This research focus addresses the question of the extent to which symbolic practice, and symbolic violence in particular, are constitutive for processes of socialisation. In social theory and sociology, there are several approaches according to which social practice is based on the use of signs or meaning. These include Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “theory of the use of meaning” in linguistic philosophy, speech act theory (John L. Austin, John Searle) and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic practice. My research builds on these approaches and also integrates further elements from sociological theories of knowledge and social pragmatism (Karl Mannheim, William I. Thomas, John Dewey). see Corsten 2020.
Social practice and symbolic violence
In recent sociology, Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron (1977, book 1, 1-69) introduced the theorem of symbolic violence. According to this, social practice is based on a dual mode of constitution. On the one hand, symbolic forces generate legitimations that enforce the prevailing meanings of social structures. On the other hand, the legitimation of socially valid meaning is also based on the factually unequal distribution of means of power and opportunities for enforcement in social relations, which prove themselves to be legitimate through symbolic practice. In their criticism of consensualist communication and symbol theories, Bourdieu and Passeron resemble representatives of poststructuralism such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault (Corsten 2017).
Communication power and digital distribution media
Digital distribution media, especially the social platforms (Web 2.0) that are differentiating themselves within the World Wide Web, have triggered a significant change in the processes of public communication. More specifically, digital media are fundamentally changing the conditions for gaining communication power by enabling both new possibilities for virtual face-to-face communication in small interaction settings and creating new conditions for communication within large public spheres, in which the relationship between contributor and audience is shifting from a one-to-many to a many-to-many constellation. We have defined communication power as the force through which communicative actors in the respective constellations can succeed in establishing a binding framework for the situation.
Popular culture and the symbolic modernisation of modernity
The social significance of popular culture depends on its enormously increased potential to attract attention within publics created by gatherings of a dispersed audience. In this way, popular culture promotes a mainstream of modernisation (Hügel 2007) of given social horizons of meaning. In other words, the regular renewal of what is considered attractive popular culture leads to a continuous devaluation of existing (or traditional culture). Nevertheless, popular culture also includes forms that are dedicated to the stylisation of the past, the missing or the lost, such as evergreens or sentimental songs (Corsten/Schubert 2025).
Aesthetic practice
Aesthetic practice can be understood as an activity that draws attention to the sensual act of perception. It is accompanied by a way of forming taste that privileges ‘reflective taste’ over ‘sensory taste’. For Bourdieu ([1982: 756pp, especially: 761p.] (https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/pierre-bourdieu-die-feinen-unterschiede-t-9783518282588)), aesthetics is therefore a source of distinctive practices that must be subjected to a sociological ‘vulgar critique’ of aesthetic judgement. Nevertheless, within practice, an attitude towards practice can develop that is designed to remain aware of the manner of doing. (Hetzel 2021, in Corsten <ed.> 2021). This observation is one of the starting points of the GRK ‘Aesthetic Practice’ at the University of Hildesheim.