eBook Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market ePub

"Acts of Resistance" by Pierre Bourdieu is an intellectual call-to-arms on behalf of an oppressed humanity. As Bourdieu writes, his role as an intellectual is to "critique...the [false] representations continuously produced and propagated by the dominant groups and their lackeys in the media" (pg. 66) in order to expose the restorative nature (ie laissez-faire economics) of the neoliberal agenda. Bourdieu opposes those neoliberal pseudo-intellectuals who "contribute to the maintenance of the symbolic order which is the condition of the functioning of the economic order" (pg. 82). Bourdieu's reasoned arguments for dignity and human rights will necessarilly stand in the way of the "accountant's view of the world" (pg. 105) that neoliberalism subscribes to.

In a world where the the corporate media mostly serves as a conservative echo chamber, it is refreshing to read Bourdieu's intelligent yet sometimes bare-knuckled defense of people and society. Understanding both the value of high human cultural achievement and the threat of unchecked greed, Bourdieu spares no quarters when exposing those who aim to fill their pockets at the expense of the greater good.

"Acts of Resistance" will help fix your moral compass and remind you that, in the end, it is people that matter most. Highly recommended.

love it

Bourdieu is very observant on the social issues of our time as well as the consequences of Neoliberalism. Although politically popular neoliberalism is not what any society should strive for but against. Clearly he knows the subject and lays it out for us. Thanks Bourdieu

Straight from the sociologist's mouth, as it were, this book is a little gem which demonstrates that Bourdieu - far from being the pessimistic unveiler of rigid social structure which works such as 'La Distinction' hint at - is, in fact, as 'hip', contemporary and aware of the possibilities for individual political action as Foucault or Chomsky. Anyone who has followed M. Bourdieu's political life in relation to his theories might have previously been suprised by this apparent incongruity, but I was delighted to find that this little book contains enough thoughtful application of theory to fan the flames of dissidence and keep alive the hopes for a more accountable, 'rational' society. Bourdieu is not always right (naturally) and he does have a clear sense of his own importance in the French intellectual field, but to be perfectly honest, when the speaker is this informed and capable a little leeway can be granted. An excellent book, very readable and up-to-date, but not - it is perhaps worth noting - any sort of introduction to Bourdieu's dense theories, more a treasure trove of his shoot-from-the-hip polemics.

Having read Bourdieu's book, and then the comments here, I find the most revealing response is the one by Brad Delong. Indeed, Delong's comments are almost a textbook case of everything that's wrong with the neoliberal paradigm of economic rationalism that Bourdieu's book so powerfully decries. It's helpful, though, to take Delong's points one by one --- albeit in no particular order --- and contrast them with what Bourdieu actually says.
First, the notion that "Acts" is a "mosaic" and, as such, omits "large and important pieces of the picture" (Delong later claims that Bourdieu's "position" is less than "coherent"). That the book is an incomplete "mosaic" is true enough, but the implication that this amounts to a flawed set of arguments is unsupported by Delong. Though some of Bourdieu's mini-essays and speeches appear occasionally to wander from his main thesis, in reality, of the sixteen items in this book, all but two are concerned, directly or indirectly, with Bourdieu's "resistance" to the ideas and policies subsumed under the doctrine of "neoliberalism." In fact, it's all summed up in the second part of his title: "Against the Tyranny of the Market."
Neoliberalism is the most pervasive economic doctrine today bolstering the "tyranny of the market" in its advocacy of privatization, exportation of capital to foreign countries (for the exploitation of cheap resources and low-wage workers), the bailing out of Wall Street investors with middle-class tax money, and the removal of legal restraints upon capital which, along with depredations on the working class, allows corporations to pollute the environment with near impunity. It's almost laughable, in fact, to see Delong list among his "credentials" his former tutelage under Lawrence Summers, among whose famous statements are the following from 1991:
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.... I've always thought that underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly under polluted; their air quality is vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City."
Summers, of course, later defended these statements as "ironic," but nearly everything else he's advocated proves the opposite.
Ergo, it's hardly surprising that a fervent apostle of neoliberal economics like Delong should have problems with Bourdieu. He attempts an affable rejoinder, granting Bourdieu's "excellent" points, but this sort of amiability seems oddly similar to the kind of bonhomie extended at business conferences to token liberals like Jesse Jackson. In other words, it's easy to be amiable when you're one of the main beneficiaries of the doctrines being denounced, especially when there's no foreseeable danger that said doctrines will be supplanted by "mere" verbal renunciation.
Delong's main points are two. First, after characterizing Bourdieu as a "friend," then backtracking to an "ally," he resigns himself ultimately to "someone who would be [i.e., an ally or friend] if he pushed his analysis just a little bit deeper, and made his position a little more coherent."
Actually, Bourdieu's position is about as "coherent" as one could hope for, especially given the varied circumstances under which these articles were written, and they are also as "deep" as anything spewed up by the neoliberal camp. But this "position" is more than a distrust of "intellectuals": it's a critique of a particular form of "mathematical" rationalism appropriated by the economics profession which, in its provinciality, attempts to reduce policy to formulae, and to simultaneously divorce these mathematical calculations from social consequences. In other words, what Bourdieu is denouncing is a prevailing economic policy that takes place in a moral vacuum, perhaps best summed up by the famous claim of Milton Friedman that companies have no "responsibility" other than those to their shareholders for the maximization of profit. Starting from this major premise of economic isolationism, myriad evils follow.
Delong's claim that Bourdieu needs to go "deeper" (implicitly, to see the error of his ways) is also a familiar tactic of right-wing sciolists. It's an easy tactic to see through, especially when the tactician fails to present any evidence to back himself up. If Delong has gone "deeper" than Bourdieu into these matters, the obvious questions is why he fails to share the benefit of his depth. An old trick, and here again former examples come to mind, like the one the media orchestrated in the mid-90's, when pollsters were claiming that people disliked the "Contract With America" until it was "explained" to them (we can pretty well guess who the "explainers" were), at which point they seemed magically converted to the church of Mammon.
Delong's other point relates to Bourdieu's classification of representatives of the welfare state (presumably as nothing more than a "trace"). "That the main business of the late-twentieth century state is social insurance is an important fact," counters Delong, in the process failing to note (1) that he's uttering a tautology, (2) that Bourdieu is not defending the welfare state against leftwingers, but against rightwingers, and (3) that Bourdieu's use of "trace" in this context is a commentary on the fact that in all the advanced industrial economies, the welfare state is, as a direct result of neoliberal policies, no more than a "trace" of what it was during the bulk of the post-war period.
In other words, from what little I can see of Delong's "intellectual position," he needs to go "deeper" into Bourdieu.