%ULGJLQJWKH6WXG\RI&XOWXUHDQG5HOLJLRQ3LHUUH%RXUGLHX

V3ROLWLFDO(FRQRP\RI6\PEROLF
3RZHU
$XWKRUV'DYLG6ZDUW]
5HYLHZHGZRUNV
6RXUFH6RFLRORJ\RI5HOLJLRQ9RO1R6SHFLDO,VVXH6RFLRORJ\RI&XOWXUHDQG6RFLRORJ\
RI5HOLJLRQ6SULQJSS
3XEOLVKHGE\Oxford University Press
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/3712005 .
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

Soaologyof ReligXan
1996, 57:1 71-85

Bridgingthe Study of Cultureand

Religion: Pierre Bourdieu's Political
Economy of Symbolic Power*
DavidSwartz

Program
onNonSProfit
Organizations
YaleUniversity

Thisessayexamineskeyfeaturesof PierreBourdieu's
sociologyof culturein lightof their
potential
contribution
to thesociology
of religion.
ForBourdieu,
religion
canbeanalyzed
aWs
a system
of symbok'c
powerwithpropertie.s
analogousto otherculturaldomains,suchas art, philosophy,
science,orcarLsumer
fashion.Bourdieu's
approach
toculture
develops
a political
economy
of syrrlrlic
practices
thatincludesa theo7yof sytnbolic
interests,a theoryof culturalcapital,anda theoryof
symbok'c
power.WhlleBourdieu
drawsupona varietyof intellectual
influences,
thematerialism
of
KarlMarxandMaxWeber's
sociology
of rekEgion
havebeenparacularly
influential.
Thisessaywill
focuson howBourdieu
elaborates
fromMarxandWebertodevelop
anorigpnal
analytical
gridforthe
studyof culturea71d
relifipon
as well.Particular
attention
wiUbegsvento Bourdieu's
concept
of "field"
sinceit is themostrelevant
of Bourdieu's
concepts
forboi cultural
andreligious
studiesandcurrendy
theleastweUkrswnin thesociology
ofreligion.

Thisessayexamineskeyfeatures
of PierreBourdieu's
sociologyof culturein
lightof theirpotentialcontribution
to the sociologyof religion.Bourdieu
himselfhasdevotedlittleattentionto thestudyof religion.lYet,significant
features
Earlier
versions
of thispaperwerepresented
at theAnnualMeeting
of theAssociat
onfortheSociology
of Religion,
MianuBeach,August1993andat theNewEng!and
Religious
Discussion
Society,Hartford,
CT, April1995.I want
to givespecialthanksto RhysWAkams
forhelpful
suggestions
on all thedraftsof dlispaperandalsotoan anonymous
reviewer
for helpfulcomments
on an earlierversion.Directcorrespondence
to DavidSwar>.,10 MagnolisAve.,
Newton,MA02158. E-mail:swartChanJarda.harvard.edu.

1 Bourdieu
(andMartin1982)haspublished
oneempirical
investigation
of religion,
a studyof French
CatholicBishops,
andwrittentwotheoretical
articles
in thesociology
of religion
(Bourdieu
1987c,1991a).In
addition,
Bourdieu
( 1987b,1987d)haspublished
twopubliclectures
devotedtO thesociology
of religion.
The
November
1982issueof hisjournal,
ActesdelaRecherche
enSciences
SociEswasdevoted
to various
aspects
of
French
Catholicism.
WhileBourdieu
dominates
thesociology
ofculture
inFrance,
hehashadlittleimpact
on thepost-World
War11generation
ofFrench
sociologists
ofreligion
(Dobbelaere
1987).Nonetheless,
onecanseegrowing
signs
of his influence
on the post-sixties
generation
of Frenchsociology
of religionscholarship
(Hervieu-Leger
1993).Bourdieu's
influence
in thesociology
ofreligion
hasbeenmorestriking
outside
ofFrance
(e.g.Maduro
1982).
71

72

SOCIOLOGY
OFRELIGION

of hisapproach
to the study
of culture findinspiration
in thematerialism
of Karl
Marxandparticularly
in MaxWeber's
sociology
ofreligion.
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER
Bourdieu
proposes
a sociologyof symbolicpowerin whichhe addresses
the
important
topicof relationsbetweenculture,stratification,
andpower.He contendsthatthe struggle
forsocialrecognition
is a fundamental
dimension
of all
sociallife.In thatstruggle,culturalresources,
processes,
andinstitutions
hold
individuals
andgroupsin competitive
andself-perpetuating
hierarchies
ofdomination.He advancesthe boldclaimthat all culturalsymbolsand practices,
ranging
fromartistictastes,stylein dress,andeatinghabitsto religion,science,
andphilosophy-indeedto language
itself- - embodyinterests
andfunctionto
enhancesocialdistinctions.
Bourdieu
focuseson howthesesocialstruggles
are
refracted
throughsymbolicclassifications,
howcultural practices
placeindivid
ualsandgroupsinto competitive
classandstatushierarchies,
howrelatively
autonomous
fieldsof conflictinterlockindividuals
andgroupsin struggle
overvaluedresources,
howactorsstruggle
andpursuestrategies
to achievetheirinterests
withinsuchfields,andhowin doingso actorsunwittingly
reproduce
the social
stratification
order.Culture,then,is notdevoidof politicalcontentbutratheris
anexpresslon
ot It.
In his approach
to culture,Bourdieu
developsa politicaleconomyof symbolicpractices
thatincludesa theoryof symbolicinterests,
a theoryof cultural
capital,anda theoryof symbolic
power.Thesearenottidy,well-delimited
theoreticalarguments
butorientingthemesthatoverlapand interpenetrate.
They
drawfroma widevarietyof intellectual
influences
including
Marxism,
structuralism,andphenomonology.
Butas Brubaker
(1985)pointsout,MaxWeberis the
mostimportance
influence
fromtheclassical
sociological
tradition
on Bourdieu's
work.It is impossible
to probethe fullcomplexity
of thesetheoriesorto cover
the full rangeof Bourdieu'sconceptualinnovationsin this short essay.2
Nonetheless,it is possibleto showhow Bourdieu
drawsfromMarxandfrom
Weber's
sociology
of religionto developa sociology
of cultural
practices.
r

TRANSCENDINGIDEALISMAND MATERIALISM

At the coreof Bourdieu's

intellectual
projectforoverthirtyyearsstandsthe
centralquestionin WesternsocialthoughtsinceNlarx:
thedebatebetweenculturalidealism
andhistorical
materialism.
Bourdieu's
sociologyrepresents
a bold
attemptto finda middleroadthattranscends
the classicidealism/materialism
bipolarity
byproposing
a materialist
yet non-reductive
accountof culturallife.
HisthinkingbeginswithMarxbutdrawsmoresubstantively
fromWeber.3
2 See Bourdieu
andWacquant( 1992)for a goodcomprehensive
introduction
tO Bourdieu's
work.
3 1 hereareDurkheimian
influencesaswellthoughtheywillnot be exploredin thispaper.

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER 73

Marx
LikeMarx,Bourdieu
emphasizes
the primacy
of conflictandclass-based
socialinequality
in modernsocieties.Yet,he issharply
criticalof classreductionist
accountsof religious
andculturallife.Bourdieu
is a materialist
in thesensethat
he rootshumanconsciousness
in practical
sociallife.He is alsoconcerned
with
formsof falseconsciousness
or, in his terms,"mis-recognition"
of powerrelations.He acceptsthe Marxianideathatsymbolic
systemsfulfillsocialfunctions
of domination
andreproduction
of classinequality.
Yethe is criticalof theview
of ideologythatfocuseslargelyon the socialfunctionsof symbolicgoodsand
practices
withoutshowinghowtheyarenecessary
features
forthe enactment
of
socla. . practlces.

WhileBourdieu
acceptsthe Marxist
claimthatreligionis ideology,
he resists
separating
outthe symbolic
dimension
of sociallifeasseparate
andderivative
of
the morefundamental
material
components
of sociallife.Inshort,he rejectsthe
Marxistinfrastructure/superstructure
conceptual
distinction
asrootedin theclassic idealism/materialism
dichotomy
thatBourdieu
believesmustbe transcended.
HereBourdieu
partscompany
withthe structuralist
Marxism
of LouisAlthusser
( 1970),whichwasone of Bourdieu's
important
intellectualreferences
in the
1960sand 1970s.Bourdieu
sharesAlthusser's
basicmaterialist
outlookandhis
emphasis
on the relativeautonomy
of religionandculturefrompoliticsandeconomics.Still,Bourdieu's
positionis notfundamentally
Althusserian.
Inspired
by
Marx'sfirstthesison Feuerbach,
whichemphasizes
the underlying
unityof all
sociallifeaspractical
activity,Bourdieu
(1984a:467)
rejectsthe ideathatsocial
existencecanbe segmented
andhierarchically
organized
intodistinctspheres,
suchasthe social,thecultural,
andtheeconomic.Ratherthanexplorethevariousformsof articulation
of the superstructure
andinfrastructure
asAlthusserians
do,Bourdieu
arguesthatthetworealmsarenotto beseparated
in thefirstplace.
Bourdieu
seeksto writea generalscienceof practices
thatcombines
the material
andsymbolic
dimensions
andtherebyemphasizes
thefundamental
unity of social
life.Nonetheless,Bourdieu's
centralconcernwiththe problem
of relationsbetweenthe symbolicandmaterial
aspectsof sociallifeandbetweenstructure
and
agencystemin partfromhis earlyconfrontations
withthisparticular
Marxist
trac1tton.
.

Weber

FromMarx,Bourdieu
turnsto MaxWeberfortheconceptual
toolsto elaboratea theoryof symbolic
goodsandpractices
thatwouldtranscend
bothclassreductionism
andidealism.
Bourdieu
remarks
thatit is MaxWeber"who,farfrom
opposingMarx,as is generallythought,witha spiritualist
theoryof history,in
factcarriesthe materialist
modeof thoughtintoareaswhichMarxist
materialism
effectively
abandons
to spiritualism"
( 1990b:
17). Bourdieu
seesWeberoffering
a
"political
economyof religion"
thatbrings"outthefullpotentialof the materialistanalysisof religionwithoutdestroying
the properly
symboliccharacter
of
the phenomenon"
(1990a:36).Onecentralobjectiveof Bourdieu's
sociologyis
to elaborate
Weber'smodelfora politicaleconomyof religiontO allof cultural

74

OFRELIGION
SOCIOLOGY

seeshis sociologyof cultureto be of the same

andsociallife.Indeed,Bourdieu
asthatof Weberwhoused"theeconomicmodelto extendmaterialist
character
or
critiqueinto the realmof religion"(1990a:107).It is to be a "generalized"
thatBourdieu
butone thatavoidsthe classreductionism
materialism,
"radical"
believeshe has
Bourdieu
Marxism.
( 1990b:17;1993:12)believescharacterizes
a wayto transcendthe classicidealmaterialism
foundin this generalized
in thesocialsciences.
dichotomy
ism/materialism
lN 115RESTS
SYMBOLIC
of MaxWeber'snotion
elaboration
an important
workrepresents
Bourdieu's
The ideaof "religious
of idealgoodsandinterests(GerthandMills1970:280).
of behavcharacter
on the"this-worldly"
emphasis
comesfromWeber's
interest"
forms
belief.Weberwritesthat"themostelementary
iormotivatedbyreligious
or magicalfactorsareorientedto thisworld"
byreligious
of behaviormotivated
orthinking
ormagicalbehavior
( 1978:399).He goeson to stressthat"religious
conduct,particularly
purposive
mustnotbe setapartfromthe rangeof everyday
ecoandmagicalactionsarepredominantly
sinceeventhe endsof the religious
nomic"(Weber1978:400).Bourdieuarguesthat by insistingon the "thisa
factorsWeberprovides
of behaviormotivatedbyreligious
character
worldly"
(andevenitssyntax)to the
"wayof linkingthe contentsof mythicaldiscourse
religiousinterestsof thosewhoproduceit, diffuseit, andreceiveit"( l990b:4).
to
beliefsandpractices
Thus,Weberprovidesa meansforconnectingreligious
them.
andadminister
of thosewhoproduce
the interests
inWeber'snotionof"religious
(1987c:122),however,considers
Bourdieu
sinceit limitsthe scopeof interesttc)be
terest"to be "onlyweaklyelaborated"
by the agents'conditionsof existence."By contrast,Bourdieu
"determined
moregenerally "are
stressesthatreligiousinterests andsymbolicinterests
bythesupplyof
of expression
in theirformandtheirconditions
alsodetermined
Nonetheless,Weber's
religionandthe actionof the religiousprofessionals."
the
oneto construct
thinkingpermits
of
of thestrategies
expression
asthe . . . transfigured
beliefsandpractices
systemof religious
of the
overthe administration
competingformonopoly
of specialists
differentcategories
1991a:4).
(Bourdieu
intheirservices
classesinterested
andof ie different
goodsofsalvation

goodsbyarguS
extendsthe ideaof interestto includenon-material
Bourdieu
whetherdirectedtoward
"interested"
ingthatall practicesarefundamentally
to "all
orsymbolicitems.He extendsthe logicof economiccalculation
material
goods,materialandsymbolic,withoutdistinction,thatpresentthemselvesas
(1977:
socialformation"
rare andworthyof beingsoughtafterin a particular
"ageneraltheoryof theeconomyof practices"
wantsto construct
178).Bourdieu
materialor symbolic
as "aimedat maximizing
thatwill analyze"allpractices"
wouldunitewhathas
he proposes
profit"(1990b:209).The researchprogram
andmaterial)and
beenthoughtof as economic(i.e., interested
traditionally
andobjects.
of
action
forms
andsymbolic)
non-economic(i.e., disinterested
objective
equally
two
as
viewed
interestare
Thus,symbolicinterestandmaterial

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER 75

formsof interest.Actorspursuesymbolicas well as materialinterestsand

exchangeonefortheotherunderspecified
conditions.
Whileextendingthe ideaof interestfrommaterialtO idealgoods,Weber
nonetheless
retainsanalytical
distinctions
fordifferent
typesof behavior.
Weber
( 1978:24-25,339)
analytically
distinguishes
thefollowing
typesof action:"instrumentallyrational,"
"value-rational,"
"affectional,"
and"traditional."
Weberdoes
not considereveryinstrumental
actionas economic.To be economic,action
mustsatisfya needthatdependsuponrelativelyscarce resources
anda limited
numberof actions.Suchdistinctions
disappear
altogetherin Bourdieu's
work.
Moreover,
the ideathatactionis interest-oriented
isforBourdieu
a fundamental
presupposition
not a hypothesis
fortesting.Andhe doesnot considerwhether
somepractices
mightbemoreself-interested
thanothers.
Despitethe economiclanguage,
Bourdieu
seeshisgeneralized
materialism
as
quitedistinctfromeconomism
sincehisperspective
viewsmaterial
utilitarianism
as butone formof the moregeneralized
pursuit
of interest.Thushe claimsto be
writinga "general
scienceof theeconomyof practices"
of whichthe "scienceof
ecc)nomicpracticesis but a particularcase"of the moregeneralprogram
(Bourdieu1977:183).He sharplydistinguishes
his owneconomyof practices
fromrationalactortheory.The interest-orientation
of practicesfor Bourdieu
doesnot implya formalorconsciouscalculation
of costsandbenefits.Rather,
practices
occurforthe mostpartat a tacit,dispositional,
andpre-reflective
level
thatreflectspastaccumulation
throughearlysocialization
of variousadvantages
anddisadvantages
associated
withsocialclassbackground.
He sharply
contrasts
his viewof actionas dispositional
withthe two radically
opposingviewsthat
depictactionas flowingeitherfromrationalcalculation
or fromstructural
determlnatlon.

CULTURAL CAP1TAL

The extensionof WeberZs

ideaof religiousinterestpermitsBourdieu
to develoF)conceptssuchas "religious
capital"and"cultural
capital"as irreducible
formsof powerthoughinterchangeable
witheconomiccapital.Bourdieu
conceptualizes
resources
as capital whentheyfunctionas a "socialrelationof power"
( 1989:375)bybecoming
objectsof struggle
as valuedresources.
Bourdieu's
concept of "religiouscapital"(199la:9) is close to Weber'sidea of religious
"qualificatic)n."
It represents
"accumulated
symboliclabor"
andis connectedto
the"constitution
of a religious
field"wherea groupof religious
specialists
isable
to monopolize
the administration
of religious
goodsandservices.
Religious
capital is a powerresource
sinceit impliesa formof"objective
dispossession"
througeh
cc)nstituting
a "laity"
whobydefinitionarethosewithout,yet want,the valued
resource
controlledbyspecialists.
Bourdieu's
conceptof cultural
capitalcoversa
widevarietyc)fresources,
suchasverbalfacility,generalcultural
awareness,
aesS
theticpreferences,
scientificknowledge,
andeducational
credentials.
Hispointis

4 nis is the viewof action

suggested
byBourdieu's
conceptof"habitus."

76

SOCIOLOGY
OFRELIGION

-to suggestthatculture(in the broadest

senseof the term)canbecomea power
resource.
Bourdieu
thusbuildsa caseforthe irreducible
character
of cultural
representationsasformsof powerbyextending
the logicof self-interest
to thenon-materialspherewherehe identifies
prestige,
honor,knowledge,
andeducational
credentialsas formsof capital.Accordingto Bourdieu,
actorspursueinvestment
strategiesin culturalgoodsjustas theydo witheconomicgoods.Individuals,
families,and groupscan accumulateculturalas well as economicitems.
Moreover,
privilegeandprestige
canbe transmitted
intergenerationally
through
formsof culturalcapital.Familieswho investin the highereducationof their
childrenpursuea culturalformof investmentin orderto maintainorenhance
the material
conditionsof theiroffspring.
ThusBourdieu
findsit usefulto think
of valuednon-material
resources
asformsof capitalto theextenttheycanbeaccumulated,
exchanged,
andinvestedforprofits.An important
taskforsociology,
Bourdieu
argues,is to explorethe proeluction,
circulation,
andconsumption
of
the variousformsof culturalandeconomiccapital.Underwhatconditionsand
at whatratesdo thesedistinctformsof capitalbecomemutuallyconvertible
formsof power?
Bourdieu's
conceptof culturalcapitalneedsto be distinguished
fromGary
Becker's(1976)conceptof"humancapital."Unlikehumancapitaltheorists,
Bourdieu
focuseson the class-based
variationbothin the meanings
andusesof
thevarioustypesof capital.Moreover,
Bourdieu's
theoryofhumanactionassuggestedbyhis conceptof habitus
doesnot sharethe anthropological
assumptions
of a rationalactorperspective.
Bourdieu's
actorspursuestrategies
but not as
consciousmaximizers
of limitedmeansto achievedesiredends.Their"choices"
aretacit,practical,
anddispositional,
reflecting
theencounter
betweentheiraccumulated
capitalandcorresponding
dispositions
frompastsocialization
andthe
presentopportunities
andconstraints
offieldswheretheyact.
Bourdieu's
conceptsof symbolicinterestandcapitalalsoneedtO be distinguishedfromAnn Swidler's
( 1986)"toolkit"viewof cultural
practices.
Though
similarin stressing
agencyandthepractical
features
of cultureratherthannorms
andvalues,Bourdieu
is lessvoluntaristic
thanSwidler;
he stresses
thegroupemheddedness
of individual
action.Moreover,
Bourdieu
stresses
morethanSwidler
the powerdimensionof culturalresources,
theircapacitytO constitutesocial
hierarchies.
SYMBOLIC
POWER
Bourdieu
drawsfromMaxWeber's
notionsof charisma
andlegitimacy
to developa theoryof symbolic
power.5
Thistheorystresses
theactiveroleplayedby
taken-for-granteel
assumptions
in theconstitution
andmaintenance
of powerrelations.LikeWeber,Bourdieu
contendsthattheexerciseof powerrequires
legitimation.Bourdieu
arguesthatthe logtic
of self-interest
underlying
allpractices
S The argument
is laidoutin Bourdieu
(1971h,1980,1991a,1991k:163-170;
andPasscron
1977:
171-183).

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER 77

particularly
thosein the cultural
domain- goes"mis-recognized"
asa logicof
"disinterest."
"Misrecognition"
is a important
conceptforBourdieu;
akinto the
ideaof "falseconsciousness"
in the Marxisttradition,misrecognition
denotes
"denial"
of the economicandpoliticalinterestspresentin a set of practices.
Symbolicpractices,
Bourdieu
thusargues,deflectattentionfromthe interested
character
of practices
andtherebycontribute
to theirenactment
asdisinterested
pursuits.
Activitiesandresources
gainin symholicpower,or legitimacy,
to the
extentthattheybecomeseparated
fromunderlying
material
interests
andhence
go misrecognized
as representing
disinterested
formsof activitiesandresources.
Individuals
andgroupswhoareableto benefitfromthe transformation
of selfinterestinto disinterestobtainwhatBourdieu
callsa "symbolic
capital"(see
1972:227-243,
1977:171-83,
l990b:112-21,
l991b:163-170).
Symbolic
capitalis
"deniedcapital;"6
it disguises
the underlying
"interested"
relations
to whichit is
related,givingthemlegitimation.
Symbolic
capitalis a formof powerthatis not
perceivedas powerbut as legitimatedemandsfor recognition,deference,
obedience,
ortheservicesofothers.
Symbolic
Labor

ForBourdieu,
thefocusbyWeberon religious
producers
provides
thekeyfor
understanding
howrelationsof interestbecometransformed
intodisinterested
relationsto createsymboliccapital.lt is the "symbolic
labor"
byspecialists
that
transforms
relations
of powerintoformsof disinterested
honorability
(Bourdieu
1977:171).Bourdieu
(1987c:122-124,
1991a:5-13)
highlights
asparticularly
insightfulWeber's(1978:1177-1181)
analysisof the "ethicalization"
and"systematization"
of religiousneedsof the risingurbanbourgeoisie
as the productof
religiouslaborbyspecialists.
Religiouslaborbyspecialists createsreligiousunderstandings
of the particular
socialconditionsof existenceof specificgroups.
Symboliclaborproduces
symbolicpowerby transforming
relationsof interest
.

lnto

c .lslnterestec

. meanlngs.

Bourdieu
thereforeassignsan important
roleto symbolicproducers
(e.g.,
artists,writers,teachers,journalists,
andclergy)in legitimating
the socialorder
byproducing
symboliccapitalthrough
symboliclabor.Thisof courseis the role
Marxassignedto ideology,butby stressing
symboliclaborBourdieu
wishesto
emphasize
thatideologyis not a givenbutrequires
activeconstruction.
Moreover,Bourdieucontendsthat mosteverydaypractices-would
not be possible
withoutmisrecognition
of theirobjectiveinterests.
Theexchange
ofgifts,forexample,wouldbe transformed
intoa financialtransaction
if therewerenotsome
degreeof misrecognition
of theirobjectiveinterests.Thussymbolicpowerappearsasan inseparable
dimension
of practices.
ThoughBourdieu
employsa lan-

6 Bourdieu
writes:
Symboliccapital,a transformed
andtherebydisguisedformof physicaleconomiccapital,produces
its propereffectinasmuch. . . as it concealsthe factthat it originatesin "material"
formsof capital
whicharealso,in the last analysis,thesourceof itseffects( 1977:183).

OFRELIGION
SOCIOLOGY

78

on the necessityforsymbolicpowerin pracguageof economics,his emphasis

perspective.
utilitarian
hispositionfroma thoroughly
ticesdistinguishes
FIELDSOFCULTURALPRODUCTlON
lf cultural,symbolic,andeconomiccapitalaredistinctthoughmutually
followdistinctmodesof accumulaS
formsof power,theynonetheless
convertible
develop,theygenerateareS
production
As formsof cultural
tion andoperation.
To acovertheiradministration.
forthe monopoly
byspecialists
nasof struggle
countforthisdimensionof hispolitical economyof symbolicpowerin modern
Fields
(champ).
developsthe conceptof "field"
societies,Bourdieu
differentiated
designatearenaswherespecificformsof capitalare produced,invested,exandaccumulated.
changed,
in the late 1960sbeS
The conceptof fieldemergesfromthe conjuncture
of artandhis readingof Weber'ssoin the sociology
research
tweenBourdieu's
byWeber's
disTheconceptis inspired
1987a:33).7
ciologyof religion (Bourdieu
cussionof the relationsbetweenprlest,prophet,and sorcerer(Bourdieu
of theseprincithe specificandopposinginterests
Weberidentifies
1990a:49).8
whichopof the"competition
andthestructures
leadership
paltypesof religious
Bourdieu
(1987c;1992:260)
1990a:107).
(Bourdieu
posesthemto one another"
howthe
analysis
bystressing
of Weber's
reinterpretation
a structuralist
proposes
bytheiropS
arestructured
leadership
betweenthe typesof religious
interactions
posinginterestsandhow theseinterestsarein turnrelatedto broaderpower
Bourdieu(1987c:121)considersWeber'sanalysisrestrictedto an
structures.
relaor inter-subjective
focusedon interSpersonal
perspective
"interactionist"
perspeca
broader
however,
introdllces
field
perspective,
tionsamongactors.A
of actorsthoughtheyare
thatshapetheinteractions
conditions
tiveof structural
(1971b,1971a,1985,1992:260)firstappliedthe
not awareof them.Bourdieu
as a meansto call attentionto the
conceptto Frenchartistsandintellectuals
worlds.
thosecultural
governing
specificinterests
sociologyof culture.
in Bourdieu's
Fieldhasbecomea keyspatialmetaphor
definesa fieldas
Bourdieu
of objectiverelationsbetweenpositions.Thesepositionsare
a network,or configuration,
of the
defined. . . bytheirpresentandpotentialsituation. . . in the structure
objectively
commands
accessto thespecific
of speciesofpower{orcapital)whosepossession
distribution
thatareatstakein thefield(1992:97).
profits

fromChapters
(1987c)drawsprimarily
Indevelopingthe conceptBourdieu

and
VI andXVof Economy

Societ.

whichinspiresGerthandMills's(1964)conceptualization
8 lt alsoparallelsWeber'sideaof"life-orders,"
orders."
of"institutional

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYNIBOLIC
POWER 79

Fieldsmaybe thoughtof asstructured

spacesthatareorganized
aroundspecific
typesof capital.9
Fieldsdenotearenasof production,
circulation,
andappropriaS
tionof goods,services,knowledge,
orstatus,andthe competitive
positionsheld
byactorsin theirstruggle
to accumulate
andmonopolize
different
kindsof capital. Forexample,Bourdieu
speaksof the "intellectual
field"to designatethat
matrixof institutions,
organizations,
andmarketsin whichartistsandwriters
competeforthe symboliccapitalof legitimaterecognition
fortheirartisticand
literarywork.Fieldis a moreinclusiveconceptthanmarket;
as a spatialmetaphorit suggests
rankandhierarchy
aswellasexchangerelations
betweenbuyers
andsellers.Indeed,Bourdieu's
conceptof fieldshouldnotbereduced
tO theneoclassicideaof market.Rather,the conceptsuggestsa force-fieldwherethe
distribution
of capitalreflectsa hierarchical
set of powerrelationsamongthe
competingindividuals,
groups,andorganizations.
Interactions
amongactors
withinfieldsareshapedbytheirrelativelocationin the hierarchy
of positions.
Bourdieu
hasappliedthisconceptin studiesof socialclasslifestyles,
highereducationinstitutions,
science,culture,law,andreligion.
Bourdieu
(1985)usesfieldanalysisto offera cultural-structural
interpretationof the riseof culturalmarkets
andthe modernintelligentsia.
Fieldanalysis
positsa parallelprocess:
As corpsof culturalproducers
emerge,specialized
and
institutionalized
culturalarenasof production,
circulation,
andconsumption
of
symbolicgoodsalsoemergewithincreasing
autonomyfromthe economyand
thepolity.Bourdieu's
basicresearch
hypothesis
in fieldanalysis
is thatascultural
fieldsgainin autonomy
fromexternal
factors,the intellectual
stancesassumed
by
theagentsincreasingly
becomea functionof theposiiions
occupiedbytheagents
within
thesefields.Thus,in contrast
to Marxist
classanalysis,
Bourdieu
seesfields
asmediating
relations
betweensocialstructures
andculturallife.
Stnctural
Propereies
ofFields
Bourdieu
( 1993:72)speaksof the"invariant
laws"or"universal
mechanisms"
thatarestructural
properties
characteristic
of all fields.First,fieldsarearenasof
struggle
forcontrolovervaluedresources,
orformsof capital.Fieldstruggle
centersaround
particular
formsof capital,suchaseconomiccapital,cultural
capital,
scientificcapital,or religiouscapital.Culturalcapital,forexample,is the key
propertyin the intellectualfieldwhereaseconomiccapitalis the important
property
in the businessworld.Thereareas manyfieldsas therearecapitals.
Actorsalsostruggleoverthe verydefinitionsof whatareto be considered
the
mostvaluedresources
in fields.Thisis particularly
truein culturalfieldswhere
styleandknowledge
rapidly
change.Inotherwords,fieldsarearenasof struggle
forlegitimation:
in Bourdieu's
language,
forthe rightto monopolize
theexercise
of "symbolic
violence."
Second,fieldsarestructured
spaces
ofdominarlt
arldsubordinate
positions
based
on typesandamounts
of capital.Fieldstruggle
pitsthosein subordinate
positions
againstthose in superordinate
positions.The strugglefor positionin fields
9 Fieldmeansa 'certainstructure
of the distribution
of a certainkindof capital"(Bourdieu1993:91).

80

OFRELIGION
SOCIOLOGY

poweroverthe
opposesthosewhoareableto exercisesomedegreeof monopoly
of capitalagainstthosewhoattemptto usurpthose
definitionanddistribution
seesthis oppositionoccurringbetweenthe
In general,Bourdieu
advantages.
establishedagentsandthe new arrivalsin fields.DrawingfromWeber'sdeBourdieu
depictsthis
betweenpriestsandprophets,
scriptionof the opposition
againstthosewho advocate
conflictin termsof thosewhodefendorthodoxy
of conflictis parastructure
( 1992:289),thisfundamental
heresy.ForBourdieu
digmaticnot only in the religiousfieldbut in all culturalfields.The orthoisa struggle
forthe
opposition
dox/heterodox
monopolyof culturallegitimacyandthe rightto withholdandconferthisconsecrationin the
the personalauthorltycalledforbythe creatorand
opposedprinciples:
nameof fundamentally
the institutionalauthorityfavouredbythe teacher(1971b:178).

in
fields,particularly
oppositionin intellectual
seesan analogous
Bourdieu
beof culture,"
andthe "creators
of culture"
academe,betweenthe "curators
arldtransmitlegitimatebodiesof knowledgeand
tweenthosewho reprox;luce
university
Inhisstudyof theParisian
thosewhoinventnewformsofknowledge.
and
betweenteachers
opposition
( 1988)findsthisfundamental
faculty,Bourdieu
In the fieldof reintellectuals.
andindependent
betweenprofessors
researchers,
adligion,an analogousoppositionmightbe foundbetweendenominational
of religionandtheoloandclergy,on theonehand,andsociologists
ministrators
gians,on theotherhand.
in his fieldanalysisis thatthe twoopposingstrategies
CrucialforBourdieu
callintoexistence
onegenerates
theother.Orthodoxies
related;
aredialectically
by the logicof distinctionthat operatesin cultural
theirheterodoxreversals
obligethe oldguardto mounta defenseof its privileges,
fields.10Challengers
forsubversion.
thatdefense,then,becomesgrounds
Entryintoa fieldreformsofstruggle.
Third,fieldsimposeon actorsspecific
of therulesof thegame,meaningthatspecificformsof
quiresa tacitacceptance
whereas
othersareexcluded.Boththe dominantestabstruggle
arelegitimated
thatthe field
sharea tacitacceptance
challengers
lishmentandthe subordinate
refersto thisdeepstrucin thefirstplace.Bourdieu
is worthpursuing
of struggle
on the
agreement
a tacit,fundamental
tureof fieldsasthe Doxaforit represents
andthoseholdingto orheterodoxy
betweenthoseadvocating
stakesof struggle
sharea commoninterestin preserving
andincumbents
thodoxy.l1Challengers
andheterodox
viewsbringsto mindMannheim's
betweenorthodox
relationship
10 Thissymbiotic
in their
opposed
andutopian
visionsof thesocialworld,thoughradically
of howideological
(1955)analysis
of critiques,
of complexexchange
becomelockedintoa pattern
thestatusquo,nonetheless
posture
toward
theother.
extentdetermining
eachtoanappreciable
dynamic
in theirstudyof religionandpolitics.
(1991)identify
a similar
andDemerath
Williams
of churchandstatecancoexist
andseparation
themes
ofcivilreligion
incompatible
Theyshowhowlogically
practice.
eachotherinpolitical
andactually
"enable"
A crucial
consciousness."
conceptof the"collective
withDurkheim's
t 1 Theideaof theDoxaresonates
fortheentire
a system
of tacitunderstandings
rather
thanrepresenting
difference
isthatDoxaisfield-specific
society.

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER 8 1

thefielditselfevenif theyaresharply
dividedon howit isto becontrolled.l2
In
the sociologyof religion,forexample,contemporary
debatesoccuroverthe
trendsandsignificance
of religious
life;all assume includingthe proponents
of secularization-thatreligionis worthtalkingaboutin thefirstplace.
Fourth,fieldsarestructured
to a significant
extentby theirown internal
mechanisms
ofdevelopmerSt andthushold somedegreeof autonomyfromthe
externalenvironment.
The "relative
autonomy"
of the educational
system,for
example,as of mostinstitutionalized
religions,refersto itS capacityto control
the recruitment,
socialization,
and careersof actors,and tO imposeits own
specificideology.Moregenerally,
Bourdieu
pointsto the relativeautonomy
of
culturalfieldsfromeconomicandpolitical fields.A scholarily
disciplinesuchas
the sociologyof religion,for example,will reflectto someextent broader
intellectual
trends.Butit alsohasits ownparticular
historyandstructure
that
newarrivals
needto appropriate
in orderto gainrecognition
as members
of the
field.
Fieldanalysis,
therefore,
directsthe researcher's
attentionto a levelof analysiscapablevf revealingthe integrating
logicof competition
betweenopposing
viewpoints.
It encourages
theresearcher
to seekout sources
of conflictin a given
domains
relatethatconflictto the broader
areasof classandpower,andidentify
underlying
sharedassumptions
byopposing parties. Fieldanalysisdirectsattention
to the task of identifying
the principalpolesof oppositionand their
underlying
sharedassumptions
ina particular
domain.
Finally,a fundamental
methodological
principle
flowsfromthe positedrelaS
tive autonomy
of fields;namely,priorityis givento the intemalanalysisoffields.
Bourdieu
arguesthatexternalinfluences
arealways"retranslated"
intothe internallogicof fields.External
sourcesof influence
arealwaysmediated
through
the
structure
anddynamicof fields.Theclassbackground
of the artist,forexample,
doesnot influencethe workof artdirectly.Rather,the effectsof classintersect
with the patternsof fieldhierarchyandconflictwherethe artistis situated
(Bourdieu
1984b:6).
Structural
Homologies

Bourdieu
conceptualizes
therelations
amongrelatively
autonomous
fieldsin
termsof "structural
andfunctionalhomologies,'t
whichhe definesas "aresemblancewithina difference"
(Bourdieu
andWacquant
1992:105-106).
FieldsbeS
comehomologous
to theextentthattheydevelopisomorphic
properties
suchas
positions
of dominanceandsubordination,
strategies
of exclusionandusurpao
tion,andmechanisms
of reproduction
andchange.In his earlyworkon French
education,Bourdieu
(Bourdieu
andPasseron1977:63-64,194-200)
stressesthe
"structural
andfunctional"
homologybetweenFrencheducationandthe me
12Likeopposing
players
ina cardgame,bothsharea common
interest
inthegamethoughbothcompete
winovertheiropponents.
Bourdieu
(andWacquant
1992:98-99)
sometimes
draws
upontheanalogy
of the
cardgame to illusttate theseproperties
of fields.At othertimeshe stressesthatknowledge
of the rules
themselves
represents
a form
of cultural
capitalthatisunequally
shared
among
contestants.
tO

82

OFRELIGION
SOCIOLOGY

knowledge
schools,likethe Church,not onlytransmit
dievalCatholicChurch:
the selectionand
themselvesby monopolizing
and skillsbut also reproduce
likethe Church,schoolsalsoreproMoreover,
trainingof theirownleadership.
of cultural
the unequaldistribution
ducesocialclassrelationsby legitimating
capital.
to culture.Though
approach
differsfroma market
forBourdieu
Fieldanalysis
a growingnumberof socialscientistswhouse
resembles
superficially
Bourdieu
he doesnot
(Warner1993:1051),
language
in theiranalytical
economicimagery
the
analyze
not
does
analysis
Field
framework.
choice
workwithina rational
or
of
supply
supply
on
of
demand
effect
a
direct
of
of culturein terms
economics
byculturalprotastesarenotsimplyimposed
cultural
ForBourdieu,
on demand.
tastesstemfromculturalproducnordocultural
consumers;
ducerson unwitting
demand.Fieldanalysis
of consumer
directlyto patterns
to respond
ersattempting
betweenculturalproducers
positsthatthe relationbetweensupplyanddemand,
betweenthe fieldof culturalproduction
andtheirpublic,andmoregenerally,
Thus,
andstruggles.
byfieldstructures
andthefieldof socialclasses,ismediated
areto be analyzedin tertnsof the
patternsandchangesin culturalproduction
challenge
in whichnewcomers
competitivestruggleamongculturalproducers
forms.
cultural
fortherightto definewhatareto be legitimate
groups
established
strugglewithinthe fieldof culturalproductionand theircultural
Producers
positionsof dominanceor subordination
reflectmoretheirrespective
products
ofconsumers.
thantheydothedemands
to theirownposiaccording
in turn,selectfromtheseproducts
Consumerst
withinthe strugglefordistinctionamong
or subordination
tionsof dominance
positionstendto selectproducts
in subordinate
the socialclasses.Consumers
positionswithinthe fieldof culturalEzroin subordinate
byproducers
produced
ratherthanone of conscious
homology"
duction.Thusa relationof"structural
of culturalprceducers
betweenthe variouscategories
is established
adjustment
positionsin
to theirrespective
according
of consumers
categories
andthevarious
writes:
Bourdieu
fieldsof struggle.
theseparate
leadseachof
prc)duction
atthecoreofthefieldc)fcultural
competition
Thelogicofobjective
products
searchforadjustment,
to oKer,withoutanyconscious
of producers
the categories
p{sitions
whooccupyhc)mologous
of the consumers
to the preferences
thatareadjusted
wiiin thefieldofpower(1984b:14).

I)ISCUSSION
the
to thestudyof religion.Hestresses
bringsa conflictperspective
Bourdieu
No lessthanotherarenasof
lifeandorganization.
powerdimensionin religious
of poweroverwhichsomeinculturalandsocialconflict,religionis a resource
The struggle
to struggle.
feel it is important
groups,andorganizations
dividuals,
definitionof religionis in thefinalanalysis
forthe rightto imposethe legitimate
writes,
Bourdieu
capital,"
or"religious
power"
a politicalfunction."Religious

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
OFSYMBOLIC
POWER 83

dependson the materlalandsymbolicforceof the groupsandclassesthe claimants

can
mobilize
byoffering
themgoodsandservices
thatsatisfy
theirreligious
tnterests
(199la:22).13

Moreover,
the struggle
forlegitimation
withinthe religious
fieldtendsto reproS
ducethe relations
ofdomination
withintheestablished
order(199la:31-32).
Howmightone employBourdieu's
perspective
to studya religiousfieldin
NorthAmerica?
Sincefieldsaredefinedfirstandforemost
asarenasof struggle
overthe definitionanddistribution
of specificformsof capital,the firsttask
wouldbe to identifyrelevantpointsof conflict.Formsof religiousinterestand
capitalareinvolvedin a greatvarietyof contemporary
issues:theologicaldoctrine,constitutional
rights,taxexemptions
abortion,
schoolprayer,
andteaching
anc researc
z ln unlversltles.
korsome,re lglon1S lMpOrtant ln t Rese1ssues
anc
forothersreligionis irrelevant.
Whoparticipates
in thesestruggles
andwhat
kindsof symbolicaswellas materialinterests
guidethem?Thesequestions
suggest different
typesof struggle,
differentlevelsof analysis,anddifferentfields.
Theyalsobringintoconsideration
a widevarietyof organizations,
groups,indiS
viduals,andinstitutions.
F(undatie
ns, universities,
TV andradiostations,and
politicalactioncommittees
as wellas congregations
anddenominations
might
be considered.
A fieldperspective
wouldsuggestthatissuesof doctrine,organizationalstructure,
legalstatus,or intellectual
respectability
aremattersof struggleforlegitimation
thatinvolvea broadarrayof individuals,
groups,
andorganizationswhopursue
different
kindsofsymbolic
aswellasmaterial
interests.
Onefruitful
areaforfieldanalysis
wouldbethereligious
mediav
Ifoneof the
mainpointsof fieldanalysisis to suggestthatpatterns
of production
of religious
goodsandservicesreflectmorestrategies
of product
differentiation
amongproducersratherthanthedirecteffectsof cc)nsumer
demand,thenone wayof testingthathypvthesis
wouldbe to studyan assortment
of religious
publications
to
see to whatextenttheireditorialpoliciesattemptto correspond
to readerdemandorreflect competitive
referencing
anddifferentiation
withotherpublica.

, S

tlons.

Finally,a popularform(,f studythatBourdieu's

fielulframework
wouldnsJt
encourage
wouldbe the casestudyof cvngregations}
denotninations,
or religious
leaders.The field analyticperspectivecallsfor situatingparticular
entities,
whetherdenotninations
orcongregatic)ns,
withina broader
framework
of struggle
c)verthe significance
of religion.Localcharacteristics,
B(rurdieu
contends,cannotbefullyunderstood
sociologically
withoutsituating themwithinthisbroader
perspective.

On the otherhand,Bourdieu's
fieldconceptpresupposes
a strongclergy/lay
oppositionanelis F>erhaFus
lessusefulwheresuchan oppositiondvesnot have
13 Whilc not workingwithin lXnurtlieu's
framework,
lzemerath(1991) and Williamsand l7)eDmer;tth
( 1(}91)havcrecentlyemployedthe terms"cultural
>!wer}
"cultural
rcsources,"
and4'religinux
capital"in ways
similarto lAurdicu.tSpeaking
in thc Americancontext
whercrcligionrcsonatesmoreasa formof authorityin
nationalculturethan in France,Williams;nd Demerath( 1991) 7zrc cven morc cnncernc(3
than is liurdieu
with the cffectxthatreligizzn
can havcon plitical mtbilization.Theyshw howreligiclus
andmoralargument
can on occasi<}ns
bc successfully
cmployedhy religiz)us
lcaderst) redefinepubliceconentnic
issuesinto cthical
andmoralconcerns.

84

SOCIOLOGY
OFRELIGION

thatformalcharacter.
Theconceptof religious
fielddoesnotgraspthe"religious
dimension"
of socialphenomena
in othersocialareassuchas sportsor politics
whereit is hasverylittle connectionto the historically
constitutedreligious
traditions
(HervieuSLeger
1993).
In conclusion,
the growinginterestin relatingthe sociologyof cultureand
the sociologyof religionwill find inspirationin the exampleset by Pierre
Bourdieu.
Drawing
in partfromWeber's
sociology
of religion,Bourdieu
offersan
originalapproach
to the studyof culture,one thatcanbe appliedto religionas
well.Thisapproach
givesa strongsenseof agencybutwithina structured
frameworkof particular
intereststhat mediatebroader
effectsof socialclass.Justas
studentsof cultureareincreasingly
lookingto Bourdieu
forinsightsforstudying
the complexrelationbetweencultureandpower,soalsocanstudentsof religion
rlncslmlEar
lnsplratlon.
r-

REFERENCES
Althusser,
L.1970.ForMarx.NewYork:
VintageBooks.
Becker,G. 1976.Theeconomicapproach
to humanbehavior.
Chicago:
TheUniversity
of Chicago
Press.
Bourdieu,
P. 1971a.Champ
dupouvoir,
champintellectuel
et habitus
declasse.Scolies1:7-26.
. 1971b.Intellectual
fieldandcreativel roject.InKtu)wledge
anAl
control:New directi(nls
f(rr
thesociology
of education,
editedbyM.F.D.Young,161-188.
London:
Collier-Macmillall.
. 1972.Esquisse
d'unetheoriede la pratique.
Prece(lec
de troisetudesd'eth710l(-)gie
kabyle.
Geneva:
Droz.
. 1977.Outlineof a theoryofpractice.
Cambridge:
(zambridge
University
Press.
. 1980.Theprductionc)fbelief:Contribution
to aneconomyof symbolic
goods.Mcdia,
Culture,andSociety2: 261S293.
. 1984a.I)istinction:
A socialcritique
*)fthejudgement
of taste.Cambridgc:
Harvard
University
Press.
. 1984b.Lechamplitteraire:
Prealables
critiques
et principes
de methode.
Lendemains
36:

5-20.
. 1985.Themarket
ofsytnbolic
goods.Poctics14(April):
13-44.
. 19e37a.
Cho.ses
tes. Paris:
LcsEdition
dcMinuit.
. l 987b.Ladissolution
dureligicux.
Choscs
(lites.Paris:
LesEditions
deMinuit.
. 1987c.Legitimation
andstructured
interestsin Weber'ssociolc)gy
of religion.In Max
Weber,rationality
andirrati(mality,
editedbyS. LashandS. Whimster,
1l9S136.Boston:
Allen
&

Unwin.

. 1987d.Sociologues
dc la croyanceet croyaIlces
de sociokagues.
Chosesdites.Paris:Les
Editions
deMinuit.
. 198t3.Hameaciemicus.Stanford,
(S'A:
Stanfc)rd
Univcrsity
Prcss.
. 1989.Lanoblesse
d'ctat.Grandes
ecolesct csprit(lecorps.Paris:
LesEdition
deMinuit.
. 1990a.Inotherwords:Essaystfrward
a reflcxive
socioll)gy.
Stanford,
CA:Stanford
University
Press.

. 1990tz.ThelXicofpractice.
Stanftrd,CA:Stanford
University
Press.
. 1991a.gcNcsis andstructurc
o fthe religious
field.Comparative
SocialRcsearch
13:1-43.
. 1991b. Language
atulsymbolic
txmJer.
Cambridgc:
Harvard
University
Press.
. 1992.Le.sregle.s
dcl'art:Gencscet structurc
duchamplitteraire.
Paris:
Editions
duSeuil.
. 1993.Sociology
inquestion.
LC)ndOn:
Sage['ublications.

PIERRE
BOURDIEU'S
POLITICAL
ECONOMYOFSYMBOLIC
POWER 85
Bourdieu,P., and M. de S. Marttn1982.Lasaintefamille.L'dpiscopat
fransaisdansle champdu
pouvolr.Actes
delarecherche
ensaences
sociales
44/452 53.
Bourdieu,P.,andJ.<C.Passeron1977.Reproduction
ineducation,
society,
andculture.
London:Sage.
Bourdieu,P., and L. J. D. Wacquant1992. An invitation
to reflexive
sociology.
Chicago:The
Universityof ChicagoPress.
Brubaker,R. 1985. Rethinkingclassicalsociology:The sociologicalvision of PierreBourdieu.

Theo7y
andSoaety
14:745-775.

Demerath,N. J. III. 1991. Religiouscapitaland capitalreligions:Crossculturaland non-legal

factorsin the separation
of churchandstate.
Daedulus
120:2140.
Dobbelaere,K. 1987.Some trendsin Europeansociologyof religion:The secularization
debate.
Sociological
A7lalysis
48: 107^137.
Gerth,H. H., and C. W. Mills.1964.Character
and social structure.
New York:HarcourtBrace
Jovanovich.
. 1970.From
MaxWeber:
Essays
insociology.
London:Routledge& KeganPaul.
HervieuSLeger,
D. 1993.Lareligxon
pour
memoire.
Paris:LesltditiOllS du Cerf.
Maduro,O. 1982.Religiorl
andsocialconJlicts.
Maryknoll,
NY:OrbisBooks.
Mannheim,K. 1955. Ideology
andutopia:An introzluction
to thesociology
of krlowledge.
New York:
Harcourt,
Brace& World.
Swidler,A. 1986. Culturein action:Sytnbolsand strategies.AmericanSociological
Review51:
275-286.
Wamer,R. S. 1993.Workin progress
towarda new paradigm
forthe sociolc)gical
studyof religion
in the UnitedStates.American
Jurnalof Sociology
98: 1044-1093.
Weber,M. 1978.Economy
ardsociety.Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Williams,R. H., andN. J. DemerathtII. 1991.Religionandpoliticalprocessin an Americancity.
American
Sociological
Review
56:417 431.