By Grace Okereke
I recently came across the concept of “Symbolic Violence”. Coined by French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, it accounts for social constructs that lead to inequality. In an online breakdown of Bourdieu’s concept, the author, Mr Edwards, states:
“…Symbolic violence refers to the subtle and often unnoticed forms of domination and control that are exerted through social norms, values and cultural practices. This concept provides a valuable framework for analysing how social structures and institutions perpetuate inequality and maintain the status quo… It is a form of power that functions at the level of culture, shaping individuals’ perceptions, preferences and behaviours… symbolic violence is particularly effective because it is often internalised by individuals, leading them to accept and reproduce the social hierarchies and inequalities that exist.”
Easysociology.com
Mr Edwards
Pierre Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence: An Outline and Explanation
As someone who has never had the luxury of living in a society where I do not have to navigate my day-to-day experiences through the lens of my gender and ethnicity, I recognise this concept as a regularly practised norm. What upsets me the most (though it does not surprise me) is the notion that it is internalised, accepted and perpetuated by those who are victims of the practice.
Another term I have come across, “Invisible Standards”, was used in a social commentary video by YouTube content creator Tee Noir, who creates videos analysing the experiences and perceptions of black women (primarily through the prism of North American culture). Noir uses this term to describe the unwritten, sometimes unclear, but always inequitable standards black women are held to—standards that are far higher than those for women from other ethnicities. These standards leave us with little to no margin for error and often no grace or forgiveness for any mistakes we might make. If we fail to meet these opaque criteria, we are often more harshly judged, criticised and punished by various factions of society.
For me, Uprise Rebel exists to challenge practices like these by elevating Black and Global Majority women in dance and performing arts. It showcases their talent, skills and professionalism within the high standards we uphold. However, there is no doubt that the systems I am exposed to—and must work within—are rooted in a colonialist mindset and structure that sustain and perpetuate “Symbolic Violence” and “Invisible Standards”. This often leaves me—and others like me—feeling as though we are swimming against a strong and well-established current, progressing in centimetres rather than kilometres, with many of us never reaching the shores of success.
There is frequent discussion about Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) within the arts: how to implement it, who should be leading the charge, and so on. But if we are honest in our approach, we must ask: how can we change a system designed to uphold the very biases it is being told to shed? Furthermore, when budgets are squeezed—as they so often are—is there less inclination to prioritise DEI in a way that truly embeds it within our working practices? Change requires genuine commitment and significant time to succeed—meaning it must be treated as a long-term financial investment. However, in a sector where regular funding doesn’t exist in some regions or is often highly competitive in others—and when funding is received only for short to medium-term projects—it becomes easier for many organisations to treat DEI as supplementary rather than integral to their working practices. This approach often leads to symbolic changes rather than ushering in real difference.
It is important to remind ourselves that the arts reflect society; they can serve as vehicles that help shape, change—or sometimes perpetuate—our beliefs about life and each other. So, when we refer to “Symbolic Violence” or “Invisible Standards”, how can those of us working in the arts tackle these concepts effectively enough to alter prejudicial practices with more egalitarian systems? I don’t have a clear answer or an edgy phrase for this, but I do know that it requires all of us—as a community—working together to shift long-established norms that are both problematic for society at large and regressive for our industries.
We need real conversations—ones that aren’t framed reductively— to lay everything bare. It will feel awkward at times—and likely be heated—as we emotionally audit ourselves: our fears, anger, concerns, hopes, and so on. We need to address what feels wrong; what feels right; what people feel they will lose; and what might actually be gained—all without devolving into a battle of egos or struggles for power or control. I have written before—and am reiterating now—that we must tear down what we know now so we can rebuild something better: something reflective of where our world stands now and where it is headed.
