Leonardo Digital Reviews
 LDR Home  Index/Search  Leonardo On-Line  About Leonardo  Whats New








Reviewer biography

Current Reviews

Review Articles

Book Reviews Archive

Sociology is a Martial Art

Directed by Pierre Carles
produced by Annie Gonzalez and Véronique Frégosi
FirstRun/Icarus Films

Reviewed by Michael Punt

mpunt@easynet.co.uk

Pierre Bourdieu, reckoned by some to be the most significant sociologist of the second half of the twentieth century, died in January 2002. First Run/Icarus Films’ 2001 videotape Sociology is a Martial Art is perhaps the definitive memoriam of a man who saw sociology not simply as an academic ritual but as a tool for political action. This much is evident even to the non-specialist viewer of the film. A videotape comprising mainly footage of Bourdieu talking may not sound the most fascinating way to spend 146 minutes, especially for non-French speakers obliged to read the undertitles. But what makes this film so engaging, however, is that almost always Bourdieu is talking to someone and the sense of engagement that this interaction conjures is transmitted through what he has to say, the urgency of his tone, the reactions of his listeners and the restless energy of the cinematography.

Bourdieu’s later project was to rescue structuralist approaches to social organisation from the ossification that seems an inevitable consequence of the academic organisation of truth and knowledge. It was both an enquiry into the social and a criticism of the academic process that seems irresistibly to veer to formalism. Whilst in science and even art this may not be a problem, in the social realm, where the outcomes of a dominant mode of analysis impacts on the future conduct of the subject, the luxury of abstraction as an end in itself was for him unacceptable. The double bind of the interventionist sociologist is that they can so easily become carriers of the very virus that causes the disease they wish to cure. To overcome this Bourdieu regarded the practice of sociology as a martial art: a ritualistic exercise of power that must only ever be used as self defence. At stake in this position was his commitment to unearthing the mechanisms by which social inequalities were legitimised in apparently meritocratic regimes. This brought him into the mainstream of the politics of the Left at a crucial moment when, briefly, it appeared that a new social order might emerge from the student unrest in the mid 1960s. Like many such intellectuals who were at the barricades, the following years were preoccupied with understanding quite why and how all that energy and promise turned to nothing.

Bourdieu’s chief works in that period include interventions in art through his own photographs and empirical studies of the institutions of culture especially galleries and museums, leading to a concept of the field which resonated with Foucault’s notions of ‘fellowships of discourse’. Where he diverged from Foucault, however, was in his determination to apply theory through the practice of theory, rather than practice theory in order that it might be applied. A distinction which is more than a simple shifting of the order of words: the former could lead the academic to social change whereas the later can only lead to a division and ultimately an alienation between the theorist and the worker. This is perhaps where the apparent irrationality of listening to speeches and reading undertitles on a screen, rather than reading his books, makes some sort of sense. It turns theory into action as it also illustrates the very processes through which social asymmetry and the uneven distribution of power are institutionalised — that is on the screen itself. Applying what is being argued in Sociology is a Martial Art to the mediation of Bourdieu through the apparatus of television provides some of the most telling illustrations of his thesis as it also yields some of the most awkward and uncomfortable moments of the film.

A section showing the recording of a of a radio interview for example, in which Bourdieu lays out the general claim about the legitimisation of social inequalities is filmed with a clear nod in the direction of post-1968 versions of cinematic materialism; hand held camera, low angle, and self-conscious framing, cameras in shot, etc. Mannered or not all the intellectual agonies of the New Wave are there as the unequal distribution of power in the scene is naturalised by the institution of representation against the grain of Bourdieu’s rhetoric. In the recording studio some people are allowed to talk and other not. Some (men) can wear headphones and ask questions, others (a small audience) sit on uncomfortable chairs and are only allowed to clap; when it is over they are not sure when and how to leave, since having served their purpose of giving the room a live sound no one is interested in them. More fascinating is the theatre of the control box seen in the background: an engineer sitting at a desk appears not to be interested in what is being said only the sound levels. Periodically he gets up, wanders around, answers the phone, casually talks to people who drop in to see what is going on. All this in stark counterpoint to the intensity of Bourdieu’s message. A woman holding a child wanders in (perhaps to glimpse the great man) so too do several media players in power suits who chat casually looking on as Bourdieu asserts that " … the reproduction of inequality is achieved through the transmission of cultural capital".

In another section Bourdieu is in his office and clearly has an easy relationship with what appears to be a secretary. She asks if she should shut the door and in a joke he replies "Leave it open so that I can keep an eye on you." Later he reflects on this indirectly but clearly there is a moment of discomfort as the conundrum of the distribution of power is played out at the micro level. A joke it may, be but one that has its logic in the distribution of power between academic and secretary and one that is not socially reversible. Although appearing to undermine the thesis, incidents such as these point to the value of Sociology is a Martial Art for those not especially interested in sociology (or martial arts). It exemplifies the double bind of representation that lies at the heart of knowledge and action — one which the Leonardo community will empathise with — how can one talk without reinforcing the repression(s) of speech.

Sociology is a Martial Art may not immediately seem to be a video to put on the top of the list of tapes that Leonardo readers may want to own, especially if Bourdieu is not a central plank of one’s own world view. But in as much as it is an accessible exposition of situatedness and the dilemma that the representation of knowledge confronts us with as either (or both) scientists and artists, it is a seminal work which will be of interest and of some significance to those for whom sociology is not a daily topic of conversation.

top







Updated 1st June 2003


Contact LDR: ldr@leonardo.org

Contact Leonardo: isast@leonardo.info


copyright © 2003 ISAST