Introduction to Part VI

The most influential and original French sociologist since Durkheim, Pierre
Bourdieu (1930- 2002) was at once a leading theorist and an empirical researcher of
extraordinarily broad interests and distinctive style. In Bourdieu strongly
criticized what he called theoretical theory" - that is, work that is more concerned
with building abstract systems of categories and concepts than with using them to
understand the world.

means of empirical observation and analyses rooted in a practical sense of
theoretical things" rather than through purely theoretical disquisition (see
Meditations [2001)). In other words, it is important to know theory and address
theoretical challenges, but knowledge advances by putting theory to use in doing
sociological analyses, and requires continual innovation. In the course of this
practical work of understanding and explanation, the researcher is driven to refine
his concepts and think in deeper ways about questions like the nature of human
action or the social systems that constrain and organize it.
In keeping with this view, Bourdieu developed his theory through a wide array of
empirical investigations. His work began in Algeria, during the last years of French
colonial rule. He looked at the country as a whole, but also especially at the people
of Kabylia who were regarded as tribal and traditional by both urban, Arab Algerians
and the French. The Kabyle were undergoing rapid social change with urbanization,
the introduction of money, and markets that brought labor migration and
transformed agricultural society (Algeria 1960 [1979]; The Uprooted (with
1964); Work and Workers in Algeria (with Darbel, Rivet, and Seibel, 1963).
Bourdieu developed the core of his theory as an effort to understand the clash
between enduring ways of life and larger systems of power and capital, the ways in
which cultural and social structures are reproduced even amid dramatic change, and
the ways in which action and structure are not simply opposed but depend on each
Co1ltemporary 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, Ltd.
! 326 11ntroduction to Part VI I
other. Bourdieu presented this in his 1976 Outline of a Theory of Practice, a book
which he revised twice, eventually producing the longer synthesis, The Logic ofPractice
(1990). In these works, Bourdieu draws together theoretical influences from Max:
Weber, Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, Karl Marx, phenomenological philosophers
like Maurice Merleall-Porny, the structuralist anthropologist Claude L6vi Strauss,
the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and other more empirical linguists, and his
own teachers including the philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard.
Bourdieu wove these many different intellectual sources together in an original and
powerful perspective. In Pascalian Meditations (2001), he reflected on the way thes
e
sources influenced his work. But for the most part, he undertook empirical analyses,
putting his theory to work seeking to understand class and cultw'al hierarchies in
France (Distinction [1984], The Love of Art, with Darbel, 1969) , Photogmplty as a
hobby and an art form (with Boltanski, Castel, Chamboreclotl , and Sch.l1appcr, 1965),
the role of schools in reproducing inequality (The Inheritors, with Passeron, 1963,
Reproduction in Education, Culture, and Society, with Passeron, 1967), the university
and the field of scholarship (Homo Academicus [1988]) , the way literature and
especially novels emerged as a distinctive field from other kinds of writing (The Rules
of Art [1996]) , and the ways people experience and respond to poverty and social
inequality (The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in COll tc1IIomry 1993).
Throughout this extraordinary body of research, ourdi eu's central concerns
remained the ways in which action and structure were joined in an always incomplete
but powerful process of structuration, the way in which inequality was reproduced
even amid economic growth, the reasons people misrecognize social conditions and
sometimes participate in imposing limits on themselves, and the ways in which
different kinds of value - say on art or on education or on money - were organized
in relation to each other. Shortly before his death, he also examined the ways that
globalization threatens the of past social struggles by undermining
social institutions. This connected his ear1y work on AIgeria under colonialism to
the contemporary predicament of France amid European integration and capitalist
globaliza
As 1 was able to observe in AIgeria, the unification of the economic field tends,
especially through monetary unification and the generalization of monetary exchanges
that follow, to hurl all social agents into an economic game for which they are not
equally prepared and equipped, culturally and It tends by the same
token to submit them to standards objectively imposed by competition from more
efficient productive forces and modes of production, as can readily be seen with small
ruraI producers who are more and more completely tom away from self-sufficiency. 1n
short, the dominant. J
Bourdieu came by these concerns biographicalJ y. Born ill the Barne region of
southwestern France, Bourdieu was the son of a vjlJage postmaJl and Ihc grandsO
J1
of a share-cropper. By means of scholarships, he wenl on to study at F1'31l Ces
Ecole Normale Superieure and eventuaJJ y became Ihe mosl famol1s inteHectual in
untroduction to Part VI 1327 1
the o u t r y awarded a chair at the prestigious Collge de France. His work was
always aimed at shining criticallight on social processes that maintained inequality
and kept the playing field of social struggles from being level. 1n addition to his
individual research and writing, he organized several collaborative research projects,
founded the journal Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, and led a major research
center. He was the subject of a feature-length documentary, La sociologie est un
sport de combat" (Sociology is a Combat Sport").
structure and Action: False Dichotomies
Bourdieu described one of his central motivations as a determination to transcend
the closely related but misleading dichotomies of objectivism/subjectivism and of
structure/action.
2
Taken together, these dichotomies have marked relatively stable
poles in the social sciences, with structural explanation tending to see sociallife as
completely external and objective, and action-oriented sociology looking at social
life through subjective experience. Bourdieu suggested that it is crucial not just to
see both sides of the issue, but also to see how they are inseparably related.
1n recent French social theory, the structuralist anthropology of Claude Lvi-
Strauss has been the dominant representative of objectivist thinking. Structuralism
is in manyways the descendent ofDurkheims work, especially his later examinations
of culture. Bourdieu was heavily influenced by structuralism - a good example is his
continued interest in explaining the stable cultural oppositions that appear in
language, physical space, and social space. But structuralism attempted to understand
the meaning of such oppositions by taking up an objective, scientific" point of view
from outside of the action. It 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 from
going in another. Bourdieu, by contrast, argued for a social science based on the
study of actors who always have some practical knowledge about their world, even if
they cannot articulate that knowledge. 1n other words, social structure is internalized
by each of us because we have learned from the experience of previous actions a
practical mastery of how to do things that takes objective constraints into account.
Bourdieus stress on the presence of social structure inside the actor is not only a
challenge to objectivism, but also to most forms of subjectivism. 1n subjectivist
accounts, the observer takes the individuals' own motivations as the source of the
action. The major representative of this approach in France was the existentialism of
Jean-Paul Sartre. Bourdieu criticized this way of thinking because it tends to miss
the cultural or material constraints that shape peoples actions, making each action
appear to be a kind of antecedent-less confrontation between the subject and the
world."3 1n other words, subjectivism neglects the extent to w
l32SIIntroduction to Part VII
In short, objective accounts can help us understand structure, and subjective
accounts can help us understand action. But both are one-sided in that they divo1'ce
action from structure. Bourdieus effort has been to develop a genetic structuralism;'
that is, a sociology that uses the intellectual resources of structural analysis, but
app1'oaches structures in terms of the ways in which they are produced and
reproduced in action. Understood in this way, structures are structuring" in the
sense that they guide and constrain action. But they are also structured" in the sense
that they are generated and reproduced by actors. Bourdieu thus insisted on a
dialectic of structure and action, but he also made clear that he thinks the crucial
fi1'st step for social science comes with the discovery of objective structure, and the
break with everyday knowledge that this entails. The objective truth" is not simply
the sum total of the facts that happen to exist (as a purely empiricist view might
suggest). Rather, what is objectively" the deepest reality" in social life is not the
surface phenomena that we see a11 around us, but the underlying structural features
that make these surface phenomena possible. The objectivist" task of sociology is to
grasp these underlying structural features. This is hard, because it demands that We
call into question our taken-for-granted, preconscious understandings of the world
and our place in it.
Habitus and Misrecognition
The way to get an empirical handle on the dynamic relationship between structure
and Bourdieu contended, is through what he termed a relational analysis of
social tastes and practices. By relational," Bourdieu mea.n t that tastes and practices
are organized by actors' relative locations in social space. This relationa l analysis 1S
organized by three central concepts - positions, di sposit ions (ha-l1itus") and
position-taking (or p ractices").
Actors occupy positions ll social space reJative to one anotber. $Uell positions
may be de:fined by occupaliOll, educatioll, or proximily to power. Whll t ll1 alters is
not exactly how such posili ons are measured, bl1t t hal peopJe Slakc their elaims to
socia.l status on them, and thercfore llse them to understand their place in ,e world
Positions are maintained and signaled to others through a process of position-taking
(translations sometimes retain the French term prises de position"). For example,
certain social positions are signaled by styles of dress, leisure activities, or consllmer
choices. Bourdieu stressed that there is no direct, mechanical connection between
posit10l1S in social structure and the t hat attach lo lem. ln di ffercnt
times and different pltlces, different of work just as well to signal a
given positi on. [0 one of lhe readings included below, "Bomdieo uscd the cxampJe of
names Lha.1 busillesses chose for themsclves - high-staLus shops in New York often
have French names, while similar ones in Paris often havc EngUsh names. 1u other
cases, practices can either gain or lose prestige over time.
If there is no direct connection between practices and
this the then what the two together? arg
ue
Cl
| Introduction to Part V|
that habitus is the site of the interplay between structure and practice. Habitus refers
10 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
J11usic 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 of
that Bourdieu defines social groups (including social classes) , since those
who occupy similar positions in the social structure will have the same habitus.
refers to the relatively stable dispositions that are shaped by the experiences
in particular positions in the social structure, which generate and organize
practices and representations."4 The habitus is thus the site of our understanding of
the world. ln order for us to live in the social world, we require the kind of orientation
to action and awareness that habitus gives.
In this sense, the habitus is not only constraining, it is also enabling. lt does not
operate as a set of strict rules about what to do or not to do, what to like or not to
like. lnstead, it works as a set of loose guidelines of which actors are not necessarily
aware. Because they are loose guidelines, these dispositions are flexible, even though
they are deeply rooted. They leave a great deal of room for improvisation and are
easily applied to new settings, but in a way shaped by rules and sociallearning. As the
word suggests, habitus is acquired through repetition, like a habit; we know it in our
bodies not just our minds. A former rugby player, Bourdieu often used the metaphor
of games to convey his sense of social life. But by he doesnt mean mere
diversions or entertainments. Rather, he meant the experience of being passionately
involved 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 strategy
according to unarticulated but deeply ingrained sense" of the game. Out of what
meets with approval or doesnt, 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 in
our societies. Although it often reflects class or other aspects of social structure, it
comes to feel natural. We learn and
! 330 Ilntroduction to Part VII
Because of this, sociology is itself a combat sport" (like a martial art) according
to Bourdieu. Sociologists must struggle against the tendency everyone has to accept
the products of social history as though they were natural. This means also that We
should not accept peoples everyday accounts of their action as fully explaining
it. We may say, for example, that holiday gifts are given without expectation of
return, but in fact where there is no reciprocation we tend to stop giving. More
generally, participation in any set of social practices embeds us in characteristc
misrecognitions. Bourdieu saw this starkly in his early research in Algeria. The
French colonists understood themselves as part of a civilizing mission in which
modern France would help traditional Algeria. But they systematically misrecognized
the power and exploitation that were basic to the French presence. These sparked the
Algerian struggle for independence and became manifest in the bloody French effort
to rep ress 1 t.
Fields and Capital
One of the ways in which Bourdieu uses the metaphor of games" is lo describe
different fields on which distinct games are played. Like a soccer ficld or a rugby
field, a social field is simply the terrain upon which the game is played. BroadLy
speaking, a field is a domain of social life that has its own 1 of organization,
generates a set of positions, and supports the practices associated with them. Li ke
players in a game, in social fields have different positions. For exal1lple,
a small town lawyer and a Supreme Court Justice are both in the legal
field. But their different positions open different sets of opport llJli Lies [or them, and
different sets of strategies that they may take. Bourdieu sees aC(10n in a field 11 0t
simply as a static reflection of established positions, but as the Tesul t of many
contending projects of position-taking.
The possession of different forms of "capital" provides thc basic for the
organization of fields, and thus the generation of the various habhus and practices
associated with them. A capital does not exist and function except in re1ation to a
field," Bourdieu claims.
5
Yet successful lawyers and successful authors both, for
example, seek to convert their own successes into improved standru.ds of Li vil]g and
chances for their children. To do so, they must convert the spec.i fi c lo tbciJ
field of endeavor into other forms. 1n addition to materiaJ property (economi
capital), families may accumulate networks of connections (social capitnJ) and
prestige (cultural capital) by the Ul which lhey rai se childrcn and pJru1 lheir
marriages. By conceptuali zin g ca pital as Laking many different forms,
stresses (a) that there are many diJferent knds of goods thal pcople pLU.sue aO
U
resources that they accumulate, (b) that these are .inexlr icably social, bcc<1. use
derive their meaning from the social relationships that constitute differen1
(rather than simply -from some sort of things bcing valuahle in and oi
themselves) , and (c) that the struggle to accumulate capital is hardly the whoJe story;
| Introduction to Part VI1331 I
the struggle to reproduce capital is equally basic and often depends on the ways in
which it can be converted across fields.
Bourdieus analysis of the differences in forms of capital and dynamics of
conversion between them is one of the most original and important features of
his theory (though it builds on Webers distinction between class and status). There
are twO senses in which capital is converted from one form to another. One is as part
of the intergenerational reproduction of capital. Wealthy people try to make sure
that their children go to good colJeges. 1n America at least, this often involves the use
of significant economic capital, since good colleges are often expensive colJeges. But
it also involves cultural capital, for example in knowing which expensive schools are
good" - that is, prestigious - and which are not. The second sense of conversion of
capital is more immediate. By attending a prestigious college, and gaining lots of
social connections among the people there, a person may then attempt to turn social
and cultural capital into economic capital by landing a highly paid job.
1n his empirical investigations, Bourdieu generally discusses two ways in which
capital 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 practices
associated with them) and those without much capital of any kind. Of course, this
contrast between high and low is so obvious to most members of society that not
much 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 be
caJled the capital mix. This distinguishes between positions that are high on one
dimension (for example, cultural capital) and those that are high on another (such as
economic capital). Those positions with relatively high capital volume are most
invested in maintaining this opposition. This is interesting, because it shifts attention
from the opposition between the elites and the masses to the struggle between different
privileged groups over the control of symbolic goods. As Bourdieu claims, n i n i m u m
objective difference in social space can coincide with maximum subjective distance
This is partly because what is closest presents the greatest threat to social identity."6
Bourdieu situates his logic of multiple fields and s
| 332 11ntroduction to VI I
Structure and Practice in Social life
Bourdieus key concepts, like habitus, symbolic violence, cultural capital, and field
are useful in themselves, but derive their greatest theoretical significance from their
interrelationships. These are best seen not mechanistically, in the abstract, but at
work in sociological analysis. Indeed, Bourdieu is virtually unique among major
theorists in the extent to which he has focused on and been int1uential through
empirical research.
Bourdieus theory is thus often embedded in empirical analyses, but he
constantly tried to signal his theoretical positions to his readers. He did this not
only in his arguments, but also in his writing style. This can make it difficult to
read his work for the first time. Understanding what Bourdieu is doing and why he
is doing it can help, however. There are two stylistic e1ements that are most baft1ing
to new readers. The first is the circularity of the sentences. Eng1ish-
language readers who are used to a more 1inear writing style are often bothered by
this, though the style will seem more familiar to those who have some practice
reading French social theory. By writing in this manner, Bourdieu hoped to show
where his argument might diverge from the readers assumptions. The second
e1ement that causes some confusion is the use of what Bourdieu calls a hierarchy
of text." The main text is broken by passages that are offset or printed in a smaller
font. This was meant to break the formal facade of scientific argument wth less
formal asides and examples that show the development of the ideas. It was also
intended to bridge the distance between author and reader by making the text
more like a conversation.
The four readings that follow are not meant to cover the entire range of Bourdieus
writing. Instead, they i1Iustrate key points of his theoretical arguments, particularly
regarding habitus, capital and field. The first selection, Social Space and Symbolic
Space" is an argument for the importance of relational analysis. It is the most plainly-
written of the four essays, since it was originally presented as a lecture to introduce
his work on French society to a Japanese audience. The second reading, Structures,
Habitus, Practices;' from The Logic of is a more theoretical treatment of the
concept of habitus and the way it mediates between the social space of positions and
the symbolic space of position-taking. The stress is on the wa
| Introduction to Part VI 1333 1
is not completely separate from considerations of power. Oppositions between
different sets of positions are structured simultaneously by relation to the economic
rnarket and by claims to artistic purity. High status in the field demanded not just
taJent, or vision, but also a commitment to art for arts sake." This meant producing
works specifically designed for the field of art, rather than the market. The final
reading considers the state as a bureaucratic field" which generates both relations
of 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 l1g 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 (1990), p. 137.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgmen t of Taste. Translated by
Richard Nice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (An analysis of the place of
cultural hierarchy in the French c1ass structure: e.g. , why do intellectuals like jazz and
modernist art, why do elites collect uncomfortable antiques while workers prefer solid,
body-friendly furniture?)
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford CA:
Stanford University Press. (Bourdieus most systematic statement of the core his theory
of embodied practice; partially a revision of the more famous Out/ine of a Theory of
Practice.)
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Ru/es of Art. (A study of the origins of the French literary field in
the work of Flaubert and Baudelaire which is also Bourdieus most sustained development
of his concept of field and analysis of what art for arts sake' means and why cultural
capital is opposed to economic.)
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practica/ Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Speeches and
essays for relatively general audiences that constitute one of the most accessible
ll1troductions to (and c1arificatiolls of) Bourdieus sociological theory.)
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Acts of Resistance: Against the of Markets. New York: New
Press. (A collection of Bourdieus analyses of the threats neoliberal globalization poses to
culture and intellectuals and the importance of an alternative form of internationalism.)
Bourdieu, Pierre 1998/2001. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(Bourdieus reflections, late in his life, on the intellectual sources and significance of his
distinctive approach to sociology - including doing philosophy by means of empirical
sociolog
y
.)
Bourdieu,-Pierre and Loic 1992. An Invitatiol1 to Sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press. (A c1arification of various questions about Bourdieus work,
structured as questions from one of his leading students and answers from Bourdieu.)
| 334 11ntroduction to Part VI I
Calhoun, Craig. 201 1. Pierre Bourdieu," pp. 696-730 in George Ritzer, ed.: The
Companion to the Major Social Theorists, 3rd edn. MA: lackwell. (A
introduction to and overview of Bourdieus sociology.)
Calhoun, Craig. 2012. For the History of the Present: Pierre Bourdieu as Historic,
50ciologist," in P. Gorski , ed.: Bourdieusiall Theory alld Historical Sociology. Durham, NC
Duke University Press. (An account of the way Bourdieus work addressed specif
historical contexts: colonial Algeria, the postwar boom in France, the fonnation of cultur,
fields in the modern era, and the undermining of instittitional fields by neoliberalism i
the late 1990s.)
Calhoul1. Craig, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone (eds.). 1993. Bourdieu:
Perspectives. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Critical essays on Bourdieu frol:
leading theorists in anthropology, philosophy, linguistics, and sociology.)
Fowler, Bridget 1997 Pierre Bourdieu and Cu/tural Theory: Critical Investigations. Londor
5age. (Explicates Bourdieu5 theory in relation to Anglo-American cultural studies an
sociology of culture.)
Grenfell , Michael2004. Pierre Bourdieu: Agel1 t Provocateur. New York: Continuum.
Lane, Jeremy. 2000. Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto. (The best boo
on Bourdieu and his intellectual background and context.)
Robbins, Derrick. 2000. Bourdieu alld Culture. (A very sympathetic but idiosyncrati
introduction emphasizing Bourdieus cultural analyses of the 19805 and 1990s.)
5wartz, David. 1997. alld Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: Univer5it
of Chicago Press. (An accessible introduction to Bourdieu5 work and its development; th
best one-volume introduction.)