Article

477082
13477082Sociological Theory XX(X)Go 2013
STXXXX10.1177/07352751
Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieus Early Work
Julian Go1
Sociological Theory 31(1) 4974 American Sociological Association 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0735275113477082 stx.sagepub.com
Abstract
While new scholarship on Pierre Bourdieu has recovered his early work on Algeria, this essay excavates his early thoughts on colonialism. Contrary to received wisdom, Bourdieu did in fact offer a theory of colonialism and a systematic understanding of its effects and logics. Bourdieu portrayed colonialism as a racialized system of domination, backed by force, which restructures social relations and creates hybrid cultures. His theory entailed insights on the limits and promises of colonial reform, anticolonial revolution, and postcolonial liberation. Bourdieus early thinking on colonialism drew upon but extended French colonial studies of the time. It also contains the seeds of later concepts like habitus, field, and reflexive sociology while prefiguring more recent disciplinary postcolonial studies. Bourdieusian sociology in this sense originates not just as a study of Algeria but more specifically a critique of colonialism. It can be seen as contributing to the larger project of postcolonial sociology.
Keywords
Bourdieu, colonialism, postcolonialism, habitus, field

The Arabs of La Peste and LEtranger [by Albert Camus] are nameless beings used as background for the portentous European metaphysics explored by Camus. . . . Is it farfetched to draw an analogy between Camus and Bourdieu in Outline of a Theory of Practice, perhaps the most influential theoretical text in anthropology today, which makes no mention of colonialism? Edward Said (1989:223) [T]here never existed in Algeria a truly isolated community, completely untouched by the colonial situation. Pierre Bourdieu (1959:63).
Pierre Bourdieus vast intellectual influence is expressed in the diverse topics to which his ideas have been applied. His concepts have been deployed to study nearly everything education, kinship, unemployment, religion, globalization, art, literature, the state, gender,
1
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding Author: Julian Go, Department of Sociology, Boston University, 96 Cummington St., Boston, MA 02215, USA. Email: juliango@bu.edu
50
Sociological Theory 31(1)
the body, immigration, the media, and so on. Yet, Bourdieus work is not renowned for studies of colonialism and associated matters of social transformation, racial difference, or intercultural domination in non-Western contexts. This article argues that it should be. On the one hand, we know that Bourdieus early work from 1957 to the early 1960s was on Algerian society. This was when he served in the French military in Algeria, taught at the University of Algiers, and did his first fieldwork on the Kabyle that would eventually lead to his famous theory of practice (Bourdieu 1977, 1990a). We also know that he wrote a number of articles and books on Algeria in these years (Bourdieu 1958, 1959, [1958] 1961; Bourdieu et al. 1963; Bourdieu and Sayad 1964) and initiated a photographic project documenting Algerians way of life (Bourdieu 2003). A new scholarship based in Europe has begun to mine this early work. Yacine has collected most of Bourdieus early materials on Algeria, offering invaluable insight on his early thinking (Bourdieu 2008a; Yacine 2003a, 2003b, 2005, 2008a, 2008b). Heilbron (2011) shows how Bourdieus research practices in Algeria formed the basis for Bourdieus later sociological model of practice, while others have recovered various other aspects of his thinking on Algeria (Bensa 2004; Haddour 2010; Marqus Perales 2009; B. Robbins 2005; Sapiro 2004:55-63; Seibel 2004). Scholars writing in the English language have also shown an interest, as seen for instance in Goodman and Silverstein (2009) and a special issue of the journal Ethnography (Wacquant 2004; see also Calhoun 2006; Heilbron 2011; Loyal 2009; Puwar 2009; ReedDanahay 2004, 2005; Robbins 2003).1 Yet, despite this new work, Bourdieus thinking on colonialism remains underexplored. It is one thing to study a foreign society like Algeria and analyze social practices, cultural forms, or the impact of capitalist penetration. It is another to analyze colonial societies and theorize colonialism as an object with definite dynamics. Historians and social scientists interested in colonialism have long studied the latter, illuminating the imperatives of colonial states, colonial transformations, the dynamics of colonial exploitation, racial hierarchies under colonial rule, and the empire/knowledge complex. Recent scholarship in sociology has likewise made colonialism an analytic object in its own right (Go 2009). The field of postcolonial studies across the disciplines has theorized colonialisms cultural logics and effects (Ghandi 1998). So did Bourdieus early work also theorize colonialism? Did he not offer a systematic theory or sustained analysis of colonialism? While the new scholarship on Bourdieus work in Algeria has recovered his views on Algerian society, his ethnographic experiences, and culture, it has only illuminated bits and pieces of his analysis of colonialism. His sociology of colonialism eludes us.2 It is exactly this elision of colonialism that has opened up Bourdieu to critique from some sectors. Postcolonial critic Edward Said (1989) accuses Bourdieu of perilously overlooking colonialism. Others, influenced by the sort of postcolonial theory spawned by Said, similarly charge his work as dangerously Eurocentric, as part of a wider set of Northern Orientalist theories that portray non-Western societies as static and homogenous and that overlook colonialism and the history of global Western domination. In this critique, even though Bourdieus most widely cited ideasregarding structure, agency, habitus, and so onwere forged from ethnographical studies of the Kabyle in Algeria, his theoretical apparatus ignores the colonial conditions of its existence and its totalizing categories reproduce the imperial gaze (Connell 2007; Free 1996; Herzfeld 1987:7-8; Lane 2000:13-6, 112). Sewells (1992:15-6) discussion intimates similar criticisms, suggesting that Bourdieu lacks an adequate model of change because Bourdieus objectified and overtotalized conception of society fails to take colonialism and anticolonial revolution into account (see also Connell 2007:41-3).
Go
51
The present article here intervenes. It builds on the new scholarship on Bourdieus time in Algeria to show that Bourdieus early work did not occlude Algerias colonial context. Bourdieus early work, rather than just on Algeria itself or the Algerian revolution, was also about colonial rule, racial domination, and colonial cultures. Bourdieu articulated a systematic theory of colonialism that entailed insights on colonial social forms and cultural processes and contained the seeds for some of his later more well-known concepts and ideas like habitus, field, and reflexive sociology. Bourdieusian sociology can be seen in this light as originating in a critique of colonialism, not only as an ethnography of the Kabyle or Algeria (cf. Wacquant 2004). Because of this, Bourdieus early work can and should be part of the social science of colonialism and of postcolonial sociology rather than an object of their critique. I begin by sketching key aspects of the larger field of empire in which Bourdieus early work on Algeria must be contextualized. I then excavate the key elements of Bourdieus theory of colonialism and its prescience for Bourdieus later theoretical corpus. I conclude by discussing the relevance of Bourdieus ideas on colonialism for postcolonial sociology.
ImpeRiaL FieLds of PRoductioN

In studies of intellectuals like Bourdieu, it is by now common to put ideas in their context and associated knowledge practices (Camic, Gross, and Lamont 2011). But exactly which context? Traditional writings on Bourdieu situate him and his work within the class structure of France, the politics of the French academy, the Parisian intellectual scene, or philosophical currents such as structuralism and phenomenology. Yet the new scholarship on Bourdieu reminds us that Bourdieu, along with all other intellectuals, was firmly embedded in the French colonial empire (Seibel 2004; Yacine 2003a, 2008a). This is important. French writers like Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Raymond Aron did not ignore the empire in their thinking. An entire generation of intellectuals in France was transformed by the anticolonial Algerian movement and French decolonization (Le Sueur 2001). Jacques Derrida, Jean-Franois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault were all profoundly shaped by colonial experiences, many having spent time in overseas French colonies (Ahluwalia 2010). Bourdieu needs to be understood in this context too.
Empire/Knowledge
Specifically, for apprehending Bourdieus sociology of colonialism, there are two fields that need to be illuminated. The first is the French empire/knowledge complex and associated debates. Just as Bourdieu began his work on French Algeria in the late 1950s, the French empire had been under severe stress. The loss of Syria and Lebanon, revolt in Indochina, bloody conflict in Madagascar, the 1956 Suez debacle, rising resistance from Tunisia and Moroccothese and many other events of the 1950s had challenged the infrastructure of the empire (Sorum 1977:2-12). They likewise challenged the ideological basis of French colonialism, threatening to untangle the long-standing French colonial ideologies of assimilation and its alternative model of association (Cooper 1997:77-8, 2002:50-3). In this context, various actors searched for solutions. Reformists, which included French officials, intellectuals, and colonial allies, looked for new colonial models to replace either assimilation or association. In Algeria, governor-general Jacques Soustelle promoted the idea of integration: This would make Algerians French, officially equal without distinction while maintaining their cultural and ethnic differencesa variant of separate but equal that nonetheless subtly reinscribed the superiority of the French culture and identity (Le Sueur 2001:23-5). Alternatively, revolutionary elements called for immediate decolonization.
52
Nationalists in the colonies and metropolitan intellectuals and politicians typically associated with the communists (Sorum 1977:6-10; Yacine 2004:493) believed that the only solution to the crisis of empire was to dissolve it entirely. These issues about the French empire were related to the intellectual field, especially social science. Here arises the empire/knowledge complex. Governor-general Soustelle was himself an anthropologist, other French colonial officials sometimes wrote about colonial societies, and the French imperial state sponsored social scientific research (Cooper 2002:50-7; Sorum 1977). These connections had a long history. The creation of the Institut dEthnologie in 1925 had institutionalized preexisting connections between French ethnology and colonialism (Conklin 2002; Wilder 2003). Ever since the early years of the twentieth century, scholarly categories had been implicitly or explicitly about the practice of French colonialism. Debates on acculturation and related issues of culture change were summoned in debates over whether French policy should integrate colonized subjects and whether it was possible at all. Modernization theory in the 1940s had been enlisted to support French colonialism. And the anthropological insistence on ethnic groups as a key unit of analysis was deployed to support the integration model, even as it could also be used as the starting point for justifying the assimilation model (Cooper 2002). In the 1950s, debates on colonialism and empire proliferated. By 1950, the anthropologist Michel Leiris (one of the founders with Jean-Paul Sartre of Les Temps Modernes) and his followers were leveling critiques of French anthropology for its ties to colonial administration (Leiris 1950). As the decade progressed, and especially as the Algerian war erupted, prominent French intellectuals like Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Raymond Aron debated the desirability of the French empire. Sartre famously supported the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN; Paige 2010). Aron received wide attention for his La Tragdie algrienne (1957), which opposed continued French colonialism in Algeria. Because of Arons earlier pro-empire stance, the book fell like a bomb on the French intellectual and political community (Le Sueur 2001:135-40). Conversely, anthropologist Germaine Tillion, adviser to Soustelle, continued to deploy modernization theory to support French colonialism. Her LAlgrie en 1957 (Tillion 1958), which influenced the views of Albert Camus and many others, relied upon modernization theory to argue that Algerias indigenous populations needed enlightened development policies facilitated by French economic aid. In her view, France had not been doing a good enough job of modernizing Algeria and her colonies; if she had, there would be less discontent among the populace (Tillion 1958; see also Le Seuer 2001:145-50; Sorum 1977:84-7).
The New Colonial Studies

The other relevant field for understanding Bourdieus early work is the field of colonial studies (Cooper 2002). This was a new area of thinking that differed from prior discussions about colonial policy. While the debates over policy had indeed entailed social scientific thought on colonialism, they carried ethnological assumptions about native cultures and were hitched to theoretical concepts like modernization, urbanization, ethnic groups, and acculturation. As Cooper (2002) notes, what was missing was a proper colonial studies, that is, theories and research that treated colonialism as a social object in its own right and a force or structure that impacted social relations in definite ways. In the 1950s French intellectual scene, such a subfield of colonial studies was only nascent, prying open the idea of colonialism as an object and thus challenging the traditional disinterest among anthropologists in colonialism.
Go
53
One part of this new area, including work by Csaire (1955), Mannoni ([1950] 1964), Fanon ([1952] 1967), and Memmi ([1957] 1965), focused on social psychology and identity. For example, Mannonis ([1950] 1964) seminal Psychologie de la colonization went beyond traditional ethnologys focus on acculturation and ethnic groups by theorizing colonialism as a shaper of social interactions and ultimately the psyche (Lane 2002). Discussing French Madagascar, Mannoni insisted on colonialism as a case of the meeting of two entirely different types of personality that involved new relations that have never been properly analysed (Mannoni [1950] 1964:17). Rather than reducing native reactions and practices to a primitive mentality, Mannoni argued that they must be understood within the context of the colonial situation, which creates a misunderstanding. The colonized, uprooted by colonialism from their traditional lifestyle, are condemned to suffer feelings of abandonment and hence a dependency complex. Meanwhile, the colonizer is drawn to colonialism by their inferiority complex and the colonial situation offers them a chance to overcome it by placing them in the dominating position. Though Mannonis analysis was rooted in Lacanian psychology, its importance lay in theorizing colonialism as one society of a type, namely, as an object of its own, worthy of investigation (Mannoni [1950] 1964:7). This was also taken up by Albert Memmis ([1957] 1965) renowned Colonizer and Colonized. For Memmi, colonialism was constituted by a basic relation of colonizer-colonized that in turn shaped the identities of both. While the French colonial ideology of assimilation promised equality, colonialism always withholds equality; and so the colonized are consistently reminded of their incorrigible difference from the colonizer. The colonized are bestowed with an inferiority complex and thus compelled to disavow their traditional culture. Conversely, the colonizer adopts the identity of superiority, matching their dominant structural position. The relationship between colonizer and colonized becomes mutually definitivedefining each other through the other. The colonizer and colonized are chained in an implacable dependence (Mannoni [1950] 1964:ix).3 Another line of thought approached colonialism similarly but with less a focus on psychology and more on ethnology and sociology. Michel Leiris (1950) stands out here. He famously argued that ethnologys obsession with pristine ethnic groups and societies untouched by the outside world was fatally flawed. Colonialism itself constructed native societiesthe very object of anthropology was constituted by political domination. Leiris similarly argued that ethnologys occlusion of temporality was problematic. As native societies undergo colonial rule, they are not static as ethnology presumed but historical through and through. Leiris thus recognized colonialism as a force that impelled social logics and history itself (Leiris 1950). One of Leiriss students, Georges Balandier, took the theme further. His The Colonial Situation ([1951] 1966) is widely respected for making colonialism and colonial societies an object of analysis. Like Leiris, Balandier recognized the connections between anthropologists and colonialism, charging anthropologists for having avoided (unconsciously in most cases) the realities of colonialism and their embeddedness in it (p. 56). Balandier then drew upon Marcel Mauss and Max Gluckmann to critique extant anthropological categories. He insisted on a sociology of colonialism that, rather than analyzing pristine native cultures, treated the colonial situation as a single complex, a totality (Balandier [1951] 1966:22, 42; Cooper 2002; see also Saada 2002). Here he borrowed Mannonis notion of a colonial situation but was critical of Mannonis reduction of colonialism to a psychoanalytic misunderstanding (Balandier [1951] 1966:36). Balandier argued that colonialism should be treated as a totality of relationships between colonial peoples and colonial powers and between the cultures of each of them (57; also 21, 55).
54
Bourdieu in the Empire

It is difficult to imagine that Bourdieu was immune to these debates over empire and the new colonial studies. By the time he studied in Paris in the late 1940s and early 1950s, having moved from his provincial southwestern town of Bearn, the critical ideas on colonialism and ethnography were already being articulated by Leiris and Balandierboth of whom Bourdieu would later refer to in his work. And Bourdieus intellectual mentors and friends included Aron. Bourdieu also engaged with or read Fanon, Tillion, and Sartre (Bourdieu 1990b:7, 2003:18). Furthermore, Bourdieu was exposed to the debates and issues through his personal relationships and interactions in Algeria. After all, he himself was part of the colonial apparatus and its knowledge complex. He was sent to Algeria in 1955 for military service, eventually landing office work at an air base and then in the information service office in Algiersin many ways the very core of the colonial knowledge regime. It is there where he read the likes of Tillion and others while probing the colonial archive for the information that would form the basis of his work The Algerians ([1958] 1961). It is there too where he met nearly everyone who did scholarly work on Algeria, including ethnographers and colonial administrators (Heilbron 2011:185; Sayad 2002:59-68). After his service, Bourdieu taught at the University of Algiers, where he was exposed to the Orientalists and pro-empire intellectuals who dominated the scene (Yacine 2008a:25-8). Some of these figures were part of the very colonial anthropology that was under attack by Leiris (Bourdieu 2000:8). During this time Bourdieu also conducted collaborative field research, sponsored by ARDES (Association for Demographic, Economic, and Social Research), which was the Algerian branch of the French INSEE (National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies; Seibel 2004). From this would come much of his other writing on Algeria and his formative collaborative experiences that would, as Heilbron (2011) shows, provide a model for his later work but that also thrust him deeper into the intellectual issues and debates on French colonialism. His collaborators and fellow researchers included students, journalists, independent scholars, and Algerian intellectuals like Mouloud Feraoun and Moloud Mammeri, all of whom likely exposed Bourdieu further to critical discourse on French colonialism and who themselves had been writing their own views of colonialism in Algeria (Yacine 1990). Feraoun, a novelist who helped spawned a genre of ethnographic novels, read and commented on Bourdieus early work on Kabylia (Bourdieu 2001:ix; Yacine 2008a:40). Another of Bourdieus collaborators, Abdelmalek Sayad, would be Bourdieus coauthor on Le Dracinement (The Uprooting; Bourdieu and Sayad 1964) and would be an important friend and intellectual influence on him (Bourdieu 1998, 2008a; Sayad 2002). Over the course of his readings and interactions, Bourdieu crafted a distinct position on the debates over empire. On the one hand, he did not sit comfortably with the far left critics of French colonialism and their Communist Party allies. His critique of Sartres and Fanons stance on Algeria is exemplary: While Sartre and Fanon praised the FLN and saw the peasantry as the socialist vanguard, Bourdieu was reserved, suggesting that their romanticization of the socialist anticolonial revolutionary movement was blindly utopian (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:170-75; Le Sueur 2001:251-55). His dissatisfaction with the sort of position taken by Sartre and Fanon partly drove his research interests (Honneth, Kocyba, and Schwibs 1986:39; see also Swartz 2013). On the other hand, Bourdieu was not pro-empire. He supported national independence and criticized the reformists line. Bourdieus early writing on Algeria (Bourdieu [1958] 1961, 1959) targeted Tillions assertions and those of her political allies (it is not accidental that Bourdieu chose for some of his fieldwork the very same society as Tillion did, the Chauouia of the Constantine region; Yacine 2004:296). While Tillion and other proponents of French colonialism believed in reform, Bourdieu
Go
55
argued that reform was futile and that colonialism had to go. Bourdieu hereby joined the line of anticolonial French intellectuals while maintaining distance from the radical views of Fanon. Fittingly, Raymond Aron wrote the preface to Bourdieus (1958) Sociologie de lAlgrie (Bourdieu 2008b:32-4), placing Bourdieu into his own camp and suggesting that Bourdieus work showed once and for all the radical incompatibility between Algeria and France (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:vi). But Bourdieu also spoke directly with the new colonial studies. It is here where he crafted his own sociology of colonialism, to which I now turn.
BouRdieuS CoLoNiaL Studies The True Basis for the Colonial Order
In his first major work, Sociologie de lAlgrie (1958), written while he was working in the information office in Algiers, Bourdieu already reveals his understanding of colonialism: Colonialism is a system in its own right. He claims that the colonial society is a system whose internal necessity and logic it is important to understand (p. 120). This was a direct usage of the ideas of Balandier and Leiris. Indeed, in his subsequent piece, Le Choc des civilisations (1959), Bourdieu criticizes Tillion and employs the phrase the colonial situation, citing Balandier directly. Bourdieu likewise conceptualized colonialism as a constitutive force. Taking up Leiriss mantle, he critiqued anthropological studies (including Tillions) for overlooking the colonial influence on putatively pristine native cultures: [T] here never existed in Algeria a truly isolated community, completely untouched by the colonial situation (Bourdieu 1959:63). Likewise, in both Le Choc des civilisations and Algeria 1960 ([1963] 1979) he attacks modernization theory for overlooking colonialism and its attendant economic changes. Modernization theory falls short, he argues, because it occludes a systematic examination of the influence such [colonial economic] transformations have on the system of social relations and dispositions (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:30). Bourdieu thus drew on the new colonial studies to criticize the reformists views on Algeria and the anthropological models that underlay them. He also pushed the new colonial studies further. First, he theorized colonialism as a system of racial domination. Colonialism is a relationship of domination structured as sort of caste systema racial segregation that made colonial society Manichean in form (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:120, 132-34). Social class is less important than race. For Bourdieu, in fact, racism was built into the system of colonialism as a legitimating mechanism. The function of racism, he wrote, is none other than to provide a rationalization of the existing state of affairs so as to make it appear to be a lawfully instituted order (p. 133). Second, Bourdieu theorized this system of racial domination as facilitated by and grounded in coercion. Taking a swipe at modernization theorys implicit suggestion that modernization occurs by choice, Bourdieu highlighted how in colonialism the exercise of the power of choice, which theoretically belongs to those societies that confront one another, has not been granted to the dominated society (p. 120; see also Bourdieu [1963] 1979:32). By way of example, Bourdieu pointed to systematic subjugation and social vivisection in French Algeria, which occurred largely through a series of French policies enacted against the wishes of the population including policies regarding land and ownership beginning with the Senatus Consulte of 1863 (pp. 120-21). Bourdieu thus concluded that the basis of colonial domination is naked force. The war for independence exposed the true basis for the colonial order: the relation, backed by force, which allows for the dominant caste to keep the dominated caste in a position of inferiority. He added: repression by force fit perfectly with the logical coherence of the [colonial] system (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:146).
56
In short, Bourdieu theorized colonialism as a racialized system of domination rooted in coercion. This was an original synthesis of existing ideas, if not an original contribution altogether. For instance, it added a Weberian twist to existing works on colonialism. While Mannoni had thought of colonialism for its psychological aspects alone, and while Marxists and even Memmi ([1957] 1965:xii) emphasized economic dimensions of colonialism, Bourdieu highlighted the colonial states monopoly on violence (even though he indeed wrote about economic transformation, as we will see later). Furthermore, his explication of racial privilege and naked force as the basis of the system went beyond Leiriss and Balandiers initial theorizations of the colonial situation. While neither Leiris nor Balandier would have denied the importance of racism or coercion, they had not put racial privilege and coercion at the center of their analytic apparatus or built them into their theory of the colonial system. This may be because Bourdieu, unlike Leiris and Balandier, wrote after the revolutionary tumult of the mid-1950s and the violent repression that followed. His personal experiences in this context must have partly inspired his theorization. He recollects how, on his trip as a soldier to Algeria, he was struck by the racism of his fellow soldiers, many of whom had come from another French colony, Indochina. Their racism entailed, he said, an entire vision of the world (Bourdieu 2008b:38). And Bourdieus fieldwork made the brutality of the French colonial regime palpable. The suffering of the people relocated by the French colonial state, he later wrote, had deeply moved him; and many of these sufferings he tried to capture with his camera (Bourdieu 2003:18). Through his fieldwork he also encountered the horrors of the colonial settlers apparatus of force. He later recollected a peasants description of the torture inflicted by the French army (Bourdieu 2008b:48). And his own collaborators and friends Moulah Hennine (to whom he and Sayad dedicated Le Dracinement) and Mouloud Feraoun (Bourdieu 2001:ix) were murdered by the rightwing branch of the army, the counter-terrorist group the Organisation de larme secrte (OAS). These and other experiences, he later wrote, have profoundly shaken me, to the point sometimes of coming back in my dreams (Bourdieu 1998:9; 2001:ix; 2008a:359; quote from 2008b:48). Bourdieu himself feared death threats from the right-wing advocates of the settler regime. The threats compelled him to return to France (Yacine 2004:492). This was an entire system of domination and coercion that Bourdieu himself witnessedand which he theorized in his early writings. It is the case that Bourdieus views regarding colonialism, race, and violence most closely approximated Fanons ([1961] 1968). Of all the new colonial theorists, Fanon was probably the most explicit about the violent character of colonialism (Bamyeh 2010). The agents of [colonial] government, he wrote, speak the language of pure force (p. 38). Even then, however, Fanons Wretched of the Earth ([1961] 1968) and A Dying Colonialism ([1959] 1965) were published after Bourdieu wrote Sociologie de lalgrie (1958). Fanons Black Skin, White Masks was published in 1952 but Fanon in that work said comparably little about colonialism as an object in itself. If anything, it is most likely Fanons A Dying Colonialism that influenced Bourdieus theorization of colonialism as based on violence (it was published before Bourdieus essay The Revolution within the Revolution wherein he articulated most of his theorization of the colonial system; Bourdieu [1958] 1961:145-92). As Haddour notes (2010:77), Bourdieu probably drew much from Fanon regarding the racial character of colonialism, the nature of violence, and colonialisms impact (see also Lane 2000:18). Yet Bourdieus theorization was not simply mimetic. Fanon in A Dying Colonialism was much more interested in theorizing the psychological effect of colonialism and anticolonial revolution than he was in theorizing the nature of colonialism itself. Bourdieus theorization of colonialism as a relationship of domination ultimately grounded in naked coercionand having its own distinct logicswas more
Go
57
explicit as a theory of colonialism. As Bourdieu himself insisted, his was a sociology of colonialism rooted in so-called objective analysis rather than a psychology, philosophy, or political tract typically associated with Fanons new humanism (Alessandrini 2000; Le Sueur 2001:250). One area where Bourdieus sociology of colonialism converged strongly with Fanon was in his view of colonial stratification. Keeping with his Weberianism, Bourdieu emphasized that the colonial system was based on caste (by which he meant race supported by political privilege) rather than class. This was against the grain of French structural Marxism. To Bourdieu, caste trumped class: The caste spirit stifles class consciousness (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:133). This was more akin to Fanons approach, which placed more emphasis on racial difference too. Still, it should be noted that in his rejection of class reductionism, Bourdieu slightly diverged from Fanon. Fanon emphasized race but saw them as almost seamlessly articulated: [I]n the colonies the economic substructure is also the superstructure . . . you are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich (Fanon [1961] 1968:32). Bourdieu instead toed a finer line between class reductionism and racial analysis. While Bourdieus thinking on colonialism extended colonial studies at the time, it also underpinned his own political views. For instance, for Bourdieu, it was naive to believe that racism could be extricated from colonialism. Because racism was a built-in part of the colonial system, it could never be eradicated without dismantling colonialism. It would indeed be useless to hope to abolish racism, he says in The Algerians, without destroying the colonial system of which it is the product; it would be the height of phariasaism to condemn the racism and the racists spawned by the colonial situation without condemning the colonial system itself (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:150). This view formed the basis of his critique of French colonial reformers like Tillion. Second, as Bourdieu theorized colonialism as predicated upon force, he believed that revolution was inevitable. This facilitated his critique of those who classified the revolution as a contingent explosion of aggressiveness and hatred or a matter of a few ringleaders (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:149). Such a view implies an ignorance of the sociological facts and a refusal to recognize the situation in which the revolution broke out and against which it was directed (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:147). The fact that the revolution had mass support simply showed its objective basis; it was something that the system of privilege and coercionnamely, colonialism itselfhad logically created. It followed that only a revolution can abolish the colonial system (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:146).
Colonial Interactionism
If colonialism is a system, it follows that like any social system, it also shapes social interactions, meanings, and identity. Here we come to the other aspect of Bourdieus sociology of colonialism. In Bourdieus analysis, social interactions and their attendant symbolic processes take on a particular form in colonialism, such that the colonial situation . . . is the context in which all actions must be judged (Bourdieu 1958:149). This was a protosymbolic interactionism that was much more structuralist than its later incarnation in the form of American symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969). Interactions are not just determined by the contingent intentions or meanings of the actors but by the larger colonial context (the situation) in which they unfolded. Bourdieu again elaborates on the seminal themes raised by Mammoni and Memmi. As noted, Mannoni had argued that the colonizeds attitudes and behavior could best be understood within the context of the colonial relationship. Because the colonized had been uprooted from their previous existence and
58
had no other option than to rely on the new colonizing power, they were psychologically dependent on the colonizer. The dependence manifested itself in various types of behavior, which, taken out of context, seemed irrational and thus reaffirmed racialized stereotypes (Mannoni [1950] 1964). Bourdieu, unlike Mannoni, did not see the psyche as the fundamental causal mechanism of action, but he did share with Mannoni the idea that the colonial structure shapes behavior and interactions. Bourdieu argues that the colonial system entails distinct and logically necessary roles for colonizer and colonized: For the former, colonialism necessitates racism and paternalism, for the latter, subservience and the adoption of related stereotypical behaviors. The colonial system in Algeria compelled Algerians to play the role of the Arab-as-seen-by-the-Frenchman (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:161; see also Loyal 2009). In his introduction to Travail et travailleurs en Algrie, Bourdieu goes further, asserting that the relationship of formal subordination means that the colonized are forced to be excessively attentive to the colonizers actions and expressions. Because they are dependent, they have to be consistently attuned to words or gestures that seem to us most conventionalgreeting, shaking hands, smile but which to the colonized might be signs of recognition (Bourdieu et al. 1963:264; Bourdieu, Robbins, and Gomme 2003:16). This explains the stereotype that colonized peoples are overly sensitive. Their sensitivity is merely the outcome of colonialism. The sensitivity famously attributed to Algerians and to colonized people in general is a product of the colonial systemmore precisely of the inequality in the relations between colonizers and colonized (Bourdieu et al. 2003:18, note 20). Bourdieu thus accepts Mannonis understanding of the colonized acting as dependents on the colonizer. Indeed, such dependency is built into colonialisms structure: [T] he colonial system can function properly if the dominated society is willing to assume the very negative nature or essence (the Arab cannot be educated, is improvident, etc.) that the dominating society holds up for it as its destiny (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:134). But Bourdieu adds to Mannoni the idea that the same structure of colonialism also produces hostility. The colonial structure invited the colonized to emulate and desire the colonizer but made it actually impossible to imitate or equal the European. Thus, while Algerians acted subserviently, their answer to the Europeans protective paternalism was to assume an attitude of dependency tinged with aggressiveness (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:161). Bourdieus own fieldwork experiences likely served as a source for his ideas. In his section on methodology in Travail et travalleurs en Algrie (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:257-68), Bourdieu writes of the difficulties of doing ethnographic work in a colonial situation exactly because colonialism is a relationship of domination and so interview subjects viewed French interviewers differently than Algerian interviewers (pp. 159-62, 258). Yet Bourdieus theory of colonial interactionism was not just about apprehending microlevel interactions. It also conceptualized macro-colonial dynamics. First, the hostility felt on the part of the colonized due to the colonial structure ultimately generates revolution. After noting how the colonized are forced to act subserviently, however tinged with aggressiveness, Bourdieu claims that the colonial situation thus creates the contemptible person at the same time that it creates the contemptuous attitude; but it creates in turn a spirit of revolt against this contempt, and so the tension that is tearing the whole society to pieces keeps on increasing (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:134). Incidents of interpersonal hostility are merely portents of something bigger to come. Additionally, the relationship of domination and the aggressiveness in response means that there is no hope of reconciliation. Because all of these actions are set in the context of the colonial system, relations between persons always appear against the background of the hostility which separates groups and constantly threatens to resurface to corrupt the meaning and the very existence of
Go
59
communication (Bourdieu et al. 1963:264; Bourdieu et al. 2003:16). Even the most wellmeaning of intentions by the colonizer to reform colonialism or engage in so-called civilizing missions are hopeless. For, given the colonial structure, those acts will invariably fail. Any benevolent or generous acts are interpreted by the members of the dominated society . . . in the light of the relationship of domination which exists between the two societies (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:148). Obviously this poses a dilemma for anti-colonial Europeans whose goodwill is bound to have negative effects given the reality of the power relations of colonialism (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:149, note 4). Here Bourdieus sociology of colonialism again spoke back to French colonial reformers and proponents of developmental colonialism like Tillion. As these reformers failed to apprehend the determinate structure of colonialism and its deep impact on social interactions and communication, they failed to see the futility of even their most well-intentioned efforts.
Identity and Colonial Cultures

Another area of colonial studies to which Bourdieu contributed was identity and colonial culture. Bourdieus thinking on identity and colonial culture was partly a critique of traditional modernization and acculturation theories that had been dominant in anthropology since the 1930s (Robbins 2005:16-20). Bourdieu charges these theories with overlooking the colonial situation in which culture operated (Bourdieu 1959:61). Specifically, he criticizes existing studies for failing to see the colonial situation as a social wholeone that includes economic relations as well as cultural relations. Bourdieu attacks the modernization and acculturation approach for autonomizing certain levels of social reality, turning everything into a matter of culture, and overlooking economic transformations during colonialism (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:30). In The Algerians, Bourdieu tracks those socioeconomic transformations, showing how colonial policies regarding land and labor created a complete and radical disruption of the whole culture (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:119), amounting to a systematically induced disintegration (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:129). These transformations during colonialism have not just economic but also cultural effects, serving to restructure entirely the system of social relations and dispositions of the colonized (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:30). Uprooted from the land and thus their traditional existence, the colonial peasantry is faced with entering the new system of alienating capitalist social relations. Therefore, an impersonal relationship between capital and labor threatens to replace traditional agriculture, but not completely. In other words, the colonial economy means that two worlds exist side by side: an impersonal and abstract system of monetary value and the former values of prestige and honor (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:144). In Le Choc des civilisations, Bourdieu refers to this as a duality of social regulations brought on by the introduction of the colonizers culture (Bourdieu 1959:59). In his later work with Sayad, Bourdieu continues this theme with the concept cultural sabir. The sabir is caught between two worlds: two mutually alienating universes (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:164). Bourdieus own fieldwork experiences likely exposed him to the idea of such hybridity. I was often helped in my fieldwork, he recollects, . . . by such characters . . . who [occupied an] ambiguous location between two social conditions and two social conditions (Bourdieu 2008b:56-7). His interactions with local intellectuals like Mammeri must have also been productive: Mammeris (1955) famous second novel, Le Sommeil du Juste, narrates the story of a sabir-like character who is trapped between traditional Algerian society and a new postcolonial modernity. And his collaborator and friend Feraoun was writing around the same time about the anxieties associated with being a cultural hybrid trapped between cultures (Le Sueur 2001:28-9).
60
Bourdieu likewise argues that colonialism violently creates new conflicted identities and hybrid cultures: The colonized peasantry are forced to move between their traditional set of dispositions, rooted in subsistence agriculture, and the new relations of impersonal and abstract value. With this he offers a novel approach to thinking about culture in colonialism an approach that fuels his critique of existing anthropological studies of modernization and acculturation. As the very logic of the colonialism, Bourdieu writes with Sayad (1964:161), has produced a new type of man and woman, it follows that the anthropologists simplistic theories of culture and acculturation do not suffice. Culture is fractured and incomplete. The colonized do not become modernized or acculturated but are condemned . . . to the interferences and incoherences that make a cultural sabir (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:168). Bourdieus model of colonial cultures here facilitates his critique of the lefts romanticized views of the revolutionary peasantrynot least the views held by Fanon and Sartre (see also Lane 2000:18-9; Le Sueur 2001:252-54). If the result of colonial intrusion is not a fully assimilated or acculturated colonized identity as modernization theorists would have it, neither is it a forward-looking modern revolutionary consciousness as Fanon insisted. Instead, the structure of colonialism and its associated economic transformations creates split identities that induce confusion and anguish for those experiencing it: The man between two worlds . . . is exposed to the conflicts created by the weakening of the traditional systems of sanctions and by the development of a double set of moral standards. . . . [T]his man, cast between two worlds and rejected by both, lives a sort of double inner life, is a prey to frustration and inner conflict, with the result that he is constantly being tempted to adopt either an attitude of uneasy overidentification or one of rebellious negativism. (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:144) While revolution may be a necessary outcome of colonialism, the sort of revolutionary consciousness presumed by Fanon or Sartre to be present among the colonized (i.e., advanced socialist consciousness) is not. Bourdieus analysis of colonial cultures also sustained his critique of anthropologys modernization/acculturation theory (see also Goodman 2009; Robbins 2005). Whereas acculturation studies posited a simple and almost happy transition from one stage of culture to another, Bourdieus model captures the ruptures, ambivalence, and tension wrought by cultural transformations induced by colonial capitalism.4 His analysis thus offers an important sociological corrective to modernization/acculturation theory, showing both a complexity to cultures and how colonialism creates the economic and social conditions of their formation and expression, as Bourdieu ([1963] 1979:30-1) puts it in Algeria 1960. In this way, Bourdieu again extends Balandiers seminal approach to the colonial situation, articulating it with the focus on identity and culture. Bourdieu, finally, articulated a processual model of colonial cultures, thereby surmounting both the acculturation models on offer from anthropology and the analyses of the colonial situation by Balandier. Mainstream acculturation studies theorized cultural processes as stages of conflict, adjustment, syncretism, and then assimilation (Balandier [1951] 1966:51; Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits 1936). Bourdieus model, in contrast, theorized a new subjectivity among the colonized. Though Bourdieu was critical of Fanons romanticization of the postcolonial revolutionary peasantry, he nonetheless theorized how colonial culture helped create the conditions for new cultural work during anticolonial revolution. The peasant, uprooted from the land and living between two worlds, undergoes an awakening. Under colonialism, everything that the peasant had taken for granted as part of his tradition is cast into new light. This man between two worlds is constantly
Go
61
being faced with alternative ways of behavior by reason of the intrusion of new values, and therefore compelled to make a conscious examination of the implicit premises or unconscious patterns of his own tradition (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:144). Bourdieu differentiates between the traditionalism of the traditional society (aka, traditional traditionalism) and colonial traditionalism. The former refers to the taken-for-granted routines, symbols, and meaningsthe traditionsof the people that are considered normal and natural (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:156). The latter, brought on by colonialisms systematically imposed upheaval, forces the colonized to reflect on those traditions and face new options. With colonial rule comes the awareness and knowledge of other possibilities, the discovery of the existence of another tradition leads to a new understanding of ones own tradition as being only one among several, or in other words, as being just as conventional and arbitrary as all the others (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:156). In The Revolution within the Revolution, Bourdieu ([1958] 1961) discusses how the Algerian revolution manifested this consciousness as well as deployed it. The old symbols and practices, previously unrecognized as tradition, are not only discovered, they are also, by the same token, made available for novel meanings and functions. Previously taken for granted and hence hidden, they can be redeployed and reworked. Examples include the veil and the checia, examples likely taken from Fanons discussion of the veil (Haddour 2010). Both the veil and the chechia had been in the traditional context mere vestimentary details endowed with an almost forgotten significance, simple elements of an unconsciously devised system of symbols. In the colonial situation, however, they take on the function of signs that are being consciously utilized to express resistance to the foreign order and to foreign values as well as to pledge fidelity to their own system of values (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:156). Furthermore, the revolution also enables the colonized to adopt the colonizers symbols with a new agency. Now aware of their own difference, conscious of their own culture in a way they had not been before, every Algerian may henceforth assume full responsibility for his own actions and for the widespread borrowings he has made from Western civilization; he can even deny a portion of his cultural heritage without denying himself in the process (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:157). The colonized can now adopt the techniques and institutions introduced by the colonizer without accepting the position of the colonized (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:162). In the event, double-consciousness or the split identity, previously condemning the man between two worlds to perpetual anguish, can become a tool if not a source of national liberation.5
MaKiNg BouRdieu
We can now see that Bourdieu did not only write about Algeria, he also theorized colonialism as a system, explicated its effects, and analyzed colonial cultures and identities. But how does this early body of thought relate to Bourdieus later corpus? Scholars have begun to detect how Bourdieus early field experience in Algeria shaped his later work (Calhoun 2006; Goodman and Silverstein 2009; Heilbron 2011:184-89; Reed-Danahay 2004; B. Robbins 2005:16-20; Wacquant 2004; Yacine 2008a, 2008b), but what about his writings on colonialism in particular? I suggest here that Bourdieus early thinking on colonialism (and not just his ethnographic experience in Algeria in itself) served as a generative site for his concept habitus, his relational sociology (as most clearly discerned in his concept field), and his reflexive sociology.
Habitus and the Pasyan Empaysann

Habitus, the durable, transposable dispositions or structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, is perhaps one of Bourdieus most known if not controversial
62
concepts (Bourdieu 1990a:53). He first uses the term habitus in 1962 with his work on peasants in Barn, France (Hammoudi 2009:209).6 But there are clear signs that the initial development occurred even before 1962, that is, from his work on the effects of French colonialism in the late 1950s (Sapiro 2004:59-60). This makes sense. Hammoudi (2009) observes that Bourdieus idea of habitus can be seen as an extension of colonial ethnographys notion of tradition (Hammoudi 2009:200-01). As Bourdieus early writings on culture and colonialism were mounted upon colonial ethnography and its concepts like tradition (even if it was critical of colonial ethnography), it should not be surprising that traces of the habitus concept can be seen in his early work on colonialism (see also Heilbron 2011:193-94; Sapiro 2004). In Choc des les civilizations, for instance, Bourdieu (1959) intimates the idea in his critique of conventional anthropological approaches to acculturation, arguing that culture is a multifaceted complex that begins at birth with every member of the community and that is inhabited by an intention (or if we prefer a choice) deposited like a sediment, a preconscious [pr-consciente] intention, lived and acted before being thought, much like language (Bourdieu 1959:68). This brief allusion, written as part of a critique of anthropologys elision of the colonial situation in its studies of culture, strongly anticipates his idea of habitus as a sediment from the past that functions to make practical choices that are non-conscious (Bourdieu 1990a:61).7 Furthermore, in referring to the preconscious intention as being like a language, it prefigures his later insistence on habitus as a system and structured structure (Bourdieu 1990a:53). In the wake of Saussure in the French academy at the time, everyone knew that language was a system.8 In other parts of Bourdieus early work we also see the habitus idea in its incipient form. His idea of colonialism as constituting hybrid cultures and identities entails a nascent habitus concept precisely: The traditional peasant faces a modern wage economy but cannot easily cast off his or her prior socialization in the field of so-called traditional traditionalism. In other words, the peasant cannot easily cast off his or her habitus, or what Bourdieu (1958:144) refers to as the implicit premises or unconscious patterns of his own tradition. Hence the idea of the paysan empaysann, the empeasanted peasant, who is, as ReedDanahay (2004:98) explains, locked or enclosed within ones peasant-ness. Bourdieu uses this concept to explain the peasant in Barn who cannot adapt to urban life; he uses the same idea to similarly explain the Algerian peasantry dislocated by colonialism (ReedDanahay 2009:135-36). In fact, this idea of the paysan empaysann, expressing a nascent habitus concept, was vital for Bourdieus thinking on colonial and postcolonial Algeria. With Sayad (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964, 2004), Bourdieu suggests that it is exactly because the weight of tradition namely, the structuring power of the habitusthat Fanons vision of the Algerian peasant revolution was fatally romantic. For even though colonialism ends, the uprooted peasants sedimented pastincluding their manners of behaving and thinkingpersists into the postcolonial present, preventing Algerian peasants from easily and fully adopting the modern worldview that Bourdieu assumes to be necessary for a revolutionary consciousness. In fact we know, they write (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:170), that different levels of social reality do not necessarily transform themselves at the same rate and that manners of behaving and thinking outlive a change in the conditions of existence. The peasant cannot be liberated from the colonist without being liberated from the contradictions that colonization has nurtured in him.9 In Bourdieus early work, then, the habitus becomes a concept to refer to the mediation between the colonial past and the postcolonial future, troubling the latters promise. Only through a comprehensive and total program aimed at resocialization can a proper change occur in the wake of national independence. That is, a comprehensive
Go
63
and total educative action that adapts to the aptitudes and expectations of those whom it seeks to elevate and transformnamely, only through a restructuring of the habituscan the promise of postcolonial liberation be realized (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:176-77).10 In short, the habitus concept pervades Bourdieus early arguments about colonialism, culture, and postcolonial possibilities in regards to Algeria. But Bourdieu had not yet named the habitus as such (Colonna 2009:67). It is only with Le Dracinement published in 1964 that he first uses the actual term in reference to French colonial Algeria (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964). In that work, he and Sayad summon the notion of a habitus corporel, or habitus of the body, to discuss the impact of the French colonial armys relocation policies on the displaced peasantry. The peasant, uprooted from his land, is unable to effectively navigate the displacements imposed by the French colonial army due to his habitus corporel, which is tailored to the space of his customary movements (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:152; also in Hammoudi 2009:209-10; Heilbron 2011:193). As Hammoudi (2009:210) notes, this use of the term is seminal in Bourdieus work. It is the first place in Bourdieus writing where one sees concrete activities, the implicit meaning (sens) of norms, and habitusconsidered as the tradition of a person tailored to his environment by the prolonged exercise of the bodylinked in this way. Bourdieu himself later acknowledged something of how his early thinking on colonialism, culture, and its effects influenced the development of the habitus concept. In 1979 he wrote a preface to the English translation of his work Algeria 1960, originally published in 1963 and which contained some parts of his Travail et travaillurs en Algrie (Bourdieu [1963] 1979). In the original work, Bourdieu had critiqued modernization theory and acculturation theories for overlooking colonialism and for failing to investigate the totality of cultural interaction, not least the economic dimensions. There he wrote of temporal dispositions, intimating his idea of habitus. But he did not name it. Only in his 1979 preface does he retrospectively name it while speaking of how seminal his earlier analysis of culture clash and colonialism was for its birth. It was not by chance, he wrote, that the relationship between structures and habitus was constituted as a theoretical problem in relation to a historical situation [i.e., colonial Algeria] in which that problem was in a sense presented by reality itself, in the form of a permanent discrepancy between the agents economic dispositions and the economic world in which they had to act (p. vii). Put differently, it was the reality of colonialism itself that presented the opportunity to think about the habitus. It may be that when he first uses the term in 1962 in his work on the peasantry in Barn it is because he had already thought about it in reference to Algerian peasantsand implicitly if not explicitly Bourdieu equated the two peasant classes (Reed-Danahay 2004).
Colonialism as a Field
Besides habitus, relational sociology has also been a hallmark of Bourdieus work. His critique of substantialism and his insistence upon the relational constitution of social entities and actions undergirds his theoretical apparatus (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:15-29). Its presence is strongly seen in his concept fieldnamely, the autonomous multidimensional space of relations, distribution of positions, or objective relations between positions that serves as an arena of struggle over various species of capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:97). Bourdieus field concept has an intellectual genealogy that goes back to original field theorists like Lewis and a range of other thinkers such as Bachelard, Cassirer, and Saussure (Schinkel and Tacq 2004; Vandenberghe 1999). And though Bourdieus theory of the field was only developed much later (with his work in the 1980s
64
on art, religion, and the French intellectual world), his writings on colonialism bear some of its seeds.11 For instance, in drawing from Balandier to theorize colonialism as a system with its own logic, Bourdieu isolates colonialism as an autonomous arena of its own. As seen, the colonial situation cannot be reduced to other logics or dynamics. This makes it exactly like a field, for fields are specific and irreducible to each other (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:97). Likewise, the colonial situation is marked by the positions of colonizer and colonized; hence Bourdieus idea of colonialism as a sort of caste system composed of two distinct, juxtaposed communities (Bourdieu 1958:132). This notion too applies to Bourdieus later conceptualization of fields. All fields, Bourdieu would later insist, have dominant and subordinate positions (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:97; Swartz 1997:123). Throughout his discussion of colonialism, in fact, Bourdieu implicitly theorized colonialism as a field and deployed relational thinking to apprehend it. First, the colonial system or the colonial situation is like a field in that it shapes actors and their actions. What determines the colonizeds practices and actionsfrom their manner to their revolutionary actionis not some essential feature within them, like their race or ethnicity, but their place in the field of colonial subordination and domination. The colonized act and react in relation to the colonizers and vice versa; they do not act out of internal substances or essences but only in relation to each other. Bourdieu thus argues that the stereotypes of Algerians and other colonized peoples as overtly sensitive does not refer to an intrinsic characteristic but rather a relational position of subordination. Furthermore, it is the relationship of colonialism that creates the contemptible person [the colonized Arab] at the same time that it creates the contemptuous attitude [the colonizing French] (Bourdieu [1958] 1961:134). Kurt Lewin, one of the originators of the field idea, insisted on the field principle that [i] nstead of abstracting one or another isolated element from a situation, the meaning of which cannot be understood without reference to the total situation, the theory of the field starts with a characterization of the whole situation (Vandenberghe 1999:51-2). Similarly, Bourdieus appropriation of Balandier requires that the colonial situationdefined by the relationship of dominationbe taken into account if the analyst is to understand anything from the colonizeds aggressiveness or the colonizers racism to the failure of French reforms and colonial aid. The colonial situation is like a field, secondly, in the sense that it is replete with struggle and conflict. Bourdieu insists that an emphasis on struggle and conflict is what differentiates his field approach from other theoretical concepts or approaches, such as Luhmanns systems (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:102). This same emphasis on struggle and conflict is also a part of Bourdieus theory of the colonial situation. As seen, the relationship between colonizer and colonized is always tinged with aggressiveness. And colonialisms violence is eventually met, in kind, with anticolonial resistance and ultimately revolution. This emphasis on conflict underpins Bourdieus critique of French colonial reformers like Tillion. As conflict is built into the very constitution of colonialism, no amount of reform or aid under the aegis of colonial rule will temper much less eradicate French-Algerian tension. Bourdieus theorization of colonialism as a field thereby permits an analysis of colonialisms logic as well as its limits.
Reflexivity and Colonial Ethnography

Reflexivity is paramount for Bourdieu, underlying his views on how sociology itself should be conducted (Bourdieu 1990b:177-98; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:36, 68, 198-200). But from where does it come? While some trace its intellectual genealogy, others see it as
Go
65
arising from his experiences moving from rural France to Paris (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:44-5). Most agree that it also emerges from Bourdieus fieldwork in Algeria (ReedDanahay 2005; D. Robbins 2003; Swartz 1997:272). But exactly what about Algeria? Heilbron (2011:189) suggests that Bourdieus thinking on reflexivity emerged from the collaborative character of his fieldwork in Algeria. Yacine (2008a:52) and Bourdieu (2008a:353-55, 2008b:50) himself add that the tribulations of fieldwork in a war-torn country also raised questions of reflexivity. Yet the other genealogical thread to pursue is Bourdieus theory of colonialism in particular, not just his fieldwork in Algeria in and of itself. That is, Bourdieus reflexivity can be seen as emerging from his critique of colonialism and its associated relations of power. In the colonial context, where power and knowledge were inextricably intertwined in blatant ways, reflexivity was a palpable and immediate issue. Questions about reflexivity and colonial ethnography had already been raised by Bourdieus predecessors like Leiris whom Bourdieu often cited and who had already dismantled the idea of a purely objective anthropology. Leiris castigated French anthropology for being too closely tied to the colonial apparatus and for likewise taking native cultures to be static and pristine. He thus intimated that the apparatus of knowledgein this case the colonial state, ethnographers, and hence French colonial knowledgewas shot through with interests and biases. Given that anthropologists were tied to the colonial state apparatus, pure science is a myth (la science pure est un mythe), and ethnography unwittingly constituted the very object of its study (Leiris 1950:85; Price 2004). Balandier, studying under Leiris, argued similar points, charging anthropologists for not taking seriously the fact that they were operating within the structure of a colonial society (Balandier [1951] 1966:56) and insisting that ethnographic knowledge did not reflect technical expertise but rather emerged from multiple, complex interactions between the observed and the observer (Balandier 1957:19; Price 2004:28). Bourdieus reflexive sociology is mounted on if not directly inspired by these very same critiques. A starting point of Bourdieus epistemic reflexivity is that sociological knowledge must be aware of the sociological conditions of its existence and render visible the unthought categories of thought which delimit the thinkable and predetermine the thought (Bourdieu 1990b:178). In his own later work, this participant objectivation entailed sociological analyses of intellectual fields (Bourdieu 1988; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:72; Swartz 1997:272-73), but we might already see that his earlier involvement with French colonial ethnography and his writings on colonialism served as initial impetuses. Bourdieu clearly recognized how colonial ethnography had long been involved in supplying the colonial power with the means to establish and maintain itself ([1963] 1979:264). Not only does he refer to Balandiers work on colonialism, he begins his foreword to Travail et travailleurs en Algrie by quoting Leiriss statement that for ethnography even more than for other disciplines, it is already clear that pure science is a myth because working in colonized countries ethnographers . . . have less justification than anyone for washing our hands of the policies pursued by the state which assigns our tasks. There is an indelible culpability to ethnography in colonial settings (Bourdieu et al. 1963:257; see also Bourdieu et al. 2003:13). This critical approach to knowledge was consonant with his theory of colonialism. Bourdieus own theory of colonialism implies this indelible culpability of ethnographers (Bourdieu et al. 1963:257). As noted, Bourdieu argues that the colonial situation structures actions and meanings, from micro-level interactions between colonizer and colonized to acts of ostensible charity on the part of the colonizer. It followed for Bourdieu that the practice of ethnographyitself an interactionwas also structured and indeed corrupted as such. The colonial system, Bourdieu says in his foreword after referring to Leiris, is a Social form within which the ethnologist works. It is a:
66
. . . form from which he benefits even in his profession as ethnologist, since, like any other interpersonal relationship, the relation between observer and observed develops against the background of the relationship of domination which has been objectively established between the colonizing society and the colonized society. (P. 258) The solution Bourdieu offered is not unlike his later solution for sociology. Bourdieu does not argue that knowledge is impossible; nor does he argue that analysts should retreat into a narcissistic introspection (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:72). Rather, knowledge of colonized societies and colonized peoples must always take into account the existential situation of the colonized as it is determined by the action of economic and social forces characteristic of the colonial system (p. 258). In other words, knowledge of the object necessitates a relational perspective on the object. It also implies that knowledge must lay bare the sociological conditions that produce unthought categories of thought which delimit the thinkable and predetermine the thought (Bourdieu 1990b:178). Bourdieu thus frames his ethnography of Algerian workers by highlighting the ethnographers historicocultural embeddedness in the colonial regime, the fact that their research was made possible by official sanction from French funding sources, and the relationship between the ethnographers from France and local collaborators (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:257-64). In short, Bourdieus early thinking on reflexivity was not just about the travails of working in a foreign countryor even just a country at war. It was inextricably tied to the problem of working in a colonial society for a colonial state. It was about colonialism in Algerianot just Algeria. It emerged from Bourdieus critique of colonialism and the critiques of colonial ethnography that prefigured it. Bourdieu himself was prescient of his own future direction whenin his introduction to Travail et travailleurs en Algrieafter quoting Leiris on colonial anthropology, he asks rhetorically: [I]s this original complicity [of anthropology in colonialism] different in nature from that which binds the sociologist studying his own society to his own class? (Bourdieu [1963] 1979:258). It is thus fitting that in 1975, one of Bourdieus earliest lectures dealing with the sociology of sociologists was given at a colloquium on Ethnology and Politics in the Maghreb. It is here where Bourdieu articulates the problematic aspects of the autonomy of the intellectual field and the relationship of social science to the state, yet to work out these issues Bourdieu refers not to sociology in Paris or metropolitan France but colonial sociology, that is, the social science of colonized and decolonized countries and colonial ethnographythe very sort of state-sponsored colonial ethnography he had been conducting and that Leiris and Balandier before him had critiqued (Bourdieu 2008a:343).
CoNcLusioN: BouRdieu aNd PostcoLoNiaL SocioLogY

Bourdieu rose to prominence in the English-speaking intellectual world during the 1980s and early 1990s (Sallaz and Zavisca 2007). Yet, this was exactly the moment when colonial studies and postcolonial studies in the United States also grew (Cooper 2005; Ghandi 1998). And as colonial studies and postcolonial theory spread, sociology faced new criticisms. Scholars working in or inspired by postcolonial studies targeted sociology for occluding the history of imperialism and colonialism, reproducing imperial epistemic structures and Eurocentrism, and failing to provide a critique of Western colonialism and racial domination (Alatas 2006a; Amin 1989; Chua 2008; Connell 1997; Go 2012; Kempel and Mawani 2009; Magubane 2005; Seidman 1996; Seth 2009).12 As noted already, Bourdieus work has been part of the sociological corpus suffering from the postcolonial critique. But this article has argued that Bourdieus work should not
Go
67
be cast in this light. Wacquant (1993:238) laments the partial and fractured understandings of Bourdieus work. While this surely applies to how scholars have received Bourdieus thinking on change and determinism (Steinmetz 2011; Swartz 1997:113-15), it also applies to Bourdieus early work on colonialism, racial domination, and cross-cultural interaction. Bourdieus later work indeed eschewed these issues, opting instead to abstract Algerian society from its history of colonialism in order to theorize habitus, field, symbolic capital, and other matters for which Bourdieu would become renowned. But his early work based in colonial Algeria put colonialism front and center. Bourdieu drew on and extended colonial studies, theorizing colonial domination, coercion, racial privilege, and culture as part of an overarching colonial system. Along the way he found an early field for some of his later renowned thinking on habitus, field, and reflexivity. By focusing on Bourdieus thinking on colonialism, this article thereby adds to the important new scholarship that has already uncovered various aspects of Bourdieus early work in Algeria. In so doing, it hopes to recover important aspects of Bourdieus thought that scholars might currently use. As sociologists (Go 2009) and other social scientists (Pitts 2010) engage in new research and theory on colonialism, Bourdieus work might be productively included in the list of theorists offering insight. But more than just joining the list of social scientists illuminating colonialism, Bourdieus early work should also be seen as part of rather than a target of a new project advancing a postcolonial and global sociology that reaches beyond Eurocentric sociological knowledge (Bhambra 2007; Go 2012; Kempel and Mawani 2009; Magubane 2005). This is true in at least two senses. First, Bourdieus early work prefigures some of the later developments in colonial studies and postcolonial theory (even though postcolonial theory inspires critiques of Bourdieu). His theory of the colonial system as founded on privilege and coercion prefigures Ranajit Guhas (1997) theory of the colonial state as based on dominance without hegemony. Furthermore, as Ghandi (1998:23-30) suggests, one goal of postcolonial theory has been to wrestle analyses of colonialism away from crude Marxist economic reductionism and toward more nuanced understandings of race and power. Bourdieus approach to colonialism, which treats race rather than socioeconomic class as determinant, made this turn back in the 1950s. Finally, Bourdieus notion of the cultural sabir predates postcolonial theories of hybridity and mimicry as articulated by Bhabha (1994). The sabir constantly refers to two different and even opposing logics, locked in a double-sidedness expressed . . . in all realms of existence (Bourdieu and Sayad 1964:164). Just as Bhabha writes of how the colonized are condemned to be not white, not quite, trapped betwixt and between, so do Bourdieu and Sayad (1964:161) speak of the sabir as the new type of men and women who are defined negatively, by what they no longer are and by what they are not yet.13 Their analysis adds a more sociological frame than these postcolonial renderings of identity. While Bhabhas theory of hybridity implies sociological conditions of existence but does not theorize those conditions explicitly (McLennan 2003), Bourdieu grounds hybridity in socioeconomic and political processes wrought by colonialism. No longer a free-floating play of signifiers, hybridity is socially grounded. The other sense in which Bourdieus early work contributes to postcolonial sociology is that it aligns with southern as opposed to northern theory (Connell 2007). This may sound contradictory: Was not Bourdieu a French white colonizing male? But the content of theory withstands the criteria. While northern theory operates from the standpoint of the metropoleabstracting local social relations and experiences into generalizable concepts that are only relevant for and to metropolitan interestssouthern theory speaks to the concerns and experiences of the dominated. Connell (2007:224), for instance, calls for theorizations of dispossession and loss as examples of Southern theory because dispossession and
68
loss are some of the key experiences of colonized and postcolonial peoples. Connell accordingly suggests that we draw from non-European non-American thinkers who have studied these matters. Connell (2007:165-91) also suggests that southern theories should attend to the power, violence and pain of colonialism. But if these are examples of southern theory, Bourdieus early work is not far off. As seen, Bourdieus early work confronted, theorized, and critiqued colonialism directlytheorizing colonialism as a racialized system of oppression based on violence. And it analyzed the cultural shifts and associated pains of colonial identity that followed from colonial intrusion. As such, it can rightfully be seen as a type of southern theory.14 All of this suggests an important point for advancing a postcolonial sociology. Some scholars have tried to advance postcolonial sociology by searching for alternatives to Eurocentric sociology in other countries. In this approach, because conventional sociological theorists in Europe or North America reproduce metropolitan concerns, we should find theorists and theories in colonized societies or the global south more generally. This indigenous sociology approach, as Alatas (2006a) and Sitas (2006:364-66) call it, fruitfully summons the nascent sociologies of underrepresented thinkers and traditions, like Rabindranath Tagore in India, Abd al-Rahmn Ibn Khaldn in the Middle East, or the African oral tradition (Akikowo 1986; Alatas 2006b; Patel 2010). Connell (2007) suggests we can turn to more recent scholars and traditions like Ranajit Guha and the subaltern studies school or Jalal Al-e Ahmad. Yet the excavation of Bourdieus early work on colonialism suggests that mining the global south for theories that speak to the needs and problems of Third World societies, as Alatas (2006a:22) puts it, is not the only way to go. Surely this approach is vital. But our analysis suggests that Bourdieus theory of colonialism is one that sits comfortably with southern theory, even as our conventional lenses have occluded that theory from our canon. It therefore suggests that advancing a postcolonial sociology would certainly involve searching for alternatives abroad but that it might also search within, that is, within its own putatively traditional theorists while questioning the criteria by which we might hastily classify Western versus indigenous or northern versus southern theory in the first place. For our excavation reveals that at stake in postcolonial theory should not be the racial, ethnic, or national position of the theorist. At stake should be the theory. In other words, at stake are not essentialized identities but standpoints (e.g., Harding 2005). Bourdieus theory of colonialism did not emerge from a Parisian office but from an analysis within Algeria of colonialism on the ground. And it addressed colonialism and its violence directly. Given this, can we unproblematically classify it as abstract, decontextualized, and Western rather than local, concrete, or even perhaps indigenous to the colonial context of Algeria? This is important because, as suggested in our analysis of Bourdieus work, even some of those theorists hastily classified as northern have been much more influenced by the colonial experience than our conventional stories suggest (Go forthcoming; Steinmetz 2009). Yet we continue to occlude those experiences from our histories and frames of understanding. A Bourdiesian sociology of sociologistsas well as a proper postcolonial sociologywould require that we recover those experiences, namely, those histories of colonialism and imperialism to which sociology has been tied and which in many instances served as its precondition (Connell 1997). Bourdieu, in his analysis of colonial science and sociology of sociologists, himself suggests this, saying the past of social science is still part of the main obstacles of social science, and particularly in our case. Durkheim said . . . the unconscious is the forgetting of history. I think the unconscious of a discipline, is its history, the unconscious, are the social conditions of production obscured and forgotten:
Go
69
the product separated from its social conditions of production (Bourdieu 2008a:344-45). By recovering Bourdieus early work in Algeria, new research has tried to reconnect some of the lost connections between the product and its social conditions (Goodman and Silverstein 2009; Heilbron 2011; Reed-Danahay 2005; Seibel 2004; Wacquant 2004; Yacine 2003a, 2003b, 2005). This article, by recovering Bourdieus early work on colonialism in Algeria more specifically, attempts to reconnect them also, illuminating not only what Bourdieu made analytically of colonialism but also in what ways colonialism made Bourdieu.
Notes
1. Goodman and Silverstein (2009) offer the best recent collection. 2. Yacine (2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005, 2008a) proves the rule, showing some of the ways in which Bourdieu was influenced by colonial studies at the time (see also D. Robbins 2003) while also giving some insights on Bourdieus thinking on colonialism, however not systematically. I build on those insights while more fully uncovering Bourdieus theory of colonialism and associated issues. 3. According to Le Sueur (2001:238), this was one of the most influential theoretical contributions to the question of identity vis--vis colonialism and decolonization. 4. Bourdieus analysis was more akin to some aspects of Redfield, Linton, and Herksovitss (1936) acculturation model, but that model only briefly alluded to conflict (e.g., the psychic conflict inflicted by culture clash). 5. However, after liberation, the peasant still has to face the realities of the two worlds. The hybrid culture persists and this prevents a fully modern socialist consciousness from being fully realized (Bourdieu and Sayad 2004:466-78); hence Bourdieus critique of Fanon. 6. The concept there was not a fully developed theoretical concept; it referred mainly to a bodily habitus. More conceptual development would only come later. In 1967 he develops habitus as a sort of repository for creativity; in the 1970s he fully exposes it for its theoretical complexity (Bourdieu 1977; Hammoudi 2009:211; Reed-Danahay 2004:96-7). 7. As an intellectual notion, the idea of intention or choices here likely refers to Merleau-Pontys example of the game and practical intentions. See Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992:20-2) and Crossley (2001). 8. Lacan (1977:111-36) later theorized the unconscious as like a language and language as a system in the Saussurean sense. 9. This notion in turn anticipates Bourdieus idea of the hysteresis effect, which Bourdieu later used to discuss habitus and its long-lasting structuring effects (Bourdieu 1977:78). The hysteresis effect refers exactly to the disjuncture between habitus and field brought on by transformations in the original field or exposure to a new one. 10. As Hammoudi (2009:206-08) highlights, Bourdieu also traces three different Algerian responses to the intrusion of the colonial capitalist economy; each of these responses correlates with the class position of the Algerians. This clearly anticipates his approach to habitus in Distinction (1984; see Bourdieu et al. 1963). 11. The field concept in Bourdieus work is developed in The Logic of Practice but barely mentioned in Outline of a Theory of Practice (see Swartz 1997:118-19). Heilbron (2011:199) points out that it first appeared in his 1966 article on intellectual fields (Bourdieu 1966). 12. While some sectors of sociology, like Marxist-influenced dependency theory and world-systems theory, escaped these charges, others did not. 13. There are similarities also with W. E. B. Du Boiss double consciousness. 14. Connell (2007:166-72) points to the work of subaltern studies scholars like Ranajit Guha (1997), and as seen previously, Bourdieus theory of colonialism as a social form based on racial domination sits well with some of Guhas own thinking. And Connell (2006:257) suggests that Bourdieus early work on Algeria contained possibilities for a different structure of knowledge; I am arguing here that it did indeed and that his sociology of colonialism is one result.
70
RefeReNces
Ahluwalia, Pal. 2010. Out of Africa: Post-structuralisms Colonial Roots. New York: Routledge. Akiwowo, Akinsola. 1986. Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African Oral Poetry. International Sociology 1:343-58. Alatas, Syed Farid. 2006a. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism. London: Sage Publications. Alatas, Syed Farid. 2006b. A Khaldunian Exemplar for a Historical Sociology for the South. Current Sociology 54:397-411. Alessandrini, Anthony C. 2000. Humanism in Question: Fanon and Said. Pp. 431-50 in A Companion to Postcolonial Studies, edited by H. Schwarz and S. Ray. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Amin, Samir. 1989. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press. Balandier, Georges. 1957. LAfrique ambigu (Ambiguous Africa). Paris: Plon. Balandier, Georges. [1951] 1966. The Colonial Situation: A Theoretical Approach. Pp. 34-61 in Social Change: the Colonial Situation, edited by I. Wallerstein. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bamyeh, Mohammed A. 2010. On Humanizing Abstractions. Theory, Culture and Society 27:52-65. Bensa, Alban. 2004. Pierre Bourdieu et lanthropologie (Pierre Bourdieu and Anthropology). Pp. 249-80 in La libert par la connaissance: Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), edited by J. Bouveresse and D. Roche. Paris: Odile Jacob. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bhambra, Gurminder. 2007. Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave-MacMillan. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1958. Sociologie de lAlgrie (The Sociology of Algeria). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1959. Le choc des civilisations (The Clash of Civilizations). Pp. 52-64 in Le SousDveloppement en Algrie, edited by Secretariat social dAlger. Algiers: Secrtariat social. Bourdieu, Pierre. [1958] 1961. The Algerians. Boston: Beacon Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1966. Champ intellectuel et projet crateur (Intellectual Field and Creative Project). Les Temps Modernes 22:865-906. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. Les conditions sociales de la production sociologique: sociologie coloniale et dcolonisation de la sociologie (The Social Conditions of Sociological Production: Colonial Sociology and the Decolonization of Sociology). Pp. 416-27 in Le Mal de Voir. Paris: Union Gnrale dditions. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. [1963] 1979. Algeria 1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990a. The Logic of Practice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990b. In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Pour Abdelmalek Sayad (For Abdelmalek Sayad). Annuaire de lAfrique du Nord 37:9-12. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Entre amis (Friends). Awal 21:5-10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Foreword. Pp. ix-x in Uncivil war: Intellectuals and Identity Politics, edited by J. D. Le Sueur. Philadelphia: University of Pennslvania Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2003. Picturing Algeria. New York: Columbia University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2008a. Esquisses Algriennes (Algerian Sketches). Paris: ditions du Seuil. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2008b. Sketch for a Self-analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Derbel, Jean-Pierre Rivet, and Claude Seibel. 1963. Travail et travailleurs en Algrie (Work and Workers in Algeria). Paris: Mouton. Bourdieu, Pierre, Derek Robbins, and Rachel Gomme. 2003. Colonialism and Ethnography: Foreword to Pierre Bourdieus Travail et travailleurs en Algrie. Anthropology Today 19:12-8. Bourdieu, Pierre and Abdelmalek Sayad. 1964. Le Dracinement. La Crise de lAgriculture Traditionnelle en Algrie (The Uprooting: The Crisis of Traditional Agriculture in Algeria). Paris: Minuit.
Go
71
Bourdieu, Pierre and Abdelmalek Sayad. 2004. Colonial Rule and Cultural Sabir. Ethnography 5:445-86. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Calhoun, C. 2006. Pierre Bourdieu and Social Transformation: Lessons from Algeria. Development and Change 37:1403-15. Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michle Lamont, eds. 2011. Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Csaire, Aim. 1955. Discours sur le colonialisme (Discourse on Colonialism). Paris: Prsence Africaine. Chua, Peter. 2008. Orientalism as Cultural Practices and the Production of Sociological Knowledge. Sociology Compass 2:1179-91. Colonna, Fanny. 2009. The Phantom of Dispossesion: From The Uprooting to The Weight of the World. Pp. 63-93 in Bourdieu in Algeria, edited by J. Goodman and P. Silverstein. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Conklin, Alice 2002. The New Ethnology and La Situation Coloniale in Interwar France. French Politics, Culture and Society 20:29-46. Connell, R. W. 1997. Why Is Classical Theory Classical? American Journal of Sociology 102:1511-57. Connell, Raewyn. 2006. Northern Theory: The Political Geography of General Social Theory. Theory and Society 35:237-64. Connell, Raewyn. 2007. Southern Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Cooper, Frederick. 1997. Modernizing Bureaucrats, Backward Africans, and the Development Concept. Pp. 64-92 in International Development and the Social Sciences, edited by F. Cooper and R. Packard. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cooper, Frederick. 2002. Decolonizing Situations: The Rise, Fall and Rise of Colonial Studies, 1951-2001. French Politics, Culture and Society 20:47-76. Cooper, Frederick. 2005. Postcolonial Studies and the Study of History. Pp. 401-22 in Postcolonial Studies and beyond, edited by A. Loomba, S. Kaul, M. Bunzl, A. Burton, and J. Esty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Crossley, Nick. 2001. The Phenomenological Habitus and Its Construction. Theory and Society 30:81-120. Fanon, Frantz. [1959] 1965. A Dying Colonialism. New York: Grove Press. Fanon, Frantz. [1952] 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press. Fanon, Frantz. [1961] 1968. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Free, Anthony. 1996. The Anthropology of Pierre Bourdieu: A reconsideration. Critique of Anthropology 16:395-416. Ghandi, Leela. 1998. Postcolonial Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Go, Julian. 2009. The New Sociology of Empire and Colonialism. Sociology Compass 3:775-88. Go, Julian. 2012. For a Postcolonial Sociology. Theory and Society. Retrieved January 28, 2013 (http:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-012-9184-6?no-access=true#). Go, Julian. Forthcoming. Sociologys Imperial Unconscious: the Emergence of American Sociology in the Context of Empire. In Sociology and Empire, edited by G. Steinmetz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Goodman, Jane. 2009. The Proverbial Bourdieu: Habitus and the Politics of Representation in the Ethnography of Kabylia. Pp. 94-132 in Bourdieu in Algeria, edited by J. Goodman and P. Silverstein. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Goodman, Jane and Paul Silverstein, eds. 2009. Bourdieu in Algeria: Colonial Politics, Ethnographic Practices, Theoretical Developments. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Guha, Ranajit. 1997. Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haddour, Azzedine. 2010. Torture Unveiled: Rereading Fanon and Bourdieu in the Context of May 1958. Theory, Culture and Society 27:66-90. Hammoudi, Abdellah. 2009. Phenomenology and Ethnography: On Kabyle Habitus in the Work of Pierre Bourdieu. Pp. 199-254 in Bourdieu in Algeria: Colonial Politics, Ethnographic Practices, Theoretical Developments, edited by J. E. Goodman and P. A. Silverstein. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
72
Harding, Sandra. 2005. Negotiating with the Positivist Legacy: New Social Justice Movements and a Standpoint Politics of Method. Pp. 346-65 in The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences, edited by G. Steinmetz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Heilbron, Johan. 2011. Practical Foundations of Theorizing in Sociology: The Case of Pierre Bourdieu. Pp. 181-205 in Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by C. Camic, N. Gross, and M. Lamont. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herzfeld, Michael. 1987. Anthropology through the Looking Glass. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Honneth, Axel, Hermann Kocyba, and Bernd Schwibs. 1986. The Struggle for Symbolic Order: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Theory, Culture and Society 3:35-51. Kempel, Thomas and Renisa Mawani. 2009. The Sociological Imagination and Its Imperial Shadows. Theory, Culture, and Society 26:340-55. Lacan, Jacques. 1977. crits : A Selection. New York: Norton. Lane, Christopher. 2002. Psychoanalysis and Colonialism Redux: Why Mannonis Prospero Complex Still Haunts Us. Journal of Modern Literature 25:127-50. Lane, Jeremy F. 2000. Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press. Le Sueur, James D. 2001. Uncivil War: Intellectuals and Identity Politics during the Decolonization of Algeria. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Leiris, Michel. 1950. Lethnographe devant le colonialisme (The Ethnographer before Colonialism). Les Temps Modernes 58:83-112. Loyal, Steven. 2009. The French in Algeria, Algerians in France: Bourdieu, Colonialism and Migration. The Sociological Review 57:406-27. Magubane, Zine. 2005. Overlapping Territories and Intertwined Histories: Historical Sociologys Global Imagination. Pp. 92-108 in Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, Sociology, edited by J. Adams, E. S. Clemens, and A. S. Orloff. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mammeri, Mouloud. 1955. Le Sommeil du Juste (Sleep of the Just). Paris: Plon. Mannoni, Octave. [1950] 1964. Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization. New York: Frederick A. Preager. Marqus Perales, Ildefonso. 2009. La Fragua de un oficio: Consideraciones en torno a Socoilogie de lAlgerie de Pierre Bourdieu (The Forge of a Trade: Considerations on Pierre Bourdieus Sociology of Algeria). Revista Internacional de Sociologa 67:179-83. McLennan, Gregor. 2003. Sociology, Eurocentrism and Postcolonial Theory. European Journal of Social Theory 6:69-86. Memmi, Albert. [1957] 1965. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon Press. Paige, Arthur. 2010. Unfinished Projects: Decolonization and the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre. London: Verso. Patel, Sujata. 2010. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pitts, Jennifer. 2010. Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism. Annual Review of Political Science 13:211-35. Price, Sally. 2004. Michel Leiris, French Anthropology, and a Side Trip to the Antilles. French Politics, Culture and Society 22:23-35. Puwar, Nirmal. 2009. Sensing a Post-colonial Bourdieu: An Introduction. The Sociological Review 57:371-84. Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits. 1936. Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38:149-52. Reed-Danahay, Deborah. 2004. Tristes Paysans: Bourdieus Early Ethnography in Barn and Kabylia. Anthropological Quarterly 77:87-106. Reed-Danahay, Deborah. 2005. Locating Bourdieu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Reed-Danahay, Deborah. 2009. Bourdieus Ethnography in Barn and Kabylia. Pp. 132-64 in Bourdieu in Algeria: Colonial Politics, Ethnographic Practices, Theoretical Developments, edited by J. Goodman and P. A. Silverstein. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Robbins, Bruce. 2005. The Origins, Early Development and Status of Bourdieus Concept of Cultural Capital. British Journal of Sociology 56:13-30.
Go
73
Robbins, Derek. 2003. The Responsibility of the Ethnographer: An Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu on Colonialism and Ethnography. Anthropology Today 19:11-2. Saada, Emmanuelle. 2002. Regards Croiss: Transatlantic Pespectives on the Colonial Situation. French Politics, Culture and Society 20:1-3. Said, Edward. 1989. Representing the Colonized: Anthropologys Interloctors. Critical Inquiry 15:205-25. Sallaz, Jeffrey J. and Jane Zavisca. 2007. Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980-2004. Annual Review of Sociology 33:21-41. Sapiro, Gisle. 2004. Une Libert Contrainte. La Formation de la Thorie de lHabitus (Freedom Constrained: The Formation of the Theory of Habitus). Pp. 49-91 in Pierre Bourdieu, Sociologue, edited by P. Champagne, L. Pinto, and G. Sapiro. Paris: Fayard. Sayad, Abdelmalek. 2002. Histoire et Recherche Identitaire (History and Identity Research). Saint-Denis, France: Editions Bouchene. Schinkel, Willem and Jacques Tacq. 2004. The Saussurean Influence in Pierre Bourdieus Relational Sociology. International Sociology 19:51-70. Seibel, Claude. 2004. Les liens entre Pierre Bourdieu et les statisticiens partir de son exprience algrienne (Links between Pierre Bourdieu and Statisticians during His Algerian Experience). Pp. 105-19 in La Libert par la Connaissance: Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), edited by J. Bouveresse and D. Roche. Paris: Odile Jacob. Seidman, Steven. 1996. Empire and Knowledge: More Troubles, New Opportunities for Sociology. Contemporary Sociology 25:313-16. Seth, Sanjay. 2009. Historical Sociology and Postcolonial Theory: Two Strategies for Challenging Eurocentrism. International Political Sociology 3:334-38. Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal ofSociology 98(1):1-29. Sitas, Ari. 2006. The African Renassiance Challenge and Sociological Reclamations in the South. Current Sociology 54:357-80. Sorum, Paul Clay. 1977. Intellectuals and Decolonization in France. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Steinmetz, George. 2009. Neo-Bourdieusian Theory and the Question of Scientific Autonomy; German Sociologists and Empire, 1890s-1940s. Political Power and Social Theory 20:71-132. Steinmetz, George. 2011. Bourdieu, Historicity, and Historical Sociology. Cultural Sociology 5:45-66. Swartz, David. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swartz, David. 2013. Symbolic Power, Politics and Intellectuals: the Political Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tillion, Germaine. 1958. LAlgrie en 1957 (Algeria 1957). Paris: ditions de minuit. Vandenberghe, Frdric. 1999. The Real Is Relational: An Epistemological Analysis of Pierre Bourdieus Generative Structuralism. Sociological Theory 17:32-67. Wacquant, Loic. 1993. Bourdieu in America: Notes on the Transatlantic Importation of Social Theory. Pp. 235-62 in Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, edited by C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, and M. Postone. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wacquant, Loic. 2004. Following Pierre Bourdieu into the Field. Ethnography 5:387-414. Wilder, Gary. 2003. Colonial Ethnology and Political Rationality in French West Africa. History and Anthropology 14:219-52. Yacine, Tassadit, ed. 1990. Hommage Mouloud Mammeri (Homage to Mouloud Mammeri). Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de lHomme. Yacine, Tassadit. 2003a. LAlgrie, matrice dune oeuvre (Algeria: A Matrix of Work). Pp. 333-45 in Travailler avec Bourdieu, edited by P. Encrev and R. M. Lagrave. Paris: Flammarion. Yacine, Tassadit. 2003b. Du proletariat et de la paysannerie en Algrie. Pour une archologie de la domination symbolique (The Proletariat and the Peasantry in Algeria. For an Archeology of Symbolic Domination). Pp. 179-93 in LAnthropologie du Maghreb selon Berque, Bourdieu, Geertz et Gellner, edited by L. Addi. Paris: Ibis Press. Yacine, Tassadit. 2004. Pierre Bourdieu in Algeria At War: Notes on the Birth of an Engaged Ethnosociology. Ethnography 5:487-509.
74
Yacine, Tassadit. 2005. Bourdieu et lAlgrie: La rception internationale de la pense de Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Algeria: The International Reception of the Thought of Pierre Bourdieu). Pp. 33-51 in Le symbolique et le social, edited by J. Dubois, P. Durand, and Y. Winkin. Lige: Les editions de lUniversit de Lige. Yacine, Tassadit. 2008a. Aux origines dune ethnosociologie singulire (The Origins of a Singular Ethnosociology). Pp. 23-53 in Pierre Bourdieu, Esquisses Algriennes, edited by T. Yacine. Paris: ditions du Seuil. Yacine, Tassadit. 2008b. Le projet ditorial (The Editorial Project). Pp. 11-20 in Pierre Bourdieu, Esquisses Algriennes, edited by T. Yacine. Paris: ditions du Seuil.
AuthoR BiogRaphY
Julian Go is associate professor of sociology at Boston University. His books include Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688-Present (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and American Empire and the Politics of Meaning: Elite Political Cultures in the Philippines and Puerto Rico during US Colonialism (Duke University Press, 2008). He is currently writing about postcolonial and global sociology.

Article

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

477082

13477082Sociological Theory XX(X)Go 2013

Bourdieu, colonialism, postcolonialism, habitus, field

Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Sociological Theory 31(1)

ImpeRiaL FieLds of PRoductioN

Sociological Theory 31(1)

The New Colonial Studies

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Bourdieu in the Empire

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Identity and Colonial Cultures

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Habitus and the Pasyan Empaysann

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Reflexivity and Colonial Ethnography

Sociological Theory 31(1)

CoNcLusioN: BouRdieu aNd PostcoLoNiaL SocioLogY

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Sociological Theory 31(1)

Sociological Theory 31(1)

You might also like