Jairo Ferreira 212 tion) differ). This diversity situates as systems of production and reception of cultural objects in a bundle of observable relation- ships which can be inferred by successive analogies and homol- ogies (BOURDIEU, 1979). The proposition that the symbolic is a structured struc- ture, a structuring structure that classifies the social and power is central to Bourdieu’s theory (1989). Thus, if there is a belief that refers to authority, it has to be understood as a socio-symbolic power, a sign that embodies the logics of power and, in circula- tion, can or cannot be “authorized” in different social fields, with structuring authority, classifying perceptions, intuitions, and so- cial intelligibility, focusing on those who participate in these spac- es shared, generating, in the relationships, positions of dominated and dominant. Here we find another face of the sign that allows us to speak of a psycho-socio-anthropological sign. Thus, the habitus (concept that allows us the intelligibility of culture, classifications, and power relations between agents who share social spaces, central mediations in the pro- duction and consumption of material objects, ranging from bodily hexis to spoken and written language) can be understood, at the same time, as logic (structured structure and structuring structure) and as an incorporated perversion. In this sense, it is a symbol and, at the same time, a belief in and of authority, but it is not to be confused with this form of belief insofar as it is sub- ject to social deconstruction (through the social construction of knowledge, through various methods - such as psycho-analysis, socio-analysis, semio-analysis, et cetera), and also, as we will see, in the abductive processes of culture, in their interactions. It allows us to understand the symbolic without freez- ing it as inseparable from power relations and semiosis as a so- cial reproduction process, that is, power relations, and, at the same time, understand its relations with power, which allows the understanding of symbolic conflicts, in a historicity, subject to genetic analysis. On the other hand, when we understand social semio- sis as the process of interrelationships between the imaginary, the real, and the symbolic, including the issue of power, Bourdieu’s problem is integrated beyond an approach restricted to the symbolic. Conversely, it allows us to understand the classi-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz