User:Emiliac99

OBJETIVISM VS SUBJETIVISM

The debate between objetivism and subjetivism is a very common one in social sciences. One of the currents that include objetivism is the practical theory of Bourdieu and one of subjetivism is existencialism by Sartre.

Jean Paul Sartre is a french novelist and philosopher, primary known by being part of one of the most important philosophical current of the 20th century: existencialism. The base of this current is that the existence preceeds the essence, something completely different that the catholics said. This means that the most important thing is to exist and then, that determinates the way you are, base on your elections. Existencialists said that you are free to do whatever you want in your life. However, what you do and the choices you made influence others around you. For example, if you want to get married, you decide to keep alive a monogamic and sexist institution that mistreats women. Or if you decide to get involve with the communist party, that means that you will do everything to change the society to a socialist one, so that affects others even though you don´t want to.

Existencialists, the way Sartre sees it, depends extremely on the conscience of every person, not in the inconscience like Freud or Bourdieu says. The choices you make are determinated by only you so you have full responsability if anythings happen. This is something Bourdieu doesn´t agreed with. He thinks that the decisions we made are determinated by a structure, that is also determinated by a economical and a cultural capital. This process is in our inconscience so we may not think that we act like this because of that. But the truth is, for Bourdieu, that not everyone can be what they want and do what they do. For example, the working clase can’t live in Vitacura because it’s too expensive and out of their reach. However, it’s probably that most workers doesn’t even picture them living there because they adjust their expectatives of what they can truly afford or reach.

Both of their sides can be perfectly debated on. Existencialism and other currents of subjetvism think that the human being is responsable for every action they do and can choose whatever they do or don't. But, can a woman in the 19th century ever dreamed of being a doctor? Bourdieu argues that no, because the society told women in that era that they should stay home and take care of their children and the man in the family would provide them with money and food. So people can decide anything would say Sartre? And again Bourdieu would answer that no. He makes a metaphor with this subject. People can’t make new subway rails but they can choose where they want to transfer from one line to the other.

There are a lot of critics to Bourdieu´s theory like the ones from Lahire and McCall, other intelectuals that provide with different points of view about the part that the human being takes in the social structure. Lahire says that we should believe that people choses more because of them that because there's a voice in their heads talking to them about a particular election. He points himself in the middle of what Bourdieu says and what other sociologist saiys, Erving Goffman. He thinks that people have multiple faces in every situation that he is involved in. For example, I am different when I am among my friends and among my family. Maybe when I am with my family I don't cursed or I am more polite that I am when I hang out with my friends. Also when I am with my university friends and my school friends is a different type of relationship. The jokes, the music we listen and the way we say some things are different and that's not bad or unusual. Goffman believes in the fragmentation of the person. Lahire thinks that both theory's are too radical and we should be in the middle of them.

McCall in the other hand, puts the importance of gender in the practical theory. Bourdieu talks about different fields that are professionalised and that when we enter one of those unfamiliar fields, we don't understand how to act. For example, as a sociology student I would understand when I graduated the sociology field. But I won't understand the artistic or engineer fields because I am not an artist nor a engineer. McCall thinks that because the fields are professionalised, the reproductive field is not a field because it is not profesionalised. In this case, Bourdieu wouldn't think about all the women who has to stay home and look after their children or cook their meals for the entire week. McCall believes, as her text says, that gender doesn't fit in the practical theory of Bourdieu.

In my opinion, I think that we are determinated by the social structure and the elections we made show that. However, I also think that it is possible to change the path that is determinated but It is a conscience election that we make and we have to work hard for that. For example, I do think that a person that doesn't have a lot of money can be the only one in his family to have an university degree and that changes the path that the structure determinates for someone who is raised in a poor family. But in the process of graduating from university you have to take a lot of classes and study a lot of courses and you could use some help that your family is not going to give you, so that difficults your lifew when you can just follow what your habitus says and work or graduating from a technical institution.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice (1980) Sartre, J. P. Existencialism is humanism (1946)