social: Your likes and dislikes are "socially learned" through your Habitus.
  • Capital is Power: Economic, Cultural, and Social capital determine your place in the social hierarchy.
  • The Pure Gaze: The elite value how something is done (form) over what is done (content).
  • Symbolic Violence: Class power is maintained by convincing everyone that elite taste is "legitimate" and other tastes are "vulgar."

The Field of Cultural Production: High Art vs. The Market

In Cultural Studies, Bourdieu’s essay "The Field of Cultural Production" is often taught alongside Distinction. He describes the world of art and literature as a "Field"—a competitive arena where players fight for Symbolic Profit. Within this field, there is a fascinating "inverted economy."

Sub-Field The Logic Success Marker
Restricted Production "Art for Art's sake." Produced by artists for other artists. High Prestige / Low Sales (e.g., Avant-garde poetry).
Large-Scale Production "Commercial Art." Produced for the mass public. Low Prestige / High Sales (e.g., Best-selling thrillers).

The "Loser Wins" Logic

Bourdieu observes that in the "High Art" world, commercial success is often seen as a sign of "selling out." In this field, a writer who sells very few books but wins a prestigious award is considered more successful than a writer who sells millions of copies but is ignored by critics. This disinterestedness is a luxury; it requires the artist to have enough "cultural capital" (and often a safety net) to ignore the financial necessity of the market.

Cultural Intermediaries: The Gatekeepers

Finally, Bourdieu introduces the Cultural Intermediary. These are the critics, publishers, museum curators, and—in the modern day—algorithm-driven influencers. They have the power to "consecrate" an object. Their job is to take a piece of "matter" (a book or a painting) and turn it into "meaning." By writing a review in a prestigious magazine, the critic acts as a priest who transforms a product into a "work of art."

"The work of art is an object which exists as such only by virtue of the (collective) belief which knows and acknowledges it as a work of art." — Pierre Bourdieu
Critical Thinking Task: Think of a modern "cult classic" film. It likely failed at the box office (Low Economic Capital) but is highly respected by film students and critics (High Symbolic Capital). This tension is the very definition of Distinction in the field of cinema.

Cultural Studies Focus: The Literary Canon and Language

In English departments and Cultural Studies, Distinction is frequently used to analyze the "Literary Canon." Bourdieu argues that what we consider "Great Literature" is not an objective list of the best books ever written, but rather a collection of works that require a specific Cultural Code to unlock. By making certain texts "legitimate," the academic institution validates the culture of the elite while silencing the stories and linguistic styles of the working class.

Linguistic Capital and "The Right Way to Speak"

Bourdieu’s theory of Linguistic Capital is a cornerstone of Cultural Studies. He suggests that the "Standard English" taught in universities is not "better" or "clearer" than working-class dialects or slang; it is simply the dialect of those in power.

  • The "Correct" Accent: Having the "right" accent acts as a passport, granting the speaker immediate authority and trust in professional settings.
  • Linguistic Hyper-correction: Members of the lower-middle class (Petite Bourgeoisie) often struggle with "linguistic anxiety," over-correcting their speech and grammar in an attempt to sound more elite, which often inadvertently signals their social insecurity.

Canonization as Symbolic Exclusion

When a book is "canonized" (taught in schools as a classic), it undergoes a process of Consecration. Bourdieu points out that this process often strips art of its revolutionary or practical roots, turning it into an object for "disinterested" academic study. For students of Cultural Studies, this explains why "Pop Culture"—like movies, video games, and fashion—was historically excluded from university study: it was seen as too "functional" and "common" for the Pure Gaze of the academy.

Academic Application: In your essays, you can use Bourdieu to argue that the "Value" of a text is not found inside the book, but in the social position of the person reading it. The professor’s "expert" reading is not more "correct" than a fan’s "popular" reading; it is simply more Legitimate in the eyes of the institution.