>
>I can't think of studies that have looked at this as an issue of
>consciousness, that explicit recognition of tracks or sides and where you
>fit in.
Well, I was trying to refer to the way in which a purely social relation
assumes a truly "thinglike" quality--and in my own experience the thinglike
apprehension of class relations preceded any concept of class; e.g.,
associating the fact that the kids' dads who lived north of Foothill were
doctors, vice-Presidents of Ford Motor Co., etc. with the other elements
that filled out constituted the phenomena over time.
As to "habitus", that is really getting eclectic and I'm reminded of
Ilyenkov's statement on eclecticism:
"And still why did Marx, taking all this into account, define the ascent
from the abstract to the concrete as the only possible and scientifically
correct mode of theoretical assimilation (reflection) of the world? The
reason is that dialectics, as distinct from ecleciticism, does not reason on
the "on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand' priunciple but always points out
the determining aspect, that element in the unity of opposities which is in
the given instance the leading or determining one. That is an axiom of
dialectics." (1982:138)
Furthermore, to discuss "a dispositional orientation built up through
repeated
everyday practice that eventually leads to that conscious recognition
(perhaps in others' "placing" you?), " is in itself a second-order
objectifying of the experience. It would seem to place the "conscious
recognition" outside of the consciousness itself but what really seems to
happen is that one recognizes the classes (even non-thetically as Husserl,
to whom Bourdieu owes a great debt, would say) at the same time as one
determines one's own consciousness/ones own consciousness is determined
within the overall system of class consciousness.
What is the F.Scott Fitzgerald quote, "the rich really are different" or
something like that? I guess it's in this sense I'm looking for the answer
Paul H. Dillon
p.s. I know, "they have more money"