Prejudice in Gadamer’s Thought - Definition and Explanation

The concept of prejudice (Vorurteil) occupies a central and provocative place in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. In everyday usage, “prejudice” suggests a distortion, a judgment made without sufficient evidence, something to be overcome if one wishes to think rationally. Enlightenment thinkers in particular saw prejudice as the enemy of reason, calling for its elimination through critical method. Gadamer, however, reverses this valuation. For him, prejudice is not necessarily a flaw; it is an unavoidable condition of understanding.

Every act of interpretation begins with anticipations and assumptions—expectations about what a text, event, or person might mean. These anticipations are not arbitrary; they stem from our historical belonging, our tradition, and the language we inhabit. Gadamer calls these anticipatory structures “prejudices.” They are not final judgments but provisional starting points, the conditions that make understanding possible at all. To try to eliminate them would be to eliminate the very ground from which interpretation can proceed.

Yet not all prejudices are valid. Gadamer stresses that prejudices must be tested and revised in the course of hermeneutical experience. Here the concept of the hermeneutic circle comes into play: we approach a text with expectations, encounter the subject matter, and are often surprised, even contradicted, by what we find. This negative experience—the shattering of false prejudices—is what deepens understanding. A person of genuine experience, Gadamer writes, is one who has learned to keep themselves open, aware of the fallibility of their own prejudgments.

Prejudice, then, is both enabling and limiting. It enables understanding by providing an entry point, yet it can also close off meaning if it hardens into dogma. The task of hermeneutics is not to abolish prejudice but to remain open to its transformation through dialogue and encounter with tradition.

By rehabilitating prejudice, Gadamer gives a more realistic account of how understanding works. Rather than imagining a neutral, prejudice-free observer, he describes interpretation as a living process in which our historically shaped anticipations are continually challenged and reshaped. In this way, prejudice becomes not a barrier to truth, but a path by which truth can reach us.

Learn More:

Introduction to Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophy

Gadamer's Terms and Concepts Explained

Gadamer's Concet of Effective History Explained

The concept of effective-history (Wirkungsgeschichte) is one of Gadamer’s most original contributions to hermeneutics. It designates the way history is never a neutral backdrop to interpretation but an active force shaping our understanding. Every interpreter, whether reading a text, engaging a work of art, or entering dialogue, does so from within a historically conditioned horizon. Our prejudices, expectations, and categories of thought are themselves the product of traditions, languages, and events that have left their mark on us. In this sense, history is not something that simply lies behind us; it is always at work in our present.

Gadamer coined effective-history to resist two temptations. On the one hand, historicism (Dilthey, Ranke) sought to reconstruct the past “as it really was” in order to escape the present’s influence. On the other, Enlightenment rationalism tried to purge interpretation of prejudice altogether. Gadamer argued that both approaches misunderstand the inevitability of historical conditioning. There is no interpretation untouched by effective-history. Far from being a flaw, this is the very medium in which understanding unfolds.

Acknowledging effective-history has two consequences. First, it reveals the finite character of human understanding. We cannot step outside history to achieve absolute objectivity. Second, it points toward the dialogical nature of truth. Because we are historically shaped, every encounter with a text or tradition involves a fusion of horizons: our own historically formed perspective comes into play with that of the past. Meaning emerges from this interplay, not from a reconstruction of origins alone.

Effective-history also underscores the element of surprise in interpretation. Often, it is when our inherited prejudices are challenged or overturned that understanding deepens. In this way, Gadamer links hermeneutics to ethical openness: to recognize effective-history is to accept that we do not master meaning but are shaped by it, and that genuine understanding requires humility before the past.

In sum, effective-history is Gadamer’s way of describing the historical conditioning of human existence. It transforms history from an obstacle to truth into its enabling condition, showing that understanding is always an event situated within the living continuity of tradition.

Learn More:

Introduction to Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophy

Gadamer's Terms and Concepts Explained

Unfinalizability, Answerability, and Hybridity in Bakhtin's Dialogism

Bakhtin's concepts of unfinalizability, answerability, and hybridity are part of his thought about Dialogism, and offer profound insights into the dynamic nature of literature. This theory reminds us that texts are not static entities but vibrant, ever-evolving landscapes of meaning. Characters grapple with moral choices, narratives remain perpetually open-ended, and diverse voices intermingle to offer a rich chorus of perspectives.

Unfinalizability: The Ever-evolving Text

Definition: Bakhtin's notion of unfinalizability suggests that no individual or text can be completely and utterly understood or defined. Every entity remains in a perpetual state of becoming, continually evolving in relation to past, present, and future dialogues.

Implications in Literature: Characters in literature, much like real individuals, cannot be confined to a singular, fixed interpretation. They are multi-faceted, evolving, and ever-changing. A character's unfinalizability allows for open-ended interpretations, enabling readers to revisit texts across different times and contexts, always finding something new or unexplored.

Answerability: Moral Responsibility in Dialogue

Definition: Answerability, in Bakhtin's terms, reflects an individual's moral responsibility towards the world and others. It suggests that all actions, words, and thoughts are intertwined in a larger dialogue and carry ethical consequences.

Implications in Literature: Protagonists in literary texts often grapple with moral dilemmas, choices, and responsibilities. Their actions, seen through the lens of answerability, aren't just plot devices but also engage with broader philosophical and moral questions. This ethical dimension adds layers of depth to the narrative, making it resonate with readers who themselves grapple with questions of moral responsibility in their lives.

Hybridity: The Coexistence of Voices

Definition: Bakhtin's concept of hybridity underscores the idea that a single text can house multiple languages, voices, or styles. These diverse elements interact, sometimes harmoniously and sometimes in tension, leading to the generation of new meanings.

Implications in Literature: Many modern and postmodern works exemplify hybridity, blending genres, styles, and voices. Such texts challenge readers to navigate this rich tapestry of languages and voices, each bringing its own worldview and perspective. Hybridity, in essence, becomes a celebration of diversity and the dynamism of linguistic and cultural interplay.

Know more: 

Meaning of Chronotope Explained (Bakhtin)

Carnival and Carnivalesque

Sensory Ethnography: Exploring the Senses (meaning and explanation)

Engaging the Senses: Beyond Words and Images

In the field of anthropology, a discipline traditionally rooted in written texts and verbal communication, a groundbreaking approach has emerged that challenges the boundaries of representation: sensory ethnography (or Ethnography of the senses). This innovative methodology seeks to capture the rich and multisensory dimensions of human experiences, transcending the limitations of language and providing a more holistic understanding of cultures and environments. This article delves into the concept of sensory ethnography, its methodology, and the unique insights it offers to anthropologists and researchers.

A Multisensory Approach: Methodology and Techniques

Sensory ethnography employs a variety of techniques to capture and convey sensory experiences. These include:

• Audiovisual Documentation: Using video and audio recordings to preserve the auditory and visual aspects of a particular environment or cultural practice.
• Immersive Fieldwork: Researchers actively engage their own senses by participating in cultural activities, thereby gaining firsthand experience and understanding of sensory dynamics.
• Sensorial Interviews: Going beyond verbal communication, researchers prompt informants to describe sensory experiences, encouraging them to evoke sensations, emotions, and memories.
• Sensory Diaries: Researchers maintain diaries or journals where they record their own sensory experiences, reflecting on how their senses are impacted by the environment.
• Sensory Mapping: Mapping out sensory experiences within a particular space, highlighting areas of sensory intensity or significance.
• 
  

Enhanced Understanding: Insights Offered by Sensory Ethnography

Sensory ethnography brings forth a depth of understanding that traditional anthropological approaches often miss. This methodology:

• Embodies Cultural Meaning: Sensory experiences are deeply embedded in cultural contexts and carry layers of meaning that can be overlooked in text-based research. For example, the smell of incense in a temple holds cultural and religious significance that transcends mere description.
• Fosters Empathy and Connection: By engaging with sensory experiences, researchers can develop a more profound connection with informants and communities, fostering empathy and a deeper understanding of their perspectives.
• Reveals Hidden Realities: Sensory ethnography unveils the hidden or subconscious aspects of human experiences that might not be explicitly verbalized but are crucial to understanding a culture's essence.
• Highlights Power Dynamics: Sensory experiences can also reveal power dynamics within a society, shedding light on who has access to certain sensory experiences and who is excluded.

Challenges and Considerations

While sensory ethnography offers rich insights, it also presents challenges. Translating sensory experiences into academic work can be complex, as it requires creativity in articulating the ineffable. Additionally, ethical considerations must be taken into account when capturing and representing sensory experiences, especially in contexts where such experiences hold spiritual or deeply personal significance.

In Summary

Sensory ethnography expands the horizons of anthropological exploration, inviting researchers to transcend the limitations of words and images and engage with the full spectrum of human senses. By doing so, this methodology enriches our understanding of cultures, environments, and lived experiences, offering a more immersive and holistic perspective. In an increasingly globalized world, where cultural nuances and sensory dynamics often shape human interactions, sensory ethnography serves as a powerful tool to bridge the gaps between cultures and foster a deeper appreciation for the diversity of human existence.

Meaning of Proprietary Conditions Explained

Definition of Proprietary Conditions

Proprietary conditions refer to the specific context in which a particular linguistic expression is used. This context can include factors such as the speaker, the listener, the location, the time, and the cultural norms of the community in which the language is used. Proprietary conditions are important because they can significantly affect the meaning of a linguistic expression.

Examples of Proprietary Conditions

To better understand proprietary conditions, let's explore some examples:

Example 1: "I'm fine."

Imagine that you ask someone how they are doing, and they respond with "I'm fine." In this context, the proprietary conditions include the fact that the person is speaking to you, and they are responding to your question. The meaning of the expression "I'm fine" in this context is that the person is doing okay or is not experiencing any major problems.

Example 2: "It's hot in here."

If someone says "It's hot in here," the meaning of the expression depends on the proprietary conditions. If they are in a cold room, the meaning is that the temperature is higher than what is comfortable. However, if they are in a sauna, the same expression would mean that the temperature is normal or even low.

Example 3: "That's sick."

The expression "That's sick" can have different meanings depending on the proprietary conditions. In some contexts, it might mean that something is disgusting or repulsive. In other contexts, it might mean that something is impressive or cool.

In summary, proprietary conditions are an important concept in linguistics. They refer to the specific context in which a linguistic expression is used and can significantly affect its meaning. By understanding the role of proprietary conditions, we can gain a better understanding of language and how it is used in different contexts.

See also:

Felicity Conditions

Sincerity Conditions

Meaning of The Cooperative Principle Explained

The Cooperative Principle is a central concept in linguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis that explains how people use language to communicate effectively. The principle was first proposed by philosopher and linguist Paul Grice in his 1975 book "Logic and Conversation." According to Grice, the Cooperative Principle is the assumption that speakers and listeners will work together to achieve a mutual goal of effective communication.

Definition of the Cooperative Principle

By definition, the Cooperative Principle consists of four maxims: the maxims of quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. The maxim of quantity refers to the idea that speakers should provide enough information to convey their intended meaning, but not provide more information than is necessary. The maxim of quality states that speakers should only say what they believe to be true and should not say anything they know to be false. The maxim of relevance requires speakers to stay on topic and make their contributions relevant to the conversation. Finally, the maxim of manner suggests that speakers should be clear, brief, and orderly in their communication.

These four maxims work together to ensure that conversations are productive and efficient. When speakers follow the Cooperative Principle, they are able to convey their intended meaning while also making it easier for listeners to understand them. When listeners follow the Cooperative Principle, they are able to interpret the speaker's meaning more accurately and respond appropriately.

However, the Cooperative Principle is not always followed in everyday communication. Sometimes speakers may intentionally violate one of the maxims, such as by telling a lie or making an irrelevant comment. Other times, speakers may unintentionally violate a maxim, such as by providing too much information or being unclear in their communication. In these cases, communication can break down and misunderstandings may occur.

Cooperative principle in pragmatics and discourse analysis

In addition to its importance in linguistics, the Cooperative Principle plays a critical role in pragmatics. Pragmatics is the study of how people use language in context, and the Cooperative Principle is a key element of understanding how meaning is conveyed through language. The Cooperative Principle helps explain how speakers use language to imply meanings beyond the literal meaning of the words they use. For example, a speaker might say "It's cold in here" to imply that they want someone to close a window, rather than simply communicating the temperature. Understanding the Cooperative Principle is essential to understanding how these implied meanings are conveyed and interpreted.

The Cooperative Principle is also central to discourse analysis, which is the study of how language is used in larger communicative contexts. Discourse analysis examines how language is used to construct meaning and convey social and cultural values. The Cooperative Principle is particularly relevant in understanding how speakers use language to negotiate power and social relationships. For example, a speaker might use indirect language or euphemisms to avoid offending someone who has a higher social status. By analyzing how speakers use language to achieve their communicative goals, discourse analysts can gain insight into larger social and cultural structures and power dynamics.

See also: Grice's Maxims of Conversation

Meaning of Communicative Competence Explained

Whether we are aware of it or not, communication is an integral part of our daily lives. From simple conversations with our friends and family to complex negotiations with colleagues and clients, effective communication is essential for success in both personal and professional spheres. However, communication is not just about exchanging information; it is also about understanding and interpreting the social and cultural context in which communication takes place. This is where the concept of communicative competence comes into play.

What is communicative competence

The definition of Communicative competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in different social and cultural contexts, including understanding the nuances of language use, such as tone, intonation, and nonverbal cues.At its core, communicative competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in different social and cultural contexts. It is not just about having a good command of grammar and vocabulary, but also about understanding the nuances of language use, such as tone, intonation, and nonverbal cues. For instance, someone who is communicatively competent would know when it is appropriate to use formal language in a job interview versus when it is acceptable to use more casual language with friends.

To better understand communicative competence, consider the following example: imagine you are attending a business meeting with colleagues from different parts of the world. You may all speak the same language, but the way you use language may differ depending on your cultural background. For instance, someone from a more hierarchical culture may be more deferential in their language use, while someone from a more egalitarian culture may use more direct language. Communicative competence means being able to navigate these cultural differences and adapt your language use accordingly.

How does communicative competence function?

From a more technical perspective, communicative competence can be broken down into four components: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Linguistic competence refers to the knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax needed to use a language correctly. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in different social contexts. Discourse competence refers to the ability to organize and structure language use in a way that is coherent and effective. Strategic competence refers to the ability to use communication strategies, such as clarification and negotiation, to overcome communication barriers.

Geertz on Culture as Text and a Web of Meaning

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz saw culture as a "text" and the world as a "web of meaning". According to Geertz, culture is not something that can be easily defined or captured in a single definition. Rather, it is a complex system of symbols, meanings and interpretations, which can be and should be read and interpreted as written texts are done. This is because cultures are nothing but systems of symbols that represent meanings just like our linguistic signs.

For Geertz, culture is not just a system of practices or beliefs, but a system of meaning that is constantly created and reconstructed by individuals and groups. He argued that this system of meaning is not static or fixed, but dynamic and constantly evolving. Each individual and group within a society interprets the symbols and meanings of their culture in their own unique way, and this interpretation is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including their social and historical context, their personal experiences, and their personal perspectives.

 

Siezed by a web of meaning

Geertz's concept of culture as a "web of meaning" emphasizes the complexity and richness of human culture. He argued that to truly understand a culture, we must look beyond its surface-level practices and beliefs and delve deeper into its underlying meanings and interpretations. The image of a network helps us understand how everything we do or everything in our environment gets its meaning from the wider context and different networks of ideas, beliefs, traditions and the like. The anthropological analysis that reads the social text requires a careful analysis of the symbols and meanings that make up the culture, as well as an understanding of the social and historical context in which these symbols and meanings are created and interpreted.

Geertz's concept of culture as a "web of meaning" is an influential idea in anthropology. By emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of culture, Geertz challenged traditional conceptions of culture as a static and fixed entity. Instead, he argued that culture is a complex system of symbols, meanings and interpretations, which must be carefully analyzed and understood to truly appreciate its richness and complexity.

More on Geertz:

Geertz's antropological imagination

Interperetive anthropology explained

Symbolic anthropology explained

Clifford Geertz: "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight

Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture – Summary, 

Review and analysis 

From the Native's Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding

PersonTime and Conduct in Bali 

The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man

Top books by Clifford Geertz

 

Meaning and definition of Interpretive Anthropology

Interpretive anthropology is an approach to studying culture that emphasizes the importance of understanding the symbolic meanings that people attach to their actions and beliefs. Clifford Geertz is associated with the development of the interpretive approach in anthropology. Geertz's interpretive anthropology emphasized the importance of understanding the symbolic meanings that people attach to their actions and beliefs in order to gain a deeper understanding of culture.

At the heart of Geertz's interpretive approach was the concept of thick description, which he defined as the process of providing rich, detailed descriptions of cultural phenomena in order to illuminate their underlying meanings. According to Geertz, it is only by interpreting the symbols and meanings that people attach to their actions that we can truly understand the complex nature of human culture.

Interpretive and Symbolic Anthropology

One of the key aspects of Geertz's interpretive approach is the idea that culture is a system of symbols. Geertz argued that symbols are the basic building blocks of culture, and that they are used by people to make sense of the world around them. By studying the symbols and meanings that people attach to their actions, Geertz believed that anthropologists could gain a deeper understanding of the cultural systems that shape people's lives.

Geertz's interpretive approach has had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and has influenced scholars in a wide range of disciplines. Today, his ideas continue to be used by anthropologists and other social scientists to gain a deeper understanding of the complex ways in which culture shapes our lives.

Examples of Interpretive Anthropology

Interpretive anthropology has been used to study a wide range of cultural phenomena, including religious rituals, political movements, and artistic expressions. For example, an interpretive anthropologist might study how a particular group of people use religious symbols and rituals to make sense of the world around them, or how a political movement uses symbols and rhetoric to mobilize support. Another example of interpretive anthropology might involve studying how artists use symbols and cultural references in their work to create meaning and convey messages to their audiences.

More on Geertz:

Geertz's antropological imagination

Symbolic anthropology explained

Clifford Geertz: "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight

Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture – Summary, 

Review and analysis 

From the Native's Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding

PersonTime and Conduct in Bali 

The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man

Clifford Geertz and the Interpretive Theory of Culture: Understanding Meaning in Human Societies

Top books by Clifford Geertz

Symbolic Anthropology Explained Simply

Symbolic or symbolic anthropology is a subfield in cultural anthropology that focuses on the analysis of symbols and their interpretation in society. Symbols are defined by this approach as anything that carries a particular meaning, be it an object, gesture, word or image. The study of symbols is essential for understanding society's culture and worldview.

One of the prominent anthropologists in this field is Clifford Geertz, who developed the concept of "thick description" as a method for analyzing symbols and their meanings. A thick description involves interpreting the layers of meaning behind a symbol, taking into account the context in which it is used and the cultural practices associated with it.

What is symbolic anthropology?

Symbolic anthropology looks for the elusive meanings inherent in objects, gestures, words and images that permeate society's culture. It is a discipline that uncovers the layers of meaning hidden beneath the surface of what may seem like everyday phenomena, revealing the complex web of social meanings that shape human experience. Through the study of symbols, anthropologists can gain a deeper understanding of the cultural, social, and political dynamics at work in a given society, and illuminate the diverse ways in which people make sense of their world.

For example, a simple object like a flag can have multiple meanings depending on the context. In the United States, the flag is a symbol of national identity and unity. However, in other contexts, it may represent rebellion or protest. Through thick description, anthropologists can unravel the complex meanings behind symbols and understand how they shape social interactions and cultural practices.

Another example of symbolic anthropology is the study of rituals. Rituals are often symbolic actions that carry deep cultural meanings and significance. By studying the symbols and practices associated with rituals, anthropologists can gain insights into a society's values, beliefs, and social structures.

More on Geertz:

Geertz's antropological imagination

Interperetive anthropology explained

Clifford Geertz: "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight

Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture – Summary, 

Review and analysis 

From the Native's Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding

PersonTime and Conduct in Bali 

The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man

Top books by Clifford Geertz

What is Conversational Implicature?

Conversational implicature is a concept in pragmatics, which refers to the meaning that is implied by a speaker's utterance, rather than the literal meaning of the words used.

When we communicate with others through utterances, we often make inferences based on what is said and what is left unsaid. Conversational implicature is the way in which we convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of our words, by using indirect language, sarcasm, irony, or implying things through context or shared knowledge. The implicature is something the listener has to figure out and deduce, not something directly included in the utterance itself.

For example, if someone close to you says "we need to talk" in a certain tone, the conversational implicature is not just that a conversation is desired but that there is something wrong. The literal meaning of the words is simply a statement of need, but the tone and context of the utterance convey additional information and implications. 

Understanding conversational implicature requires taking into account not only the words used, but also the speaker's intentions, the context of the conversation, and shared knowledge between the speaker and listener. It is something, for example, that learner of new language are prone to misunderstand since they don’t know the cultural contexts of things said and how they are being said (like misunderstanding sarcasm)

 

Meaning of Propositional content explained

In linguistics, pragmatics and speech act theory, propositional content is defined as the meaning or message that is conveyed by a sentence or utterance. The content propositioned is the information that is being asserted or conveyed through language, its semantics and grammar, independent of the particular way in which it is expressed. Propositional content can be thought of as the underlying meaning of an utterance, stripped of its context, intonation, and other linguistic and paralinguistic features. It is the "naked" meaning of the utterance.

A proposition is a declarative statement that expresses a complete thought and can be evaluated as true or false. Propositional content can be thought of as the set of all propositions that can be expressed by a given sentence or utterance.

For example, the sentence "The cat is on the mat" has the propositional content that a cat is located on a mat, but not that you should go pet it. The sentence "It's raining outside" has the propositional content that precipitation is falling from the sky. However, meaning to say that it is raining outside, implying we shouldn't go out, is not part of the propositional content. The propositional content of a sentence is independent of the particular way or context in which it is expressed, so the same propositional content could be expressed in different ways. For example, the sentence "The mat is supporting the weight of the cat" has the same propositional content as "The cat is on the mat."

Propositional content is an important concept in pragmatics and speech act theory, as it helps to separate the meaning of an utterance from the particular words or phrases used to express it (like Illocutionary force and point). This is important because it allows us to understand the meaning of an utterance even if we don't know the specific words used, and it allows us to compare the meanings of different utterances even if they use different words and structures.

Meaning of Compositionality of Language Explained with Examples

Definition: Compositionality of language is a fundamental principle of linguistics that states that the meaning of a complex expression can be derived from the meanings of its parts and the rules used to combine them. In other words, the meaning of a sentence or phrase can be understood by examining the meanings of the individual words and the way they are put together.

One of the key features of compositionality is that it allows for the creation of new expressions and sentences by combining existing words and rules. For example, the sentence "the cat sat on the mat" is composed of three simple words ("the," "cat," and "sat") and two rules of grammar ("on the" and "the mat"). By applying these rules, we can create new sentences with similar meanings, such as "the dog slept on the rug" or "the bird perched on the branch."

The function of Compositionality

Compositionality is a crucial concept in linguistics, as it helps to explain how language works and how we are able to understand and produce complex sentences. It also plays a role in other fields, such as philosophy, psychology, and computer science.

One of the challenges of applying the principle of compositionality is that it can be difficult to determine the meaning of a complex expression in some cases. For example, the sentence "the cat sat on the mat" is simple and straightforward, but other sentences may be more ambiguous or open to interpretation. In these cases, additional context or information may be needed to fully understand the meaning of the expression.

Overall, compositionality is a fundamental principle of language that allows us to understand and create complex expressions by examining the meanings of their parts and the rules used to combine them. This principle is essential for the functioning of language and has implications for a wide range of fields.

-

*This text was written with the aid of OpenAI’s GPT-3 model with modifications and editing by the author.

Meaning of Bourdieu's Cultural Capital explained and examplified

The sociological concept of cultural capital was coined and popularized by Pierre Bourdieu. It can be best explained and summarized as the accumulation of cultural resources at one's disposal. 

Definition of Cultural Capital

Bourdieu defines cultural capital as the forms of knowledge, education, skills, and advantages that a person has and that give him a higher status within of the society. In principle, it is the parents who provide the child with a certain cultural capital, transmitting attitudes and knowledge necessary to develop in the current educational system. A simple example would be that going to a good school gives you knowledge, know-how, ties, manners of articulation and other advantages in life that are as good or even better than actual capital. A more complex example of cultural capital is the ability to know what to write in the application that get you into a good school to begin with. According to Bourdieu the value cultural capital is determined by society. It is therefore what differentiates societies, in it are the characteristics shared by the members of said society, traditions, forms of government, different religions, etc. And which is acquired and reflected in the family and is reinforced in schools and daily life situations.​ The concept is closely tied with Bourdieu's concept of Habitus.

 

Types and forms of cultural capital according to Bourdieu

Bourdieu divides cultural capital into three aspects: incorporated, objectified and institutionalized cultural capital:

Embodied cultural capital refers to the human being's ability to take part in a society through adherence to its embedded norms. For example, an important part of being able to do bossiness is knowing how to act as a businessman. In another example, to be able to write summaries about Bourdieu one needs the proper type of "habitus" to engage with them.

An objectified form of cultural capital are possessions the bear cultural value such as books, paintings etc. For example, having the "right" books on your shelf conveys the "right" person you are. 

An institutionalized form such a capital is the formal acknowledgment of one's cultural capital. The most common example are educational titles and degrees. A diploma can be viewed as actual financial securities that one can cash in depending on the value the market gives them.

More summaries and explanations about Bourdieu's sociology

Bourdieu's Main Ideas and Concepts Explained

Bourdieu's Field Theory

Pierre Bourdieu – The Historical Genesis of the Pure Aesthetic - summary and review

Bourdieu and the Art World
Bourdieu and the linguistic market
Metamorphosis of Taste

Culture Industry explained simply (Adorno and Horkheimer)

Simply explained, culture industry is a term used by social thinkers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer to describe how popular culture in the capitalist society functions like an industry in producing standardized products which produce standardized people.

A more advanced definition of culture industry draws on the seeming contradiction between human culture and mechanical industry. This is exactly Adorno and Horkheimer's point in "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" (which is a chapter inside "Dialectic of Enlightenment"). They argue that culture industry is associated with late capitalism in which all forms of culture (from literature, through films and all the way to elevator music) become part of the capitalist system of production which also has deep cultural mechanisms and not just economical ones. According to Adorno and Horkheimer these cultural products are not only meant for profit (appealing to the lowest common denominator) but also produce consumers that are adapted to the needs of the capitalist system.

Examples of Culture Industry

A simplified example which can help explain culture industry is TV lifestyles. Ever noticed how characters on TV shows you watch usually have great homes and nice cloths (except in the case in which the character is poor)? According to Adorno and Horkheimer this is not a coincidence since it's not only nice to watch good looking people leading a good looking life, these shows also send a consumerist message about how good lives should look, prompting people to adopt a certain version of the American Dream.    

The concept of culture industry become widely held in sociology, media studies and critical theory and it remains functional till this days in describing how mass culture and big business are inherently bound together to make up a large scale system of control and exploitation. Some years after "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" Adorno wrote another article titled "Culture Industry Reconsidered" (see link for a summary), elaborating on the ideas and definitions of his initial essay with Horkheimer.   

See also: One Dimensional man / Herbert Marcuse

Adorno's Relationship with Technology

Adorno's Negative Dialectics Explained

Adorno's Theory of Aesthetics Explained

From Culture Industry to Culture Data: The Economics of Aesthetic Control

Top Books by Theodor Adorno - A Reading List

What is Absurdism in philosophy - short definition and explanation

Absurdism is a philosophical position that argues that life is essentially meaningless, that it is impossible to rationally explain why life exists, and that any attempt to unravel the essence of the universe is doomed to failure. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it liberates the human capacity to courageously live against its absurd existence. The concept of absurd is related to existential nihilism. 

According to absurdists, human suffering is the result of vain attempts by individuals to find reason or meaning in the absurd stream of existence. Absurdism as a theme of thought first appears in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, and its main proponent is Albert Camus.

 

Meaning of Absurdism for Kierkegaard

For Søren Kierkegaard the absurd (which appears for example in his Fear and Trembling) is the fact that we can never really know what we are to chose in life. The term for him is closely associated with Paradox. Kierkegaard writes in his Journals: 

"What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act. 

 For an extended explanation see Kierkegaard's concept of absurd. 

 

Absurdism in Camus' Sisyphus 

For Albert Camus absurdism was exemplified by The Myth of Sisyphus who continues to push his rock up the hill even though it is bound to fall back again. The absurd of his action is what gives their lack of meaning over to human freedom. Camus does not want to argue that life is pointless. What he wishes is to be at peace with the idea that life has no real meaning and to live through it, pushing the rock up the hill. 

 

Meaning of Facticity in Phenomenology - short explanation and definition

In philosophical phenomeoloyg, "facticity" is the character of "factuality" and "contingency" of exsitence. Facticity can be understood as related to the "thusness" of everything which exists.

The term "facticity" was coined by Fichte to designate anything given without the possibility of rational justification, The term was later taken up by both existentialist and phenomenological philosophy (Sartre, Heidegger, Camus). The facticity of existence expresses the fact that our existence is unjustifiable, incomprehensible in itself. In phenomenological terms is states that the fact of us existing cannot be reduced nor fully grasped. 

Characteristics and examples of facticity

Our existence is a fact that is true long before we recognise it. We are born before becoming aware of ourselves, we discover our existence as a fact that we can only observe and not explain. Our own existence eluds our full seeing and understanding of it like an object that cannot be viewed from all directions at once.

Facticty as Heidegger's throwness

Martin Heidegger calls facticity "thrownness" in which the individual is thrown into the world without any prior consent or explanation. The fact of our existence is for Heidegger, as many othe phenomenologists, the one thing that can never be deduced as "fact". Our existence is of-course an undeniable fact, yet it is one that is undeniably impossible to fully explain.  

Heidegger's throwness means that we are always already alive within a certain historical status and within a certain horizon of possibilities.

See also: Meaning of facticity in existentialism 

Back to: What is Phenomenology

Alterity and Otherness in Phenomenology - meaning and definition

Alterity and Otherness are concepts used in various ways by different branches of philosophy. In phenomenology, alterity and otherness serve to describe the characteristic of being other or different, especially when referring to another conscious subject. The other is opposed to the self or the same, and selfhood is contrasted with otherness and alterity. Alterity can also be defined against "identity", the trait of being identical with oneself. 

The question of philosophical otherness ranges from morality and law, to humanities and social sciences and especially anthropology. In phenomenology it serves as special point of interest as the phenomena of otherness and alterity and manner by which it is experienced. 

 

Alterity and Otherness in the phenomenology of Emmanuel Levinas

The concepts of otherness and alterity were developed by the phenomenological philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas sees the other and the relation to otherness as an essential part of what makes us who we are. For him, selfhood is always relational and is always bound be a relation with alterity. Otherness for Levians directs our attention to our own selfhood as call for responsibility towards the other. Response and responsibility towards the other is the weight that gives meaning to our actions which are always directed towards alterity. 

For Levinas, the face of the other appears to us as infinitely unknown and that is why they open the subject to what is beyond his own reach. Otherness breaks the self enclosed "same" or "identical" and defines us as who are based on our relation with the other. Levinas goes as far as arguing that ethics precedes ontology. This means that our committed relationship with others comes before our awareness of our own physical existence.

Back to: introduction to Levinas

What is Phenomenology? 

 

Concept of "Thing" in Phenomenology

Husserl is famous for his phenomenological moto of a "return to things themselves", but what does he mean by "thing"?

According to Husserl, anything that "manifests itself in itself" can be a thing. This means a real object, a thought, an horizon, a reference and even nothingness. All this can be the objects or 'things" of phenomenological study.

According to Husserl, nothing we perceive gives itself to us completely. Perception and intentionality only ever see one of the sides of the thing, the others being suggested, so that the thing, which emerges through endless retouching, can never be given to me in an absolute way.

 

"Thing" in later Phenomenology

For Maurice Merleau-Ponty a thing can never be separated from the person who perceives it . However he remarks that even if one cannot conceive of the thing perceived without someone who perceives it, the fact remains that the thing presents itself to the very person who perceives it as a thing “in itself”. But since Husserl observed that the "thing" can never be wholly perceived as "in itself", it follows that "things" are not positive objects. That is, they are always perceived incompletely through horizons we no definite meaning of their own. 

 Back to: What is Phenomenology

 

Conceptual Personae / Character Explained

A "Conceptual Character" or "Conceptual Personae" is a notion developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their co-authored book 'What is Philosophy?". It serves to designate  fictitious or semi-fictional characters, created by one or more authors in order to convey one or more ideas. What makes a personae or character "conceptual" is simply their bearing some concept represented of convyed by them.  Even if originally a historical individual may have existed, he was subsequently used by authors who took it up as their own. 

According to Deleuze and Guattari: 

The conceptual persona is not the philosopher's representative but, rather, the reverse: the philosopher is only the envelope of his principal conceptual persona and of all the other personae who are the intercessors [ intercesseurs], the real subjects of his philosophy. Conceptual personae are the philosopher's "heteronyms," and the philosopher's name is the simple pseudonym of his personae. I am no longer myself but thought's aptitude for finding itself and spreading across a plane that passes through me at several places. The philosopher is the idiosyncrasy of his conceptual personae. The destiny of the philosopher is to become his conceptual persona or personae, at the same time that these personae themselves become something other than what they are historically, mythologically, or commonly (the Socrates of Plato, the Dionysus of Nietzsche, the Idiot of Nicholas of Cusa). The conceptual persona is the becoming or the subject of a philosophy, on a par with the philosopher, so that Nicholas of Cusa, or even Descartes, should have signed themselves "the Idiot," just as Nietzsche signed himself ''the Antichrist" or "Dionysus crucified." In everyday life speech-acts refer back to psychosocial types who actually attest to a subjacent third person: "I decree mobilization as President of the Republic," "I speak to you as father," and so on. (What is Philosohy, 64).