Bourdieu maintained that people are socialized into specific classes (or, into specific regions of the larger social space) and tend to be exposed to similar conditions and conditionings. This approach made it possible to bring macro-level realities (for example, the class structure of France) into analyses of micro-level dynamics (for example, taken-for-granted feelings about what is appropriate for ‘our kind’ in specific educational, residential, or economic contexts) (Paulle, Van Heerikhuizen, Emirbayer, 2012). The culture of dominant groups, insisted Bourdieu, are acquired naturally through the processes of socialisation practised within that group. In this manner, he asserted, their culture or the culture of the dominant classes, becomes 'culture' itself. What is more, the exclusion of those …show more content…
Through interviews with Boston based blue-collar workers, the authors documented how the workers frequently expressed anger, pain and humiliation. These feelings, contended Sennett and Cobb, stemmed from the belief that they were powerless in improving their place in society. The workers spoke of pain and resentment at being treated in their work as mere 'cogs in the machine,' or just 'Rita the janitor.' The insight here, is that despite efforts by made by working class individuals to move on in life, classed experiences can have a detrimental impact on a person's social identity and their sense of place within hierarchies of respectability. One of the most significant observations noted by the authors, was that working class people often assume personal responsibility for their social position. The plumbers, electricians, shop foremen, janitors and so on, all viewed their social position as a result of personal inadequacies. Consequently, despite their material success, some of the workers continued to experience low self-esteem and stigma