Requisitos y límites

as such). The various types of capital have some capacity for inter-changeability. Capital is thus

convertible. The most powerful conversion is from one type of capital into symbolic capital, for it is in

this form that the different types of capital are perceived and legitimated. For instance, San Miguel was

the leader of a Colonia political group. He had enormous symbolic capital among residents as the

person who spoke on behalf of the Colonia residents

to

the local government. His position is more

clearly described in Chapter Four, but the point

to

be made here is that he had considerable ability

to

transform symbolic capital and his political position into economic and cultural capital which benefitted

himself and his family. Like traditional village leaders, he was seen

to

work for the benefit of the

community. He was also defined as being 'one of them' in looks, age, income and family size.

However, unlike village leaders, San Miguel had been able to capitalize on his outside contacts to

improve his financial and occupational position. This use of one capital to create another is an example

of the kinds of conversion that take place. An opposite example to San Miguel is the 'Doctor' who was

rejected by the Colonia residents as their spokesman. He was rejected first because he was not like

them. He was older, had an education and a profession, and did not live in the Colonia but only housed

his mistress there. A second reason for his rejection was his lack of symbolic capital. While he had

economic and cultural capital, his profile in the Colonia was not one of an honourable headman as in a

village, but of a part-time resident whose 'real' concerns were not the concerns of the Colonia. To be

I

l

seen as a person of prestige or status was to be accepted as legitimate, and as an authority. Such a position carries with it the power to 'name', the power

to

represent commonsense and above all to create 'the official version of the social world' (Bourdieu 1985a). Such a power to represent is rooted in symbolic capital. Perhaps one of the most powerful examples of the power to represent the 'legitimate' social world is through the law and the use of symbolic violence by the state to enforce this vision. The law guarantees to the state all forms of official nomination (such as titles of property, school titles, professional titles, etc.). This in turn gives individuals a known and recognized identity which in turn confers economic and cultural capital. In the struggle or conflict for the legitimate vision, (the power to name), a state-named 'expert' (i.e. doctor or teacher) produces a point of view which confers universally recognized rights to others who hold certificates and who act in the legitimate (expected) way. This in turn produces a kind of consensus based upon the power relations between two different systems of presuppositions (i.e. the layman and the expert), and results from the structure and functioning of the field. The law, Bourdieu says, is " ... no doubt the form par-excellence of the symbolic power of naming and classifying which creates the things named, and particularly groups" (Bourdieu 1986:88).

One of the ironies of the logic of capital in practice is that the connection or the convertability between different types of capital is not always recognised. Thus, symbolic capital, for example may not always be recognised as a material form of power, which is institutionally organised and secured. Waquant makes the point in the following quote:

" ... (the) hidden processes whereby different species of capital are converted so that economically-based relations of dependency and domination may be disguised and bolstered by the mask of moral ties, charisma, or of meritocratic symbolism."

(Waquant 1986: 10)

The process of constructing visions and divisions of the social world presupposes a particular kind of capital (for some) which works effectively in the mechanisms of delegation and dispossession. The outcome of such mechanisms is what Bourdieu calls symbolic violence, because those who do not have the 'means of speech' and do not know how to 'take the floor' can only see themselves in the words or the discourse of others; i.e., those who are legitimate authorities and who can name and represent.

The discussion of capital leads to the view that practice, the product of the formula, can be largely conceptualised in terms of one's individual trajectory and class trajectory through the various fields that make up the social space.

The Field

In addition to habitus, the second important principle to consider is that of the social field. The notion of

fields, the total social field, i.e. the intellectual field, the artistic field, the political field, the field of

urban squatter settlement and so on, is central. This conception of field bears no relation to the

traditional vision of field as a space surrounded by a boundary, but rather is more adequately conceived

In document El estatus de la República Federativa de Yugoslavia entre 1992 y 2000 : “una cuestión no libre de dificultades jurídicas” (página 164-172)