The peasant and photography (Pierre Bourdieu)

The peasant and photography■ Pierre and Marie-Claire Bourdieu Collège de France Translated and adapted by Lọc Wacquant and Richard Nice A B S T R A C T ■ Drawing on an ethnography of the

The peasant and photography

■ Pierre and Marie-Claire Bourdieu

Collège de France

Translated and adapted by Lọc Wacquant and

Richard Nice

A B S T R A C T ■ Drawing on an ethnography of the author’s childhood

village in southwestern France, this article analyses the social uses and

meaning of photographs and photographic practice in the peasant society

of Béarn in the early 1960s Photography was first introduced on the

occasion of the great ceremonies of familial and collective life, such as

weddings, in which it fulfills the function of affirming the unity, standing,

and boundaries of the lineages involved Such ceremonies can be

photographed because they lie outside the everyday routine and they

must be photographed to solemnize and materialize the image that the

group intends to present of itself Thus photos are read and appreciated

not in themselves and for themselves, in terms of their technical or

aesthetic qualities, but as lay sociograms providing a visual record of

extant social roles and relations; and they are typically stored away in a

box as it would be indecent or ostentatious to display them in one’s home.

Peasants use photography strictly as consumers, and then only selectively.

The rarity of photographic practice among them is explained not by the

negative determinisms of income or technological familiarity but by the

fact that taking pictures is regarded as a frivolous luxury associated with

urban ways and an innovation suspect of manifesting the will to

distinguish oneself and to rise above one’s rank, which doubly violates the

ethos of the group The mandatory photographic posture itself, with its

stress on conventionality, fixity, and frontality, is an extension of the

peasant ethic of honor that sharply limits the taking and using of photos

and stands in direct affinity with the style of social relations fostered by a

graphy

Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

www.sagepublications.com Vol 5(4): 601–616[DOI: 10.1177/1466138104050701]

hierarchical and closed society in which the lineage and the ‘house’ have

more reality than the particular individuals who compose them.

K E Y W O R D S ■ photography, peasantry, technology, kinship,

sentiment, honor, aesthetics, village culture, Béarn, France

What explains that photographs and, more specifically, photographic practice occupy such a limited place among the peasantry?1Does this stem from ignorance, related to a lack of information about modern tech-nologies, or from the will to ignore these, that is to say, a genuine cultural choice that has to be understood by reference to the values specific to peasant society? If the latter hypothesis holds, would not the history of a technology that contradicts those values in what is most essential in them bring to light what makes the core of the peasant ethic?

Owing to the duality of its structure, the village of Lesquire, in Béarn,2 offered a veritable experimental situation allowing one to study the diffusion of a modern technology in a peasant milieu and to analyse the

relationships that may exist between citadinization, the induction into

urban ways, and the appearance and growth of the practice of

photogra-phy The opposition between the bourg (the market-village, with 264 inhabitants in 1954) and the surrounding hameaux (dispersed clusters of

farms totalling 1,090 dwellers) is very marked in ecological and morpho-logical terms (the size of families in the hamlets is much larger) and it dominates all aspects of village life First, it organizes economic life, as the

bourg has gradually monopolized all the urban functions since 1918: it is

the place of residence of pensioners, civil servants, and members of the professions (who together make up 44.2% of the heads of household), and

of craftsmen and shopkeepers (36.6%); agricultural laborers, workers, and landholders make up only a tiny minority (11.5%) of its population, whereas they account for nearly the totality of the population (88.8 %) of

the hamlets Between the last houses of the bourg, where French is spoken,

and the first farms, barely a hundred yards distant, where the people speak Béarnais, a language that the villagers regard as inferior and vulgar, there runs a genuine border, that which separates the villagers with urban pretensions from the peasants of the hamlets, attached or chained to their traditions and therefore often deemed as backward (for a fuller analysis of this opposition, see Bourdieu, 1962, 2002)

Solemnizing relations: the photograph as sociogram

Photographic images entered peasant society very early, long before the

practice of taking photographs They were introduced by the people of the

bourg as everything predisposed them to play the role of go-between

between the peasants of the outlying hamlets and the city Their use rapidly

became mandatory, especially on the occasion of weddings, because they

came to fulfill functions that pre-existed their introduction Indeed,

photography appears from the very outset as the required accompaniment

of the great ceremonies of familial and collective life If one accepts, with

Durkheim (1995), that the function of festivals is to revivify the group,

one understands why photography should be associated with them, since

it provides the means of eternizing and solemnizing these climactic

moments of social life wherein the group reasserts its unity In the case of

weddings, for example, the image that fixes for eternity the assembled

group or, better, the assembling of two groups, takes its place in a

neces-sary way in a ritual whose function is to consecrate, that is, to sanction

and to sanctify, the union between two groups through the union between

two individuals It is no doubt no accident that the order in which

photog-raphy has been introduced into the ritual of ceremonies corresponds to the

social importance of each of them The oldest and most traditional usage

of photography, explains J.-P.A (born in Lesquire in 1885), is the wedding

photograph:3

The first time I attended a wedding ceremony where photographs were taken

in front of the church must have been in 1903 It was the wedding of a

countryman who had relatives in town, that kind of thing The

photogra-pher made everyone take their places on the steps of the church, there, and

some were seated and others were standing behind them He had set things

up, with benches, with covers so they wouldn’t get their clothes dirty There

were no cars then yet, but he had come with a car People talked about that

a lot The groom was an ‘American’ [a local emigrant to America], L., from

the Ju family, a great family, who married the heiress from the R family It

was a great wedding, what with him coming from America He would go

around with a little mare, a gold chain on his waistcoat That was the first

occasion I remember, perhaps there were others before, but that one really

made a splash! The very old folks had never seen that kind of thing before,

no Later, the photographers came forward of their own accord when

they knew a wedding was in the offing They were the ones presenting

themselves, the families didn’t have to ask them Nowadays, people call them

in But it really took off after the Great War, from 1919 onward The habit

of going to Pau to get their picture taken dates back from this moment

It’s the photographer who would come on, who offered his services

Otherwise there are those who would not have called him in, maybe But once he’s there, they don’t dare say no Nothing is too expensive on that day The wedding photograph imposed itself as obligatory so rapidly only because it encountered its social conditions of existence: expenditure and extravagance are part of festive behaviors, in particular the ostentatious outlays that no one can avoid making without derogating honor

These pictures, in the early days, the photographer would go round to see who wanted some He would collect the names and he sent them afterwards You had to pay in advance Oh, it really wasn’t that expensive It was two francs per person And nobody dared refuse And then they were glad to have it in their home after the wedding The gentleman bought the picture for the lady, it was the thing to do, on a day like that (J.-P.A.)

The group photo was compulsory, anyone who didn’t buy it would pass for

miserly (picheprim) That would be an insult to the folks who had invited

you It would show a lack of regard At the table, you’re in everyone’s sight, you can’t say no (J.B.)

Buying the photograph is a tribute paid to those who made the invita-tion The photograph is the object of rule-governed exchanges; it enters into the circuit of mandatory gifts and counter-gifts to which weddings and some other ceremonies give rise Being an officiant whose presence sanctions the solemnity of the rite, the official photographer may be shadowed or seconded by the amateur photographer, but he can never be replaced by him.4

It is only around 1930 that photographs of first communions began to appear while photographs of christenings are even more recent and rare For the past several years, some peasants have taken advantage of the photographers’ presence at the agricultural shows to have their picture taken with their livestock, but these are a rarity For christenings, which never give rise to big ceremonies and only involve close family members, photography remains exceptional, but the first communion gives many mothers an opportunity to have a picture taken of their children:5 one cannot but approve of a mother who acts in this manner, and ever more so

as the importance of children in society increases In the old peasant society,

a child was never the center of attention, as is the case today The major festivals and ceremonies of village life were essentially adult events and it is only since 1945 that children’s celebrations (Christmas or First Communion, for example) have become important As this society devotes more attention to children and, by the same token, to women as mothers,

so the habit of having the children photographed is reinforced In the photo collection of a smallholder of the hamlets (B.M.), portraits of children make

up half of the post-1945 pictures whereas there are hardly any (three, to be

precise) in the collection for the years prior to 1939 In those days, one

photographed mostly adults, secondarily family groupings combining

parents and children, and only exceptionally children on their own Now

the opposite is the case But the photographing of children is itself to a large

extent accepted because it has a social function The division of labor

between the sexes gives the woman the task of maintaining relations with

members of the group who live at a distance, starting with her own family

Like letters and better than letters, photographs have a part to play in the

perpetual updating of mutual acquaintance.6 It is customary to take

children (at least once and, if possible, periodically) to visit kin who live

outside the village, and in the first instance the wife’s mother when the wife

comes from outside It is the woman who initiates these journeys and who

sometimes undertakes them without her husband Sending a photograph

has the same function: through the picture, one presents the new offspring

to the whole group that must ‘recognize’ him or her

In this regard, it is understandable that photographs should be the object

of a reading that one may call sociological and that they are never

considered in themselves and for themselves, in terms of their technical or

aesthetic qualities The photographer is assumed to know his craft and one

has no basis on which to make comparisons The photograph must simply

provide a representation sufficiently faithful and precise to allow

recog-nition It is methodically inspected and observed at length, in accordance

with the logic that governs the knowledge of others in everyday life: through

the confrontation of knowledges and experiences, one situates each person

by reference to his lineage and, often, the reading of old photographs takes

the form of a lecture in genealogical science, when the mother, the specialist

in the subject, teaches the child the relationships that link him or her to each

of the persons pictured But, above all, one inquires to know who attended

the ceremony and how the couples were made up; each family’s field of

social relations is analysed; one notes absences, as indicators of quarrels,

and the presences that confer honor For each guest, the photograph is a

kind of trophy, a sign and source of social significance (‘You are proud to

show that you were at the wedding,’ says J.L.) For the families of the

newlywed and for the couple themselves, it testifies to the rank of the family

by recalling the number and quality of the guests: the guests of B.M., son

of a ‘small house’ in the hamlets, are mainly relatives and neighbors, the

selection principle being traditional, whereas in the wedding photo of J.B.,

a well-off inhabitant of the bourg, one sees the work and school ‘mates’ of

the groom and even of the bride In short, the wedding photo is a veritable

sociogram and it is read as such

The photographing of major ceremonies is possible because – and only

because – such pictures capture behaviors that are socially approved and

socially regulated, that is to say already solemnized Nothing may be

photographed besides what must be photographed.7The ceremony can be photographed because it stands outside the everyday routine and must

be photographed because it materializes the image that the group intends

to present of itself as a group What is photographed and apprehended by the reader of the photograph are not, properly speaking, individuals in their singular particularity but social roles – the husband, the boy at his first communion, the soldier – or social relationships – the uncle from America

or the aunt in Sauvagnon For example, B.M.’s collection includes a photo that perfectly illustrates the first type: it pictures his father’s brother-in-law dressed as a town postman, with his peaked cap on his head, a white shirt with stand-up collar, a white-checkered necktie, a deep-cut frockcoat without lapels, on his chest his badge bearing the number 471, and a high waistcoat adorned with gilt buttons and a watch-chain, standing upright, with his right hand resting on an oriental-style stand What the emigrant daughter sent her family was not the picture of her husband but the symbol

of his social success.8The second type is illustrated by a photograph on the occasion of a sojourn in Lesquire by B.M.’s brother-in-law: it solemnizes the meeting of the two families by uniting uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews As if the intention were to manifest that the real object of the photograph is not the individuals but the relationships between them, the parents of one family hold in their arms the children of the other.9

In most peasant houses, photographs are kept ‘tight’, stored away in a box, except for the wedding picture and certain portraits It would be indecent or ostentatious to display pictures of members of the family to anyone who would happen by Ceremonial photos are too solemn or too private to be exhibited in the everyday living space;10the only proper place for them is either the display space, the sitting room, or, for the most personal of them, such as the photographs of deceased parents, the bedroom, alongside the pious images, the crucifix, and the blessed palm Amateur photos are kept in drawers By contrast, in the petty-bourgeois homes of the village, they acquire a decorative or affective value: enlarged and framed, they adorn the walls of the living room, along with the travel souvenirs They even invade the altar of family values, the mantelpiece, and take the place of the medals, prizes, and primary school certificates that used

to be displayed there in the old days but which the young village wife has discreetly relegated, as rather ridiculous, to the darkest corner, behind the door, so as not to shock the ‘old folks’

A suspect innovation: photographic practice and the peasant ethos

Whereas photographic images, and especially wedding photos, were adopted from the outset, without any resistance, by the whole community

as a mandatory moment in the social ritual, photographic practice was

initially restricted to some isolated amateurs, all belonging to the village

bourgeoisie

In my day, only the squire took photos and a few emplegats [‘employees’,

i.e., white-collar workers and professionals]: the tax collector, the tax

inspec-tor, the school teachers, and Doctor Co (J.-P.A.)

Even today, whereas among the peasants of the hamlets there is currently

only one man, still young and unmarried, who takes photographs, in the

bourg there is a small number of more or less active amateurs If it is

strongly dependent on income, the practice of photography is manifestly

linked to place of residence through the mediation of the degree to which

one adheres or aspires to urban values In fact, nothing would be more

mistaken than to claim to explain the rarity of photographic practice in

peasant society by simple negative determinisms Neither economic barriers,

such as the high cost of the equipment, nor technological barriers, nor even

the low level of information can account for this phenomenon Peasants use,

and can use, photography strictly as consumers, and then only selectively,

because the system of values of which they partake, whose hub is a certain

image of the accomplished peasant, forbids them to become producers

If photography is regarded as a luxury, this is first because the peasant

ethos requires that expenditure devoted to enlargement of the heritage or

the modernization of farm equipment take precedence over expenditures on

consumption More generally, any outlay not sanctioned by tradition is

considered wasteful But this is not all: innovation is always suspect in the

eyes of the group, and not only in itself, that is, as a denial of tradition

People are always inclined to see in it an expression of the will to

distin-guish oneself, to stand out, to dazzle or to put down others And that is an

affront to the principle that dominates the whole of social existence and has

nothing to do with egalitarianism In fact, irony, mockery, and gossip have

the function of bringing back into line, that is, into conformity and

uni-formity, someone who, by his innovative behavior, seems to want to teach

a lesson or throw out a challenge to the whole community Whether this be

his intention or not, there is no escaping suspicion By invoking past

experience and calling on all the others to witness, one aims to deny

that the innovation corresponds to a real need Thence it can only be

ostentatious

But collective disapproval is graduated according to the nature of the

innovation and the area in which it is introduced When it concerns

agri-cultural techniques and crop tending, it does not elicit total and brutal

condemnation because, in spite of everything, the innovator is given the

benefit of the doubt: appearances notwithstanding, his behavior may be

inspired by the most praiseworthy motives, namely, the will to increase the

value of his heritage In such cases, he betrays the peasant tradition but he remains a peasant Moreover, moral condemnation can take the guise of the skepticism of the technician and of the man of experience: the sanction of the enterprise will be found in its own results In any case, because he runs the risk of failure or ridicule, the innovator commands respect

By contrast, the community experiences innovation that it suspects to be shorn of any rational or reasonable justification as a challenge and a disavowal This is because, in the manner of a gift that excludes a counter-gift, ostentatious behavior, or behavior perceived as such, puts the group in

a position of inferiority and can only be experienced as an affront, with everyone feeling assaulted in his or her self-esteem In that case, reproof and repression are immediate and merciless ‘What is he playing at? Who does

he take himself for?’ As a sign of status, photographic practice can only be seen as expressing an effort to rise above one’s rank This will to distinguish oneself is then countered by a reminder of the common origins: ‘We know where he came from.’ ‘His father wore clogs!’11

A frivolous luxury, the practice of photography would for a peasant be

a ridiculous barbarism; to indulge in such a fantasy would be rather like a man taking a stroll along with his wife, on a summer evening, as the

pensioners of the bourg do:

That’s fine for vacationers, those are things of the city A peasant who would walk around with a camera hanging over his shoulder would be no more

than a failed monsieur (u moussu manquât) You need delicate hands to

handle those things And what about the money? It’s expensive All that paraphernalia costs a bundle! (F.M.)

Associated with urban life, the practice of photography is apprehended

as a manifestation of the wish to play the urbanite, to act the part of the

gentleman (moussureya) And so it is seen as a betrayal of the group by a parvenu ‘S’en-monsieurer’ (literally, to ‘en-mister’ oneself, en-moussuri’s in

Béarnais) is a twofold offence against the fundamental imperatives of the peasant ethic It means in effect standing out by disowning oneself as a member of the group and as a peasant.12 One admits of the true urbanite, who is a complete outsider to the group, that he takes photographs because that is part of the stereotyped image the peasant has of him The camera is

one of the distinctive attributes of the ‘vacationer’ (lou bacanciè) Peasants

will indulge the latter’s fantasies, with a touch of irony, by taking up the expected pose, in front of the yoke of oxen, thinking: ‘These people have time to waste and money to squander.’ There is much less tolerance toward natives of the village who return from the town, and still less toward

inhabi-tants of the bourg who are suspected of taking up photography to give

themselves the air of city-dwellers In other words, what is refused is not photography in itself; as the whim and frivolity of an urbanite, it suits

‘outsiders’ perfectly – but them alone In this domain, the innovatory

behavior of the city-dweller cannot elicit imitation because the tolerance it

enjoys is but an expression of the will to ignore it or a refusal to identify

with it.13

However, just as it varies according to the nature of the innovation,

the reproof also varies according to the social position and status of the

innovator The logic of selection that governs borrowings and, by the same

token, the values that dominate this selection, can be apprehended not

only in the defences that the peasant ethos raises against everything that

threatens it, but also and especially in the exceptions that it concedes If

photography can be allowed for women or, better, for mothers, as it then

serves socially approved purposes, and if, as a frivolous activity, it is

Taking up the expected pose for the visiting tourist

tolerated in adolescence, the frivolous time of life, these are transactions and compromises with the rule that spring from the very values of which the rule partakes Thus teenagers have always held a statutory right to a licit – that is to say symbolic and oneiric – frivolity; so the same is true for photography as for dancing and more generally for all the techniques of courtship and festivity: ‘They make photos when they get enamoured with

one another (cuan s’amourouseyen), in the days of dancing.’

Out in the country, soon as a couple is married, there are other things to think about Be., the richest peasant, he took some photos at his engagement ceremony and in the early days of his marriage Now they live on a

shoe-string (ils tirent la guignorre), even more than smallholders like us Little

whims like that are soon dropped when cares of the household come, and

so is the wish to dance All that’s quite natural, in my view And then, for photographs, the professionals are there when you need them, for the big occasions at least (R.M., from Debat, a village in the Gave valley, 10 kilo-meters from Lacq)

These practices, acceptable for young people, are in any case abandoned from the moment of marriage, which marks a sharp break in the course of existence: from one day to another, it is over with village balls or outings, and thus with the photography sometimes associated with them ‘I stopped after my honeymoon,’ says J.B ‘ Now I have plenty of other things to worry about.’ And his wife chipped in: ‘Oh, too right, he’s got other things

to worry about now.’ This man, who once took much pride in recounting his holidays in Biarritz or his visits to Paris, who says that he does not have the leisure to take photos although he spends a lot of time hunting wood pigeons, now talks insistently only about his work, the only activity worthy

of a responsible adult man

Photographic posture and the sentiment of honor

Even the posture that the peasant adopts in front of the camera seems to express peasant values and more precisely the system of models that govern relations with others in peasant society Individuals generally present them-selves face-on, in the center of the picture, standing and full-length, that is

to say at a respectful distance In group photos they stand close together, often with their arms over each other Their gazes converge on the lens so that the whole image points to its absent center When a couple is portrayed, they hold each other by the waist in an entirely conventional pose The norms of conduct in front of the lens sometimes rise to consciousness, in positive or negative form: a member of a group assembled for a solemn occasion such as a wedding who adopts a casual posture or fails to look