We have argued that the more expensive the service is, the more pressure is added to customers.
Now we will delve into the theory to explain this, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist.
Let's review the general framework of Bourdieu's theory first.
His central thesis is this: Taste classifies.
People have taste.
And the taste they have distinguishes them from others.
When some people think something is beautiful rather than ugly, this taste shows who they are.
Such taste, then, is socially and historically developed.
And how we define cultural nobility is at stake in our struggle.
When some people cultivate taste to value certain things that ordinary people do not understand or appreciate,
they are defining what a legitimate culture is.
This definition is the basis of their dominance over others.
If you are born into a bourgeois family and raised in the culture by speaking a certain language,
eating certain foods in certain ways, listening to certain music, experiencing certain arts, etc.,
you come to have certain taste.
It is not easy to imitate this taste by training oneself in a short period of time.
Having the upper class taste is critical when becoming successful in the upper class community.
If you do not speak in the way they do,
you will not be judged as a fully competent member.
This is a simple representation of the cultural struggle.
We represent the amount of economic capital and cultural capital vertically.
Economic capital is the economic resources that people have.
Cultural capital is Bourdieu's own concept.
It captures the capital embodied in the taste.
There is a dominant group of people with high levels of economic and cultural capital.
Then, there is a dominated group at the bottom.
The dominant group has taste that is rare, while the dominated group has taste that is vulgar.
Dominant group then has the aesthetic of relaxation in tension.
The dominated group values something easy and common.
From the point of view of the dominant group, the dominated group's aesthetic is characterized as laxity.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the dominated group,
the dominant group's aesthetic is characterized as ostentation.
That said, we can review the nature of two different tastes.
The taste of necessity is the popular value of the dominated group,
and the taste of liberty or the taste of luxury is the dominant value of the dominant group.
Bourdieu wrote, “the taste of necessity favours the most ‘filling' and most economical foods."
The taste of necessity is tightly matched with practical necessity.
Functions, quantity, and substance are important.
On the other hand, the taste of liberty "shifts the emphasis to the manner (of presenting, serving, eating, etc.)
and tends to use stylized forms to deny function."
It tries to keep distance from the necessity and puts more emphasis on style and form.
It implies liberty from necessity.
This distinction corresponds to "two antagonistic approaches to the treatment of food and act of eating."
One is popular aesthetic: "food is claimed as a material reality, a nourishing substance which sustains the body and gives strength."
Here, people value something substantive like pork as opposed to something subtle like fish.
This aesthetic is characterized as easy and free.
Rules and manners are minimized.
The other is dominant aesthetic:
"the priority given to form … and social form, formality, … identifies true freedom with the elective asceticism of a self-imposed rule."
Here, they put more emphasis on form and style than on substance.
Note that true freedom is here conceived as the elective asceticism.
This strange juxtaposition of freedom and asceticism is a key to this aesthetic.
Enough for now. We will continue this topic in the next session.