Argument: Bourdieu and Marx and Theory of Class.

Evidently, in Marx’s ‘The German Ideology,’ Marx formulates class revolving around methods of production. Marx acknowledges that a nation (in this case feudal and capitalist) preserves the division of labor, which arguably results in the formation of ‘class.’ In the feudal method of production, which Marx calls ‘feudal or estate property,’ antagonism between laborers and landowners begin to arise. In where,
“hierarchical structure of landownership, and the armed bodies, of the retainers associated with it, gave the nobility power over the serfs,” in its literal sense, under feudal society, the serfs were the under-class, the oppressed, ‘the working class’ as we know in a capitalist society (Marx 153). Similarly, Marx argues that under the capitalist method of production there are two major classes the ‘Bourgeoisie’ and the ‘Proletarian,’ in which the ‘Proletarians’ are the working class, and are oppressed (economically perhaps) by the ‘Bourgeoisie.’

One can note, that Marx formulates class under economic terms, those who own the means of production, and those who labor the means of production. Class, for Marx becomes narrow, for no other factor is contributed to explain the complexity of class. As a result of the division of labor, which begins to separate class, there is “indeed an unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labor and its products” (Marx 159). Here again, Marx associates class with the economic concept of economic inequality. This brings to light, that Marx associates class on the basis of economic terms, which limits the overall understanding of class. In addition, by limiting the concept of class by means of economics, that of production and labor, Marx does not capture the essence of class, and thus, according to the Communist Manifesto to eradicate the oppressed class and to bring economic equality to the classes, is to ‘abolish private property’ (Marx 484).

However, I argue, that class cannot be limited and classified narrowly by two economic terms, the laborers and the owners of production. Indeed, both terms are important to grasp the concept of class, particularly in a capitalistic society in where wealth and income are predominantly concentrated to a few members of the society. In contrast to Marx’s view on class, as Pierre Bourdieu states that, “the social world can be represented in the form of a ‘multi-dimensional’ space,” in where class can be distinguished through multi-dimensional concepts” (Bourdieu 229). For Bourdieu these concepts are ‘economic,’ ‘cultural,’ and ‘social’ capital, debatably these concepts provide a more comprehensive approach to the understanding of class. In addition, it is through these concepts; in where citizens of a society can begin differentiate themselves from each other, and thus formulate class, according to the different forms of capital one has or lacks thereof. Bourdieu theorizes that class is based on distinction, which embodies cultural, social and economic distinction, while Marx seems to heavily reference economic distinction as the main contributor to the formation of class. Indeed, class is problematic in nature, but it is my opinion that class should be classified holistically, rather than being dependent on income, Bourdieu epitomizes this opinion.