doxa and happiness

ENANGEL who-is-at cityu.edu.hk
Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:50:47 +0800

I am writing to discuss something which I am still

struggling with. Perhaps your views can help?

Two days ago, I was describing my "beauty contest research

project" with a friend (a political scientist and economist)

in Hong Kong. While we both agreed that "the sex industry"

in Hong Kong is more accessible to the average working class

girl/woman than the middle class professions (which working

class women typically lack the cultural and linguistic

capital to access), we had very different views on what the

government should do.

Given limited government resources, he argued, the

government is justified to place its priorities in solving

explicit social problems like the drug trade, where most

people, and most importantly, including the "victims" (the

drug addicts) themselves agree that the trading and use of

drugs is doing them harm. However, in the case of "the sex

industry", more and more working class girls/women

apparently "willingly" join the industry for the material

rewards; in the 1990s in Hong Kong few girls/women are

forced into the industry because of poverty, but because of

the materialistic values (an expensive, materialistic life

style) that they subscribe to.

I argued that it is both the materialistic culture (promoted

and perpetuated by the commercial, media, advertising

agencies which are part of the global capitalistic market

economic mechanisms) and the lack of cultural capital to

access high-reward middle-class professions that drive

working class girls/women into the sex industry. (The wage

difference between working class jobs and middle class jobs

is huge in Hong Kong; e.g., the average monthly income of an

"average Hong Kong person" is about US$2,000, but a factory

worker's monthly salary is only about US$900. One can

marginally live on that in Hong Kong, and of course one cannot afford

many of the consumer goods bombarding you everyday in the

media on that salary).

However, my friend argued that this is all from my own

perspective, as a "middle-class intellectual", imposing my

own "values" on the "working class girl/woman". If they

willingly do it and do not find it harmful to themselves,

why should anyone be concerned about them or what they do?

I was pushed to reflect on my own position. Yes, who am I

to say what is right and what is wrong for someone else?

However, I still feel that it is not just that simple. The

sex industry is not as innocuous as it appears to some. It

seems to me to have far more invisible but harmful effects

on all of us, middle class or working class, on the human

species as a whole.

Today, I am reading Bourdieu's conversation with Terry

Eagleton, recorded in New Left Review, 1992, pp. 111-121.

In the last paragraph, Bourdieu talked about doxa and he

said,

... The doxic attitude does not mean happiness; it

means bodily submission, unconscious submission, which

may indicate a lot of internalized tension, a lot of

bodily suffering. ... I have discovered a lot of

suffering which had been hidden by this smooth working

of habitus. It helps people to adjust, but it causes

internalized contradictions. When this happens, some

may, for instance, become drug addicts. I try to help

the person who is suffering, to make their situation

explicit in a sort of socioanalysis conducted in a

friendly and supportive way. Often when I do that, the

individuals experience a sort of intellectual pleasure;

they say `Yes, I understand what happens to me.' But

at the same time it is very sad. (Bourdieu, 1991, p.

121)

I feel very sad, too. What should be the role of the

researcher? Fellow xmca-ers are familiar with this question

from me; I kept asking this question when I was doing my

doctoral work, and I keep asking it when I have graduated

and entered into the academic game as a junior member. I

know to play this game well, one has to publish (and no need

to remind me, my boss keeps reminding me that to get tenure,

you have to publish and publish and publis... ). But

what's the point? Are we deluding ourselves? We "middle-

class intellectuals, academics" are doing what we are doing

mainly to play this academic game well. Is there anything

more than that? Anything that we do which has some value

apart from that?

Anyway, if you find this question too heavy, just delete

this message and go back to what we are best at: writing

papers for journals and books.

(I don't have an answer? Do you?)

Best,

Angel

-------------

Angel Lin

Dept of English

City University of Hong Kong

E-Mail: enangel who-is-at cityu.edu.hk