On discussion of cultural production, Pierre Bourdieu’s essential conception of autonomy, he regards intellectuals as “proportionately more responsive to the seduction of the powers that be, the less well endowed they are with specific capital” (Bourdieu 41). One look on Shaffer’s Shrivings may exemplify Bourdieu’s concern. There are two measures that empower the two rival protagonists, Mark and Gideon. For both of them, knowledge is their capital that they set forth to attain their power.
To be more specific, Gideon takes advantage of the public and his reputation to maintain his throne of power. As to Mark, he embodies his knowledge as a destructive power to manipulate through the game-playing and uncovers brutal truth that empowers and assists him to rob of other’s power. When Mark ironically dedicates the throne, which his son David has made for him, to Gideon, his powerful language, in a way, suggests that his intention is really to mock Gideon:
Mark. I say felicitations to my son on his sense of things. He obviously sees what is lacking here. A true Cathedral needs a true Cathedra!
Lois. Cathedral?
Mark. That’s where we are, isn’t it? Shrivings, the Cathedral of Humanism.
Gideon. Don’t be naughty, Mark!
[…]
Mark. And for Giddy?
David. Yes.
Mark[to Gideon]. Exactly so! All for you! The Chair of Paternal Wisdom. I would hope to earn one myself in time. Such objects have to be earned, eh, David? (1.1.)
Mark’s tone of “coronation” for Gideon is completely sarcastic, and this passage is exactly a mock compared to later scene that Mark accuses Gideon for his homosexual past and possible adultery with Mark’s wife. Also, the throne, which symbolizes power, later transfers from Mark to Gideon. This transference works as an irony because the true power is actually fallen on Mark, instead of Gideon. Furthermore, Mark challenges all with the apple game so that he can convince everyone that Gideon is a hypocrite. In a word, Mark uses his destructive power in language to accuse and reveal the bloody truth, which is unbearable for David and Lois.
Gideon, on the contrary, initially is the center of power. His power is built upon his knowledge as a cultural capital. Being a philosopher and president of the World League of Peace, Gideon’s power remains intact until Mark intrudes Shrivings. As the father image of Mark, his power is considered a paternal one, which embraces Mark the son with the figure of a prodigal but is later challenged by Mark. Gideon is apt to be indulged in his power over the public and hence hypnotized himself of being worshipped. In other words, Gideon’s power derives from the public’s recognition and he himself is deluded by the fame. However, when Mark claims war with him, he begins to sway because of gradual distrust from David and Lois. Gideon’s power that comes from his capital of knowledge is then shaken, again and again, due to Mark’s intellectual challenge. For instance, when Mark attacks with his violent philosophical viewpoint, Gideon’s philosophy of non-violent protest and demonstration tremors. In the process of apple game, Gideon is attacked repeatedly in the task, and his core of power is invaded by Mark’s ferocious language and hence a crisis takes flight. At the end of the task, Gideon loses the game and gives in his power by turning away from the coarse accusation. Worse of all, he loses power completely when David turns away from him, and thus the moment his anger provoked by Mark drives him to strike on Lois, it is not merely his true phase of hypocrisy is unveiled but his power dies out thoroughly.
Reference: Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Ed. & introd. Randal Johnson. Cambridge: Polity P, 1993.