In this piece, one thing that stood out to me was Hughes and Blaxter's writing on the academic field and social capital -- "whilst social capitalists are infused with a concern to reduce inequality, 'there is little sense of its structural, rather than personal, origins" (111). In this feminist reading of Bourdieu's working of social capital and what it means to be a practicing intellect, I wonder how social capital functions within the academy. Which bodies can never assimilate into the academic institution, because of the structural processes of the university? Meaning, which bodies can never amount social capital for mobility within the academy?
As I was reading this article, I was a little confused about the usage of "appropriation" to think about Bourdieu's theorization. From my understanding, the use of "appropriation" was a way to incorporate "male" theory into feminist theorizing, in a way reupholstering traditionally male-dominant scholarship to fit a feminist agenda.
As I was reading this article, I was a little confused about the usage of "appropriation" to think about Bourdieu's theorization. From my understanding, the use of "appropriation" was a way to incorporate "male" theory into feminist theorizing, in a way reupholstering traditionally male-dominant scholarship to fit a feminist agenda.
I too found "appropriations" to be a curious word-choice. But, regarding your questions, I think it would be impossible to mobilize for any change if structures of power were fixed. Therefore, the academy, like any structure, is perpetually shifting its hegemonic center so anyone and everyone can be absorbed into it, which is both good and bad.
ReplyDelete