calhoun introduction bourdieu

8/12/2019 Calhoun Introduction Bourdieu

1/10

Introduction to Part VI

The most influential and original French sociologist since Durkheim , PierreBourdieu (1930- 2002) was at once a leading theorist and an empirical researcher ofextraordinarily broad interests and distinctive style. n f a t Bourdieu stronglycriticized what he called theoretical theory - that is, work that is more concernedwith building abstract systems of categories and concepts than with using them tounderstand the world.

B o u r d i e u

means of empirical observation and analyses rooted in a practical sense oftheoretical things rather than through purely theoretical disquisition (see p s c l i a n

Meditations [2001)). In other words , it is important to know theory and addresstheoretical challenges , but knowledge advances by putting theory to use in doingsociological analyses , and requires continual innovation. In the course of thispractical work of understanding and explanation , the researcher is driven to refine

his concepts and think in deeper ways about questions like the nature of humanaction or the social systems that constrain and organize i t.

In keeping with this view , Bourdieu developed his theory through a wide array ofempirical investigations. His work began in Algeria , during the last years of Frenchcolonial rule. He looked at the country as a whole , but also especially at the peopleof Kabylia who were regarded as tribal and traditional by both urban , Arab Algeriansand the French. The Kabyle were undergoing rapid social change with urbanization ,the introduction of money , and markets that brought labor migration andtransformed agricultural society Algeria 196 [1979]; The Uprooted (with1964 ; Work and Workers in Algeria (with Darbel , Rivet , and Seibel , 1963).

Bourdieu developed the core of his theory as an effort to understand the clashbetween enduring ways of life and larger systems of power and capita l, the ways inwhich cultural and social structures are reproduced even amid dramatic change , andthe ways in which action and structure are not simply opposed but depend on each

1ltemporary Sociological Theory, Third Edition Edited by Craig Calhonn, Joseph Gerteis,James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and lndermohan Virk Editorial material and organization@ 2012 John Wiley Sons, Ltd Published 2012 by John Wiley Sons, d


2/10

26 11ntroduction to Part VI I

other. Bourdieu presented this in his 1976 Outlin e o a Theory o Practice a bookwhich he revised twice eventually producing the longer synthesis The Logic ofPractice(1 990). In these works Bourdieu draws together theoretical influences from Ma x:Weber Emile Durkheim Marcel Mauss Karl Marx phenomenological philosopherslike Maurice Merleall-Porny the structuralist anthropologist Claude L6vi Strauss the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and other more empirical linguists and hisown teachers including the philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard.

Bourdieu wove these many different intellectual sources together in an original andpowerful perspective . In Pascalian Meditations (200 1), he reflected on the way thes esources influenced his wor k. But for the most part he undertook empirical analyses putting his theory to work seeking to understand clas s a nd cu ltw'a l hi erarch ies inFrance Distinction [1984 ] The Love o Art with Darb el 1969) Photogmp lty as ahobby and an art form (with Boltanski Castel hambor eclo tl an d Sch .l1ap pcr 1965 ) the role of schools in reproducing inequality Th e Inheritors with Passeron 1963 Reproduction in Education Cultur e and Society with Passeron 1967) the universityand the field of scholarship Homo Academicus [1988]) the way literature andespecially novels emerged as a distinctive field from other kinds of writing The Ruleso Art [1996]) and the ways people experience and respond to po verty and socia linequality Th e Weight o he World: Social Suffering in COlltc om ry S o c i y 1993 .

Throughout this extraordinary body of research ourdi eu s ce ntr a l co n cern sremained the ways in which action and structure were joined in an always incompletebut powerful process of structuration the way in which inequality was reproducedeven amid economic growth the reasons people misrecognize social conditions andsometimes participate in imposing limits on themselves and the ways in whichdifferent kinds of value - say on art or on education or on money - were organizedin relation to each other. Shortly before his death he also examined the ways thatglobalization threatens the h i e v e m e n t sof past social struggles by underminingsocial institutions. This connected his ea r y work on AIgeria under colonialism tothe contemporary predicament of France amid European integration and capitalistglobaliza

As 1 was able to observe in AIgeria th e unification of the economic field tends especially through mon etary unification and the generali zation of mon etary exchangesthat follow to hurl all social agents into an economic game for which they are not

equally prep ared and equipped culturally ande o n o m i c a l l yI t

tends by the sametoken to submit them to standards objectively imposed by competition from moreefficient productive forces and modes of production as can readily be seen with smallruraI producers who are more and more completely tom away from self-suffici ency. 1nshort n c a t i o nb e n e the dominant. J

Bourdieu came by these concerns bio grap h icalJ y Bo rn ill t he Ba rn e reg io n o fsouthwestern France Bourdieu was the son of a v jlJage post m aJl a nd Ih c gra nd sOJ

of a share-croppe r. By means of scholar ships he we n l on to st ud y a t F1 3 l Ces Ecole Normale Superieure and eventuaJJ y beca m e Ihe mos l famo l1s inte Hec tu al in


3/10

untroduction to Part V 3 7 1

the u t r y awarded a chair at the prestigious Collge de France. His work wasalways aimed at shining criticallight on social processes that maintained inequalityand kept the playing field of social struggles from being leve l. 1n addition to hisindividual research and writing he organized several collaborative research projects

founded the journal ctes de l recherche en sciences soci les and led a major researchcenter. He was the subject of a feature-length documentary La sociologie est unsport de combat Sociology is a Combat Sport ).

structure and Action False Dichotomies

Bourdieu described one of his central motivations as a determination to transcendthe closely related but misleading dichotomies of objectivism/subjectivism and ofstructure/action. 2 Taken together these dichotomies have marked relatively stablepoles in the social sciences with structural explanation tending to see sociallife ascompletely external and objective and action-oriented sociology looking at sociallife through subjective experience. Bourdieu suggested that it is crucial not just tosee both sides of the issue but also to see how they are inseparably related.

1n recent French social theory the structuralist anthropology of Claude LviStrauss has been the dominant representative of objectivist thinking. Structuralismis in manyways the descendent of urkheim s work especially his later examinationsof culture. Bourdieu was heavily influenced by structuralism - a good example is hiscontinued interest in explaining the stable cultural oppositions that appear inlanguage physical space and social space. But structuralism attempted to understandthe meaning of such oppositions by taking up an objective scientific point of viewfrom outside of the action. I t thus tended to explain the structuring of action only as

the result of external forces that either push us in one direction or constrain us fromgoing in another. Bourdieu by contrast argued for a social science based on thestudy of actors who always have some practical knowledge about their world even ifthey cannot articulate that knowledge. 1n other words social structure is internalizedby each of us because we have learned from the experience of previous actions apractical mastery of how to do things that takes objective constraints into account.

Bourdieu s stress on the presence of social structure inside the actor is not only a

challenge to objectivism but

also to most formsof

subjectivism. 1n subjectivistaccounts the observer takes the individuals' own motivations as the source of theaction. The major representative of this approach in France was the existentialism ofJean-Paul Sartre. Bourdieu criticized this way of thinking because it tends to missthe cultural or material constraints that shape people s actions making each actionappear to be a kind of antecedent-less confrontation between the subject and theworld. 3 1n other words subjectivism neglects the extent to w


4/10

l32SIIntroductionto PartVII

In short objective accountscan help us understandstructure and subjectiveaccountscan helpus understand action.Butboth are one-sided in that they divo1 ceaction fromstructure.Bourdieus effort hasbeento develop agenetic structuralism;'that is a sociologythat uses the intellectualresourcesof structuralanalysis but

app1 oaches structuresin terms of the ways in which they are produced andreproduced in action. Understood inthis way structuresare structuring in thesensethat they guide and constrainaction. But they are alsostructured in the sensethat they are generatedand reproducedby actors. Bourdieu thus insistedon adialecticof structureand action but he also made clear that he thinksthe crucialfi1 st step for social sciencecomeswith the discoveryof objectivestructure and thebreak with everyday knowledgethat this entails. Theobjective truth is not simplythe sum total of the facts that happen toexist (as a purely empiricist view mightsuggest).Rather what is objectively the deepestreality in social life is not thesurfacephenomena thatwe see a aroundus but the underlying structural featuresthat make these surface phenomena possible. Theobjectivist taskof sociologyis tograsp these underlying structural features.This is hard becauseit demandsthat Wecall into questionour taken-for-granted preconscious understandingsof the worldand our placein it.

Habitus and Misrecognition

Theway to get an empirical handleon the dynamic relationship between structureand a i o n Bourdieu contended is through what he termed a relationalanalysisofsocialtastes and practices.By relational, Bourdieumea.n t that tastes and practicesare organized byactors'relative locations in socialspace. Thi s relational analysis Sorganized by threecentral concepts- positions dispo sit ions (ha- us ) andposition-taking (or p ractices ).

Actors occ up y po sitions l social space reJative to one anotber $Uell positionsmay be de:fin ed by occupa liOll edu catioll or pro ximily to power Whllt ll1 alters isnot exactl y how such posilions are measur ed bl1t thal peopJe Slakc their elaims tosocia l status on them nd thercfore llse them to understand their place in e worldPositionsaremaintainedand signaledto othersthrough aprocessof position-taking(translations sometimes retainthe French termprises de position ). For example certainsocial positions are signaled bystylesof dress leisureactivities or consllmerchoices. Bourdieustressedthat there is no direct mechanical connection betweenposit10l 1S in e social structur e and th e p r c c e s that attach lo em. ln differcnttim es an d different pltlces different s e t ~of p r c c e s work ju st as well to signal agivenpo sition. [ one of lhe rea dings included below Bomdieo uscd thecxampJe ofnames Lh a 1 busillesses cho se for themsclves - high-staLu s shops in New York oftenhave French names while similarones in Paris often havc EngUsh names . 1u othercases practices can eithergainor lose prestigeovertime.

If there is no direct connection between practicesand p o si ti o n s B o u this the u b s t n t1 al is t p o si t i o n1 ) thenwhat t 1 es the two together?B o u r ' d i eu argueCl


5/10

| Introduction to Part |

that habitus is the site of the interplay between structure and practice. Habitus refers10 embodied knowledge especiallythe ways people learn to generate improvisations -10 say new things (even using old words) to create new business deals or to play new

usic interactively with others. We improvise on the basis of what we have learned

from practical experience not from following conscious rules. lt is on the basis ofh b i t L that Bourdieu defines social groups (including social classes) since thosewho occupy similar positions in the social structure will have the same habitusH b i t u srefers to the relatively stable dispositions that are shaped by the experienceso f t o r sin particular positions in the social structure which generate and organizepractices and representations. 4 The habitus is thus the site of our understanding ofthe world. ln order for us to live in the social world we require the kind of orientation

to action and awareness thathabitus

gives.In this sense the habitus is not only constraining it is also enabling. lt does notoperate as a set of strict rules about what to do or not to do what to like or not tolike lnstead t works as a set of loose guidelines of which actors are not necessarilyaware. Because they are loose guidelines these dispositions are flexible even thoughthey are deeply rooted. They leave a great deal of room for improvisation and areeasily applied to new settings but in a way shaped by rules and sociallearning. As theword suggests habitus is acquired through repetition like a habit; we know it in ourbodies not just our minds. A former rugby player Bourdieu often used the metaphorof games to convey his sense of social life. But by a m e he doesn t mean merediversions or entertainments. Rather he meant the experience of being passionatelyinvolved in a kind of activity in which the physical and mental are merged in action.ln a game there are formal rules but also a constant need to improvise strategyaccording to unarticulated but deeply ingrained sense of the game. ut of whatmeets with approval or doesn t what works or does not we develop a characteristic

way of generating new actions of improvising the moves of the game of our lives.The resistance we confront in struggling to do well teaches us to accept inequality inour societies. Although it often reflects class or other aspects of social structure itcomes to feel natura l. We learn and


6/10

30 Ilntroduction to Part VII

Because of this , sociology is itself a combat sport like a martial art) accordingto Bourdieu. Sociologists must struggle against the tendency everyone has to acceptthe products of social history as though they were natura l This means also that Weshould not accept people s everyday accounts of their action as fully explainingit We may say , for example , that holiday gifts are given without expectation ofreturn , but in fact where there is no reciprocation we tend to stop giving. Moregenerally , participation in any set of social practices embeds us in characteristcmisrecognitions. Bourdieu saw this starkly in his early research in Algeria. TheFrench colonists understood themselves as part of a civilizing mission in whichmodern France would help traditional Algeria. But they systematically misrecognizedthe power and exploitation that were basic to the French presence . These sparked the

Algerian struggle for independence and became manifest in the bloody French effortto rep ress 1

Fields and Capital

One of the ways in which Bourdieu uses the metaphor of gam es is lo desc rib e edifferent fields on which distinct games are played. Like a s occer ficld or a rugby

field , a social field is simply the terrain upon which the gam e is p layed. BroadLyspeaking , a field is a domain of social life that has its own 1 e s o f organization ,generates a set of positions , and supports the practices asso ciated with them. Likeplayers in a game , a r t i i p a n t sin social fields have different position s. For exa l l ple,a small town lawyer and a Supreme ourt Justice are both p a r c i p a nt s in th e legalfield. But their different positions open different sets of oppo rt llJli ies [or them , an ddifferent sets of strategies that they may take. Bourdieu sees aC 10n in a fie ld 0tsimply as a static reflection of established positions , but as th e Tesul t of manycontending projects of position-taking.

The possession of different forms of capital provides th c basic s t r u t u r efor theorganization of fields , and thus the generation of the variou s h bhus and pra cticesassociated with them. A capital does not exist and function exce pt in r e1ation to afield ," Bourdieu claims. 5 Yet successful lawyers and succe ssful authors both , forexample , seek to convert their own successes into improved st a nd ru.ds of ivil] g andchances for their children. To do they must convert the t p it a spe c i fic lo tbciJ

field of endeavor into other forms. 1n addition to materi aJ property (economicapita l), families may accumulate networks of connection s (soc ial cap itnJ) andprestige (cultural capita l) by the Y Ul which lh ey rai se childrcn and p Jru1 lheirmarriages. By conceptuali zin g ca pital as Laking many differen t forms , o u r d estresses (a) that there are many diJfer ent knds of goods th a l pcop le p U.sue aOU

resources that they accumul ate , (b ) t hat th ese are in ex lr icab ly soc ial, bcc


7/10

| Introduction to Part VI 33 I

the struggle to reproduce capital is equally basic and often depends on the ways inwhich it can be converted across fields.

Bourdieu s analysis of the differences in forms of capital and dynamics ofconversion between them is one of the most original and important features of

his theory (though it builds on Weber s distinction between class and status). Thereare twO senses in which capital is converted from one form to another. One is as partof the intergenerational reproduction of capita l. Wealthy people try to make surethat their children go to good co eges. n America at least this often involves the useof significant economic capital since good colleges are often expensive co eges. Butit also involves cultural capital for example in knowing which expensive schools aregood - that is prestigious - and which are not. The second sense of conversion ofcapital is more immediate. By attending a prestigious college and gaining lots ofsocial connections among the people there a person may then attempt to turn socialand cultural capital into economic capital by landing a highly paid job.

n his empirical investigations Bourdieu generally discusses two ways in whichcapital orders the social space. The most basic is what he calls capital volume , i

distinguishes between positions with a great deal of capital overall (and the practicesassociated with them) and those without much capital of any kind. f course thiscontrast between high and low is so obvious to most members of society that notmuch energy has to go into maintaining the social distance that goes along with it.Much more energy goes into maintaining the second dimension which might beca ed the capital mix. This distinguishes between positions that are high on onedimension (for example cultural capital) and those that are high on another (such aseconomic capital). Those positions with relatively high capital volume are mostinvested in maintaining this opposition. This is interesting because it shifts attentionfrom the opposition between the elites and the masses to the struggle etween different

privileged groups over the control of symbolic goods. As Bourdieu claims n i n i m u mobjective difference in social space can coincide with maximum subjective distanceThis is partly because what is closest presents the greatest threat to social identity. 6

Bourdieu situates his logic of multiple fields and s


8/10

| 332 1 ntroduction to I

Struc ture and r ac t i ce in Socia l l i f e

Bourdieu s key concepts like habitus symbolic violence cultural capita l and fieldare useful in themselves but derive their greatest theoretical significance from theirinterrelationships. These are best seen not mechanistically in the abstract but atwork in sociological analysis. Indeed Bourdieu is virtually unique among majortheorists in the extent to which he has focused on and been in t uential throughempirical research.

Bourdieu s theory is thus often embedded in empirical analyses but heconstantly tried to signal his theoretical positions to his readers. He did this notonly in his arguments but also in his writing style. This can make it difficult toread his work for the first time. Understanding what Bourdieu is doing and why heis doing it can help however. There are two stylistic e ements that are most ba t ingto new readers. The first is the s e l f c o n s i o u scircularity of the sentences. Eng i sh-language readers who are used to a more inear writing style are often bothered bythis though the style will seem more familiar to those who have some practicereading French social theory. By writing in this manner Bourdieu hoped to showwhere his argument might diverge from the reader s assumptions. The second

e ement that causes some confusion is the use of what Bourdieu calls a hierarchyof text. The main text is broken by passages that are offset or printed in a smallerfont. This was meant to break the formal facade of scientific argument wth lessformal asides and examples that show the development of the ideas. t was alsointended to bridge the distance between author and reader by making the textmore like a conversation.

The four readings that follow are not meant to cover the entire range of Bourdieu swriting . Instead they i ustrate key points of his theoretical arguments particularlyregarding habitus capital and field. The first selection Social Space and SymbolicSpace is an argument for the importance of relational analysis. t is the most plainlywritten of the four essays since it was originally presented as a lecture to introducehis work on French society to a Japanese audience. The second reading Structures

abitus Practices;' from The Logic o l t i c e is a more theoretical treatment of theconcept of habitus and the way it mediates between the social space of positions andthe symbolic space of position-taking. The stress is on the wa


9/10

| Introduction to Part V 1 1

is no t completely separate from considerations of powe r. Oppositions betweendifferent sets of positions are structured simultaneously by relation to the economicrnarket and by claims to artistic purity High status in the field demanded not justtaJent or vision but also a commitment to art for art s sake. This meant producing

works specifically designed for the field of art rather than the marke t. The finalreading considers the state as a bureaucratic field which generates both relationsof power and its own habitus in ingrained habits of thought and action

]'JOTES

Pierre Bourdieu Unifying to Better Dominate , Items and Issues willter 2001; orig. 2000(forthcoming in Firi l g Back New York: New Press 2002.

2 See Bourdieu and Wacquant (1 992) p. 7.3 Bourdieu (1 990) p. 42 .4 Bourdieu 1990) p. 53.5 Bourdieu and Wacquant (1 992) p. 101.6 Bourdieu (1 990) p. 137.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bourdieu Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique o the Judgmen t o Taste. Translated byRichard Nice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (An analysis of the place ofcultural hierarchy in the French ass structure: e.g. why do intellectuals like jazz andmodernist art why do elites collect uncomfortable antiques while workers prefer solid body-friendly furniture?)

Bourdieu Pierre. 1990. The Logic o Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford CA:Stanford University Press. (Bourdieu s most systematic statement of the core his theoryof embodied practice; partially a revision of the more famous Out/ine o a Theory oPractice.

Bourdieu Pierre. 1996. The Ru/es o Art A study of the origins of the French literary field inthe work of Flaubert and Baudelaire which is also Bourdieu s most sustained developmentof his concept of field and analysis of what art for art s sake' means and why culturalcapital is opposed to economi c.)

Bourdieu Pierre. 1998. Practica/ Reason Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Speeches andessays for relatively general audiences that constitute one of the most accessiblell 1 troductions to (and arificatiolls o f Bourdieu s sociological theory.)

Bourdieu Pierre. 1998. Acts o Resistance: Against the r a n n yo Markets New York: NewPress. A collection of Bourdieu s analyses of the threats neoliberal globalization poses toculture and intellectuals and the importance of an alternative form of internationalism.)

Bourdieu Pierre 1998/200 1. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.(Bourdieu s reflections late in his life on the intellectual sources and significance of hisdistinctive approach to sociology - including doing philosophy by means of empiricalsociolog y.)

Bourdieu -Pierre and Loic W a q u a n t1992. An Invitatio l to i v Sociology. Chicago IL:University of Chicago Press. A arification of various questions about Bourdieu s work structured as questions from one of his leading students and answers from Bourdieu.)


10/10

| 334 11ntroduction to Part I

Calhoun , Craig. 201 1. Pierre Bourdieu , pp. 696-730 in George Ritzer , ed.: The B l c k wCompanion to the Major Social Theorists 3rd edn. a m b r g e MA: lackwel l.introduct ion to and overview of Bourdieu s sociology.)

Calhoun , Craig. 2012. For the 5 i a lHistory of the Presen t: Pierre Bourdieu as Historic50ciologist , in P Gorski , ed.: Bourdieusiall Theory alld Historical Sociology urham , NDuke University Press. An account of the way Bourdieu s work addressed specifhistorical contexts: colonial Algeria , the postwar boom in France , the fonnation of culturfields in the modern era , and the undermining of instittit ional fields by neoliberalismthe late 1990s.)

Calhou l1 Craig , Edward LiPuma , and Moishe Postone eds.). 1993. Bourdieu: C r i tPerspectives Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Critical essays on Bourdieu fro lleading theorists in anthropology , philosophy , linguistics , and sociology.)

Fowler , Bridget 1997 Pierre Bourdieu and Cu/tural Theor y: Critical Investigations Londo

5age. Explicates Bourdieu 5 theory in relation to Anglo-American cultural studies ansociology of culture.)

Grenfell , Michael2004. Pierre Bourdieu: Age t Provocateur New Yor k: Continuum.Lane , Jeremy. 2000. Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto. The best boo

on Bourdieu and his intellectual background and contex t.Robbins , Derric k. 2000. Bourdieu alld Culture A very sympathetic but idiosyncrati

introduction emphasizing Bourdieu s cultural analyses of the 19805 and 1990s.)5wartz , David. 1997. C u l r e alld Power: The Sociology o Pierre Bourdieu Chicago: Univer5i

ofChicago Press. An accessible introduction to Bourdieu 5 work

andits development; t

best one-volume introduction.)

calhoun introduction bourdieu

Documents