As for the first question, the spokesmen of the left-right axis are the groups that have a voice, who are opposed to those that have not. That is, those who are able to speak and, therefore, have some access to the means of production of the voice or words, currently going by media conglomerates (press, television, radio and, increasingly, internet) that produce opinions. In short, it is basically political parties such as the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español, Spanish Socialist Party) and the PP (Partido Popular, Popular Conservative Party) having a fully verifiable history of relationships with various media groups that give them an almost monopolistic domination of the published views.

This ends up having certain effects. First, effects on the mediatic field. The fact that they are always the same the ones with voice generates a consensus on the topics covered, legitimates problems and imposes censorship on the problems these groups believe are not proper or legitimate, in which are often agree and, therefore, do not enter into dialogue. The dynamics of response and counter-response ends up being, more than a dialogue, a dialogue of the deaf, a smokescreen to cover the basic consensus, which are never discussed by hegemonic groups (as we shall see in the following example). A way of denying the true dialogue, imposing a symbolic violence, a coercion of word for word, imposing some half-truths, some slogans, repeated a thousand times in different ways, whether to assert them or to deny them, to defend them or criticize them, which end up forming what is said and, therefore, what is thought. They end up being publicized opinion. Let’s see an example of today: we speak insistently about what some call the “sustainability of the pension system”, arguing that the ratio between the number of contributors (employees) and pensioners is becoming smaller, so that there are increasingly fewer workers to support a growing number of pensioners. Each of the two sides is positioned: the PP considers it necessary to reform it, while the PSOE defense it against what he considers “the counter-reform of the PP”. The debate is open and the opposing arguments are endless. Apparently the issue is subject to an open dialogue. But there is more censoring than real dialogue, because the apparent debate is based on some consensus. Nobody says nothing about who “holds” the system. They talk about their “sustainability” only to say that one side considers that the system is viable and the other side considers it is not, but in developing the question, the question is not questioned. Is the question about the “sustainability of the pension system” really the question that we should ask? Maybe if we went further, reformulating the question in terms of the kind of “who holds the pension system”, we could answer the question intended to respond. If you answer this new question, you may end up seeing that when the pension is paid with income from work (as in Spain) (i.e., is paid by the workers), in a context where there are increasingly less work, like nowadays, and in which wages have been declining, it is clear that predictably the pensions will decrease. But perhaps the solution to this problem would be to increase the contribution of capital to the pension system, making it more taxed, i.e., applying redistributive policies to it? This debate is “not proper”, but maybe should not it be?

But this is not all. This lack of plurality of opinions also has effects on the political field. Insofar as there is a group or groups able to impose a monopoly of the political problems and their solutions, and insofar as the circulation of such ideological proposals takes the form of an infinite circle (proposal-response-counter-response) without being nobody able or wanting to break this circuit, this not only granted visibility to certain ideas and visions of the world over other ideas, but above all this give notoriety and power to some groups over others. In short, this gives some visibility to certain groups at the expense of relegating the others, which hardly cannot exist socially, because they are considered “marginal groups”.

The only way of breaking this political and mediatic hegemony would be promote mechanisms (laws in the first place) that, through greater plurality of ideological choices expressed in all media both public and especially private, could diluted and broke the hegemony of those voices that currently are untouchable and unquestioned as opposed to those that currently are relegated, which would have a greater chance to be heard (and, therefore, exist socially and politically) and a greater chance to question those voices that until now have had all the resources and all the opportunities to present themselves as the only possible because “they have the upper hand”.

El artículo Political field and mediatic field se publicó primero en Xavier Gimeno Torrent.

That’s why it is needed a good start to read Bourdieu. A slow dive. It is not good to start reading his major works (Distinction, Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, Homo Academicus, Outline of a Theory of Practice, The State Nobility, Practical Reason or The Logic of Practice, The Rules of Art, Language and Symbolic Power, Masculine Domination, The Social Structures of Economy, Pascalian Meditations, The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger, Science of Science and Reflexivity, The Inheritors, The Love of Art, or Reproduction). The best is to start reading the three following books (in order): 1- Sociology in Question, 2- In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, 3- An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. The various articles in these three books come primarily from two sources: interviews and lectures. This means that the language used is simple, avoiding the endless sentences full of subordinate: the spoken language requires few clear words to say things. In this sense, these three books are the best place to start with Bourdieu.

The value of these first three readings lies in: a) their informative nature, b) the general exposition of bourdieunian analytical frame and c) the very complete guide to the books of Pierre Bourdieu that they contain. However, these are introductory readings. That is, it is necessary to continue reading more books by Bourdieu to understand it better. In this sense, complementary to these first three theoretical readings, there are two other readings. These are concrete examples in which the Bourdieu’s analytical model is applied. These are the following books (in order): 1- On Television, 2- Propos sur le Champ Politique (only in French). These two books are still written using an accessible language because they are addressed to the general public: On Television is a transcription of a lecture on journalism broadcast on television and Propos sur le Champ Politique are several conversations between Bourdieu, Philippe Fristch and the audience at the conference on politics compiled in the book.

After reading these five books, you can start thinking in the reading of Bourdieu’s more difficult books. That is, in the reading of Distinction. To read this book, before you must read the following books (in the same order): 1- Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, 2- The Inheritors, 3- The Love of Art, 4- Reproduction, and, finally, 5- Distinction.

At this point, you can read the rest of the Bourdieu’s work in the order you want, although I encourage you to read theoretical books like 1- Outline of a Theory of Practice, 2- The Logic of Practice and 3- Practical Reason in order to understand better the aspects of Bourdieu’s work not yet understood.

El artículo Reading Bourdieu se publicó primero en Xavier Gimeno Torrent.

The concept of epistemological break comes from the tradition of French philosophy of science which was practiced during the first half of the twentieth century at the Collége de France. Its cultivators were philosophers as Canguilhem, Bachelard, Koyre, etc. The term seems to refer to an aptitude which all those engaged in the profession of scientist have. It also seems to suggest that this competence is achieved through the training that enables for the profession of scientist. The term “epistemological” would seem to be related to those two factors. Moreover, the fact that they use the term “break” seems to imply that it is a finite process: a rupture or a break is something that is done once and for all without interruption. And what is more important, the term “break” gives the impression that it is a process that someone makes in a consciously planned way.

On the contrary, the epistemological break is far from being a technical, non continuous and consciously planned process. The epistemological break is essentially a social process and as any social process is characterized by the social conditions in which it takes place, determining its effect and efficiency. Obviously, the social conditions that are at the origin of the break are neither established nor chosen by the person, since he finds them already made and these are the basis that will determine the success of the epistemological break affected. Thus, the epistemological break is actually a rupture, characterized by their duration in time and their infiniteness, with certain ways of seeing the world and the social groups that are their spokesmen. As you can see, epistemological ruptures are also social ruptures starting long before the person affected is conscious of their action, and therefore, he has little power to act on them, neither he can accelerate them nor increase their effects. Moreover, the individual affected will do everything possible in order for the rupture does not happen, as they are often traumatic ruptures. They can mean breaking with the primary groups (family, friends) and the native places (places we were born). Usually behind epistemological breaks of the generations of young scientists there are often processes of upward mobility performed by the children of working classes (in urban social contexts) or by the children of farming families in rural contexts involved in processes of farming crisis, or maybe by second-generation immigrants. That is, they are usually performed by people who are in no man’s land and which, previously, before becoming scientists capable of thinking on the counter, had been questioned by the reality itself, not having any other choice but to learn to question this reality questioning its own existence. This is the social structure determining the efficacy, the effect, and the intensity of the epistemological break induced. Are these the social conditions required leading to the success of an epistemological break, as is shown in books as Sketch for a Self-Analysis by Pierre Bourdieu, a prime example of the process followed by an episteomological break.

El artículo The epistemological break se publicó primero en Xavier Gimeno Torrent.