Political Economy and Class
•
Marx, besides being a political economist that described the
workings of capitalism, also put “class” front and center in his analysis and
the analysis of those inspired by him.
– Thus, much
social theory on “class” stems from a Marxian political economy perspective
(and that is why I put discussion of class under the political economy heading
last lecture)
•
Eventually (ie the early 1970s), those
scholars in the UK inspired by Marx, but who were more interested in “class”
than “economy” found a movement called “Cultural Studies”
– Although
Bourdieu and de Certeau (who is known for
the theory of “strategy” vs. “tactics”, a little bit of turn towards the
non-representational) are French, they both prove widely influential in
Cultural Studies
• Bourdieu is known for two main points:
– that class is not just rich vs poor in terms
of money (or economic capital), but is something that consists of class
fractions (such as intellectuals, business bourgeoise,
etc…) that possess various amounts
of economic, social, and cultural capital and compete with each other over what should be valued in each of those
arenas
– That how
you earn money, where you live, and what you are interested in form a
constellation of practices he calls habitus. So if you are an intellectual, you tend
to value instruction, knowledge, self-improvement, etc.
» Habitus,
although operating unconsciously, is used to keep people in their fractions (ie you cannot be truly elite if not raised elite because
you lack the full constellation of practices).
• Thus, for
him, “Sporting practice is field of struggle, for ability to define
“legitimate” social practice, but also part of what is a “legitimate body” and
what is “legitimate use of the body”.”
Judith Butler and Intersectionality
•
Judith Butler
– Again,
along with Foucault (and possibly Deleuze), one of
the most important social theorists to emerge in the last 50 years,
particularly for those examining questions of identity.
• She is
particularly known for the idea of “performativity”, which fits well with
theories that emphasize contingency of current situations instead of fixity (ie created and changeable instead of eternal and
permanent), such as post-structuralism and queer theory.
• Defines
gender (on 177) as “A corporeal style, an act which is both intentional and
performative, where performative suggests a dramatic and contingent
construction of meaning. Without acts,
there would be no gender at all.”
•
Intersectionality
– It is not a
set “theory” about how the world works, but more an emphasis (that many
scholars agree should be focused on) on how various processes that create
difference work together.
Questions from Butler and Valentine
•
On pg. 172-173, what is the “regulatory coherence” of
heterosexuality?
•
Starting on pg. 173, what does she mean that
“identification” is “performative”?
•
On pg. 174, what does the “the displacement of the political and
discursive origin of gender identity onto a psychological core” (eg the soul, an essence) preclude? If not in an inner “soul”, where does Butler
locate the incorporation of gender?
•
Pg 175, what
are the “three contingent dimension of significant corporeality”? Why does drag reveal the imitative structure
of gender itself? Why is it a “parody of
the very notion of an original”?
•
Are there consequences to not “doing gender right”?
•
Pg 179,
Butler calls gender a “stylized repetition of acts” – why is repetition so
important to Butler’s theory?
•
Pg 179 Where can the “possibilities of gender transformation” be
found?
•
In what ways does not performing gender right
(matching bodies, with identity, and performance) have consequences in the
realm of sports?
•
What are some definitions of intersectionality mentioned by
Valentine (pg 12)?
•
Why do her six stories about Jeanette demonstrate
intersectionality? Why do those stories
show that “space” matters in intersectionality?
•
What are some examples from the course that
demonstrate the impacts of intersectionality in sports?