By John Crow, September 27, 2007, reprinted from
THE TREASURE HOUSE OF PEARLS, with the author's permission:
Symbolic Capital and Its Use: Looking at Allen Greenfield’s Expulsion A recent essay I read introduced me to some of the sociological ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and his theories about fields and a new form of capital. Introduced in the mid-1970s, Bourdieu suggested a “field theory” that enabled sociologists to examine interactions within predefined areas or fields. Bourdieu defined a field as the following:
[A field is] a network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions. These positions are objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital) whose possession commands access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their objective relation to other positions (diminution, subordination, homology, etc.).
In addition to fields, Bourdieu introduced a new kind of capital called symbolic capital. The traditional forms of capital, economic, social and cultural, had been established in a number of fields, but symbolic capital was different. Bourdieu describes it as a capital that can only be exercised in the group and is actually accorded to one by others. It is a meta-capital that spans the other types by indirect means of conversion, but cannot be immediately converted to from the other types of capital. Symbolic capital is legitimization, social honor or prestige. As Lene van der Aa Kuhle describes,
symbolic capital is a personal attribute which appears as charisma, a ‘credit’ in struggles for power, and instrument in group-formation and in the formation of categories. As it may already appear, however, the concept of symbolic power cannot stand on its own. It needs persons, who can do the job of recognizing the relevant capital as legitimate.
Symbolic capital, as well as field theory, is concerned with power: who has it, who wants it, who is getting it and who is exercising it. As I read the paper I began to understand the conflict between Allen Greenfield and US Grand Lodge in a much clearer way. The O.T.O., its members, those active, inactive, and peripherally related to it in the Thelemic community can be considered a field. The members are occupants, there are networks between them and there are institutions, most importantly, the O.T.O. leadership. There are multiple institutions, in fact, and the power is distributed amongst the various occupants. That said, the majority of the power, the symbolic capital, is associated with those who hold positions of leadership within the O.T.O. institutions. Greenfield, in fact, was one of these agents who had symbolic capital, in part, from his position in the O.T.O. leadership.
However, Greenfield also has some symbolic capital from networks and work he accomplished outside the Order. These networks included his publishing endeavors, his ecclesiastical work established outside and prior to his involvement in the O.T.O., as well as other personal magical work he performed and described for many. His website and blog, too, were a means of capital creation.
This external symbolic capital was also a detriment, in some ways, in that it led to his conflict with the leadership. Initially it was primarily with Hymenaeus Beta. HB objected to Greenfield’s publishing. He disliked the content of many of Greenfield’s books, and also objected to the titles Greenfield felt he earned outside of the Order. This conflict with HB inhibited Sabazius’ efforts to advance Greenfield past the position of SGIG. This later became a central point of contention between Greenfield and the O.T.O. leadership. He felt he earned advancement to the next degree as did Sabazius, who claimed to have repeatedly recommended Greenfield for eighth degree to HB. HB rebuffed all petitions.
The benefit for HB is that within the O.T.O. field, he holds the most power, symbolic or otherwise. While many question his legitimacy, he ultimately holds the cards within the O.T.O. institution. The problem for HB is that the O.T.O. field is larger than just the institution and even its members are also independent agents. Thus Greenfield, using his symbolic power acquired both in and out of the O.T.O., started making statements about the O.T.O. leadership. At first the leadership either was ignorant about or dismissive of Greenfield’s statements. This culminated with very strong criticism of the O.T.O. in a book written by Greenfield and a parallel statement made by Greenfield on his website and later, blog. Again these statements were ignored. All the while the O.T.O. leaders, themselves, were awarding Greenfield certificates of accomplishment, adding to his symbolic power.
The turnaround came when the leadership began hearing complaints from members of the lower degrees. They could not understand how the leadership allowed such critiquing the leaders in very forceful language while simultaneously giving commendations. The leaders, in response, began their incompetent “investigation” that eventually resulted in Greenfield’s expulsion from the O.T.O. The problem was that they did not understand that Greenfield had symbolic capital already and that the expulsion came too slow, was handled poorly, and by the end, the expulsion hurt Greenfield little.
The leaders of the O.T.O. miscalculated Greenfield’s symbolic capital. They thought by severing his connection with the institution he would leave the field and also lose his power. But the field is larger than the O.T.O. and the symbolic capital acquired by Greenfield was already substantial. The expulsion did not harm his capital significantly. In fact, because of this, the symbolic capital of the leaders actually went down. After the expulsion Greenfield’s position was undeterred, was still seen as legitimate, and now he acquired a perception of martyr for being prosecuted by the O.T.O. leadership, thus even legitimizing him more.
Greenfield could not be removed from the EGC because he was a bishop of it ad vitam made by HB himself, nor could his credentials acquired from Michael Bertiaux be removed. Thus he still had a significant position within the field that could not be harmed by the Order’s leadership. They, however, looked impotent because even after their “investigation” and expulsion, they found their efforts came to naught. All they could do was console themselves saying, “at least he isn’t a member anymore,” as if that mattered any longer to Greenfield.
In the end, the O.T.O. leaders botched the process because they failed to understand the magnitude of the field and the process by which symbolic capital is created. Greenfield, however, used his symbolic capital to the best of his ability and walked away from the conflict virtually unscathed.
Many ask me what’s the point of looking at and using sociological, anthropological and historical models? These constructs allow for the viewing of and organizing events and data into a way to get a better understanding of what has happened, or even more useful, what will happen. The above is an example of how one sociological model can be used to look at a past event localized in a predefined community. Does it explain everything? No, models seldom can. But it does allow the examination in a way previously unavailable. It would behoove more in the O.T.O. field to better understand these concepts so that they can use them in their examination of the field. Otherwise they risk the grievous errors made by the O.T.O. leadership in the case of Allen Greenfield. If they understood symbolic capital and the scope of the field better, they may have been able to handle the conflict differently and maybe could have come out ahead. The fact that they didn’t and looked so poorly at the conclusion illustrated they really did not have as much symbolic capital as they assumed and lost more of it in the process.
EARLIER RELATED REFERENCES FROM "SMASHING ILLUSIONS"
http://tausirhasirim.livejournal.com/49977.html http://tausirhasirim.livejournal.com/62136.html "Radio Free Europe" REM
Beside yourself if radios gonna stay.
Reason: it could polish up the grey.
Put that, put that, put that up your wall
That this isnt country at all
Raving station, beside yourself
Keep me out of country in the word
Deal the porch is leading us absurd.
Push that, push that, push that to the hull
That this isnt nothing at all.
Straight off the boat, where to go?
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe
Beside defying media too fast
Instead of pushing palaces to fall
Put that, put that, put that before all
That this isnt fortunate at all
Raving station, beside yourself
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe, radio.
Decide yourself, calling all of the medias too fast
Keep me out of country in the word
Disappoint is into us absurd
Straight off the boat, where to go?
Calling on in transit, calling on in transit
Radio free europe
I have established a more user-friendly setting for sales of
TRUE QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL - The Western Sex Magick Tradition (10 copies left! Order now!) and
The Story of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, while they last, and will use the site for other oddities and rare books for sale as they become available. You can still order from the existing site until mid October.
The
Site is called, appropriately enough,
RARE BOOKS AND ODD STUFF.