Bourdieu’s theory of fields is an understated evaluative masterwork when dealing with the theory of new authorship featured on Twitter and various blogs. While old Chris-dog Chesher would like to attribute the sociological ingenuity to a Foucault interpretation, with relations to the redefinition of the author and the expansion of what is authorized property. I feel that the Frenchman has a more adequate means, as he recognises the imperative of capital. Now, I’m not talking about Karl Marx’s nemesis, which is thinly veiled with economics, no friends, I speak of other forms of capital which Bourdieu brought forth to the sociological limelight. These are symbolic, social and cultural…intangible concepts that place authors in a certain hierarchy, a hierarchy that is (similarly to Marx) governed by quantitative measures.
Authors are constantly struggling for recognition, competing with other authors, publishers, web stores and destructive hordes such as Tom Clancy (who cannot be classified as an author, rather a swarm). This constant struggle determines the field of which these online authors exist, let us call it Publishing for the Web, whereby those with the most sway, influence, credit and recognition are the prime holders of symbolic capital. Thus, these characters sit at the peak of the hierarchy and set the parameters of the field. Think of it as the homicide squad in The Wire: McNulty, Bunk and Freamon are all friends and fight for the same cause, however when Rawls drops the axe, these boys will fight to the death to determine who solves what and how fast, in order to gain respect and other forms of symbolic capital.
The more followers bloggers and Tweeters have, the more symbolic capital they have, and the greater they can shape their field. This friends is the way to evaluate the online authorship question.
Genius!
ReplyDelete