post-it note, 4/9

As I see it, Bourdieu claims that the “social capital,” or stuff that one identifies as being excellent, determines that person’s social class. Again, the population is segmented into classifications based upon what they have. The stuff they own. What they can buy. Materialism is at the heart of post-modernism. This is obvious, but Bourdieu brings the nature of nurturing into the equation, explaining his theory in a way that naturalizes materialism by passing on the tastes of one generation onto the next. Is Bourdieu’s theory based upon the evolution of the human being as a materialistic collector of shiny, status-heightening stuff? If this is the way that theorists see the human race going, this means that materialism is slowly going to become an inherent part of being alive. Life will be gauged by the amount of stuff that one has. Another way of looking at this definition would be that those who have nothing are not living at all. By American standards, only about 3% of the population would be living, according to this definition. It is for this reason that I see Bourdieu’s theory as a bit to extreme. He is giving us an excuse to accept materialism, rather than striving for healthy ways to find joy in life. His ideas naturalize excess and extraordinary consumption, which is detrimental to the human race in the near future, rendering his theory anything but natural, unless it is natural for the human race to ignore the consequences of the end. Perhaps I am irrational, but I do feel that those who accept materialism in ways that encourage social classes to perpetuate their actions which have proved ridiculous in the past as being irrational for other reasons.