Generation on paper: Bourdieu and the ritique of "generationism"

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/282912164

Generationsonpaper:Bourdieuandthecritiqueof"generationalism"ARTICLEinSOCIALSCIENCEINFORMATIONOCTOBER2015ImpactFactor:0.6DOI:10.1177/0539018415608967

READS33

1AUTHOR:

SemiPurhonenUniversityofTampere21PUBLICATIONS72CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:SemiPurhonenRetrievedon:27November2015

Social Science Information 1 21

The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0539018415608967

ssi.sagepub.com

Generations on paper: Bourdieu and the critique of generationalism

Semi PurhonenSchool of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Finland

AbstractThis article first examines the role of the concept of generation in Pierre Bourdieus work. It shows that Bourdieus usage of the concept of generation varied throughout his uvre and that Bourdieu seldom if ever used the concept in the same sense as Karl Mannheim and many subsequent sociologists who have understood generation as a potential source of identity and political mobilization. However, and second, the article argues that Bourdieus sociology does have much to offer for the sociological study of generations, but only if we stop concentrating on those rare passages in which he explicitly used the word generation. We should focus instead on his more general approach to the genesis of social groupings, classification struggles and the difficult relationships of representation. The application and extension of Bourdieus ideas demonstrated here can provide a welcome antidote to so-called generationalism a simplified and exaggerated picture of generations, which dates back to early 20th-century European intellectuals and which can still be found in todays popular discourses as well as in academic studies.

KeywordsBourdieu, generations, classification struggles, generationalism, Mannheim

RsumLarticle examine le rle du concept de gnration dans luvre de Bourdieu. Il montre que lutilisation que fait Bourdieu du concept de gnration dans son uvre a vari et quil a rarement utilis ce concept dans le mme sens que Karl Mannheim et que de nombreux sociologues qui lont suivi, qui ont compris le concept de gnration comme une source potentielle didentit et de mobilisation politique. Cependant et en second

Corresponding author:Semi Purhonen, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Linna 5056 (Kalevantie 5), FIN-33014, Finland. Email: [email protected]

608967 SSI0010.1177/0539018415608967Social Science InformationPurhonenresearch-article2015

at University of Helsinki on October 17, 2015ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

2 Social Science Information

lieu, larticle dfend la thse que la sociologie de Bourdieu a vritablement beaucoup apporter ltude sociologique des gnrations condition darrter de concentrer son attention sur les rares passages o il utilise explicitement le mot gnration. Il faut au contraire sintresser de prs son approche plus gnrale de la gense des groupes sociaux, des luttes de classification et des relations difficiles entre systmes de reprsentation. Lapplication et lextension des ides de Bourdieu dmontre ici peut fournir une antidote bienvenue ce que lon nomme le gnrationalisme image simplifie et exagre des gnrations, qui date des intellectuels Europens du dbut du vingtime sicle et que lon trouve encore de nos jours dans le discours populaire ainsi que dans certaines tudes universitaires.

Mots-clsBourdieu, gnrations, luttes de classification, gnrationalisme, Mannheim

Introduction

Although sometimes interpreted as one of the elementary concepts of modern sociol-ogy (Jureit & Wildt, 2005), generation famously has many meanings, which have been widely discussed and profoundly criticized (e.g. Aboim & Vasconcelos, 2014; Kertzer, 1983; Laslett, 2005; Pilcher, 1994; Ryder, 1965; Spitzer, 1973). For at least 60 years, Karl Mannheim has been the dominant figure in generation studies. His essay The prob-lem of generations (Mannheim, 1952; German original, 1928) has become the canoni-cal, unifying point of reference in the field. The concern here is not with Mannheims view of generations as such, including his well-known distinctions between generation location, generation as actuality and generation units, or his famous discussion of non-contemporaneity of the contemporaneous, formative years, and the zeitgeist. For the purposes of this article it is sufficient that, for Mannheim, like many subsequent sociologists, generations emerge only under special historical circumstances and are thus something more than simply age cohorts; they are a group of people of similar age bonded by a shared experience that can eventually result in a distinct self-consciousness, a world-view and, ultimately, political action (Mannheim, 1952).

Pierre Bourdieu was arguably one of the most eminent figures in sociology and neigh-bouring disciplines in the last decades of the 20th century (e.g. Sallaz & Zavisca, 2007; Silva & Warde, 2010). In Bourdieus uvre, the theme of generations was marginal at least if we seek explicit discussions. Rather, Bourdieu discussed or referred to generations sparsely and unsystematically. Yet this has not prevented some of the recent generational theorists from trying to use Bourdieus account of generations as a starting point for devel-oping a sociology of generations (Edmunds & Turner, 2002a, 2005; see also e.g. Dumas & Turner, 2009; Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Gilleard & Higgs, 2005, 2011; McMullin et al., 2007; Turner, 1998, 2002). More precisely, it has been argued that, even though the importance of generation as an explanatory factor in Bourdieus approach to cultural change has usually gone unacknowledged because his main emphasis was on class, for Bourdieu, generational struggle seems to be especially important in major rup-tures in taste and practice (Edmunds & Turner, 2002a: 13). Moreover it has been argued


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

Purhonen 3

that members belonging to the same generation share not only common unifying experi-ences usually thought to be a formative experience during young adulthood which separate them from older and younger groups, but distinct generational habitus (Edmunds & Turner, 2002a; Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Gilleard & Higgs, 2005; Mauger, 1990). This would mean that the characteristics of a generation would essentially be manifested at the corporeal level of its members.

Both claims whether generation is an important factor for explaining the changes in a given field and to what degree generational differences are imprinted in and identifia-ble via habitus are, in the end, empirical in nature and should be resolved case by case; but there might be also a deeper problem if the aim is to integrate Bourdieus account of generations into the more traditional view of Mannheim. It is not clear whether Bourdieus and Mannheims conceptions of generation are compatible with each other.

This article argues that, from the perspective of the task of integrating Mannheim and Bourdieu, Bourdieus use of the term generation is not without its problems. First, the meaning of the concept of generation varies in Bourdieus texts, depending on the con-text. Second, and more precisely, Bourdieu seldom if ever used the concept of generation strictly in the same sense as Mannheim (1952) and later theorists, for whom generation means essentially a social or cultural generation, a potential source of collective identity produced by the shared youthful or young adulthood experience of a group of people of roughly similar age (see e.g. Bude, 1997; Burnett, 2010; Eisenstadt, 2001; Jureit & Wildt, 2005). For this reason, there is a danger that the attempt to integrate Bourdieu and Mannheim can lead to conceptual problems, namely, the confusion and equation of age cohorts with generations.

These problems notwithstanding, it is argued here that Bourdieus sociology has actu-ally much to offer the sociology of generations, which has usually been built on Mannheims legacy alone. However, we must put aside those passages in which Bourdieu explicitly deals with generations and concentrate instead on the more general approach to the nature and genesis of social classes and groupings that Bourdieu developed (Bourdieu, 1985, 1987, 1991). This approach, which emphasized the role of continuous classification struggles in the processes of group formation and culminated in analysing the problematic relationships of representation, can be fruitfully applied also to social generations and generational classifications. The result is an even more Bourdieusian picture of generations than Bourdieu himself ever painted.

The purpose of this article is therefore to show that, by applying Bourdieus insights into social groups and the issues of representational relationships, it is pos-sible to provide a new perspective on the lively discussion of social generations.1 From this perspective, social generations are not seen as nave, natural objects or as categories; rather the focus is on the variety of levels at which generations are discur-sively constructed and especially on the continuous classification struggles over the attributes and meanings of those very generations. This new approach to generations will be juxtaposed with so-called generationalism in its classical form. Generationalism refers to a simplified and exaggerated view of generations, a view that dates back to the early 20th century in Europe and to its intellectuals (including Mannheim), and is still found today, both in popular discourse and in academic studies dealing with gen-erations. By adopting insights from Bourdieu, it is possible to arrive at a new way of


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight


conceptualizing generations that can serve as a welcome antidote to this exaggerated generationalism.

Bourdieus concept of generation

For Bourdieu, as for anybody else, there are three basic ways to use the concept of gen-eration (for different conceptual demarcation, see Kertzer, 1983; Lscher & Liegle, 2003; Lscher et al., 2014). One is in reference to familial generations. This genealogical usage, unquestionably the oldest and most profound meaning of the concept (Nash, 1978), appears in the studies that concentrate on the relationships between parents and children. This meaning thus dominates much of the work in the fields of anthropology, sociology of the family, life-course, ageing, youth, social mobility and migration as well as discussions on education and socialization, and so on. A second usage is more collec-tive. Generation, in this case, consists of a group of people born at the same time, or during a certain period. In this casual sense, without the characterization referring to shared experiences, generation is synonymous with age group or birth cohort. In many studies, generation is actually used even more loosely when speaking of the young gen-eration when what is actually meant is youth as a life stage, referring to the banal fact that there are people of many ages. The third use of generation is in the sense of social generations where the underlying idea is to emphasize collective identity and the feeling of us created by shared experiences. This third meaning is the only one that refers directly to a particular background theory, and its meaning is, in fact, modern: it emerged only during the late 19th century and has been used more widely only since the begin-ning of the 20th century when it began to be codified in theories and manifestoes (see Burnett, 2010; Jureit & Wildt, 2005; Kriegel, 1978; Wohl, 1979). All these meanings are, of course, connected, but for the sake of conceptual clarity they should be kept analyti-cally distinct (Kertzer, 1983).

There are several points to bear in mind about Bourdieu and the concept of genera-tions. One is that, in his entire uvre, he never explicitly referred to or cited Mannheims The problem of generations (1952). However, it is abundantly evident that Bourdieu knew the basic idea of Mannheims famous essay, especially as it is known that Bourdieu was familiar with Mannheims sociology of knowledge. Rather than coincidence, it can be argued, the reluctance to refer to Mannheim is simply that Bourdieu seldom, if ever, used the concept of generation in his texts in the same sense as Mannheim and other theorists, who discussed cultural or social generations in the meaning of collectivities produced by shared experience.

However, before going into the principal meanings of generation in Bourdieus work, it should be pointed out that there seems to be one passage that does touch upon the Mannheimian meaning of generation. It occurs in the section in The Rules of Art (Bourdieu, 1996) in which Bourdieu is describing the French literary field at the turn of the 20th century by making reference to Robert Wohls study (1979). Bourdieu parodies and mocks the concept of generation, noting the emergence of a very marked tendency to think of the whole social order in terms of a scheme of division into generations (fol-lowing the logic which often makes intellectuals extend to the whole world the charac-teristics of their own microcosm) (Bourdieu, 1996: 126). Hence, it could be argued that


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiSticky NoteBourdieu is interested in the rules of the game, not in the grouping of people, in the result

Purhonen 5

Bourdieu looked askance at cultural generations because of the tendency of intellectuals to fall into the trap of scholastic fallacy. In other words, when making generational inter-pretations, intellectuals tend to universalize their own particular and limited experiences falsely, the vision of the world that is favoured and authorized by a particular social condition (Bourdieu, 2000: 50). Thus, Bourdieu seems to have been consciously critical of traditional theories of social or cultural generations.2

Apart from this, how did he use the concept of generation? There are three main pas-sages in Bourdieus texts in which he explicitly discussed generations and where they play an important role.

The first usage occurs in connection with reproduction and the educational system, and the main source is Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). This meaning also appears in Bourdieus early ethnographical studies based on his fieldwork in Kabylia (Bourdieu, 1977: 155, 232). In these works, generation is used in the genealogical sense and refers to biological kinship, that is, the parental/child axis within the family along which education mostly takes place. But because the authors examination is not restricted to education given by the parents only, but takes into account the entire educational system, their perspective is also applied to the aggre-gate level when it is a question of cohorts.

Because the theme of Reproduction is socialization, it is hardly surprising that all the formulations used therein, such as from one generation to another or the rising genera-tions, refer to the genealogical and not the social or cultural sense of the concept, as the formulations in which lineages or generations (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977: 27) are used as equivalents confirm. This is a common and standard use of generation in studies on socialization, reproduction and the transmission of values. It is important to note, however, that this use of the term is clearly different from Mannheims; in fact the mean-ings are diametrically opposed, even when the theoretical views behind them are consid-ered (Demartini, 1985). Mannheims theory of generation units (1952) is generally seen as a form of conflict theory (when dealing with youth in relation to their parents), whereas in the theories of socialization, it is often assumed that parents can successfully trans-mit their own attitudes and values to their children.

The second meaning of the concept of generation found in Bourdieus texts is perhaps the most characteristic of him. It is related to his field-specific studies especially the fields of academia, art, and culture and the changes and struggles in those fields. In the case of the academic field, Bourdieu referred explicitly to academic generations when writing about the massification of higher education in France in the 1960s: the conflict which divided the faculties did not oppose generations understood in the sense of age but academic generations, that is agents who, even when they are the same age, have been produced by two different modes of academic generation (Bourdieu, 1988: 147).

But what is the meaning of the concept of generation in these phrases? In the context of Homo Academicus, generation means essentially a cohort, all of whom arrive in a field at approximately the same time (e.g. college or university graduates). They thus share similar positions in the field and are therefore thrown into its ongoing struggles in order to gain access to the resources and the capitals by distinguishing themselves from older and already-established groups (such as professors) as well as from younger groups. Although they may make no direct references to the generational experiences,


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight


these generations may feel solidarity because they are comprised of actors who have arrived in the field at roughly the same time and under similar circumstances. This is also the reason why Bourdieu (1993a, 1996) occasionally emphasized that the formation of a generation has practically nothing to do with biological age the same point of arrival in a field is sufficient. The weakness of this view is that generations become very hard to demarcate; in other words, the cut-off points between generations tend to remain obscure and, thus, there is actually an endless number of generations because nothing special is needed other than simultaneous arrival in the field.

The same meaning of generation can also be found in Bourdieus studies on the fields of art and culture (e.g. Bourdieu, 1993a, 1996). Nevertheless, Bourdieu did not provide a direct answer to the question of what makes these literary or artistic generations really generations instead of cohorts.3 It is clear, however, that from the viewpoint of this second meaning, the time spent in the field was more important for Bourdieu than the biological age of the actor.

This notion brings us to the third type of passage in which Bourdieu used the concept of generation, namely, Youth is just a word (Bourdieu, 1993b). This short interview is indeed Bourdieus most famous reference to the theme of generations precisely because it emphasizes the importance of a given field and its structures over biological age.

In this text Bourdieu (1993b), in a sense, combined and unified the two meanings of generation discussed above. First, he referred to field-specific generations, in which the meaning is the same as in his analyses of the fields of culture and the arts. Second, Bourdieu referred to family generations (at an aggregate level) when discussing the ine-qualities between the young and the old with regard to ownership of resources. This meaning is similar to the one used, for instance, in his studies on reproduction. Finally, he again brought out a field-specific perspective when highlighting the role of the educa-tional system in creating generations: What is common to all young people, or at least all those who benefited to any extent from the school system is that, overall, that generation is more qualified in a given job than the previous generation (1993b: 101). The use of the concept of generation to refer to the continuous replacement of older, previous generations, is again, then, equivalent to a cohort just as in his other field-specific studies.

Ultimately, the conclusion is that Bourdieu was never particularly systematic in his use of the concept of generation, apart from the fact that he practically never used it in the same sense as Mannheim. This also applies to Youth is just a word. However, the most interesting part of the text is its title and the opening section in which Bourdieu argued that the classifications of age are arbitrary and subject to struggle:

One is always somebodys senior or junior. That is why the divisions, whether into age-groups or into generations, are entirely variable and subject to manipulation. My point is simply that youth and age are not self-evident data but are socially constructed, in the struggle between the young and the old. (Bourdieu, 1993b: 95)

Bourdieus position is that the fact that classifications by age may be arbitrary does not mean that people are not really of various ages in the way, for example, that some


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

Purhonen 7

are younger and others are older. The classifications of age nevertheless are simultane-ously the product of the struggle between those very groups. It can be argued that what Bourdieu (1985, 1987) presented with regard to all social classifications applies here: class is never objective as such, but it does not mean that the attributes of those classes (or, to be more precise, the differences in locations in a given social space that consti-tute the basis on which the class is constructed) cannot de facto vary among individuals.

The argument becomes clearer if we change one word in the title of Bourdieus text: Generation is just a word. The quotation marks clearly express, one can argue, that the question is essentially about the name given to a particular age group. The word youth in the original title could be replaced by any of the names by which the young in question are called. If we want to understand what Bourdieu meant when he wrote about the arbitrariness of the classifications related to age, we must look more closely at the texts in which he analysed the social classifications and classification struggles at a more general level.

The genesis of social groups: Classes on paper

As is well known, Bourdieu (1984, 1985, 1987) emphasized that sociology should shift its focus from the class struggles (in which classes are seen as unproblematic objects or ready categories in the world) to classification struggles (in which the classes are seen not only as objects of classification struggles, but also as being produced by and consti-tuted through those very struggles). Thus, classes and social groups in general are always only classes on paper (Bourdieu, 1998: 1011). A central part of the approach (and also a central part of the classification struggle itself) is connected with the question of representation.4 Usually, there is somebody (the spokesman) who claims that he or she represents some larger group, but the larger group the represented tends to remain undefined, a kind of blind spot, whereas the one who claims to be the representa-tive remains the centre of attention.

In general, Bourdieu viewed the processes of representation the alchemy of representation (Wacquant, 2005: 5) as being connected with classification strug-gles, and he tried to show that classes are always products of class-making. In some ways, even representative democracy was the target of his critique, but it is enough for our discussion to consider cases in which the relationships of representation are even more problematic. A salient point here is that social groups or even classes do not have to mean just social classes, but may be more general concepts that refer to all types of social classifications, irrespective of the content of those classifications. The issue is one of principles of union and separation, of association and disassocia-tion already at work in the social world such as current classifications in matters of gender, age, ethnicity, region or nation (Bourdieu, 1987: 14) and, one could add, of social generations.

Before returning to the theme of social generations, now from this perspective, Bourdieus general argument warrants more detailed consideration. How did Bourdieu actually make the shift from class struggle to the classification struggle and how are issues of representation involved?


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight


Bourdieus starting point was to make a clear break with Marxist class theories. A special priority was to reject the intellectualist illusion that leads one to consider the theoretical class, constructed by the sociologist, as a real class, an effectively mobilized group (Bourdieu, 1985: 723). The key to Bourdieus own perspective is the social space in which individuals are located (Bourdieu, 1998: 113, 3133). The attributes of those positions are not, however, dependent on individuals occupying the positions, but on where the positions are located and their interrelationships within the space. In this sense, it is possible to distinguish between classes. However, classes based on similar locations of social space are not actual classes or groups but only classes on paper, which can have only theoretical existence (Bourdieu, 1985: 725). All classifications consist in the act of classifying from a particular social position. Therefore the class is never purely objective (see, however, Bourdieu, 2000: 93122).

Bourdieu continued to distance himself from Marxist conceptions of class that tend to identify constructed classes with real classes. When Marxism

does make the distinction, with the opposition between class-in-itself, defined in terms of a set of objective conditions, and class-for-itself, based on subjective factors, it described the movement from one to the other in terms of a logic that is either totally determinist or totally voluntarist. In the former case, the transition is seen as a logical, mechanical or organic necessity ; in the latter case, it is seen as the effect of an awakening of consciousness performed under the enlightened guidance of the Party. (Bourdieu, 1985: 726727)

The quotation above is revealing from the perspective of social generations: in the sociology of generations, it is still usual to present a generation as analogous to class and to use Marxist terminology for the difference between class-in-itself and class-for-itself (e.g. Edmunds & Turner, 2002a). Thus, the problem of the awakening of con-sciousness is relevant to generations as well. There are no magical solutions to the issue, only vacillation between voluntaristic and deterministic extremes.

In a way, Bourdieus approach provides a solution to the problem by emphasizing that articulation of consciousness by the spokesperson always comes first and that the group is more likely to be dependent on the representative than vice versa: the group can only exist through delegation to a spokesperson who will make it exist by speaking for it, i.e., on its behalf and in its place (Bourdieu, 1985: 740). For Bourdieu, the transition from theoretical class to actual class is possible only through delegation and representation: class exists if and only if there is someone who can plausibly represent it (Bourdieu, 1987: 1415). It is still a symbolic class, however, because the actual individuals pre-sumably behind the representative do not form any kind of class-in-itself (not to speak of the other Marxist alternative).

According to Bourdieu, the existence or non-existence of classes is one of the major stakes in political struggle (Bourdieu, 1987: 9). The struggle takes place on the symbolic level, and the question of right is essentially to produce common sense (see Bourdieu, 2000: 9798) through categorization (that is, making explicit classification) of issues relating to the social world (Bourdieu, 1985: 729). For Bourdieu, groups are not found ready-made in reality. And even when they present themselves with this air of eternity that is the hallmark of naturalized history, they are always the product of a complex his-torical work of construction (Bourdieu, 1987: 8).


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

Purhonen 9

An important part of the process of class-making is devoted to designation and labelling, a quasi-magical power to name and to make-exist by virtue of naming (Bourdieu, 1985: 729). To create a unified group requires a symbolic work of construc-tion. To name something or someone, as the habit of bestowing nicknames clearly shows, means that one possible point of view is foregrounded over all other viewpoints as the only legitimate way of viewing the individual or group in question (Bourdieu, 1988: 26). The act of nomination, in turn, is closely connected with the question of representation. Bourdieu calls for a historical analysis of the genesis and functioning of representation, through which the representative makes the group that is represented (Bourdieu, 1985: 740; original emphasis). The class can exist in and through the corps of mandated rep-resentatives who give it material speech and visible presence, eventually uniting the members of the same class on paper as a probable group (Bourdieu, 1985: 742).

Against generationalism

Before going into the peculiarities of the process of representation in social generations, it is useful to introduce a way of thinking about what can be called generationalism, a kind of opposing side of the spectrum in contrast to the generational analysis suggested here, which is sensitive to questions of representation. Generationalism dates back to early 20th-century Europe and the generational theorists of that period, who, for the first time, formulated and codified the modern concept of social or cultural generations (Burnett, 2010; Jureit & Wildt, 2005; Kriegel, 1978; Wohl, 1979). Besides describing the characteristics of generationalism, it will be argued that notions in accordance with origi-nal generationalism still have a foothold today in the way sociologists tend to think about generations.

But what was and is generationalism? Generationalism refers to the views about gen-erations found both in popular discourses on generations5 as well as in scientific theories and studies that are in many ways simplifying and exaggerating. In Bourdieus (1985) terms, generationalism represents a substantialist fallacy (see Hilgers & Mangez, 2015). Generationalism can be described as having the following characteristics.

Those who embrace generationalism perceive generations as ready-made and unproblematic entities or categories that have an existence of their own. Generationalism proposes that a generation is a priori an overriding and primary explanatory factor in the social world. In particular, it contrasts generation with social class and presents these as mutually exclusive forces. Generationalism tends to overemphasize the characteristics of the different generations it claims to describe and hence produces mere caricatures. On the basis of these differences, at its worst it instigates artificial confrontations between the generations. In addition, generationalism is a special form of historicism, by which generations are interpreted as collective actors and the succession of generations as the primary engine of history.

Described this way, generationalism is not a straw man but an existing view of gen-erations, even though the characteristics above are presented in condensed form and even though all generationalists do not have to share all the characteristics.6 As mentioned above, generationalism essentially originated with the birth of the entire modernist way of thinking about social generations or, to put it the other way round, the entire modern


jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight

jlopezsiHighlight


way of thinking about social generations was effectively produced by the original gen-erationalists. The concept of generationalism comes from Robert Wohls superb analysis of the great European generationalists in The Generation of 1914 (Wohl, 1979; see also Hazlett, 1998; White, 2013). Obviously, the terms generationalism or generationalist can also be found elsewhere, but the terms are usually used more as general and neutral references to the generational theorists and their advocates.

A modern meaning of the concept of generation emerged only at the turn of the century in a process that culminated with the golden age of the concept of generation, events that took place in Europe after the Great War, especially in the 1920s. At that time, the concept was codified in numerous theories and manifestoes that emphasized the priority and impor-tance of youth and especially youth experiences as the basis for the idea of generations.

In early twentieth-century Europe generationalists were almost always literary intellectuals living in large cities. They were members of a small elite who were keenly aware of their uniqueness and proud of their intellectual superiority. What concerned these writers or would-be writers was the decline of culture and the waning of vital energies; what drove them together was the desire to create new values and to replace those that were fading; what incited them to action was the conviction that they represented the future in the present; what dismayed them was their problematic relationship to the masses they would have liked to lead. (Wohl, 1979: 5)

Wohl (1979) presented a long list of central figures of European generationalists of the time: young intellectuals, authors, poets, historians, artists and social scientists. Among the most interesting from the point of view of sociology were Franois Mentr (France), Antonio Gramsci (Italy), Jos Ortega y Gasset (Spain), Wilfred Owen (England), Wilhelm Pinder, Edward Wechssler, and, of course, Karl Mannheim (Germany). John Downton Hazlett (1998) in turn has listed and examined generationalists from the USA. However, because the American generationalists (such as Randolph Bourne and Malcolm Cowley) were well aware of their European colleagues and their writings, it is reasonable to regard generationalism as essentially a European phenomenon with strong roots in the experiences of the First World War.

At the end of his analysis, Wohl summarized his views of generationalism and its char-acteristics. For him, the generational idea formulated by generationalist intellectuals

suggested a biological determinism that had no basis in social fact; it implied that stage of life was a prison from which there was no escape and that communication across the chasm of age was impossible; it postulated that the differences between age-groups were more important that the differences within them; it demoted the mind and called into question its autonomy by explaining ideas as the direct and unmediated product of experience; it obscured the importance of social divisions by subordinating class interests to generational values; it vastly exaggerated the importance of literary intellectuals by locating in them the conscience and dynamic vanguard of society at large; and it prevented those who fell under its spell from seeing that all lasting historical action takes the form of the transformation of that which already exists and results from the collaboration (as well as the conflict) of different age-groups. (Wohl, 1979: 236)

Hazlett gave his own criteria for generationalism, which can be seen as supplement-ing Wohls. According to Hazlett, generationalism is like all forms of historicism; it


Purhonen 11

contains an animism by which collective history is perceived to embody a will independ-ent of individuals (1998: 89). In addition, generationalism infuses history with a suprapersonal meaning, but it also seeks to predict the direction of history on the basis of the continual replacement of older generations by rising generations (1998: 10). Most generationalists share a quasi-religious belief in zeitgeists that give rise to generational tasks and historical trends (1998: 12). In the end, generationalists attribute internal dif-ferences within generations to arguments over the shared reality that both provides their common bond and separates them from other age groups (1998: 13).

The list of characteristics presented at the beginning of this section, which tried to condense the essential features of generationalism, is based on these two broad descrip-tions given by Wohl (1979) and Hazlett (1998). In any case, generationalism is in many respects an exaggerated (cf. Bude, 2000) view of the generations with respect to the characteristics of and differences between generations, their internal unity, the explana-tory power of generations over other factors, the peculiarity and importance of events experienced during youth and young adulthood, and the role of generations as the engines of history and social change. In a word, generationalism raises the status of generations in some way or another to a mythical level.

But what, then, does generationalism not take into account? The answer is, above all else, the process of the symbolic construction of generations and the problems connected with the relationships of representation. Generationalism does not take note of the fact that, for a given generation, the precondition of its existence is that someone represents it. In other words, there always has to be someone who articulates the generational expe-rience in the first place, and it is only after that that the generational consciousness among wider circles can be formed. Thus, it is impossible for generationalists to see that genera-tions are never generations in-themselves, but always only generations on paper. As Wohl (1979: 5) has stated, and as Bourdieu showed earlier, social generations, just like all other social groups, are never born: they are made.

It should not be forgotten that Wohls study is the very source cited by Bourdieu in the unique instance when he made a direct reference to the concept of generation as it is understood in a cultural or social sense (Bourdieu, 1996: 126, 368). That remark, how-ever, is loaded with irony or even hostility, which is in accordance with interpreting generationalism as a special case of a more general sin typical of elitist intellectuals and of which Bourdieu constantly warned namely, the sin of scholastic fallacy.

How would an influential contemporary conception of generations by Edmunds and Turner (2002a) look if we compared it with the generationalism discussed here? Below, three similarities between Edmunds and Turner and original generationalism will be pre-sented in an order that allows us to conclude with the most important issue.7

First, it seems that Edmunds and Turner clearly overestimate the importance of gen-eration as a factor that structures society and explains historical processes, as indicated by statements such as the globalization of culture is itself the product of the 1960s gen-eration (2002a: 118) and the cultural history of the western world in the second half of the twentieth century is the legacy of this large, active and problematic generation (2002a: ix). In short, it seems as though they have forgotten not only the other structuring principles of society and social change, but also the two temporal factors the effects of age and time period that are, as is well known, logically interdependent on generation


jlopezsiHighlight


and from which the effect of generation is difficult to isolate (Hardy & Waite, 1997). What is even more alarming is that, when speaking of generations in general and the 1960s generation in particular, Edmunds and Turner concentrate almost entirely on the role of intellectuals, without building a bridge to wider contexts. Intellectuals surely have had cultural influence, but such alleged influence should be analysed and assessed in a wider framework. If this is not done, then the danger of falling into the trap of scholastic fallacy is great.

Second, to elaborate on the earlier point, Edmunds and Turners purpose is clearly to show the explanatory power of generations over other social factors. They particularly emphasize the primacy of generation over social class and present the two as mutually exclusive. They state, for instance, that twentieth-century thought has not been shaped by class, but by generational experience. Because generations rather than class shaped knowledge, Mannheims view is more sociologically relevant than the legacy of Marx and Gramsci (Edmunds & Turner, 2002a: 69). This goal of elevating the status of gen-eration always to be considered as a primary explanatory factor was also essential to the original generationalists.

Third and last is the most important problem: the approach constructed by Edmunds and Turner does not allow them to discuss the crucial question that is essential for all studies of social generations if the task is defined as the study of generational cultures and consciousness (2002a: 6). The question concerns the relationship between a genera-tional movement or a vanguard (i.e. an elite) and the generation postulated behind that elite (i.e. the mass), which the elite is thought to represent.

The inability to address this question is illustrated by the passages in which Edmunds and Turner (2002a) identify the baby boomers (a term obviously referring to an entire age group) with the 1960s generation (a term referring mainly to the people around the radical generational movements of the 1960s, that is, a minority, perhaps cultur-ally significant, but in fact, a small portion of the age group) as well as by the hybrid concept of generational cohorts (Edmunds & Turner, 2002a: 14, 16; see Fietze, 2003: 442445). The integration of cohort analysis and generational analysis cannot mean equating the concepts of cohorts and social generations. Rather what is required is the careful examination of the relationship between them. The means for bridging the gap between cohorts and generations could, in fact, be found in the same approach for which generationalism has been criticized above, that is, in Bourdieus general analy-sis of the emergence and construction of social groups and classifications in symbolic struggles.

Generations on paper: The politics of social generations

Bourdieus view, which emphasizes the role of classification struggles, has so far been contrasted only indirectly with generationalism, the idea that generation is an unprob-lematic category or group and is therefore incapable of being used to examine the rela-tionships of representation. The argument here is that Bourdieus approach to the nature and genesis of social groups can also be used to analyse generations and generational classifications. His approach, which can be applied to all kinds of social groups and classes, emphasized the need to concentrate on the relationship of representation because


jlopezsiHighlight

Purhonen 13

classes can exist only through their representatives. On the other hand, the very relation-ship of representation is problematic because rarely is the relationship totally unambigu-ous (who can legitimately represent whom and by what authority), and often there are opportunities for misuse. This approach and its general ideas about the problems related to representation fit almost perfectly with the idea of social generations and especially the process by which generational consciousness is constructed. Here, the question of representation touches upon the relationship between the vanguard, which proclaims itself the spokesman for a generation, and those who are thought to be represented, that is, the entire group of peers. In this last section, some of the main issues related to representation and classification struggles that are particularly characteristic of social generations will be discussed.

In order to exist as a class or a group, someone has to represent or claim to represent the class or group in question, a truth that also applies to social generations. Generational consciousness, a shared feeling of belonging to a certain generation, requires that the members of a generation not only have something in common, they have also a (com-mon) sense for (a kind of knowledge about) the fact that they have something in com-mon (Corsten, 1999: 258). A salient point is that generation as this kind of collective identity based on shared experience is possible only if someone articulates or formulates the very existence of the generational experience and its meaning to the people first; only then can others begin to identify themselves with that generation. Usually, however, it is not clear to what degree the representatives of a generation reasonably and legitimately represent an entire generation as they claim.

Such doubt is sufficient to make the perspectives of politics and struggle essential here. There is always someone usually some kind of social movement or elite, intel-lectual faction who articulates the generational experience. By defining itself (us), however, it usually extends the interpretation to encompass the entire group of peers, that is, the whole generation. The person or group that has proclaimed itself to be the voice of a generation will probably not make divisions and exclusions within the age group; this would not only be illogical with regard to the general idea of a generation, but also would presumably work against the spokespersons interests (see Hazlett, 1998; Wohl, 1979). This, of course, has nothing to do with how large a group of people the genera-tional interpretation may really touch.

Thus, it is appropriate to ask, should the sociology of generations make a shift in focus similar to what Bourdieu suggested for the study of social classes, that is, to move from class struggles to classification struggles? In the case of generations, this would mean a shift from the perspective of generational conflicts (in which generations are seen as relatively unproblematic, ready-made groups) to a perspective sensitive to the struggle over the definitions and classifications of people in terms of generations that are never purely descriptive, but are loaded with many kinds of normative attributes and meanings. This would also mean that generations, as with all kinds of classes, are funda-mentally only generations on paper. Even though the analogy between social class and generation has a somewhat dismal history, the tradition should not be broken if it enables us to avoid repeating simplified conceptions of generations.

The question of the limits of generational interpretations can also be understood as the question of the existence and the mode of existence of collectives (Bourdieu, 1985:



741). The power of designation emphasized by Bourdieu is an essential feature in social generations: a generation cannot function as a form of collective identity if there is no idea about how to identify the generation. Hence a basic means of investigating genera-tional consciousness is to find out with what names and labels people themselves iden-tify. Well-known, frequently used and strongly established terms express the level of institutionalization of a given generation (cf. Becker, 2000: 118).

This aspect reveals a fundamental side of social generations that can be captured by the notion of the symbolic or discursive dimension of generation, which consists of all the reflective articulations of generational experiences: speeches, manifestoes, writings, labels, terms, and so on, which are explicitly concerned with generations. Discourses can be seen as a mediating level between generational experiences and consciousness a level which was largely ignored by Mannheim and the line of thought following him until recently (Aboim & Vasconcelos, 2014; Bohnenkamp, 2011; Corsten, 1999; Foster, 2013; Hrisch, 1997; Jureit & Wildt, 2005; Purhonen, 2007; White, 2013). From this perspective, it can be argued that social generations tend to produce themselves (and others as well) by their discourse about those generations. The generational conscious-ness of people is always more or less formed and coloured by the articulations and representations of social generations presented in the public (or even the scientific) discourse. Without resorting to the mythology of an awakening of consciousness, an emphasis on designation and the entire discursive generation-making can shed light on the process by which a generation becomes a group and an object of identification. Therefore, the perspective implies that the discursive dimension of social generations alleged articulations and interpretations of generational experiences and identities and all the struggles connected to them should become the fundamental object of the sociology of generations.

As for social generations, there are two basic relationships through which the pro-cesses of representation should be analysed and studied. The first is the supposed rela-tionship of representation between the individual actor (thought of here as the representative) and the generational movement or other concrete group behind the actor. The second is the supposed relationship of representation between the movement or the group (thought of here as the representative) and the entire generation itself that is postulated as being behind the group or movement. This latter relationship between the generational movement members and all other age-group peers has con-stituted a real problem to all generationalists and classic generational theories. In Mannheims terms (1952), the relationship in question is between a certain, politically mobilized generation unit and the broader generation location from which genera-tional units can potentially emerge. Mannheim himself maintained that the former rep-resents the latter: each generation unit tries to expand its influence on the direction of the whole generation location, and thereby the ideas developed inside the generation unit can attain wider influence. According to Mannheim, this can happen if the basic integrative attitudes and formative principles represented by a generation-unit for-mulate the typical experiences of the individuals sharing a generation location (Mannheim, 1952: 307308).

It would, however, be a mistake to think that a given generation unit or movement could somehow directly or unproblematically represent the entire generation location


Purhonen 15

(the generation itself being thought of as behind), or that its attitudes, values, or other characteristics could be generalized as attributes of the whole age cohort. Yet this is pre-cisely the purpose of Mannheims ultimately teleological theory of generations: for Mannheim, the question was always one of actualization of potentialities inherent in the location and, ultimately, of Aristotelian generation entelechy (1952: 309; see Zinneker, 2003: 4041). Indeed, it is possible to emphasize that generation units or movements are specifically different from other members of the age cohort precisely because they mobi-lize and others do not.

An essential element of the politics of social generations is related either to the main-taining or to the contesting of this relationship of representation. In other words, the validity and actual limits of generational interpretations and classifications become criti-cal issues for the politics of generations. From the point of view suggested here, the poli-tics of social generations means struggles over the definitions, classifications and meanings of generations. Of course, there are also other aspects in the politics of genera-tions, in particular aspects that relate to the other meanings of the concept (i.e. family generations or mere cohorts). However, struggles over classifications and definitions of generations are elementary because the stake in these struggles is, above all, the exist-ence and constitution of those very generations.

The sociology of generations should try to avoid treating age cohorts (such as baby boomers) as unified, homogenous groups and making false generalizations on the basis of the attributes of small numbers of elites only. Rather, the very relationships between the elites of a generation and other parts of the age cohorts should be taken as the object of careful analysis. In the case of the baby boomers and the 1960s generation, the focus should be on the relationship between the radical 1960s social movements and the whole mythical package it bears (often regarded as a symbol of an entire generation) and the entire age cohort (of which some if not the most regard those political symbols of the 1960s with indifference or even open hostility). Even though the old radicals of the 1960s may have had a dominant position in interpreting, remembering and giving their generation a public voice, it should be remembered that they represent only a small minority of the age cohort.8

However, the processes of generational articulations can also be different compared to the case of generational manifestoes and other self-definitions by the elite. Such is the case with those generational interpretations that come from outside and are particularly meant to label a given social movement as a generational movement. To interpret a social movement as a generational movement can be seen as a strategy to belittle and nullify the movements political agenda and its significance in general (in the same belit-tling sense of such sayings as youth protests come with the territory, boys will be boys, and so on). In this case, the process is reversed when compared to the logic of generational manifestoes. In fact, generational interpretations seem to have two kinds of functions: interpretations that seek to promote the value of the group in question (usually ones own), and interpretations intended to reduce the value of a specific group (usually a group of others). Which of the two functions is in question seems to be largely deter-mined by who is presenting the generational interpretation. If the interpretation applies to oneself, then there is seldom a tendency to degrade ones own position. In any case, it should be evident from this discussion that the concept of generation is fundamentally



bound up with cultural and political struggles since generational interpretations and labels are hardly ever disinterested, but rather normative and motivated by certain politi-cal ambitions.

Conclusion

The suggested Bourdieusian perspective of generations on paper provides an antidote to generationalism a simplified picture of generations, which originally dates to early 20th-century Europe and its intellectuals, and which is still found in many sociological studies today as well as in popular discourse. For the original generationalists, the con-cept of generation served as an alternative to the concept of social class, a new way to think about social change and progress. Since then the concept of generation has been paired with the idea of the zeitgeist or some other controversial way of defining what is essential (meaning what it is that creates generations) at a given point in time and in a given culture. Thus, as a product of classification struggles, the idea of generation is fundamentally a contested concept. The concept also has clear elitist connotations; the idea of some kind of vanguard (the elite), which represents an entire generation by proclaiming itself to be its spokesman, automatically creates a counterpart, namely the others in the peer group, who are thought to be represented (the masses). The approach suggested here provides reflexivity that can be used to challenge a nave view of genera-tionalism and highlight the importance of analysing the processes of generation-making in symbolic struggles.

This article has presented a number of reservations about the concept of generation. It is even possible to argue that at the heart of the concept is a totalizing tendency that causes trouble with intra-generational differences and produces caricatures of different generations. This is not to argue, of course, that the concept of generation is worthless. What it does indicate is that the close analysis of the relationships of representation, the analysis of differences within the age cohorts that are hidden under totalizing genera-tional labels, and other concrete questions related to classification struggles that the approach makes it possible to study are all of a kind that have to be resolved empirically, case by case.

The suggested approach cautions us always to be careful and precise when dealing with the concept of generation. If someone claims that their experiences are typical of their generation, we would do well to consider the possible motives, interests, context and validity of these claims. On the other hand, it is important to note that the approach offered here does not mean that social generations are completely reducible to the sym-bolic or discursive levels only. In the end, generations are also something more, namely demography. Generational articulations that have gained support could hardly be com-pletely arbitrary with respect to age. To paraphrase Bourdieu (1985: 725), some age cohorts are more probable generations than others. This is perhaps one important reason behind the problems with the concept of generation, but perhaps it is also the reason why the concept has inspired such passionate discussion.

The approach does not imply that generations are somehow less real as a factor in structuring society or as a sociological concept (cf. Foster, 2013). Nevertheless, bypass-ing the fact that the concept of generation is also a political concept in this discursive and


Purhonen 17

classificatory sense would mean a step back into the company of the early 20th-century generationalists. Yet it may be impossible to have a sociology of generations that would be totally free of generationalism at least if we do not want to dispense with the idea of generations altogether. The issue already mentioned above, namely that in the end gen-erations are always dependent on age in some way, has to do with this question. If there is no linkage of any kind between age and the concept of generation, there are hardly any reasons left to call this particular principle of classification a generation.

The other reason why an approach emphasizing the discursive dimension of genera-tion and the importance of classification struggles may never win the battle with genera-tionalism is that, in the logic of its own perspective, generationalism itself is a part of common sense and thus, of social reality. Perhaps paradoxically, this means that genera-tionalism should be counted as part of the research object the phenomenon of social generations themselves. Consequently, it would be difficult to make any distinction at all between folk generationalism and social generations if the generational consciousness of people is in accordance with generationalism.

Funding

This research is part of the authors research project funded by the Research Council for Culture and Society at the Academy of Finland (grant number: 291619)

Notes

1. The discussion of generations in the social, historical or cultural sense has clearly inten-sified in sociology in the last two decades (Lscher et al., 2014). This applies not only to continental, and especially German, sociology (e.g. Bohnenkamp et al., 2009; Jureit & Wildt, 2005; Lscher & Liegle, 2003; Parnes et al., 2008; Reulecke, 2003), but also, for instance, to British sociology (e.g. Burnett, 2010; Edmunds & Turner, 2002b; Gilleard, 2004; Vincent, 2005; White, 2013).

2. In a footnote, Bourdieu (1996: 368) went on to make a reference, not to Mannheim, but to one of his French contemporaries, Franois Mentr, who was also developing generational theory in the 1920s: The prototypical expression of this theory of generations, which has become one of the methods admitted into literature (with the study of literary generations) and into politics (the political generations) is the book by Franois Mentr that constructs the notion of social generation as the spiritual unity constituted around a collective stage.

3. For example, in the graph describing the temporality of the field of artistic production (Bourdieu, 1996: 159), artistic generations appear to be a constant, successive chain. This is in contrast with Mannheims view of social generations, according to which generations, unlike cohorts, do not emerge continuously and regularly (Mannheim, 1952: 309312).

4. If the concept of generation had many meanings then the concept of representation could be described as extremely multifaceted (see Saward, 2010). One rough distinction is that representation refers, on the one hand, to the idea of representing someone (in the sense of delegation), but, on the other hand, it refers to the re-presentation of something (as in the sense of performing). The different meanings of representation, however, overlap consider-ably because that which is thought to represent something is often used also to re-present (that is, to perform) the same (represented) thing.

5. Examples of popular generationalism are easy to find; in literature, for instance, there is an entire genre devoted to it, namely, the generational novel. Different national contexts have



their own characteristics in the form and content of popular generationalism. In the USA, an enormous literature purports to guide business managers on how to manage the Baby boom-ers, the Generation Xers, or the Millenials successfully, as each generation is supposed to be different and behave almost like aliens vis--vis one another (see Foster, 2013). As an exam-ple from another country, in Germany, popular generationalism is expressed in a continuous search for the latest generation (see Hrisch, 1997; Jureit & Wildt, 2005) with arguments over the difference between Achtundsechzigers and Neunundachtzigers, not to mention the mem-bers of Generation Golf (which refers to a particular type of Volkswagen, not to those who play golf). The commercial media directed at students and young adults provide an especially fruitful breeding ground for debates about popular generationalism.

6. A more nuanced analysis of the differences between the theories developed by specific clas-sical generationalists falls outside the scope of this article. This theme has been discussed by e.g. Wohl (1979), Burnett (2010) and Purhonen (2015). Mannheim, for instance, can be con-sidered as distinctive in some of his formulations (and probably also generally more careful in his words than many of the other generationalists of the time, whose claims could be rather extreme and exaggerating), but on the other side, his theory of generations was definitely a child of its time (see e.g. Purhonen, 2015; Zinneker, 2003).

7. Edmunds and Turners Generations, Culture and Society (2002a) is used as an example here because it is probably the most thorough and influential attempt to integrate Mannheims and Bourdieus conceptions in order to develop the sociology of generations. One can acknowl-edge the general ambition of Edmunds and Turners project in trying to find new ways to reformulate our understanding of social generations. It is also clear that there are some impor-tant affinities between Mannheim and Bourdieu, such as relational epistemology and an inter-est in the sociology of knowledge (for other similarities between Mannheim and Bourdieu, see Mauger, 1990).

8. For empirical studies and interpretations on baby boomers and the 1960s generation touch-ing upon this issue of the relationship between a generational elite and the entire age cohort and allowing room for internal divisions of age cohorts, see e.g. Bude (1995) for the case of Germany; Klatch (1999) for the case of USA; Nora (1996) for the case of France; and Purhonen (2007) for the case of Finland.

References

Aboim S, Vasconcelos P (2014) From political to social generations: A critical reappraisal of Mannheims classical approach. European Journal of Social Theory 17: 165183.

Becker HA (2000) Discontinuous change and generational contracts. In: Arber S, Attias-Donfut A (eds) The Myth of Generational Conflict: The family and state in ageing societies. Routledge, 114132.

Bohnenkamp B (2011) Doing Generation: Zur Inszenierung von generationeller Gemeinschaft in deutschsprachigen Schriftmedien. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Bohnenkamp B, Manning T, Silies E-M (eds) (2009) Generation als Erzhlung: Neue Perspektiven auf ein kulturelles Deutungsmuster. Gttingingen: Wallstein.

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Bourdieu P (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society 14: 723744.Bourdieu P (1987) What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups.

Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32: 117.Bourdieu P (1988) Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Purhonen 19

Bourdieu P (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bourdieu P (1993a) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge:

Polity Press.Bourdieu P (1993b) Youth is just a word. In: Bourdieu P, Sociology in Question. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage, 94102.Bourdieu P (1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.Bourdieu P (1998) Practical Reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu P (2000) Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.Bude H (1995) Das Altern einer Generation: Die Jahrgnge 1938 bis 1948. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Bude H (1997) Die Wir-Schicht der Generation. Berliner Journal fr Soziologie 7: 197204.Bude H (2000) Das bertriebene Wir der Generation. Neue Deutsche Literatur 48: 136143.Burnett J (2010) Generations: The time machine in theory and practice. Farnham: Ashgate.Corsten M (1999) The time of generations. Time & Society 8: 249272.Demartini JR (1985) Change agents and generational relationships: A reevaluation of Mannheims

problem of generations. Social Forces 64: 116.Dumas A, Turner BS (2009) Ageing in post-industrial societies: Intergenerational conflict and

solidarity. In: Powell JL, Hendricks J (eds) The Welfare State in Post-industrial Society: A global perspective. New York: Springer, 4156.

Edmunds J, Turner BS (2002a) Generations, Culture and Society. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Edmunds J, Turner BS (eds) (2002b) Generational Consciousness, Narrative and Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Edmunds J, Turner BS (2005) Global generations: Social change in the twentieth century. British Journal of Sociology 56: 559577.

Eisenstadt SN (2001) Sociology of generations. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 60556061.

Eyerman R, Turner BS (1998) Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of Social Theory 1: 91106.

Fietze B (2003) Die spte Ankunft des Karl Mannheim in der Generationssoziologie: Einblicke in die Werkstatt generationssoziologischer Theoriebildung. Berliner Journal fr Soziologie 13: 435445.

Foster KR (2013) Generations, Discourse, and Social Change. London and New York: Routledge.Gilleard C (2004) Cohorts and generations in the study of social change. Social Theory & Health

2: 106119.Gilleard C, Higgs P (2005) Contexts of Aging: Class, cohort and community. Cambridge: Polity

Press.Gilleard C, Higgs P (2011) The third age as a cultural field. In: Carr DC, Komp K (eds) Gerontology

in the Era of the Third Age: Implications and next steps. New York: Springer, 3349.Hardy MA, Waite L (eds) (1997) Studying Aging and Social Change: Conceptual and methodo-

logical issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hazlett JD (1998) My Generation: Collective autobiography and identity politics. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin Press.Hilgers M, Mangez E (2015) Introduction to Pierre Bourdieus theory of social fields. In: Hilgers

M, Mangez E (eds) Bourdieus Theory of Social Fields: Concepts and applications. London and New York: Routledge, 136.



Hrisch J (ed.) (1997) Mediengenerationen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Jureit U, Wildt M (eds) (2005) Generationen: Zur Relevanz eines wissenschaftlichen Grundbegriffs.

Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.Kertzer DI (1983) Generation as a sociological problem. Annual Review of Sociology 9:

125149.Klatch RE (1999) A Generation Divided: The New Left and the New Right, and the 1960s. Oakland,

CA: University of California Press.Kriegel A (1978) Generational difference: The history of an idea. Daedalus 107: 2338.Laslett P (2005) Interconnections over time: Critique of the concept of generation. Journal of

Classical Sociology 5: 205213.Lscher K, Liegle L (2003) Generationenbeziehungen in Familie und Gesellschaft. Konstanz:

UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.Lscher K, Hoff A, Lamura G, et al. (2014) Generationen, Generationenbeziehungen,

Generationenpolitik: Ein mehrsprachiges Kompendium. Konstanz: International Network for the Study of Intergenerational Issues.

Mannheim K (1952) The problem of generations. In: Kecskemeti P (ed.) Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 276322.

Mauger G (1990) Postface. In: Mannheim K Le problme des gnrations. Paris: Nathan, 85115.McMullin JA, Duerden Comeau T, Jovic E (2007) Generational affinities and discourses of dif-

ference: A case study of highly skilled information technology workers. British Journal of Sociology 58: 297316.

Nash LL (1978) Concepts of existence: Greek origins of generational thought. Daedalus 107: 121.

Nora P (1996) Generations. In: Nora P, Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French past, Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 499531.

Parnes O, Vedder U, Willer S (2008) Das Konzept der Generation: Eine Wissenschafts- und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Pilcher J (1994) Mannheims sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. British Journal of Sociology 45: 481495.

Purhonen S (2007) Sukupolvien ongelma: Tutkielmia sukupolven ksitteest, sukupolvitietoisu-udesta ja suurista ikluokista. University of Helsinki, Department of Sociology (Research Reports n 251).

Purhonen S (2015) Zeitgeist, identity and politics: The modern meaning of the concept of genera-tion. In: Goodson I, Antikainen A, Andrews M, Sikes P (eds) The Routledge International Handbook on Narrative and Life History. London and New York: Routledge.

Reulecke J (ed.) (2003) Generationalitt und Lebensgeschichte im 20. Jahrhundert. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.

Ryder N (1965) The cohort as a concept in study of social change. American Sociological Review 30: 843861.

Sallaz S, Zavisca J (2007) Bourdieu in American sociology, 19802004. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 2141.

Saward M (2010) The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Silva E, Warde A (eds) (2010) Cultural Analysis and Bourdieus Legacy: Settling accounts and

developing alternatives. London and New York: Routledge.Spitzer AB (1973) The historical problem of generations. American Historical Review 78:

13531385.Turner BS (1998) Ageing and generational conflicts: A reply to Sarah Irwin. British Journal of

Sociology 49: 299304.


Purhonen 21

Turner BS (2002) Strategic generations: Historical change, literary expression, and generational politics. In: Edmunds J, Turner BS (eds) Generational Consciousness, Narrative and Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1330.

Vincent JA (2005) Understanding generations: Political economy and culture in an ageing society. British Journal of Sociology 56: 579599.

Wacquant L (2005) Introduction: Symbolic power and democratic practice. In: Wacquant L (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics: The mystery of ministry. Cambridge: Polity Press, 19.

White J (2013) Thinking generations. British Journal of Sociology 64: 216247.Wohl R (1979) The Generation of 1914. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Zinneker J (2003) Das Problem der Generationen: berlegungen zu Karl Mannheims kanonis-

chem Text. In: Reulecke J (ed.) Generationalitt und Lebensgeschichte im 20. Jahrhundert. Oldenbourg: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 3358.

Author biography

Semi Purhonen is Associate Professor of Sociology at the School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, and Academy Research Fellow at the Academy of Finland. His research interests include cultural sociology, consumption, social stratification, age and gen-eration, social theory, and methods of social research. His papers have been recently published in such journals as Acta Sociologica, Comparative Sociology, Cultural Sociology and Poetics.


Documents

Generation on paper: Bourdieu and the ritique of "generationism"