Site b,ffects

The place occupied may be defined as the exrent, surface and volume that anindividual or a thing occupies in physical space, irs dimensions, or beter sti l l , i ts"bulk" (as is somet imes said of a vehic le or piece of íurní ture).

Because sociaf agents are constituted in, and in relationship to, a social space(or better yct, to fields), and things too insofar as they are appropriated by agenrsand hcncc cttnstituted as properties, they are situated in a site of social space thatczrn be defined by its position relative to other sites (above, below, between, etc.)and by the distance separating it from them. As physical space is defined by themutual exteriority of its parts, so social space is defined by the mutual exclusion(or distinctir>n) of the positions that constitute it, thar is, as a juxtapositionalstructurc of social posi t ions.

In this way and in the most diverse contexts, the structure of social space showsup as spatial oppositions, with the inhabited (or appropriated) space functioningas a sort of spontaneous symbolization of social space. There is no space in ahierarchized society that is not itself hierarchized and that does nor expresshierarchies and social distances, in a form that is more or less distorted and,ab<rve all, disguiscd by the naturalization effect procluced by the long-terminscription of social realit ies in the natural world.'I 'hus historical differencescan seem to h:rve arisen from the nature of things (we need only think of ..natural

frontier"). This is the case, for example, with all the spatial projections of socialdiff-erence between the sexes (at church, in school, in public, and even at home).

In fact, social space translates into physical space, but the translation is alwaysmore or less blurred: the power over space that comes from posscssing variouskinds of capiti l l takes the form in appropriated physical space of a certain relationbetween the spatial structure ofthe distribution ofagents and the spatial strucrure<lf the distribution of goods and services, private or public. An agent,s position insocial space is expressed in the site of physical space where thar agent is situated(which means, fclr example, that anyone said to be "withor.rt home or hearth" or"homeless" is virtually without a s<lcial existence), and by the relative position thattfreir tenrporary localizations (for example, honorif ic places, seating iegulated byprotocol)' and especially the permanent ones (home address and busineis address;occupy in relation to the localizations of other agents. Ir is also expressecl in theplace occupiecl (by right) in space by virtue of the properties (houses, aparrmenrs,or offices, land to cultivate, to use or build on, etc.), which are more oiless bulkyor, i ls one sorretinres says, "space consuming" (greater or lesser ostentation in thec<>nsunrption of space being one of the forms par excellence for displaying power).Part <rf the inert ia of the structures of social space results from the fact thai ih"y nr.irrscri lred irr physical space and cannot be modified excepr by a work of transplan-tttt i tm, a moving of things and an uprooting or deporting of people, which itselfpresupposes extremely diff icult and costly sociaI transformarions.

In this way, reif ied social space (that is, physically realized or objectif ied)appears as the distribution in physical space of different types of goods andservices ar.rd also of individual agents and of physically situated groups (as unitslinked to i l permallent site) that are endowed with greater or lesseipossibil i t ies for

124

app

site r,ff e cts

appropriating these goods and services (as a function of both their capital and thephysical distance from these goods, which also depends on their capital). Thevalue of different regions of reif ied social space is defined in this relation betweenthe distribution of agents and the distribution of goods in social space.

The different f ields, or, if you l ike, the different, physically obiectif ied socialspaces, tend to be at least roughly superimposed: the result is a concentration ofthe rarest goods and their owners in certain sites of physical space (MadisonAvenue or Fifth Avenue in New York, the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré inParis) which contrasts in every respect with sites that, principally and sometimesexclusively, collect the most disadvantaged groups (poor suburbs, ghettos). Thesesites of high concentrations of either positive or negative (stigmatizing) propertiesset traps for the analyst who, in accepting them as such, is bound to overlook theessential point: l ike Madison Avenue, the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré bringstogether high-end art galleries and antique dealers, haute couture salons, elegantbootmakers, painters, interior decorators, etc., that is, a whole array of businesseswhich have in common the fact that they occupy elevated positions (positionsthus homologous to each other) in their respective fields, and which can beunderstood in all their individual specificity only if they are seen in relation tobusinesses situated in the same field, in lesser positions, but in other regions ofphysical space. For instance, the interior decorators of the Rue du FaubourgSaint-Honoré in central Paris stand in marked contrast to what on the working-cf ass Rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine are called "cabinet makers" lébénistesl (thedifference is marked most obviously by their aristocratic names, but also by alltheir attributes, the nature, quality and price of the products offered, the socialstatus of their clientele, etc.). The same logic contrasts hair stylists with ordinarybarbers, bootmakers with shoe repairers. These oppositions are asserted in a trulysyn-rbolic system of distinction: reference to the uniqueness of the "creation" andthe "creator," invocation of a long tradition, the nobil ity of the founder and thefounder's actions, always designated by noble epithets, often borrowed from theEngl ish.

In the same way, at least in the case of France, the capital city is - no punintended - the site of capital, that is, the site in physical space where the positivepoles of all the fields are concentrated along with most of the agents occupyingthese dominant positions: which means that the capital cannot be adequatelyanalyzed except in relation to the provinces (and "provincialness"), which isnothing other than being deprived (in entirely relative terms) of the capital andcapi ta l .

The great social oppositions objectif ied in physical space (as with the capitalversus the provinces) tend to be reproduced in thought and in language asoppositions constitutive of a principle of vision and division, as categories ofperception and evalr.ration or of mental structures (Parisian/provincial, chic/notchic, etc.). Thr"rs the opposition between the "Left Bank" and the "Right Bank"that shows up on maps and in statistical analyses of theater audiences or of theattributes of gallery artists is present in the minds of potential spectators, and als<r

125

' . \t \

\

\,, I\

$í

site L,ffects

in the minds of playwrights, painters and crit ics, as the opposition - whichoperates like a category of perception and appreciation - between avant-gardeart (off-Broadway theater) and "bourgeois" art (Broadway shows).

More generally, the mute injunctions and silent calls to order from structures rnappropriated physical space are one of the mediations by which social structuresare gradually converted into mental structures and into systems of preferences.More precisely, the imperceptible incorporation of structures of the social orderundoubtedly happens, in large part, through a prolonged and indefinitelyrepeated experience of the spatial distance that affirms social distance. Moreconcretely, this incorporation takes place through the displacements and bodytnouements organized by these social structures turned into spatial structures andthereby naturalized. They organize and designate as ascent or descent ("to go upto Paris"), entry (inclusion, cooptation, adoption), or exit (exclusion, expulsion,excommunication), what is in fact closeness to or distance from a central, valuedsite. Here I am thinking of the respectful demeanor called for by grandeur andheight (of monuments, rostrums, or platforms) and the frontal placement ofsculptures and paintings or, more subtly, of all the deferential and reverentialconduct that is tacit ly imposed by the simple social designation of space (the headof the table, the right side of the tracks, etc.) and all the practical hierarchizationsof regions in space (uptown/downtown, East SideAilíest Side, foreground/wings,front of the store/backroom, right side/left side, etc.).

Because social space is inscribed at once in spatial structures and in the mentalstructures that are partly produced by the incorporation of these structures, spaceis one of the sites where power is asserted and exercised, and, no doubt in itssubtlest form, as symbolic violence that goes unperceived as violence. Architec-tural spaces address mute injunctions directly to the body and, tust as surely ascourt etiquette, obtain from it the reverence and respect born of distance, orbetter yet, from being far away, at a respectful distance. Their very invisibility (toanalysts themselves, who, l ike historians since Schramm,' are often attached tothe most visible signs of symbolic power, such as scepters and crowns) undoubt-edly makes these the most important components of the symbolic order of powerand the totally real effects of symbolic power.

Struggles to appropriate space

Space, or more precisely the sites and places of reif ied social space, along with theprofits they procure, are stakes in struggles (within different f ields). Spatial profitsmay take the form of the profits of localizatioz, which can be divided into twoclasses: income derived from proximity to rare and desirable agents and goods(such as educational, cultural or health establishments); and the profits of posï

' The reference is to the Cerman historiirn Percy Ernst Schramnr ( I tl94- I 970), author of, in particular,A History of the F-.nglish Corrnation (trans., 1937) and a thrce-volumc ()plrs, HerrschaftszeichenundSta at ssym bo I i k (19 5 4-1 97 8). lTr.l

126

Site L,ffe cts

tion or of rank (for example, assured by a prestigious address), which are aparticular case of the symbolic profits of distinction tied to the monopolisticpossession of a distinctive property. (Since physical distance can be measured inspatial terms, or better yet, in temporal terms, to the extent that going from oneplace to another takes more or less time according to the possibil i t ies of access topublic or private means of transportation, the power over space given by variousdifferent forms of capital is also, and by that same token, a power over time.)These profits may also take the form of profits of occupation (or alternativelS ofcor-rgestion), where possession of a physical space (extensive grounds, spaciousapartments, etc.) is a w^y of holding at a distance and excluding any kind ofundesirable intrusion (as with the "lovely views" of the English manor housewhich, as Raymond Williams observed in Tbe Country and tbe Cily, transformthe countryside and its peasants into landscape for the owner's pleasure, or again,the "unparalleled views" of real estate ads today).

The abil ity to dominate space, notably by appropriating (materially or symbol-ically) the rare goods (public or private) distributed there, depends on the capitalpossessed. Capital makes it possible to keep undesirable persons and things at adistance at the same time that it brings closer desirable persons and things (madedesirable, among other things, by their richness in capital), thereby minimizingthe necessary expense (notably in time) in appropriating them. Proximity inphysical space allows the proximity in social space to deliver all its effects byfacilitating or fostering the accumulation of social capital and, more precisely, byallowing uninterrupted benefits from the meetings at once fortuitous and foresee-able that come from frequenting well-frequented sites. (Moreover, possessingcapital ensures the quasi-ubiquity that makes it possible to master both economicas well as symbolic means of transportation and communication - a ubiquity thatis often reinforced by delegation - the power of existing and acting from adistance by proxy.)

Conversely, those who are deprived of capital are either physically or symbol-ically held at a distance from goods that are the rarest socially; they are forced tostick with the most undesirable and the least rare persons or goods. The lack ofcapital intensifies the experience of finitude: it chains one to a place.2

2 By assembling the available statistical data for each of the French departments both orr indices ofeconomic, cultural or even social capital, and on the goods and seruicès offèred at the level of thisadministrative unit, one can demonstrate that the regional differer-rces often imputed to geographicdeterminisms can in fact be ascribed to differences in capital, which owe their historical permanence tothe circular reinforcement that was continuously exercised in the course of history (especially by virtueof the fact that, especially for residence and culture, aspirations depend in large part on the p<.rssibilitiesoblectively available for them to be achieved). Only after having located and measurcd that portion ofobserved phenomena that seems to be a function of physical spzrce but in fact rcflccts economic andsocial differences, can one hope to isolate the irreducible residue properly imputable to proximity anddistance in purely physical space. This is the case with the sueening effect that results from theanthropological privilege conferred on the directly perceived present and, by the same token, on thevisible and sensate space of copresent objects and agents (direct neighbors). This nreans, for instance,that hostilities linked to proximity in physical space (as with conflicts between neighbors) may obscurethe solidarities associated with the position occupied in social, national, or international space, or that

I27

Site f,ffects

Struggles for the appropriation of space can take an indiuidual form: spatialmobil ity within or between generations - as with relocations in both directionsbetween the capital and the provinces, or successive addresses within the hier-archized space of the capital - is a good indicator of success or reverses in thesestruggles, and more generally, of the whole social trajectory (provided we see that

iust as agents differing in age and social trajecrory - young upper managementand older middle management, for example - can temporarily coexist in the samejobs, so too, just as temporarilS they can end up in neighboring residential sites).

Success in these struggles depends on the capital held (in its various types).Indeed, for the occupants of a given habitat the l ikely chances of appropriatingthe different material or cultural goods and services associated with that habitatcome down to the specific capacities for appropriation each one has (bothmaterially - money, private means of transportation - and culturally). A habitatcan be occupied physically without really being inhabited in the full sense of theterm if the occupant does not dispose of the tacitly required means of habitation,starting with a certain habitus.

If the habitat shapes the habitus, the habitus also shapes the habitat, throughthe more or less adequate social usages that it tends to make of it. This certainlythrows doubt on the belief that bringing together in the same physical spaceagents who are far apart in social space might, in itself, bring them closer socially:in fact, socially distanced people find nothing more intolerable than physicalproximity (experienced as promiscuity).

Among all the properties presupposed by the legitimate occupation of a site,there are some - and they are not the least determining - which are acquired onlythrough prolonged occupation of this site and sustained association with itslegitimate occupants. This is the case, obviouslS with the social capital of rela-tions, connections, or t ies (and most particularly with the privileged ties ofchildhood or adolescent friendships) or with all the subtlest aspects of culturaland linguistic capital, such as body mannerisms and pronunciation (accents), etc.- all the many attributes that make the place of birth (and to a lesser degree, placeof residence) so important.

At the risk of feeling themselves out of place, individuals who move lnto a newspace must fulf i l l the conditions that that space tacitly requires of its occupants.This may be the possession of a certain cultural capital, the lack of which canprevent the real appropriation of supposedly public goods or even the intention ofappropriating them. Museums come to mind, of course, but the same holds truefor services that are usually considered more universally necessary, such as thoseof medical or legal institutions. One has the Paris that goes with one's economiccapital, and also with one's cultural and social capital (visit ing the PompidouMuseum is not enough to appropriate the Museum of Modern Art). Certainspaces, and in particular the most closed and most "select," require not only

the representat ions imposed byspace (such as the v i l lage) rnay

the point c l f v iew associated with the posi t ior-r occupied i r r l<;cel l social

prevent understanding the posi t ion occupied in nat ionrr l soci i r l space.

I28

Site L.ffects

economic and cultural capital, but social capital as well. They procure socialcapital, and symbolic capital, by the club effect that comes from the long-termgathering together (in chic neighborhoods or luxury homes) of people and thingswhich are different from the vast majority and have in common the fact that theyare not common, that is, the fact that they exclude everyone who does not presentall the desired attributes or who presents (at least) one undesirable attribute. Theexclusion may be legal (through a type <>f numerws clausus) or de facto (theinevitable feeling of exclusion wil l deprive the intruder of certain profits asso-ciated with belonging).

Like a club founded on the active exclusion of undesirable people, the fashion-able neighborhood symbolically consecrates its inhabitants by allowing each oneto partake of the capital accumulated by the inhabitants as a whole. Likewise, thestigmatized area symbolically degrades its inhabitants, who, in return, symbol-ically degrade it. Since they don't have all the cards necessary to participate in thevarious social games, the only thing they share is their common excommunica-tion. Bringing together on a single site a population homogeneous in its dispos-session strengthens that dispossession, notably with respect to culture andcultural practices: the pressures exerted at the level of class or school or in publicl ife by the most disadvantaged or those furthest from a "normal" existence pulleverything down in a general leveling. They leave no escape other than fl ighttoward other sites (which lack of resources usually renders impossible).

Struggles over space may also assume more collective forms, whether at the é-national level concerning housing policies, or at the locaI level, with regard to theconstruction and allocation of subsidized housing or the choices for publicservices. The ultimate stake for the most decisive of these struggles is govern-mental policy, which wields an immense power over space through its capacity togive value to land, housing and also, to a large extent, to work and education. Sothe confrontation and collusion between high state officials (divided amongthemselves), members of the financial institutions directly involved in construc-tion credit operations, and representatives of local municipalit ies and publicservices have brought about a housing policy which, through taxation policyand particularly through construction subsidies, has effected a veritable politicalconstruction of space. To the extent that it favors the constrwction of homogen-eous groups on a spatial basis, this policy is in large part responsible for what canbe directly observed in run-down apartment complexes or the housing projectsthat have been deserted by the State.

r29

bourdieu site effects

Documents