http://frc.sagepub.com/French Cultural Studies

http://frc.sagepub.com/content/4/12/213The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/095715589300401203

1993 4: 213French Cultural StudiesMorag Shiach

'Cultural studies' and the work of Pierre Bourdieu  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:French Cultural StudiesAdditional services and information for     

  http://frc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://frc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://frc.sagepub.com/content/4/12/213.refs.htmlCitations:  

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

213-

’Cultural studies’ and the work ofPierre Bourdieu

MORAG SHIACH*

Pierre Bourdieu’s work has always presented something of a problem forthe discipline of cultural studies in Britain, largely because it seems to

operate along the fault line between textual analysis and sociologicalcritique which has for so long disturbed the discipline’s self-constitution.When Nicholas Garnham and Raymond Williams talk of Bourdieu as offeringa possible ’mediation’ between the traditions of cultural analysis representedby the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies and the filmjournal Screen, they seem to identify very precisely this ’difficulty’, if

perhaps expressing an exaggerated optimism about its possible resolution(Garnham and Williams 1980). The extent of the difficulty in assimilatingBourdieu’s work is perhaps signalled by his absence from so many textswhich aim to define or develop the space of ’cultural studies’ in Britain: it isstriking, for instance, that before the production of this special issue, nocontributor to French Cultural Studies has drawn on the work of PierreBourdieu. The aim of this article is to indicate the lines of development inBourdieu’s work which seem to have rendered it so problematic for Britishcultural studies. My argument will focus on the ways in which Bourdieu hastheorized the possibilities of cultural resistance and of political pedagogiesas well as on the ways in which his attempt to negotiate the pressures ofdeterminism and agency have left his work marked by images of enclosureand entrapment.

Cultural studies and radical pedagogiesCultural studies as a discipline exists within particular institutional sites:specifically those of secondary, further and higher education. It has,throughout its history, been defined not just in terms of the objects it studiesbut also in terms of a broader pedagogical and political project. Its aims of

address for correspondence: Dr Morag Shiach, Department of English, Queen Mary andWestfield College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS.

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

214

challenging cultural hierarchies, of extending the range of cultural artefactssubjected to analysis or critique, and of undermining economistic

understandings of the social formation are all to some extent congruent withthe outlines of Bourdieu’s sociological investigations. Thus, in Choses dites,Bourdieu writes of the importance of disturbing analytic hierarchies, of hisintention to

dissoudre les grandes questions en les posant a propos d’objetssocialement mineurs, voire insignifiants. (Bourdieu 1987: 30)

in a way that seems to legitimize cultural studies’ insistence on the socialand cultural significance of the apparently ephemeral or banal. Similarly, hisresearch in La Distinction offers a very precise analysis of the cultural andsocial mechanisms which have constructed the space of the ’aesthetic’ asone of privilege and of significant cultural capital.What Bourdieu’s work seems to undermine, however, is the desire of

cultural studies to constitute itself as a site of resistance or transgressionwithin institutions of education. Cultural studies has never been simplyanother discipline addressing a discrete set of objects, but has always soughtto connect cultural analysis with the analysis of ideological structures andeconomic power. It has to that extent sought to embody the possibility of aradical pedagogy, the potential of educational institutions to empower or toavoid simple reproduction of the status quo.Much of Bourdieu’s early work is, of course, concerned with the viability

of precisely such a project. In Les H6ritiers (1964) Bourdieu examines thefailure of educational institutions to challenge the social inequalities whichmarked students on their entry into these institutions. Indeed, he shows themechanisms by which educational institutions tend to reinforce such

inequalities. These mechanisms operate crucially in relation to cultural

knowledges, with universities, for example, tending to discount or evendespise those cultural knowledges which are derived simply from theeducational curriculum and to favour those knowledges whose source ismysterious, that is to say whose source lies in the experience of a specificclass formation.The argument is continued in La Reproduction (1970) and connected even

more emphatically with discourses of cultural evaluation and taste in LaDistinction (1979). Over these three texts, however, Bourdieu becomessignificantly less able to imagine an alternative to this practice of culturaland social reproduction. While Les Heritiers is marked by a sense offrustration at the failure of educational insitutions to deliver a practice ofrational pedagogy or to develop something approaching a ’common culture’,and at least imagines ’the possibility of rationally transmitting aristocraticculture within institutional contexts which might not be reinforcing a socialhierarchy’ (Robbins 1991: 53), La Distinction sees hierarchy and the

reproduction of social inequalities as precisely the business of cultural

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

215

evaluation, and equates cultural evaluation or critique with a kind of

symbolic violence. In La Distinction, taste is the expression of arbitrarytaxonomies which are mapped onto class-specific knowledges, and culturalevaluation is necessarily caught up in a mystifying assertion of its ownautonomy. Such autonomy is illusory, and imaginable only within specificcultural fields and at particular historical moments, yet intellectuals whooperate within the field of cultural production or analysis are absolutelyimplicated in such idealist aesthetic discourses.

Bourdieu’s work, then, has tended to show the way in which educationalinstitutions collude in the reproduction of social inequalities and, far fromseeing cultural analysis as a site of resistance or critique, has seen it as

absolutely central to the project of social reproduction. Uncomfortably forcultural studies, it is not clear that this analysis can accommodate the desireof cultural studies to see itself as apart from such strategies of mystificationand social stratification. It seems rather to offer a totalizing analysis of thefunction of all cultural discourses within educational institutions which canleave very little room for alternative pedagogies and grant very little powerto attempts to modify the objects or methodologies of cultural analysis. Weall seem to be playing the game of distinction, even as we seek to developtheoretical or methodological challenges to dominant literary modes of

analysis.Indeed, increasingly in Bourdieu’s work we find that there is very little

sense of possible alternatives to the cultural hierarchies which are so

efficiently communicated and reproduced within educational institutions:what we are left with instead is a sense of enclosure. This is the dimensionof Bourdieu’s work which has led some cultural theorists to condemnhim as too sweeping or too mechanical in his social and culturalclassifications:

Having written with such force... against forms of essentialism andsubstantialism in social theory, Bourdieu falls effortlessly into both whenit comes to the aesthetic.

the working class [seems] to be inevitably and inexorably entrappedwithin the cultural limits imposed on it. (Frow 1987: 63 and 71)

Bourdieu is certainly aware of the problem, but cannot offer any politicalstrategy within the realm of the cultural, which is so implicated inmechanisms of distinction. In so far as he can imagine an alternative

pedagogy, it seems to be limited to the context of philosophy, where‘1’analyse des structures mentales est un instrument de liberation’ (Bourdieu1987: 27). The rest of this article will be concerned to chart the implicationsof this refusal of the cultural as a space of possible transformation or critiqueand to consider the viability of Bourdieu’s search for ’un instrument de

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

216

liberation’ in his analysis of what he sees as one of the founding forms ofsocial inequality: sexual difference.

Populism or political modernismThe tension within the discipline of cultural studies with which this articlebegan can be characterized as a tension between populism and formalism,between the search for ’the popular’ as a site of resistance and theidentification of strategies of formal textual subversion as the locus of

political struggle. Neither position is without its difficulties, the first riskingan over-politicization of popular culture and a consequent evacuation ofconsiderations of form or value and the latter apparently over-formalizingthe political so that questions of economic relations or institutions becomeinvisible. Both, however, do offer a means by which ’the social criticism thathas been the traditional province of the intellectual’ can be articulatedwithin the project of cultural studies (Wilson 1988: 55). In order tounderstand the difficulty that Bourdieu’s work poses for the discipline ofcultural studies, despite its apparent congruence, it is necessary to considerthe ways in which he condemns both political modernism and populism assimply strategies of distinction within the restricted field of intellectual orcultural production.

In La Distinction, Bourdieu seeks to identify the mechanisms by whichcertain sorts of cultural discourses and knowledges become endowed withprestige, and thus constitute a form of cultural capital. His contention is thatthere is nothing inherent in aesthetic judgements or in discourses of tastethat constitutes their rationale, other than their participation in a logic ofscarcity: taste is something most people can’t have. He points to the socialand historical specificity of notions of ’the aesthetic’ as a separate sphere andof the idea that aesthetic experience constitutes a completely separate realmof experience, a different sort of looking or of feeling. In Les Regles de 1’art(1992) he seeks to identify the historical development of notions of artisticautonomy more precisely, rejecting aesthetic theories which aim to identifysome transhistorical essence of the aesthetic experience:

Si ces analyses d’essence se rencontrent sur 1’essentiel, c’est qu’elles onten commun de prendre pour objet... 1’experience subjective de 1’ceuvred’art qui est celle de leur auteur, c’est-a-dire celle d’un homme cultived’une certaine societe, mais sans prendre acte de I’historicit6 de cetteexperience et de l’objet auquel elle s’applique. C’est dire qu’elles oporent,sans le savoir, une universalisation du cas particulier et qu’ellesconstituent par la meme une experience particuliere, situee et dat6e, del’œuvre d’art en norme transhistorique de toute perception artistique.(Bourdieu 1992: 394).

Bourdieu thus tends increasingly to deny any substantive meaning to

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

217

judgements of taste or value, and to see them instead as simply themanifestation of the logic of a particular historically constituted culturalfield.

For Bourdieu, the emergence of the aesthetic as a separate spherecharacterized by the pure gaze, by distance from the prevailing values ofindustrial capitalism, by self-reflexivity, or by autonomy, is simply part of ahistorical modification of commercial and class relations which took placein the mid-nineteenth century. It has no absolute claim to oppositional statusor to essential truth. Indeed, the very claims of the aesthetic only make sensewithin very particular institutional sites or within a specific field. The ideathat the aesthetic offers some escape from economic relations is

misrecognition: instead it represents the articulation of economic relationsand their connection with strategies of symbolic distinction.

For Bourdieu, strategies of textual or formal experimentation within therealm of the aesthetic have no inherent claim to offer any form of resistanceto the instrumentalism of capitalism. This conclusion clearly disturbs acritic such as Elizabeth Wilson, who invokes Adorno to support her claimthat modernist texts have the capacity to produce ’radical transformations’within both social and psychic reality (Wilson 1988: 48). Numerous criticshave expressed a similar unease about Bourdieu’s apparently totalizingaccount of the project of modernism, which seems to offer no scope forconsidering the texts of modernist aesthetics as ambiguous or even as

contradictory in their social and cultural significance. There is certainly astark contrast between Bourdieu’s account of modernism as absolutelyenclosed within the logic of a particular field of cultural production and theargument of Walter Benjamin in ’The Work of Art in the Age of MechanicalReproduction’ which appears always to demonstrate the complexity anddoubleness of the cultural impact of ’mass culture’ on the space of theaesthetic. For Bourdieu, modernist texts must always strive for distance anddistinction:

La ’distanciation’ brechtienne pourrait 8tre 1’6cart par lequel 1’intellectuelaffirme, au coeur meme de 1’art populaire, sa distance a 1’art populairequi rend 1’art populaire intellectuellement acceptable... et, plusprofond6ment, sa distance au peuple. (Bourdieu 1979: 568)

Yet, for Benjamin, the complex series of cultural transformations associatedwith technologies of mechanical reproduction offer instead the opportunityto break down the distance associated with the art object as cult object, andto explore the resources of immediacy and proximity for the development ofa politicized conception of the aesthetic: ’The painter maintains in his worka natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into itsweb’ (Benjamin 1973: 235).What seems to be impossible on Bourdieu’s account is an analysis that

sees the space of modernist aesthetics as ambiguous, as containing the

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

218

potential both for subversion and for simple reproduction. One attempt toidentify such complexity can be found in Peter Burger’s distinction betweenmodernism and ’the avant-garde’, where modernism represents somethingcloser to art for art’s sake while the avant-garde embodies a substantialchallenge to habits of perception and categories of thought and to theinstitution of art itself (Burger 1984). Similarly, Raymond Williams, whileapparently endorsing much of Bourdieu’s account of the historical

specificity of modernism as a social and cultural movement, still seeks toidentify more precisely what is at stake in the texts and images of particularmodernist artists (Williams 1989). For both Burger and Williams culture hasthe capacity to manifest a critical function, whereas for Bourdieu such acritical function is only another move in the coded game of cultural andsocial distinction. To stress the compulsion and inevitability of such gameplaying, Bourdieu has developed the concept of l’illusio: ’I’adh6sionfondamentale au jeu... reconnaissance du jeu et de l’utilite du jeu, croyancedans la valeur du jeu et de son enjeu’ (Bourdieu 1992: 245). This illusioserves to commit participants to the logic of a particular field and to its

practices of distinction:

chaque champ produit sa forme sp6cifique d’illusio, au sens

d’investissement dans le jeu qui arrache les agents a l’indiff6rence et lesincline et les dispose a operer les distinctions pertinentes du point devue de la logique du champ. (Bourdieu 1992: 316)

Such a totalizing analysis of the aesthetic leaves no room for exploitingtextual or cultural ambiguities as part of a politicized project of culturalanalysis, but rather leaves us asking ’whether Bourdieu’s system allowsanything to escape it and thus potentially to resist it?’ (Wilson 1988: 55).The difficulty with this critique, of course, is that Bourdieu’s work has

already predicted it. Even to pose questions about ’the politics ofmodernism’ is to participate in a self-confirming game within the intellectualfield. Bourdieu is equally critical of the capacity of ’high theory’ to deliverany sort of political critique, seeing it instead as simply another attemptedmonopoly of cultural capital. Theoretical accounts of the political potentialof modernism are thus doubly disabled: they can never aspire to truth butonly to legitimacy, which is to say to the rewards of discursive behaviourwhich corresponds precisely to the demands of a particular intellectual field.

If the analysis of textual subversion can offer no sure basis for a

politicized cultural studies, what then can we make of the claims of

populism? Is it possible to imagine ’the popular’ as a site of resistance? ForBourdieu it would seem that it might be possible to imagine it, but it is not atall clear that it is possible to theorize or mobilize it.

Bourdieu does at times seem to ground his critique of the aesthetic in aparticular reading of the popular, as a space where practical and economic

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

219

interests determine cultural forms and where a realist project of

representation is vindicated in terms of its accessibility. Thus, for example,in Un art moyen (1965) Bourdieu stresses the manner in which photographyas one of the popular arts subordinates questions of artistic form to

considerations of its socially regulated functions and meanings. Elsewhere,Bourdieu appears to valorize the practicality of popular culture, itsinvolvement in the everyday, as opposed to the distance from economicnecessity and practical imperatives which characterize the realm of theaesthetic. It is perhaps in this aspiration to identify a cultural space which isnot caught up in the logic of distinction that we can understand DerekRobbins’ judgement that Bourdieu operates with an unarticulated utopianvision (Robbins: 176).

However, when it comes to an attempt to identify the political or

theoretical meanings of ’the popular’, Bourdieu is extremely sceptical. Hepoints out the fluidity of the concept of ’the popular’ and its consequentappeal to a diverse range of social critics, arguing that it owes

ses vertus mystificatrices, dans la production savante, au fait que chacunpeut, comme dans un test projectif, en manipuler inconsciemment1’extension pour 1’ajuster a ses int6r6ts, a ses pr6jug6s ou a ses fantasmessociaux. (Bourdieu 1983: 98)

It thus becomes impossible, for Bourdieu, to speak of the popular withoutbeing caught up in the realm of mythology. The aim of theorists seems to beto catch the essence of the popular, while Bourdieu stresses the need to see itas a contradictory and negotiated space. The desire to fix, and to claim, thepopular is simply another manifestation of the struggle for distinction withinthe intellectual field. Debates about the politics of the popular only makesense within such a restricted and restricting field: ’&dquo;le populaire&dquo; ... est

d’abord un des enjeux de lutte entre les intellectuels’ (Bourdieu 1987: 178).Thus, for Bourdieu, claims for a politicized reading of popular culture haveno essential truth, but reflect rather the theorists’ place within the field ofcultural production. Here too, then, we are disabled in the search for apoliticized account of the space of ’cultural studies’.

Gender and power

So far, Bourdieu’s analyses have served to disturb the capacity of ’culturalstudies’ to represent itself as the space of a political critique. Instead oftheorizing cultural analysis as a site of resistance to social and culturalhierarchies, Bourdieu tends rather to stress the ways in which it participatesin mechanisms of distinction. His analyses serve to specify the terms of ourenclosure rather than to offer us any escape.

In order to see whether Bourdieu can imagine any analytic or practical

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

220

strategies that might indeed offer us the ’instrument de liberation’ to whichhe aspires, I want to turn finally to his analysis of what he describes as ’leparadigme (et souvent le modele et 1’enjeu) de toute domination: ladomination masculine’ (Bourdieu 1990: 31). Bourdieu sees gender relationsas a key embodiment of the terms in which he seeks to theorize power.Drawing on his anthropological research, Bourdieu describes Kabyle cultureas rigidly divided in terms of gender, with participation in rituals, divisionof labour, use of space and access to artefacts all clearly marked bydifferential gender relations. He describes Kabyle culture as one of

’phallonarcissism’, where patterns of behaviour, use of time and categories ofrepresentation all serve to reinforce masculine power.

Bourdieu’s interest lies in the ways in which this system of oppressionsustains and reproduces itself, and in particular in the centrality of thesymbolic domain. His argument is that such forms of oppression gain a kindof naturalness or inevitability from the power of sedimented rituals whichare expressed in the habitus of members of the culture. The habitus herecarries the meaning of both a predisposition to particular modes ofbehaviour and perception as well as a habitual mode of thinking. Thehabitus is marked on and by the body, which carries the weight and themeaning of gendered power relations. As such, it can be understood neitherin terms of pure coercion nor in terms of willing consent. It is rather the

space in which members of a culture negotiate its rituals, practices andmeanings.

Bourdieu once more stresses the enormous complexity of the systemwhich maintains relations of inequality. In a manner strikingly, but perhapssurprisingly, reminiscent of the work of Helene Cixous (Cixous 1975),Bourdieu demonstrates the ways in which all categories of thought aremarked by the hierarchy of sexual difference:

l’opposition entre le masculin et le f6minin re~oit sa necessite objectiveet subjective de son insertion dans un systbme d’oppositionshomologues, haut/bas, dessus/dessous. devant/derri6re, droite/gauche.(Bourdieu 1990: 8)

While Cixous sets out to theorize and to develop a mode of writing whichmight challenge the inevitability of such hierarchized oppositions, such astrategy is impossible for Bourdieu. He can imagine no challenge to thiscultural and social hierarchy from within the space of the cultural. Instead,he goes on to describe the ways in which gender relations, apparentlyimmutable, have negative effects on all members of a culture.The image Bourdieu chooses to capture the pervasive impact of gender

inequalities is once more one of enclosure:les hommes sont aussi prisonniers, et sournoisement victimes, de la

representation dominante, pourtant si parfaitement conforme a leursint6r6ts. (Bourdieu 1990: 21)

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

221

The ways in which gender inequalities distort and disable all members of aparticular cultural group are crucial for Bourdieu, and he is critical of thefailure of feminist research to address this issue. He does, however, exemptVirginia Woolf from this critique, seeing To the Lighthouse as a classic studyof the ways in which masculinity tends to alienate and to infantilize thosewho are condemned to live under its sway. Bourdieu’s reading of To theLighthouse is detailed and compelling, but once more it tends to diminishthe critical potential of the cultural. Bourdieu’s reading focuses almostentirely on the character of Mr Ramsay, but it does so in a way that is

curiously static. He has nothing to say about the character of Lily, whosurely carries most of the transformative potential of the text, at boththematic and symbolic levels. Indeed, he tends to treat the novel as a seriesof descriptions rather than as a text that might embody contradiction or offera formal challenge to the categorical differences with which it begins. Thesame kind of partiality emerges when Bourdieu considers what is at stake inwomen’s exclusion from power within a patriarchal culture:

Les femmes ont le privilege (tout n6gatifl de n’etre pas dupes des jeux ouse disputent les privileges, et de n’y 6tre pas prises, au moinsdirectement, en premiere personne. (Bourdieu 1990: 24)

In seeing this exclusion as completely negative, Bourdieu loses any chanceof exploring the potential of excluded groups for resistance, a possibility thatWoolf herself was to theorize in Three Guineas.

In relation to this paradigmatic system of power relations, then,Bourdieu’s analysis offers little by way of resistance. The ways in whichsymbolic and economic structures intersect is carefully laid out. The mannerin which individual participants in a culture encounter such inequalities,and tend to reproduce them, is theorized through the concept of the’habitus’. But no challenge to this system seems possible within the space ofthe cultural: writing cannot set us free. Instead, Bourdieu ends with a call tocollective action:

seule une action collective visant a organiser une lutte symboliquecapable de mettre en question pratiquement tous les presupposes tacitesde la vision phallonarcissique du monde peut determiner la rupture de1’accord quasi imm6diat entre les structures incorporees et les structuresobjectiv6es. (Bourdieu 1990: 30)

The call is repeated in his conclusion to Les Regles de l’art, where he speaksof the dangers of the erosion of the critical role of the intellectual. Oncemore, he argues that:

il est possible de tirer de la connaissance de la logique dufonctionnement des champs de production culturelle un programmerealiste pour une action collective des intellectuels. (Bourdieu 1992: 461) J

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

222

This analysis is specifically addressed to those who can imagine the cultural’comme instrument de liberte supposant la liberte’ (:462), a characterizationthat sits uneasily with the thrust of much of his own research. Clearly,Bourdieu believes that the stakes are now high, that the political power ofthe intellectual and the cultural power of reason are both under threat from’ces nouveaux maitres a penser sans pensee’ (:470). He asks for a collectiveand international movement of intellectuals, aware of the historicalconstraints which shape their own discourses but committed to overcomingthe division between autonomy and engagement and willing also to

’travailler collectivement a la defense de leurs int6r6ts propres’ (:472). Yetthe site for such practical and symbolic struggle remains unclear: it may besociology, it may be philosophy, but it seems unlikely that, for Bourdieu, itcould ever be ’cultural studies’.

LITERATURE CITED

Benjamin, Walter (1973), ’The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, inIlluminations, edited by Hannah Arendt (London: Collins), 219-253

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1964), Les Heritiers (Paris: Minuit)Bourdieu, Pierre, et al. (1965), Un art moyen: essais sur les usages sociaux de la

photographie (Paris: Minuit).Bourdieu, Pierre (1970), La Reproduction: éléments pour une théorie du système

d’enseignement (Paris: Minuit)—— (1979), La Distinction: critique sociale du jugement (Paris: Minuit).—— (1983), ’Vous avez dit "populaire"?’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,

No. 46, 98-105.—— (1987), Choses dites (Paris: Minuit).—— (1990) ’La Domination masculine’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,

No. 84, septembre, 2-31.—— (1992), Les Règles de l’art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris: Seuil).Burger, Peter (1984), Theory of the Avant-Garde (Manchester: MUP).Cixous, Hélène (1975), ’Sorties’, in C. Clément and H. Cixous, La Jeune Née (Paris:

Union Générale d’Éditions), 115-246.Frow, John (1987), ’Accounting for tastes: some problems in Bourdieu’s sociology of

culture’, Cultural Studies, i, 59-73.Garnham, Nicholas and Raymond Williams (1980), ’Pierre Bourdieu and the

sociology of culture’, Media, Culture and Society, ii, 209-223.Robbins, Derek (1991), The Work of Pierre Bourdieu (Milton Keynes: Open

University Press).Williams, Raymond (1989), The Politics of Modernism, edited by Tony Pinkney

(London: Verso).Wilson, Elizabeth (1988), ’Picasso and Pâté de Foie Gras: Pierre Bourdieu’s

Sociology of Culture’, Diacritics, xviii, (2), 47-60.

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

223

Woolf, Virginia (1992a), To the Lighthouse (Oxford: OUP)—— (1992b), A Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas (Oxford: OUP).

at Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden on January 1, 2011frc.sagepub.comDownloaded from