8/12/2019 Navarro Martnez, Ernesto

1/1

Universidad del Rosario

Escuela de Ciencias Humanas

Estudios Sociales de la Cultura

Ernesto Navarro Martnez

ALEXANDER:

In The Strong Program of Cultural Sociology, Alexander and Smith develop thebasic guidelines for a proper approach to culture in sociology. One of the main

theses of these authors is that sociologists need to establish an hermeneutical

dialogue with cultural frameworks. This dialogue must be done bracketing-out

issues like power and instrumental reason a movement somewhat inspired in

Husserls phenomenological reduction. Alexander and Smith find problematic inwhat they call weak programs the fact that these sociologists try to understand

culture from the outside (without the mentioned bracketing) and, in doing so, they

do not approach cultural frameworks as they should. In this point, I thought aboutthe Foucauldian conceptualization of power. Power, according to Foucault, is not

something that someone in particular has, neither is something with a vertical

structure of oppression on people. Power must be understood, in Foucaultstheoretical account, as something constituted of power relations (which, it is worthsaying, are not essentially oppressive) that permeate every aspect of life. I am aware

of the authors characterization of Foucaults works as evidences of a weakprogram and the criticism that emerges from such characterization, but I think

Alexander and Smith are still thinking power in juridical terms. Foucault radically

alters what power means, and in that sense his analysis is not a reductionistone. If

Foucaults assertions about power are to be taken seriously, how could someone

approach to cultural frameworks bracketing-out power relations?

BOURDIEU:

I would like to write a little reflection on Bourdieus account of the social elementspresent in museums. I understood that Bourdieu is suggesting that in order to

increment cultural consumption and assistance to museums, we would need toincrement access to education, since these things are deeply related. I think that it is

possible to see museums as oppressive spaces where people can experience some

sort of symbolic oppression (I know that Bourdieu uses this concept in his texts, but

I dont know his work, so I am using this expression very loosely in theoretical

terms). Museums seem to be consolidated as spaces where what is socially

acceptable becomes beautiful and good. Likewise, museums tell us what should

be known and appreciated. In that sense, an increase in education may help to abate

individual experiences of oppression in museums. However, it seems to me that this

would continue under dynamics of what is socially acceptable, eliminating

difference in some way. Thus, museums would still be spaces where what isbeautiful, good and worthy of being known is standardized and consolidated. It

is possible to think of a scenario where everyone can access these spaces withoutexperiencing discomfort and oppression. Yet this picture still seems to privilege one

way of culture over others that are not correct. Given that, what should be done with

museums?