Miracule de l'Ecole: explaining these rare successes Author: Terence Rajivan Edward Abstract. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu describes himself as a miracle of the school system, one of those children who ascended the social system due to scholarly merit rather than cultural capital. I present an explanation of how these "miracle cases" arise. A field starts off by doing a number of things people find natural, let us say N1 to N5. In the next decade, members find they can progress by giving up on N5, in the subsequent decade N4, etc., until only N1 is left. It is difficult to explain why these changes took place and outsiders, who do not have earlier family members in the field, must trust a lot. Draft version: Version 3 (13th September 2026, abstracted extended, tiny edits, appendix added; 19 December 2022, abstract amended). PDF available at academia.edu at: https://www.academia.edu/93247363/Miracul%C3%A9_de_l%C3%89cole_explaining_these_rare_successes Note: computer display issues, accent removed from "miraculé" and "École"; and I must have been feeling optimistic when writing this! An article reflecting on the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu soon after his death tells us: "But Bourdieu was a sort of 'miracle of the school system' (miraculé de l'École), to return to one of his own expressions, which is to say one of those children whose social ascension was due to scholarly merit rather than to inherited 'cultural capital'." (2002: 1019) "Cultural capital: what does that mean?" Economic capital is more familiar: Bourdieu uses that term to refer to the money one has and the assets that can be converted into money without much difficulty. The term "cultural capital" refers roughly to stylistic skills, such as conversation style, writing style (being able to write elegantly), etc. The skills to converse smoothly with a professor, to politely terminate conversations with low-ranking administrators, to write in a way that seems appropriately academic are typically acquired by having the right social background. They are not explicitly asked for, on job applications say, but without them one cannot usually proceed. And how to do these things apparently cannot be specified in neat rules; these are practical skills that elude capture in formulas (see Gell 1992: 272). But why are there these occasional "miracles": students who do not come from a background which normally confers those skills who nevertheless make it in the academic world? ("Make it?" you ask? "Who succeed" I mean, in more formal English!) I wish to make a proposal, but it doesn't emphasize certain stylistic skills as normally possessed by those entering and crucial to their progress - the nonmiracle cases - rather insider knowledge of why the field is as it is or other reasons to trust the field in its current condition, e.g. my father did this, my father's father did this… ("Well, that's no good for us who start with Bourdieu's image of normality!" you say?) Imagine a certain field, let's call it field X, which is small and dominated by people from a wealthy background. About 100 years ago, people from field X in a certain country used to try to achieve the ends of the field in a way that many people would find natural. But they ran into severe problems, such as problems competing with a neighbouring country which was very strong in field X. So they changed their approach. It used to consist of practices N1, N2, N3, N4, and N5. But they gave up on N5. In the next decade, they found they could solve other problems by giving up on N4. And so on, until the natural approach whittled away to just N1. Students who do not come from "families" with experience of the field and are not excessively trusting are just puzzled by the approach. They want to know, "Why don't you just do N1, N2, N3, N4, and N5?" But it is quite difficult to explain these things, or there is some risk to the field in this country if one does. (For example, Nazis who are nevertheless skilled craftspeople would make their way in.) But that means that hardly anyone from outside certain backgrounds continues in this field. Some of the things which people in a field do to keep people from underrepresented backgrounds out are just wrong, but it seems to me that without sufficient network talented students cannot progress in some fields without severely risking wrongness, in a way that it is not reasonable to expect of any student. "I might be a total fool here, but I am just going to keep going, trusting the norms in place, and see what happens" is not something which we can reasonably expect students to often think - should you be feeling that jittery all the time? - but it may be the only way for outsiders to access some fields. And some of these miracle cases must have kept going, despite the jitteriness, from a kind of faith in the project of being a fully-fledged member, of having a place there. Appendix (2026) This paper proceeds without a concrete example to illustrate the explanation, but another paper of mine can sort-of help fill the gap. If we take philosophy departments in the English speaking countries, they are at risk of losing all their students, because philosophy there has a reputation for impracticality and other disciplines, without this reputation, can offer some philosophy: "Why don't you study, law, because you can get a job and within law you can do some philosophy too: consider what makes something a law, what the constitution should be like, etc?" or "Why don't you study computer science? There is logic in philosophy, but also in computer science and with computer science you can get a job afterwards," or "Why don't you study economics? You can do a philosophy of science course in your first year." Much thought surely has to go into the curriculum to ensure there is some value in studying philosophy, e.g. one might not teach a certain philosopher, even if he is good, because the law department does lots on him! "Why don't you teach H.L.A Hart, Joseph Raz, and Ronald Dworkin?" a clever student reasonably asks. The average philosopher may not even know the answer! (This example is not ideal for my argument, because the answer is easy to explain and is it a risk to do so?) References Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2024 (version 1, 2022). The death of A.J. Ayer, rational actor models, and the curriculum. Available at PhilPapers at: https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWTDO-8 Gell, Alfred. 1992. The Anthropology of Time. Oxford: Berg. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/a/aa/Gell_Alfred_The_Anthropology_of_Time_Cultural_Constructions_of_Temporal_Maps_and_Images_1992.pdf Lardinois, Roland. 2002. Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002): A Sociologist in Action. Economic and Political Weekly 37 (11): 1019-1021.