See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236748038

Pierre Bordieu: Sociology is a Martial Art (review)

Article  in  Film & History An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies · January 2007
DOI: 10.1353/flm.2007.0002

CITATIONS READS

0 769

1 author:

Alex Betancourt
University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras
23 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finalized project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Betancourt on 11 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

and retaining power, and Mary A broad range of foreign royals was spurned while she tried to
Tudor’s (Joanna Whalley) popish tamp down her passions for Dudley, but these passions were only
affiliation certainly endowed barely quelled. His two marriages did little to intervene between
her with the means of holding them and, while his health declined, he still remained steadfastly
power in an increasing polarized beside her. Dudley’s unexpected death devastated her and left her
political landscape. However, susceptible to attraction to his stepson (and possible bastard), Robert
the Protestant leanings of her Devereux. Devereux proved the adage that the sequel is seldom
half-sister, Elizabeth (Anne- comparable to the original and eventually attempted a coup against
Marie Duff), garnered support Elizabeth’s Privy Council under the auspices of protecting her from
among Mary’s detractors and gave their corruption. This act of treason resulted in his execution.
Elizabeth ample cause to fear for The loss of all ties to Dudley took their toll on Elizabeth, who
her life. It was only with Mary withdrew to her chambers and slowly faded from view. Her sanity
Tudor’s death that the Protestant also appeared to fade in the months preceding her passing, as the
movement could re-assert itself film shows her stalking the halls of the palace, dressed in armor and
without fear of execution and swinging a sword in defense against invisible foes. Her quiet death
it did so, fiercely, with Elizabeth’s coronation. The irony of marked the end of the reign of the Virgin Queen and the beginning
Elizabeth’s imprisonment and eventual execution of the Catholic of the Stuart era.
Mary, Queen of Scots, is certainly not lost on either the viewer The film was glorious and compelling, lovingly crafted by a
or Elizabeth herself. Guilt and religious conflict appear to be cast and crew that were clearly invested in the material. The balance
standard issue with the Tudor crown, as Elizabeth was plagued by between romance and politics, religion and intrigue was well-
her conscience after the issuance of Mary Stuart’s death warrant developed and the continuous threads of Cecil and Dudley through
and her own bitter half-sister, Mary Tudor, is portrayed as having the film showed necessity of the roles fulfilled by both. In a reign
a crisis of conscience as she considered executing Elizabeth. that was fraught with the unstable and the treacherous, Elizabeth
While religion and politics certainly played a significant role proved herself a survivor and, more importantly, proved herself
in Elizabeth’s reign, her life could easily be described as revolving worthy of the title Gloriana. The director and producer created a
around three men: William Cecil (Ian Hart), her advisor and product that also lives up to her legend.
mainstay; Robert Dudley (Tom Hardy), a childhood friend and
object of her affections; and Robert Devereux (Hans Matheson), Tiffany L. Knoell
Dudley’s step-son and Elizabeth’s eventual betrayer. William Cecil, Utah Valley State College
Lord Burghley, provided a foundation upon which Elizabeth built
her reign. As the head of the Privy Council and as Elizabeth’s
personal advisor, Burghley’s strong and stable influence was a
bastion in a court full of intrigue and in-fighting. Elizabeth tells Pierre Bourdieu: Sociology
him as much later in his life, as he contemplates retirement and is a Martial Art (2001)
she urges him to remain at court. Following Cecil’s major stroke, (La Sociologie est un sport de combat)
Elizabeth tenderly informed him that he was her “alpha and Pierre Carles, director
omega” and could not possibly die. However, their relationship
was not without conflict and never more so than in matters of love For some strange reason,
and marriage. contemporary documentaries
The filmmakers call particular attention to the role of marriage of intellectual figures, whether
in Elizabeth’s life. At the beginning of her reign, Elizabeth and academic or within the public
Cecil were decidedly at odds regarding the issue of marriage. She sphere, share a tendency to bring
feared the loss of her sovereignty, both personal and public, while to the screen literally the writings
her advisors believed that a marriage would serve the dual purpose of their subjects. Two recent
of assuring her subjects not only of her ability to retain power but to documentaries about Jacques
also assure continuity through an heir. In a dramatic pronouncement Derrida and Slavoj Žižek (both
to her privy council, Elizabeth vowed that there would be one iconic figures in Europe, North
mistress and no master over her kingdom, and that she would die a and Latin America) endeavor to
virgin. She further asserted this commitment to the one man in all portray the life and thought of
her realm that might make her withdraw her pledge: Robert Dudley, these scholars while ending up
Earl of Leicester. reproducing exactly the same

Vol. 37.1 (2007) | 85

thing we find in their books. The major flaw of these kinds of emphasizing only on the theoretical and sociological insights
documentaries lies in the fact that they add very little, almost present in his writings, Bourdieu gives us the assumptions behind
nothing, to what the audience can gather from reading them. To it, the problems behind the work he does, what motivates him
deploy the documentary genre in such fashion becomes a fruitless and the questions he asks and why he leaves others unasked. The
enterprise at two fundamental levels: as cinematic form and as viewer also takes a peek at what we can call sociology at work.
communicative device. It fails as communicative device because In a very interesting scene we see Bourdieu with several of his
the audience it aspires to reach becomes the same that reads their collaborators of the well-known volume La Misère du Monde
work. This means that nothing new transpires through the film that discussing the social effects of liberalism and neo-liberalism. His
one could not get reading their work. The only incentive left to the engagement with social activism, as an active contributor but also
audience is a voyeuristic one that although intrinsic to the genre, as a spectator is stimulating. The conclusion of this documentary
is the less valuable one. And this makes it a failure as a genre. also provides a refreshing approach, although some may consider it
The first thing to be noted about Pierre Bourdieu: Sociology is a patronizing. During a lecture, a heated debate takes place between
Martial Art is that the documentary succeeds at the two levels where the audience and Bourdieu regarding the socio-economic conditions
others have failed, and it does much more. If you are interested in of immigrants in France. The discussion comes to the point of anti-
European social movements, the practice of sociology, a strong intellectualism, to which Bourdieu responds, “you have taught me
critique of neoliberalism and the sources of structural inequalities then nothing. I have read Sayad! I could teach you a few things about
this documentary is for you. Whether you are a teacher, a university yourselves. If that sounds arrogant, what the hell…Intellectualism
professor, a graduate student, a social activist, or a concerned citizen, is not a disease.” If there is a central theme to this documentary it
and have no idea who was Pierre Bourdieu, the film will inform you is precisely this: intellectualism is a practice, reflexive, engaging,
about him through all the themes above. And if you knew of Bourdieu informative, insightful, and critical. All characteristics exemplified
and his work, then it will add in interesting and fruitful ways. in this tour de force.
The first three scenes frame the structure of the documentary.
It sets the stage at three different levels. The first is historical. We Alex Betancourt
see Bourdieu as part of the audience in a demonstration headed by University of Puerto Rico
José Bové (leader of the French agricultural union Confédération
Paysanne). This is historically important because it sets the
social temporality of the documentary and frames Bourdieu as an
implicated subject of his own object of study. This is what Bourdieu Around the World in 72 Days:
calls reflexive sociology. The second level is that of reception. The Audacious Adventures of
Throughout the film we see an interesting representation of the Nellie Bly (1997; DVD edition, 2006)
reception Bourdieu’s work has in Europe: how it has affected American Experience, WGBH
individual’s choices at the personal and political level, how it has
informed and misinformed activists in social movements, and the About midway through this
kinds of political and social questions Bourdieu’s sociological appealing, tightly focused, PBS
practice can and cannot answer. The range of Bourdieu’s work is “American Experience” episode,
exemplified by a moment in the film where Bourdieu receives a Catherine Robe points out that,
letter from the famous French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard. A letter “Always, the main character in
to which, after reading it, Bourdieu responds, “very mysterious, any Nellie Bly story is Nellie Bly
like all his work…I don’t understand a thing!” This is probably herself, and she was very much a
the funniest scene, particularly so because it ends with Bourdieu character.” This video biography
saying about himself, without irony, “Poor old Bourdieu” as one plays that theme consistently, and
who can no longer understand difficult stuff. The third level is that in the process speaks to viewers
of Bourdieu’s actual work. The film shows clips of radio interviews, who might have only a general
live public performances, academic conferences, and exchanges with sense of women journalists in the
other public figures (we see him conversing with Gunther Grass). late nineteenth century, or none at
The first thing to notice is how his work is always historicized, all. The production is a compelling
from his experience in Algeria during the fifties and sixties where introduction to the energetic and influential Bly. But at the same
the practice of sociology was literally a matter of life and death, to time it only alludes to major themes of American female journalists
his contemporary practice. of the period, lacking an expansive context except in one area. It
These three levels are present throughout the film and their is a splendid supplemental video work than can enhance a more
intertwining gives us a very productive approach. Rather than rigorous study of women journalists.

86 | Film & History

View publication stats