The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu

The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu

Critical Essays

Edited by
Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner
Anthem Press
An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company
www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2011

by ANTHEM PRESS
75-76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK
or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK
and
244 Madison Ave. #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

© 2011 Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters © individual contributors

Chapter 1 originally published as Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009 [2004]) ‘Between
Structuralism and Theory of Practice: The Cultural Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’, in their Social
Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, trans. Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 371–400. Reprinted with kind permission from Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 4 originally published as Loïc Wacquant (2000) ‘Durkheim and Bourdieu:

The Common Plinth and its Cracks’, in Bridget Fowler (ed.) Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture,
Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review, pp. 105–119. Reprinted with kind permission from
Loïc Wacquant.

Chapter 5 originally published as Pierre Bourdieu (2000) ‘Mit Weber gegen Weber:
Pierre Bourdieu im Gespräch’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Das religiöse Feld. Texte zur Ökonomie des
Heilsgeschehens, herausgegeben von Franz Schultheis, Andreas Pfeuffer und Stephan Egger,
übersetzt von Stephan Egger, Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 111–129.
Reprinted with kind permission from Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

Front cover, frontispiece and closing page photographs of Pierre Bourdieu © Louis Monier

The moral right of the authors has been asserted.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),
without the prior written permission of both the copyright
owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested.

ISBN-13: 978 0 85728 768 7 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 0 85728 768 0 (Hbk)

This title is also available as an eBook.

CONTENTS

List of Contributors vii

Introduction: Preliminary Reflections on the Legacy
of Pierre Bourdieu xiii
Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner

1. Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice: The Cultural

Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu 1
Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl (Translated by Alex Skinner)
2. Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 33
Bridget Fowler
3. From Marx to Bourdieu: The Limits of the Structuralism
of Practice 59
Bruno Karsenti (Translated by Simon Susen)
4. Durkheim and Bourdieu: The Common Plinth and its Cracks 91
Loïc Wacquant (Translated by Tarik Wareh)
5. With Weber Against Weber: In Conversation With
Pierre Bourdieu 111
Pierre Bourdieu, Franz Schultheis, and Andreas Pfeuffer
(Translated by Simon Susen)
6. Bourdieu and Nietzsche: Taste as a Struggle 125
Keijo Rahkonen
7. Elias and Bourdieu 145
Bowen Paulle, Bart van Heerikhuizen, and Mustafa Emirbayer
8. Bourdieu and Adorno on the Transformation of Culture in Modern
Society: Towards a Critical Theory of Cultural Production 173
Simon Susen
vi THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

9. The Grammar of an Ambivalence: On the Legacy of Pierre

Bourdieu in the Critical Theory of Axel Honneth 203
Mauro Basaure
10. Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 223
Bryan S. Turner
11. Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction: A Phenomenological
Reading of Habitus 247
Bruno Frère
12. Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism: Language and Habitus
in Bourdieu 271
Hans-Herbert Kögler
13. Social Theory and Politics: Aron, Bourdieu and Passeron,
and the Events of May 1968 301
Derek Robbins
14. Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere: Between the
Corporatism of the Universal and the Realpolitik of Reason 329
Yves Sintomer (Translated by Steven Corcoran)
15. Practice as Temporalisation: Bourdieu and Economic Crisis 347
Lisa Adkins
Afterword: Concluding Reflections on the Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu 367
Simon Susen

Index of Names 411

Index of Subjects 421
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Lisa Adkins is Professor of Sociology at the University of Newcastle, Australia.

Her contributions to Sociology fall into three main areas: the sociology of
economic life (especially the sociology of postindustrial economies and the
new political economy), social and cultural theory, and the sociology of gender
and sexuality. Some key publications include Revisions: Gender and Sexuality in
Late Modernity (Open University, 2002), Feminism After Bourdieu (edited with
B. Skeggs, Blackwell, 2005), and a Special Issue (co-edited with Celia Lury) in
the European Journal of Social Theory on the theme of ‘What is the Empirical?’
(2009). Her recent work focuses on changing temporalities of labour and value
in contemporary capitalism.

Mauro Basaure is Assistant Professor at the Instituto de Humanidades,

Universidad Diego Portales, in Santiago de Chile, and he is a member of
the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale at the École des Hautes Études
en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France. He received his PhD from the Johann
Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, Germany. He was previously at the
University of Chile, where he studied sociology (1993–9) receiving his MA
in political philosophy (2000–2). He was a Research Fellow at the Institute
for Social Research, Frankfurt (2004–9), where he initiated the International
Study Group for Critical Theory, and at the Lateinamerika Institut of the
Freie Universität Berlin (2003). His areas of research and teaching include
social theory, critical theory, contemporary French sociology and political
philosophy. He recently edited Erneuerung der Kritik. Axel Honneth im Gespräch
(New York, Frankfurt: Campus, 2009) (together with Jan Philipp Reemtsma
and Rasmus Willig) and Foucault et la psychanalyse (Paris: Le Félin, 2009) (together
with Emmanuel Gripay and Ferhat Taylan), and he published Foucault y el
psicoanálisis. Gramática de un malentendido (Santiago: Cuarto Propio, 2011).

Mustafa Emirbayer is Professor of Sociology at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison. He is the author of ‘Manifesto for a Relational Sociology’
(AJS 1997); his most recent articles include ‘Bourdieu and Organizational
viii THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Analysis’ (with Victoria Johnson) and ‘What is Racial Domination?’ (with

Matthew Desmond).

Bridget Fowler is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University

of Glasgow. She specialises in social theory, Marxist feminism and the
sociology of culture. A long-term interest has been the thought of Pierre
Bourdieu, whose ideas she has taken up in various books: The Alienated Reader
(Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991); Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical
Investigations (Sage, 1997), and (edited) Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture
(Blackwell, 2000). She is at present applying Bourdieusian theory to the
study of obituaries, addressing critically what is sometimes identified as
the contemporary ‘golden age of the obituary’ (see Fowler, The Obituary as
Collective Memory, Routledge, 2007).

Bruno Frère is Research Associate at the Fonds National de la Recherche

Scientifique (Belgium). He previously worked as a postdoctoral researcher at
the University of Cambridge, and he currently teaches at Sciences Po Paris
and at the University of Liège. He received his PhD from the École des Hautes
Études en Sciences Sociales and has published on a variety of topics: political
sociology, political philosophy, social theory, and the history of social sciences.
He recently published a monograph on the history of social movements
and alternative economy (Le nouvel esprit solidaire, Paris: Desclée De Brouwer,
2009) and a book (with M. Jacquemain) on sociological theories in the late
twentieth century (Epistémologie de la sociologie, paradigmes pour le 21e siècle,
Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2008).

Bart van Heerikhuizen is Associate Professor in Sociology at the University

of Amsterdam. Along with Nico Wilterdink, he wrote the market-leading
‘Introduction to Sociology’ textbook in the Dutch language (Samenlevingen,
inleiding in de sociologie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1985), which is now in
its sixth edition.

Hans Joas is Permanent Fellow at the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies
(FRIAS), University of Freiburg, and Professor of Sociology and member of
the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. He is a regular
member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, nonresident fellow
of the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, and Vice President of the
International Sociological Association (2006–10). Among his recent publications
in English are Do We Need Religion? On the Experience of Self-Transcendence (2008),
Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures (with Wolfgang Knöbl, 2009), and the
List of Contributors ix

two coedited volumes, The Cultural Values of Europe (with Klaus Wiegandt, 2008)
and Secularization and the World Religions (with Klaus Wiegandt, 2009).

Bruno Karsenti is Directeur d’études at the École des Hautes Études en

Sciences Sociales in Paris and Director of the Marcel Mauss Institute. He has
taught in the areas of political philosophy, epistemology, and the philosophy
of the social sciences at the Universities of Lyon and Paris-Sorbonne. His
most recent publications include Politique de l’esprit. Auguste Comte et la naissance
de la science sociale (Paris: Hermann, 2006) and La société en personnes. Études
durkheimiennes (Paris: Economica, 2006). He is Editor of two-book series,
Pratiques théoriques (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) and Raisons pratiques
(Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales).

Wolfgang Knöbl is Professor of Sociology at the Georg-August-University

Göttingen. Together with Hans Joas, he wrote Kriegsverdrängung. Ein Problem in
der Geschichte der Sozialtheorie (2008) and Social Theory. Twenty Introductory Lectures
(2009). In 2007, he published Die Kontingenz der Moderne. Wege in Europa, Asien
und Amerika.

Hans-Herbert Kögler is Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the

Department of Philosophy at the University of North Florida, Jacksonville. A
frequent guest-professor at the Alpe-Adria University in Klagenfurt, Austria,
his work explores the hermeneutic foundations of social science and critical
theory, theories of agency, language, and power, as well as intercultural
understanding and cosmopolitanism. Major publications include The Power of
Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault, (1999), Michel Foucault (2nd
edition, 2004), Kultura, Kritika, Dialog (Prague, 2006), and the co-edited volume
Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences (2000).
In 1997 the journal Social Epistemology dedicated a special issue to Kögler’s
‘Alienation as Epistemological Source: Reflexivity and Social Background
after Mannheim and Bourdieu’.

Bowen Paulle is an Assistant Professor in Sociology at the University of

Amsterdam. He is involved in policy ethnography centred around efforts to
desegregate schools and is author of Toxic Schools (under contract, University
of Chicago Press).

Andreas Pfeuffer studied sociology, history, and Latin, and is currently

working as a Research Assistant at the Institute for Social Research in Hamburg,
where he is involved in a comparative research project on public services
in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. He has translated various works by
x THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Pierre Bourdieu, Robert Castel, Michael Pollak, Serge Paugam, Luc Boltanski,
and Laurent Thévenot into German.

Keijo Rahkonen is Adjunct Professor of Social Policy and Head of the

Department of Social Research at the University of Helsinki. He is also
Director of the research project ‘Cultural Capital and Social Differentiation
in Contemporary Finland: An International Comparison’, which is funded by
the Research Council for Culture and Society at the Academy of Finland. He
has been Visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Economics and
Political Science, UK, and at the European University Institute in Florence,
Italy. His recent publications include ‘Bourdieu in Finland’ (Sociologica: Italian
Journal of Sociology Online, 2008) and ‘Nordic Democracy of Taste? Cultural
Omnivorousness in Musical and Literary Taste Preferences in Finland’ (with
Jukka Gronow and Semi Purhonen, in Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on
Culture, the Media and the Arts, 2010).

Derek Robbins is Professor of International Social Theory in the School of

Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of East London. He is the
author of The Work of Pierre Bourdieu (1991) and of Bourdieu and Culture (2000).
He is also the editor of two four-volume collections of articles on Bourdieu
in the Sage Masters of Contemporary Social Thought series (2000 and 2005)
and of a three-volume collection of articles on Lyotard in the same series
(2004). His On Bourdieu, Education and Society was published by Bardwell Press,
Oxford, in 2006, and he was the editor of the Special Issue of Theory, Culture
and Society on Bourdieu (Volume 23, Number 6, 2006). He is currently writing
The Internationalization of French Social Thought, 1950–2000 for publication by
Sage.

Franz Schultheis is Professor of Sociology at the University of St. Gallen,

Switzerland. He also taught at the Universities of Constance, Paris V,
Neuchâtel, and Geneva. He is President of the Bourdieu Foundation and has
edited many of Pierre Bourdieu’s writings in German. He specialises in the
sociology of labour, the sociology of social change, the sociology of popular
culture, and the sociology of social structure. Amongst his recent publications
are the following: Franz Schultheis, Berthold Vogel and Michael Gemperle
(eds.) Ein halbes Leben: Biographische Zeugnisse aus einer Arbeitswelt im Umbruch
(Konstanz: UVK, 2010) and Franz Schultheis, Bourdieus Wege in die Soziologie
(Konstanz: UVK, 2007).

Yves Sintomer is Professor of Political Science at Paris 8 University, Guest

Professor at Lausanne University, and Invited Researcher at Neuchâtel
List of Contributors xi

University. He received his PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the
European University Institute, Florence, and has a Habilitation to direct
research (Paris 5 University). He studied at Paris 8, Paris 10, the Johann
Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, and at Harvard University. He was
Deputy Director of the Marc Bloch Centre in Berlin, and he has held academic
positions in various countries (Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and
Spain). Together with Hans Peter-Müller, he co-edited Pierre Bourdieu. Théorie
et pratique (Paris: La Découverte, 2006). He is author of La démocratie impossible?
Politique et modernité chez Weber et Habermas (Paris: La Découverte, 1999). His
work has been translated into thirteen languages.

Simon Susen is Lecturer in Social and Political Theory at Birkbeck

College, University of London. He previously worked as a Lecturer in
Sociology at Newcastle University (2008–10) and as a Lecturer in Sociology
at Goldsmiths College, University of London (2007–8). He received his
PhD from the University of Cambridge and studied sociology, politics, and
philosophy at a range of international universities and research centres,
including the University of Edinburgh, the Colegio de México, the
Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales in Mexico City, and the
École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. With John O’Neill
and Bryan S. Turner, he is Editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology. He
is author of The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive
Sociology (Oxford: Bardwell Press, 2007).

Bryan S. Turner is the Presidential Professor of Sociology at CUNY

and Director of the Committee on Religion. He is concurrently the
Director of the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Muslim Societies
at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. He was the Alona Evans
Distinguished Visiting Professor of Sociology at Wellesley College
(2009–10), and in recent years he has held Professorships at the National
University of Singapore and the University of Cambridge. Together with
Engin Isin, he is Editor of the journal Citizenship Studies. He recently edited
The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (2009), The Routledge Handbook
of Globalization Studies (2009), and The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology
of Religion (2010).

Loïc Wacquant is Professor of Sociology at the University of California,

Berkeley, and Researcher at the Centre de sociologie européenne, Paris.
A MacArthur Prize Fellow and the recipient of the 2008 Lewis Coser Award
of the American Sociological Association, his interests span urban inequality
and marginality, incarnation, the penal state, ethnoracial domination, and
xii THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

social theory and the politics of reason. He is a co-founder and past editor
of the interdisciplinary journal Ethnography and was a regular contributor
to Le Monde Diplomatique from 1994 to 2004. His recent books include Body
and Soul: Notebooks of An Apprentice Boxer (2004), The Mystery of Ministry: Pierre
Bourdieu and Democratic Politics (2005), Das Janusgesicht des Ghettos (2006), Urban
Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality (2008), and Punishing the
Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (2009).
INTRODUCTION
Preliminary Reflections on the Legacy
of Pierre Bourdieu

Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner

Unsurprisingly, the Second World War had separate and distinctive

consequences for different national traditions of sociology. After the War, the
dominant and arguably most successful of the Western democracies emerged in
North America, and its sociological traditions assumed a celebratory and often
triumphalist perspective on modernisation. The defeat of the fascist nations –
notably Germany, Italy, and Japan – seemed to demonstrate the superiority
of Western liberal democratic systems, and North American sociologists took
the lead in developing theories of development and modernisation that were
optimistic and forward-looking. The examples are numerous, but we might
mention Daniel Lerner’s The Passing of Traditional Society (1958) or S. M. Lipset’s
The First New Nation (1963). At the centre of this post-war tradition stood The
Social System of Talcott Parsons (1951), which involved the notion that systems
could continuously and successfully adapt to environmental challenges through
the master processes of differentiation and adaptive upgrading. In many of his
short essays, he analysed the problems of German and Japanese modernisation
and saw the United States of America as a social system that had successfully
adapted to the rise of industrial modernisation. In its assessment of modern
society, Parsons’s sociology avoided the pessimistic vision of early critical
theory – epitomised in Adorno’s analysis of mass society – because he looked
forward to America as a ‘lead society’ in large-scale social development
(see Holton and Turner, 1986).
It is also the case that, in general terms, North American sociologists did
not show much interest in European sociology, especially with regard to its
more critical and negative assessments of modern capitalism. Parsons, of
course, translated Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
and published the first English version in 1930, but he did not focus on
Weber’s bleak and pessimistic view of the iron cage. He did not perceive
xiv THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the figure of Nietzsche behind Weber. Subsequently, Parsons’s reception of

Weber was much criticised by writers who sought to ‘de-Parsonise’ Weber.
Later, in 1947, Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills brought out From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology, which showed an increased interest in Weber’s writings on
the state, bureaucracy, power, and authority. Although other North American
sociologists – such as Lewis Coser in his Masters of Sociological Thought (1971) –
were appreciative of the European legacy, most North American sociologists
looked to their own traditions, in particular to the Chicago School, pragmatism,
and symbolic interactionism. Their ‘founding fathers’ were Mead, Park, and
Thomas, rather than Marx, Weber, and Durkheim.
This gap between a critical-pessimistic Western European sociology and a
progressive-optimistic North American sociology persists to a significant extent
today. To take one example, Jeffrey C. Alexander has been at the forefront of
the study of the European tradition, but his recent work The Civil Sphere (2006)
has a characteristic positive conclusion based on the view that various social
movements in North American history – notably the women’s movement and
the civil rights movement – as well as the incorporation of the Jewish community
into North American public life testify to the success, flexibility, and robustness
of political liberalism in general and American liberalism in particular. There
has been a long tradition of critical writing in North American sociology; yet,
naturally enough, its focus has been on migration and immigrants, the ‘racial’
divide, the civil rights movement, and US imperialism in Latin America. By
contrast, in European sociology after the mid-twentieth century, the Left was
preoccupied with both empirical and conceptual problems that emerged
from the legacy of Marxism, such as social class and class consciousness, the
role of the state in capitalism, and the role of ideology in class societies – to
mention only a few. While 1968 had an impact on both sides of the Atlantic,
its meaning in the European context was somewhat different (Sica and Turner,
2005). As shall be explained in the chapter on Pierre Bourdieu’s treatment of
religion, one clear difference between Western European and North American
sociology can be described as follows: whereas Western European sociologists –
such as the British sociologist Bryan Wilson – mapped the steady decline of
religion in the modern world in the secularisation thesis, North American
sociologists were inclined to record the resilience of religion and its essential
contribution to the North American way of life, as in the works of Talcott
Parsons, Will Herberg, Liston Pope, and Gerhard E. Lenski.
Across the Atlantic, although Britain had emerged successfully from the
Second World War, European Anglophone sociology was not especially
optimistic or triumphant. The British Empire, which had been in decline since
the end of the Victorian period, was finally pulled apart by the war effort, and
even the Commonwealth survived only as a fragile reminder of the past. Under
Introduction xv

the guidance of Harold Macmillan, Britain began to abandon its imperial

relationship with its colonies and accepted Macmillan’s view of ‘the wind of
change blowing through the [African] continent’, expressed in his famous speech
of 1963. Mainstream British sociology was realistic and reformist, rather than
optimistic and utopian. In fact, it could be regarded as the parallel of Keynesian
economics in focusing on issues around social insurance. Once more, Macmillan
had perhaps been prescient in recognising the dawn of modern consumerism
in his 1959 election campaign slogan: ‘Most of our people have never had it
so good’. This mood of gradual reconstruction was captured in sociology by
key figures such as Thomas H. Marshall and Richard M. Titmuss, who wrote
influential works on social citizenship and welfare reform. Their influence was
originally confined to Britain, where the LSE was the dominant institution in the
social sciences. Other influential figures within this reformist framework were
Michael Young and Peter Willmott, who published their famous investigations
of family life in the London East End in the 1950s.
British social science had been blessed by a wave of migrant intellectuals
in the twentieth century, particularly by the Jewish refugees who arrived in the
1930s and later, such as Ilya Neustadt and Norbert Elias, both of whom played
a major role in creating what became the famous ‘Leicester School’ (Rojek,
2004). In political philosophy, the dominant figure was Isaiah Berlin, who was
fundamentally critical of Marxism and distrustful of sociology, and indeed of
any theory that promoted the idea of historical determinism or of the causal
priority of ‘society’ over the ‘individual’. By the late 1960s, other émigrés
became influential, especially John Rex, who developed conflict theory along
Weberian lines, and Ralf Dahrendorf, who combined Weber and Marx in
his famous Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959). Both thinkers were
deeply critical of Parsons and more generally of North American sociology.
Rex’s Key Problems in Sociological Theory (1961), which contained an important
criticism of functionalism, became a basic textbook of undergraduate British
sociology. Other critical assessments were delivered by Tom Bottomore (1965)
in Classes in Modern Society and by David Lockwood (1964) in his article ‘Social
Integration and System Integration’ and, much later, in his book Solidarity
and Schism (1992). British sociology in the 1960s came to be identified with
various radical movements, such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
(CND) and the anti-Apartheid campaign. This political mood of criticism and
activism was reflected in Alan Dawe’s powerful article ‘The Two Sociologies’,
which was published in the British Journal of Sociology in 1970 and in which
he argued that Parsons’s systems theory ruled out agency and was based
on a conservative conception of society. With the principal exception of
Roland Robertson, few British sociologists were receptive to North American
sociology in general and to Parsonian sociology in particular.
xvi THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

In France, the impact of war was much more profound, and in the post-war
period the country was socially polarised and politically divided. The French
Left accused many national institutions and traditions of effectively playing
the role of the unwelcome and unchanged remainders of Vichy France, while
Marxism, as the predominant ideology of the French Communist Party,
had a strong impact on post-war French sociology and philosophy. French
intellectuals grappled more than most with the issues of politics and ethics to
question the relationship of the individual to society and the ultimate bases
of ethical responsibility. Jean-Paul Sartre exercised enormous influence over
these debates through his lectures at the École normale supérieure, through
newspapers such as Les Temps modernes, and through the Communist Party.
Aspiring French intellectuals had to weigh themselves against the legacy of
Sartre. As a consequence, questions about humanism, the self, and power
became dominant issues, notably in the works of Michel Foucault and Pierre
Bourdieu (Luxon, 2008).
France, unlike Britain, became involved in two major and unsuccessful
colonial wars, one in Vietnam and one in Algeria. Whereas Britain abandoned
its colonial past without protracted colonial conflicts, France was divided and
traumatised by its attempts to secure its presence in Indo-China and North
Africa. British colonial struggles in Suez and clashes with native anti-colonial
movements such as Mau Mau were, unlike the war in Algeria, relatively short-
lived. The result was that Marxist sociology played a far more dominant role
in French intellectual life than was the case in Britain and North America.
In the post-war period, sociological debate was shaped by key figures such
as Louis Althusser (1969 [1965]) and Nicos Poulantzas (1978 [1978]), both
of whom developed innovative readings of Karl Marx that were designed to
replace ‘bourgeois sociology’. While Raymond Aron (2002) was a major figure
in both politics and French intellectual life, he had few disciples and did not
create a school. In addition, his work has been important in political, rather
than in sociological, theory. At a later stage, Michel Foucault (1980) emerged
as another significant figure with an international audience.
While French sociology has had enormous influence beyond France,
the outside world has had little impact on French sociology and philosophy.
Foucault, for example, was largely ignorant of the work of Max Weber, despite
certain similarities in their interests and approach: for instance, one can see a
parallel between Weber’s writings on ‘personality and life orders’ and Foucault’s
writings on ‘subjectivity and disciplinary orders’. And, of course, both thinkers
were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. Few French sociologists worked abroad
or seriously engaged with Anglo-American sociology. Exceptions include
not only Foucault and Aron, but also Raymond Boudon (1980 [1971]), who
worked with Paul Lazarsfeld and Michel Crozier. The only significant French
Introduction xvii

interpretation of Parsons was provided by François Bourricaud (1981 [1977]) in

The Sociology of Talcott Parsons. French social scientists carved out a rich tradition
of their own, but it remained largely sealed off from the rest of the world. In
epistemological terms, they were often sceptical about, or hostile towards, Anglo-
Saxon traditions based on empiricism or positivism, and in political terms they
were often hostile to Anglo-Saxon liberalism. The leading figures of French
intellectual life were resolutely anti-American, Sartre being a primary example.
Boudon and Aron are the exceptions to this norm. Interestingly, they were both
appreciative of Alexis de Tocqueville’s interpretation of American democracy.
Aron included de Tocqueville in his Main Currents in Sociological Thought (1965),
and Boudon published a study of de Tocqueville in English. Conversely, it
was some time before Americans recognised the value of French sociological
work – for example, the importance of Crozier’s The Bureaucratic Phenomenon
(1964 [1963]) and of Bourdieu and Passeron’s The Inheritors (1979 [1964]).
While it may be argued that French sociology was intellectually isolated
from the outside world, it is crucial to acknowledge one curious – and
in many respects problematic – exogenous influence: the philosophy of
Martin Heidegger. Despite Heidegger’s active and complicit involvement in
German fascism, he was profoundly influential in post-war French thinking –
particularly in philosophy. Heidegger’s ‘anti-humanism’ was influential in the
intellectual development of Foucault; and Jacques Derrida, deeply influenced
by Heidegger, came to his defence over the persistent accusations of his
fascist commitment. In an interview in Ethos in 1983, Foucault confessed that
‘[his] entire philosophical development was determined by [his] reading of
Heidegger’ (see Didier Eribon’s Michel Foucault, 1992 [1989]: 30). Sociology was
a late development in the French university system, and many academics who
became sociologists had been trained in philosophy. Consequently, philosophy
has played a much more significant role in Francophone than in Anglophone
sociology. It is certainly the case that the often hidden and disguised influence
of Heidegger is one of the distinctive features of French sociology.
The differences between Anglophone and Francophone – as well as between
North American and Western European – academic traditions are, to a
large extent, the outcome of vastly dissimilar experiences of mass warfare,
occupation, and liberation. These historical differences between North American
and West European sociological traditions continue to produce important forms
of divergence in research traditions. North American sociology is supported by
a powerful professional body, namely the American Sociological Association;
sociology in France and Britain, by contrast, has been more fragmented,
devolved, and to some extent even marginalised within the university system.
In Britain, sociology remains overshadowed by history departments and
historical research, which is reflected in the fact that it has mainly flourished
xviii THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

in new universities such as Essex, Lancaster, and Warwick, rather than in the
traditional ones. The field of North American sociology is large; national
sociology groups in Europe are small. North American sociology is supported
by large grants; much European sociology is done with small grants and often
depends on observational studies producing qualitative data (Masson, 2008).
Although one can list these institutional differences, the divisions between
Anglophone and Francophone sociology appear to be the products of long-
standing political ideologies and cultural values. This is the socio-historical
context within which one has to understand the work of Pierre Bourdieu and
the paradigmatic framework within which to discuss his legacy.
Bourdieu was born in Southwest France on 1 August 1930. After training
at the École normale supérieure, he was a conscript in the French military in
the early years of the Algerian War of Independence (1956–8), but eventually
gained a post as an assistant at the University of Algiers. He later published
three books relating to his Algerian experiences. These works continue to
evoke deep interest in his ethnographic methods, and Bourdieu has been
identified subsequently as a ‘post-colonial thinker’ (see The Sociological Review –
Special Issue: Post-Colonial Bourdieu, 2009). Unlike that of many previous
French sociologists, Bourdieu’s work has had a wide and diverse reception.
It has played an important part in the ‘somaesthetics’ developed by Richard
Shusterman, who has combined Bourdieu’s treatment of practice and habitus
with the notion of practice in American pragmatism, notably in his Pragmatist
Aesthetics (1992) and, to some extent, in his volume Bourdieu: A Critical Reader
(1999). Bourdieu – in particular since the publication of Distinction (1984
[1979]) – has had a major impact on cultural sociology, while his work on
the logic of practice has deeply influenced what we may call ‘the turn to
practice’ in anthropology and history. He has had an equally significant role
in the development of the sociology of the body (see, for instance, Shilling,
2004; Turner, 1996). In a recent study, Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology has been
cross-fertilised with Habermas’s critical theory (Susen, 2007). In the United
States, Bourdieu’s work has been promoted and defended, especially by his
disciple, Loïc Wacquant, and other major readers have introduced Bourdieu
to an American audience – in particular, through the publication of Calhoun,
LiPuma, and Postone’s edited volume Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives (1993). There
is also little doubt that, in Britain, Bourdieu’s work has had a significant impact
on the development of the sociology of education – especially Bourdieu and
Passeron’s Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1990 [1970]). In British
social theory, this aspect of Bourdieu’s reception has been thoroughly analysed
by Derek Robbins.
It may appear that Bourdieu’s sociology is a successful bridge between
the Western European ‘critical’ tradition and the North American
Introduction xix

‘professionalised’ tradition. In our view, however, this bridge is fragile.

Obviously, Bourdieu was largely a product of the forces we have identified
in our Introduction. Bourdieu, notably in his political views, was stridently
anti-American, particularly in his The Weight of the World (1999 [1993]). He
was unambiguously a public intellectual of the Left, critical of neoliberal
economics in global terms and of French domestic policy (for example,
towards immigrants). Various chapters in this study of Bourdieu (see esp.
chapters 2 and 3) underline the influence of Marx on Bourdieu’s thinking.
While Bourdieu was significantly influenced by Marx and Durkheim, he
was not particularly receptive to American social science, despite the
obvious similarities between his ideas about agency and practice and
American pragmatism. And while French philosophy was openly influenced
by Heidegger, Bourdieu launched an attack on Heidegger’s work and the
profound impact of his writings in The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger
(1991 [1988]) (see also Bourdieu, 1975). Bourdieu was also influenced, if
only to a limited extent, by Weber (see esp. chapter 5). Turner, for instance,
examines Bourdieu’s deployment of Weber in the sociology of religion
(see chapter 10).
Ironically, Bourdieu was, to some extent, the intellectual product of a
particular field with its specific cultural capital; in this sense, his sociology
was profoundly ‘French’: his interest in and engagement with Algeria, his
sensitivities to migration in general and Muslim migration in particular, his
awareness of the competition over political and economic power between
Paris and the French regions, and his – at least implicit – anti-Americanism.
Yet, Bourdieu also emphasised that réflexivité – conceived of as a self-critical
position – was an integral component of his own sociological work, and he
was conscious of cultural, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries and
their tangible impact on the circulation of ideas in the modern world. Was
Bourdieu’s work able to transcend the French field? And where does his legacy
lie? To what extent did he span the divide between classical sociology (Marx,
Durkheim, and Weber) and contemporary sociology? Did he cross or provide
a bridge between Western European and North American sociology? It is
the task of this collection of critical essays to respond to these and similar
questions. The volume contains fifteen chapters. The wide range of topics
covered in these chapters is indicative of the complexity that characterises
Bourdieusian thought in at least five respects.
First, Bourdieu’s work is multithematic. Bourdieu produced a large number
of books and articles on a broad range of topics in various areas of research:
cultural sociology, political sociology, economic sociology, the sociology of class,
the sociology of gender, the sociology of education, the sociology of language, the
sociology of religion, the sociology of power, the sociology of experience, the
xx THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

sociology of time, the sociology of space, and the sociology of knowledge

and science – to mention only some of the key research areas in which his
sociological writings are situated. The multithematic nature of Bourdieu’s
oeuvre is indicative of his commitment to the idea that critical social scientists
should resist tendencies towards the specialisation of research programmes, the
invention of autopoietic research languages, the creation of inward-looking
research communities, the institutionalisation of self-referential research units,
and the construction of power-driven research empires.
Second, Bourdieu’s work is multidisciplinary. Given that Bourdieu was a
philosopher by training and a sociologist by choice, a multidisciplinary view
of things became an integral part of his intellectual development from an
early stage. To be exact, there seems to be a consensus in the literature that
Bourdieu’s work can be considered as multidisciplinary on three levels: in
terms of its multidisciplinary roots, in terms of its multidisciplinary outlook,
and in terms of its multidisciplinary impact. There can be little doubt that the
three disciplines that have played the most important role both in Bourdieu’s
intellectual development and in his intellectual influence are philosophy,
anthropology, and sociology. Some commentators would rightly insist that
other disciplines from the human and social sciences need to be added to this
list – in particular, economics, politics, linguistics, semiotics, psychoanalysis,
and cultural and historical studies, as well as literature, music, and art history.
The multidisciplinary – and, indeed, transdisciplinary – nature of Bourdieu’s
oeuvre is indicative of his firm conviction that critical social scientists should
seek to overcome artificial and counterproductive boundaries between
epistemically and institutionally separated disciplines.
Third, Bourdieu’s work is intellectually eclectic. Bourdieu drew on a number
of intellectual traditions in his writings. Although one runs the risk of being
overly schematic when classifying these traditions and relating the name of
Bourdieu to other influential thinkers, it seems appropriate to suggest that the
following intellectual traditions (and thinkers associated with these traditions)
are particularly important to Bourdieu’s oeuvre: in philosophy, metaphysics
and German idealism (Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel),
phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty), existentialism
(Pascal, Heidegger, and Sartre), ordinary language philosophy (Wittgenstein,
Austin, and Searle), Marxist philosophy (Althusser), and the philosophy
of science (Canguilhem, Popper, and Kuhn); in anthropology, structuralist
anthropology (Mauss and Lévi-Strauss) and symbolic anthropology (Geertz);
and, in sociology, materialist sociology (Marx), functionalist sociology
(Durkheim), interpretive sociology (Weber), micro-sociology (Mead, Garfinkel,
and Goffman), and constructivist sociology (Berger and Luckmann). In other
words, there is a long list of different intellectual traditions on which Bourdieu
drew in his writings. As is widely acknowledged in the literature, Bourdieu’s
Introduction xxi

work not only offers an original synthesis of the ‘Holy Trinity’ of Marx,
Durkheim, and Weber but also illustrates the continuing relevance of
their writings to contemporary issues in social and political analysis. The
three canonical cornerstones of sociological research – that is, Marxian,
Durkheimian, and Weberian thought – are just as crucial to Bourdieu’s
oeuvre as three of the most influential disciplines in the history of the
humanities and social sciences: philosophy, anthropology, and sociology.
The eclectic nature of Bourdieu’s writings reflects his willingness to engage
with different – and, in many respects, competing – currents of social and
political thought, indicating his persuasion that critical social scientists
should dare to break with canonical patterns of research by cross-fertilising
the conceptual tools and theoretical presuppositions of rival intellectual
traditions.
Fourth, Bourdieu’s work is both empirically grounded and theoretically informed. It
is no secret that Bourdieu, as he stressed on several occasions, was committed
to combining empirical and theoretical research in his own work. More
specifically, Bourdieu sought to contribute to overcoming the gap between
empirically anchored and practically engaged research, on the one hand,
and conceptually driven and theoretically oriented research, on the other.
From a Bourdieusian standpoint, truly reflexive social research cannot rely
on an artificial division of labour between those who engage primarily in the
collection of quantitative or qualitative data ‘on the ground’ and those who
immerse themselves exclusively in the elaboration of sophisticated conceptual
frameworks ‘from the desk’. Reflexive social research is not simply about
either doing ethnological tourism – ‘with the object of study’ – through the
embodied experience of real life, or embracing a position of philosophical
transcendentalism – ‘above the object of study’ – through the disembodied
experience of scholastic life. In other words, the pursuit of critical social research
is not about creating a gulf between data collectors and number crunchers, on
one side, and conceptual architects and system builders, on the other. Rather,
it is about combining the empirical and the theoretical components of social
science and thereby demonstrating their interdependence. If one claims to
be committed to the idea of critical social science in the Bourdieusian sense,
one must seek to overcome the counterproductive divide between empirical
and theoretical research. As a philosophe by training and a sociologue by choice
(Hacking, 2004: 147; Susen, 2007: 246), Bourdieu was convinced that ‘research
without theory is blind, and theory without research is empty’ (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 162, italics removed). The fact that his writings are not only
guided by sophisticated philosophical frameworks but also substantiated by a
large variety of empirical studies illustrates that Bourdieu sought to practise
what he preached. The empirically grounded and theoretically informed nature
of Bourdieu’s oeuvre proves his commitment to the view that methodologically
xxii THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

rigorous observation and conceptually refined interpretation must go hand in

hand if one aims to study the functioning of society in a genuinely scientific
manner.
Fifth, Bourdieu’s work is politically committed. Particularly towards the end of
his career, Bourdieu was concerned with establishing a fruitful link between
his sociological studies, which were aimed at providing a deconstructive grasp of
reality, and his various political engagements, which were oriented towards
having a constructive impact upon society. In this sense, Bourdieusian thought
is clearly committed to the Marxist dictum that ‘[t]he philosophers have
only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it’ (Marx,
2000/1977 [1845]: 173). From a Bourdieusian perspective, the social sciences
in general and sociology in particular have a normative commitment not
only to providing an insightful and critical understanding of human reality but
also, more importantly, to having a positive and transformative impact on the
material and symbolic organisation of society. Hence, a critical interpretation
of reality should make use of the scientific tools developed by sociology
and thereby seek to contribute to the emancipation of society. Precisely, an
emancipatory science – in the Bourdieusian sense – needs to confront three
essential tasks: first, to uncover the underlying mechanisms that perpetuate
the reproduction of material and symbolic relations of social domination
(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 14–15); second, to ‘universalise the conditions
of access to universality’ that generate material and symbolic processes of
social emancipation (Bourdieu, 1994: 233, italics added); and, third, to engage
in a ‘Realpolitik of reason’ (Bourdieu, 2001: 32, italics in original), thereby
mobilising the empowering resources of critical rationality and making use of
them for the consolidation of an emancipatory society. The political nature of
Bourdieu’s oeuvre is an unambiguous sign of his belief that critical sociologists
should not only engage in the scientific study of the relational construction
of reality but also aim to have a transformative impact upon the historical
development of society.
The fifteen chapters of the present volume illustrate – on different levels and
with different emphases – the importance of the aforementioned concerns.
First, similarly to Bourdieu’s own work, the selection of essays published
in the present volume is multithematic. Themes covered in this book range
from Bourdieu’s cultural sociology ( Joas/Knöbl, Rahkonen, and Susen),
Bourdieu’s political sociology (Basaure, Robbins, and Sintomer), Bourdieu’s
economic sociology (Adkins), Bourdieu’s sociology of language (Kögler), and
Bourdieu’s sociology of religion (Bourdieu/Schultheis/Pfeuffer and Turner)
to Bourdieu’s sociology of power (Fowler and Paulle/van Heerikhuizen/
Emirbayer), Bourdieu’s sociology of experience (Frère and Karsenti),
Bourdieu’s sociology of time (Adkins), and Bourdieu’s sociology of knowledge
Introduction xxiii

and science (Robbins, Sintomer, and Wacquant). Unsurprisingly, there is

some significant overlap between the thematic foci of these chapters. As
much as this overlap is symptomatic of the breadth and depth of Bourdieu’s
oeuvre, it illustrates the difficulty attached to any attempts to divide his
various contributions into key thematic areas. In light of the multithematic
complexity of Bourdieusian thought, it may be impossible, and indeed
pointless, to pigeonhole his main contributions.
Second, following l’esprit ouvert that runs through Bourdieu’s writings, the
volume is multidisciplinary. Even if we accept that all disciplinary boundaries
are somewhat artificial and that, as Bourdieu points out, they can have
counterproductive effects, we cannot deny that the three disciplinary pillars
of Bourdieusian thought – philosophy, anthropology, and sociology – are
omnipresent in the following chapters. Although, in the broadest sense, all
of the contributions to this volume represent critical studies in social and
political thought, they fall into these three main disciplines. We may explore
Bourdieu’s philosophically inspired accounts of the age-old preoccupation with
the relationships between history and society (Fowler), being and society
(Karsenti), language and society (Kögler), reason and society (Sintomer), faith
and society (Turner), polity and society (Robbins), recognition and society
(Basaure), resentment and society (Rahkonen), aesthetics and society (Susen),
or time and society (Adkins). We may focus on Bourdieu’s anthropologically
motivated analyses of the civilisational functions of culture (Joas/Knöbl),
religion (Bourdieu/Schultheis/Pfeuffer and Turner), habitus (Frère), individual
and collective experiences (Karsenti), or historical development (Karsenti
and Wacquant). And, in fact, we may appreciate the relevance of Bourdieu’s
sociologically grounded studies of a number of themes in literally every chapter:
practice and society ( Joas/Knöbl), capital and society (Fowler), the body and
society (Karsenti), knowledge and society (Wacquant), relationality and society
(Bourdieu/Schultheis/Pfeuffer), taste and society (Rahkonen), power and
society (Paulle/van Heerikhuizen/Emirbayer), culture and society (Susen),
intersubjectivity and society (Basaure), religion and society (Turner), habitus
and society (Frère), communication and society (Kögler), politics and society
(Robbins), the public sphere and society (Sintomer), or economy and society
(Adkins). The wide-ranging disciplinary relevance of Bourdieusian thought to
anthropology, philosophy, and sociology, which manifests itself in the diverse
thematic foci of this volume, illustrates the fact that Bourdieusian thought
transcends canonical boundaries not only in terms of its multidisciplinary
roots and outlook but also in terms of its transdisciplinary impact on different
areas of research in the humanities and social sciences.
Third, resembling the Bourdieusian approach itself, the volume is
intellectually eclectic. The book seeks to do justice to the fact that Bourdieu
xxiv THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

drew on a range of intellectual traditions and on a variety of thinkers

whose works are associated with these traditions. Far from covering all of
the intellectual schools and paradigmatic trends that influenced Bourdieu’s
oeuvre, the collection of essays published in the present volume has three main
foci. The first set of essays traces the roots of Bourdieu’s thought in classical
sociology by closely examining his intellectual connections with the writings
of the founding figures of sociology, that is, with the works of Marx (Fowler and
Karsenti), Durkheim (Wacquant), and Weber (Bourdieu/Schultheis/Pfeuffer).
The second set of essays is mainly concerned with Bourdieu’s relation to modern
social philosophy, in particular with regard to the works of Nietzsche (Rahkonen),
Elias (Paulle/van Heerikhuizen/Emirbayer), Adorno (Susen), and Honneth
(Basaure). The third set of essays explores the relevance of Bourdieu’s writings
to key issues debated in the contemporary social sciences, such as the continuous
presence of religion (Turner), the transformative power of social movements
(Frère), the emancipatory potential of language (Kögler), the political legacy of
1968 (Robbins), the socio-historical significance of the rise of the public sphere
(Sintomer), and – particularly important in the current climate – the social
consequences of economic crisis (Adkins). The wide range of topics covered in
the present volume indicates that it would be a mistake to associate Bourdieu’s
work exclusively with one particular theme and, in so doing, disregard the
fact that intellectual eclecticism constitutes an essential feature of Bourdieu’s
oeuvre, not only in terms of its roots and points of reference, but also in terms
of its overall impact on the contemporary social sciences.
Fourth, in line with one of Bourdieu’s deepest convictions, the volume pays
tribute to the fact that his work is both empirically grounded and theoretically informed.
The essays in this book are yet another illustration of the fact that Bourdieu
can be praised for practising what he preached in that, in his sociological
writings, he was firmly committed to overcoming the divide between ‘the
empirical’ and ‘the conceptual’, ‘the concrete’ and ‘the abstract’, ‘the actual’
and ‘the nominal’, and ‘the practical’ and ‘the theoretical’. To be sure, most
of the following chapters have a ‘theoretical’ focus, since they are primarily
concerned with the legacy of Bourdieu’s work in contemporary social and
political thought. Nevertheless, what manifests itself in the contributions to
this volume is the fact that we can only make sense of Bourdieu’s oeuvre if we
consider his conviction that critical social analysis needs to be both empirically
grounded and theoretically informed as a central normative position. Indeed,
the whole of Bourdieu’s famous critique of scholastic thought was motivated
by the view that it is the skholè – a situation characterised by freedom from
necessity – which leads scholastic thinkers to produce scholastic thought, that
is, thought which fails to reflect upon the social conditions of its own existence
(Bourdieu, 1997: 9, 15, 22, 24, 131, and 143; Susen, 2007: 158–167). According
Introduction xxv

to Bourdieu, scholastic thinkers ‘remain trapped in the scholastic dilemma of

determinism and freedom’ (1997: 131) because their privileged position in
the social space permits them to ignore the homological intertwinement of
field and habitus. We can look at Bourdieu’s fruitful synthesis of the works of
Marx, Durkheim, and Weber (chapters 2–5) and his concern with classical
sociological categories such as ‘social struggle’, ‘social facts’, and ‘social
understanding’. We can explore Bourdieu’s engagement with modern German
social philosophy – for instance, with regard to the works of Nietzsche, Elias,
Adorno, and Honneth (chapters 6–9) – and his sociological development of
concepts such as ‘taste’, ‘power’, ‘culture’, and ‘recognition’. And, of course,
we can assess the usefulness of Bourdieu’s oeuvre for making sense of key
issues in the contemporary social sciences, in particular with regard to the
sociological significance of religion, language, political change, public debate,
and economic transformations (chapters 10–15). All of these themes, which
are thoroughly examined in the present volume, were studied by Bourdieu
through a fruitful combination of solid empirical data and sophisticated
theoretical frameworks. For, as he insisted, only insofar as we do justice to the
fact that critical social research needs to be both empirically grounded and
theoretically informed can we claim to produce social-scientific knowledge.
Fifth, the contributions to this volume illustrate – some directly, some
indirectly – that Bourdieu’s sociology is politically committed. From a Bourdieusian
standpoint, however, sociology can only be politically committed if it is
devoted to both providing a critical analysis of social relations and having
a transformative impact upon the daily reproduction of power relations.
To a greater or lesser extent, Bourdieu’s normative commitment to the
political nature of reflexive sociology is reflected in each of the chapters of
this volume. We shall conclude this Introduction by briefly elaborating upon
this political dimension and its relevance to the arguments developed in the
following contributions.
In the introductory chapter, Joas and Knöbl remind us of the importance of
Bourdieu’s experiences in Algeria during a formative time in which Bourdieu
gained direct access to the social and political complexities of Algerian
colonial and postcolonial realities. In the second chapter, Fowler elegantly
shows that, given that he was committed to some of the key presuppositions
of historical materialism, Bourdieu not only borrowed powerful conceptual
tools and useful methodological frameworks from Marxist social analysis,
but he also recognised that the critical study of power relations is pointless if
it is not aimed at the emancipatory transformation of social relations. In the
third chapter, Karsenti argues, in accordance with both Marx and Bourdieu,
that the ‘game of theory’ is worth nothing if it fails to engage with the
‘reality of practice’ and that, due to our bodily immersion in a contradictory
xxvi THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

society, there is no such thing as an innocent form of subjectivity. In the

fourth chapter, Wacquant, on the basis of a comparative analysis of the
works of Durkheim and Bourdieu, contends that the existence of seemingly
ineluctable social facts cannot be dissociated from the existence of relatively
arbitrary social norms: the social conditions that appear independent of
our will are historically specific arrangements that can and often have to be
changed through our will. This position ties in with the thematic focus of the
fifth chapter: when interviewed by Schultheis and Pfeuffer, Bourdieu asserts
that society can be regarded as an ensemble of relatively arbitrary relations
between people and groups of people, whose existence is necessarily shaped
by the spatiotemporal specificity of a given cultural reality and by field-
differentiated codes of practical legitimacy.
The sixth chapter, written by Rahkonen, seems to suggest that, ultimately,
Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht and Bourdieu’s Wille zum Geschmack together form
the socio-ontological foundation of our Wille zur Welt. Paulle, van Heerikhuizen,
and Emirbayer demonstrate in the seventh chapter that if our lives are
contingent upon the homological interplay between habitus and field, and
therefore upon a constant struggle over different forms of capital, the taken-
for-grantedness of social relations is necessarily impregnated with the interest-
ladenness of power relations. In the eighth chapter, Susen offers a comparative
analysis of Adorno’s critique of the culture industry and Bourdieu’s account
of the cultural economy; the obvious political challenge to be confronted in
light of the deep pessimism that permeates both Adornean and Bourdieusian
thought is to explore the extent to which there is room for empowering forms
of culture within disempowering forms of society. In the ninth chapter,
Basaure invites us to take on some difficult tasks from which emancipatory
forms of sociology cannot hide away – namely the tasks of giving a voice to
the voiceless, of making the unrecognised recognisable, and of shedding light
on individual and collective experiences of suffering and disrespect caused by
a lack of social recognition and access to social resources.
In the tenth chapter, Turner illustrates that, given that religious practices
and belief systems have far from disappeared in modern society, critical
sociologists are obliged to reflect upon the normative relationship between
secular and religious modes of relating to and making sense of the world. In
the eleventh chapter, Frère rightly insists that even if we conceive of people
primarily as ‘homological actors’, who are relatively determined by the various
positions they occupy in different social spaces, we need to account for the fact
that humans have the capacity to invent and reinvent their place in the world
by constantly working and acting upon it. Taking into consideration that,
as Kögler elucidates in the twelfth chapter, linguistic interactions are always
asymmetrically structured because they are inevitably permeated by power
Introduction xxvii

relations, a critical sociology of language needs to explore the extent to which

linguistically articulated claims to epistemic validity represent relationally
constituted claims to social legitimacy. From Robbins’s textual analysis,
developed in the thirteenth chapter, it becomes clear that, for Bourdieu, social
science and political action have to go hand in hand: a raisonnement sociologique
that compels us to confront the reality of social domination is, at the same time,
a raisonnement politique that invites us to contemplate the possibility of social
emancipation. As Sintomer explains in the fourteenth chapter, Bourdieu’s
concept of critical reason is ultimately a form of political reason: just as
research without theory is blind and theory without research is empty, politics
without critique is edgeless and critique without politics is pointless. Finally, as
Adkins convincingly argues in the fifteenth chapter, in Bourdieu’s writings we
can find powerful resources to make sense not only of the current economic
crisis but also of the silent shift from the modern paradigm ‘time is money’
to the late modern dictum ‘money is time’: the temporalisation of practice
is intimately interrelated with the politicisation of time and, hence, with the
restructuring of social life.
We have taken the possibly unusual step of providing an Afterword, which
offers the reader a synoptic view of the chapters. We have included this
Afterword in part because the chapters, while addressing a common theme,
are both diverse and complex. The Afterword contains a clear and concise
summary of the overall objectives of this collection. Readers may want to
consult both the Introduction and the Afterword before launching into the
core of this volume.

Acknowledgements
We are deeply grateful to Elena Knox for her detailed and useful comments
on an earlier version of this Introduction.

References
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2006) The Civil Sphere, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Althusser, Louis (1969 [1965]) For Marx, trans. Ben Brewster, Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin.
Aron, Raymond (2002) Le marxisme de Marx, Paris: Fallois.
Aron, Raymond, Richard Howard and Helen Weaver (1965) Main Currents in Sociological
Thought, trans. Richard Howard and Helen Weaver, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Back, Les, Azzedine Haddour and Nirmal Puwar (eds.) (2009) The Sociological Review – Special
Issue: Post-Colonial Bourdieu 57(3).
Bottomore, T. B. (1965) Classes in Modern Society, London: Allen & Unwin.
Boudon, Raymond (1980 [1971]) The Crisis in Sociology: Problems of Sociological Epistemology,
trans. Howard H. Davis, New York: Columbia University Press.
xxviii THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre (1975) ‘L’ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger’, Actes de la recherche en

sciences sociales 5–6: 109–156.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1976) ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 8–9
[2–3]: 88–104.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991 [1988]) The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger, trans. Peter Collier,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Terry Eagleton (1992) ‘Doxa and Common Life’, New Left Review 191:
111–121.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1997) Méditations pascaliennes, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) ‘Mit Weber gegen Weber: Pierre Bourdieu im Gespräch’, in Pierre
Bourdieu, Das religiöse Feld. Texte zur Ökonomie des Heilsgeschehens, herausgegeben von
Franz Schultheis, Andreas Pfeuffer und Stephan Egger, übersetzt von Stephan Egger,
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 111–129.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001) ‘Si le monde social m’est supportable, c’est parce que je peux m’indigner’.
Entretien avec Antoine Spire, Paris: Éditions de l’Aube.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1979 [1964]) The Inheritors: French Students and
their Relation to Culture, trans. Richard Nice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society
and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourricaud, François (1981 [1977]) The Sociology of Talcott Parsons, trans. Arthur Goldhammer,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) (1993) Bourdieu: Critical
Perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coser, Lewis A. (1971) Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context,
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Crozier, Michel (1964 [1963]) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, London: Tavistock.
Dahrendorf, Ralf (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Dawe, Alan (1970) ‘The Two Sociologies’, The British Journal of Sociology 21(2): 207–218.
Eribon, Didier (1992 [1989]) Michel Foucault, trans. Betsy Wing, London: Faber.
Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, edited
by Colin Gordon, translated by Colin Gordon [et al.], Brighton: Harvester Press.
Hacking, Ian (2004) ‘Science de la science chez Pierre Bourdieu’, in Jacques Bouveresse
and Daniel Roche (eds.) La liberté par la connaissance: Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002), Paris:
Collège de France, Odile Jacob, pp. 147–162.
Holton, Robert John and Bryan S. Turner (1986) Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Introduction xxix

Lerner, Daniel (1958) The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, with the
collaboration of Lucille W. Pevsner and an introduction by David Riesman, Glencoe,
Ill.: Free Press.
Lipset, Seymour Martin (1963) The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and
Comparative Perspective, New York: Basic Books.
Lockwood, David (1964) ‘Social Integration and System Integration’, in George
K. Zollschan and Walter Hirsch (eds.) Explorations in Social Change, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, pp. 244–257.
Lockwood, David (1992) Solidarity and Schism: ‘The Problem of Disorder’ in Durkheimian and
Marxist Sociology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Luxon, Nancy (2008) ‘Ethics and Subjectivity: Practices of Self-Governance in the Late
Lectures of Michel Foucault’, Political Theory 36(3): 377–402.
Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1845]) ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–174.
Masson, Philippe (2008) Faire de la sociologie. Les grandes enquêtes françaises depuis 1945. Paris:
La Découverte.
Parsons, Talcott (1951) The Social System, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Poulantzas, Nicos (1978 [1978]) State, Power, Socialism, trans. Patrick Camiller, London:
NLB.
Rex, John (1961) Key Problems of Sociological Theory, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rojek, Chris (2004) ‘An Anatomy of the Leicester School of Sociology: An Interview with
Eric Dunning’, Journal of Classical Sociology 4(3): 337–359.
Shilling, Chris (2004) ‘Physical Capital and Situated Action: A New Direction for Corporeal
Sociology’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 25(4): 473–487.
Shusterman, Richard (1992) Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Shusterman, Richard (ed.) (1999) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
Sica, Alan and Stephen P. Turner (2005) The Disobedient Generation: Social Theorists in the Sixties,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology,
Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Turner, Bryan S. (1996) The Body and Society, London: Sage.
Weber, Max (2001/1930 [1904–05]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans.
Talcott Parsons, London: Routledge.
CHAPTER ONE
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice:
The Cultural Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu1

Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl

Translated by Alex Skinner 2

Bourdieu’s work was deeply moulded by the national intellectual milieu in

which it developed, that of France in the late 1940s and 1950s, a milieu
characterised by disputes between phenomenologists and structuralists. But
it is not this national and cultural dimension that distinguishes Bourdieu’s
writings from those of other ‘grand theorists’. Habermas and Giddens, for
example, owed as much to the academic or political context of their home
countries. What set Bourdieu’s approach apart from that of his German and
British ‘rivals’ was a significantly stronger linkage of theoretical and empirical
knowledge. Bourdieu was first and foremost an empirical sociologist, that is, a
sociologist who developed and constantly refined his theoretical concepts on
the basis of his empirical work – with all the advantages and disadvantages
that theoretical production of this kind entails. We shall have more to say
about this later. Bourdieu is thus to be understood primarily not as a theorist
but as a cultural sociologist who systematically stimulated the theoretical
debate through his empirical work.
Pierre Bourdieu was born in 1930 and is therefore of the same generation
as Habermas and Luhmann. The fact that Bourdieu came from a modest
background and grew up in the depths of provincial France is extremely
important to understanding his work. Bourdieu himself repeatedly
emphasised the importance of his origins: ‘I spent most of my youth in a
tiny and remote village of Southwestern France […]. And I could meet the
demands of schooling only by renouncing many of my primary experiences
and acquisitions, and not only a certain accent [...]’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 204). Despite these clearly unfavourable beginnings, Bourdieu was to
succeed in gaining entry to the leading educational institutions in France,
a fact of which many people became aware when he was elected to the famous
2 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Collège de France in 1982. This classic case of climbing the social and career
ladder, the fact that Bourdieu had no privileged educational background
to draw on, helped legitimise his pitiless take on the French education and
university system and on intellectuals in general – a group he investigated
in numerous studies over the course of his career. He thus made use of the
classical sociological notion of the outsider – the ‘marginal man’ – in order
to lay claim to special and, above all, critical insights into the functioning of
‘normal’ society.

In France, to come from a distant province, to be born south of the Loire, endows
you with a number of properties that are not without parallel in the colonial
situation. It gives you a sort of objective and subjective externality and puts you in a
particular relation to the central institutions of French society and therefore to the
intellectual institution. There are subtle (and not so subtle) forms of social racism
that cannot but make you perceptive [...]. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 209)

Yet, Bourdieu’s path to the production of a sociology of French cultural

institutions and to sociology more generally was anything but straightforward or
self-evident – a state of affairs with which we are familiar from the biographies
of other major social theorists, such as Habermas and Luhmann, who also took
some time to settle on a career in sociology. A highly gifted student, Bourdieu
studied at the École Normale Superieure in Paris, where he took philosophy – the
most prestigious subject in the French disciplinary canon. He initially seems to
have wanted to concentrate on this subject, given that he subsequently worked as
a philosophy teacher in provincial France for a brief period, as is usual for those
who go on to have an academic career in the humanities in France. But Bourdieu
was increasingly disappointed by philosophy and developed an ever-greater
interest in anthropology, so that he ultimately became a self-taught, empirically
oriented, anthropologist, and later sociologist. This process of turning away
from philosophy and towards anthropology and sociology was partly bound up
with Lévi-Strauss’s concurrent rise to prominence. With its claim to a strictly
scientific approach, structuralist anthropology began to challenge philosophy’s
traditional pre-eminence within the disciplinary canon. Bourdieu was drawn
towards this highly promising and up-and-coming subject. Structuralism’s anti-
philosophical tone held much appeal for him (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]:
339–370) and often appeared in his own work – for example, when he takes up
arms against philosophy’s purely theoretical rationality.
It is important, however, to be aware of the fact that Bourdieu’s path to
anthropology and sociology was also determined by external factors: he was
stationed in Algeria during the second half of the 1950s while completing his
military service. There, in the undoubtedly very difficult circumstances of the
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 3

war of independence, he gathered data for his first book, a sociology of Algeria
(Bourdieu, 1958) – in which he came to terms intellectually with his experiences
in this French colony (see Robbins, 1991: 10 ff.). In this setting, he also carried
out field research among the Kabyle, a Berber people of northern Algeria,
which led to the publication of a number of anthropological monographs
and essays that, in collected and eventually expanded form, appeared as a
book entitled Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977 [1972]). This work, published
in French in 1972, and then expanded greatly for the English (and German)
translation, became tremendously famous and influential because Bourdieu
departed from the structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, in whose footsteps he had
originally followed, and developed his own set of concepts, which held out the
promise of a genuine theoretical synthesis.
At around the same time as these basically anthropological studies,
Bourdieu began to utilise the theoretical insights they contained to subject
French society to sociological analysis – particularly its cultural, educational
and class system. With respect to the socially critical thrust of his writings,
the work of Marx was, in many ways, his model and touchstone, and a large
number of essays appeared in the 1960s which were later translated into
English – for example, in Photography: A Middle-Brow Art (1990 [1965]). In these
studies, Bourdieu and his co-authors attempt to describe the perception of art
and culture, which varies so greatly from one class to another, and to elucidate
how class struggle involves contrasting ways of appropriating art and culture.
Classes set themselves apart by means of a very different understanding of
art and culture and thus reproduce, more or less unintentionally, the class
structures of (French) society. Bourdieu elaborated this thesis in a particularly
spectacular way in perhaps his most famous work of cultural sociology, La
distinction. Critique sociale du jugement (English title: Distinction: A Social Critique of
the Judgement of Taste, 1984 [1979]).
Bourdieu’s subsequent publications merely complemented or completed a
theoretical research orientation set at an early stage. In terms of cultural sociology,
two major studies have become particularly important: Homo Academicus (1988
[1984]), an analysis of the French university system, particularly the crisis it
faced towards the end of the 1960s, and Les règles de l’art (English title: The Rules
of Art, 1996 [1992]), a historical and sociological study of the development
of an autonomous art scene in France in the second half of the nineteenth
century. Alongside these works, Bourdieu also published a steady flow of
writings that fleshed out his theoretical ambitions, Le sens pratique (English title:
The Logic of Practice, 1990 [1980]) and Meditations pascaliennes (English title:
Pascalian Meditations, 2000 [1997]) being the key texts in this regard. But even
in these basically theoretical studies, it is fair to say that he expands on the
conceptual apparatus presented in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977 [1972])
4 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

only to a limited degree; above all, he defends it against criticisms. It is almost

impossible, however, to discern any theoretical development here. Bourdieu’s
theory thus distinguishes itself from that of other grand theorists. To deploy
the language of the building trade, not only the foundation walls, but also
the overall structure and even the roof were in place very quickly, while the
later theoretical work related solely to the facade and décor. Ever since it was
developed in the 1960s, his theory has thus remained basically the same.
It was solely Bourdieu’s identity or role that seemed to change significantly
over the course of time. While Bourdieu was always politically active on
the left, this generally took a less spectacular form than in the case of other
French intellectuals, occurring away from the light of day and basically
unnoticed by most people. The fact that he pursued such activities away
from the limelight was partly bound up with his frequently expressed
critique of high-profile French intellectuals à la Jean-Paul Sartre, who
frequently overshot the bounds of their specialisms and claimed a universal
competence and public responsibility to which they were scarcely entitled.
Yet, Bourdieu abandoned such restraint from the 1990s (at the latest) until
his death in 2002. He increasingly emerged as a symbolic figure for critics of
globalisation in this period and was almost automatically made the kind of
major intellectual he had never wished to be. His book, La Misère du Monde
(English title: The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society, 1999
[1993]) was conceived as a kind of empirical demonstration of the negative
effects of globalisation in different spheres of life and cultures. One has to
give Bourdieu credit for having avoided a purely pamphleteering role to the
very last. He was too strongly oriented towards empirical research, and his
Durkheim-like ambition to strengthen the position of sociology within the
disciplinary canon of France and to set it apart from other subjects – especially
philosophy and social philosophy – was too strong for him to take on such a
role. Bourdieu, so aware of power, had an ongoing interest in developing the
kind of empirical sociological research which he favoured at an institutional
level, as demonstrated in his role as editor of the journal Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales, which he founded in 1975 and which was accessible to a
broad readership (on Bourdieu’s intellectual biography, see the interview in
Bourdieu, 1990 [1987]: 3–33).
Our account of Bourdieusian theory will proceed as follows. First, we shall
take a closer look at his early work, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977 [1972]),
which is of particular theoretical relevance as it features the basic elements of
his arguments. Though we shall frequently draw on explanations and more
precise formulations from subsequent works, our key aim is to lay bare why,
and with the help of which ideas, Bourdieu tackled certain problems at a
relatively early stage (1). Always bearing this early work in mind, and while
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 5

presenting Bourdieu’s key concepts, we shall then critically examine the model
of action advocated by Bourdieu and the problems it entails (2). We then go
on to present the overall architecture of Bourdieusian theory and identify the
nodal points within it (3) before presenting, as vividly and as briefly as possible,
some characteristic aspects of Bourdieu’s works of cultural sociology (4) and
shedding light on the impact of his work (5).
1. We therefore begin with the early study of Kabyle society mentioned
above, whose programmatic title requires explication: Outline of a Theory of
Practice (1977 [1972]). Bourdieu – as intimated in our remarks on his intellectual
biography – was caught up in the enthusiasm for Lévi-Straussian anthropology
in the 1950s and began his anthropological research in Kabylia by focusing on
key structuralist topics. Studies of kinship patterns, marriage behaviour and
mythology were to provide insights into the logic of the processes occurring
within this society and into the way in which it continually reproduces itself
on the basis of certain rules. Yet, Bourdieu’s research had unexpected results.
Above all, these did not confirm the structuralist premise of the constancy
of rules (of marriage, exchange, communication) in line with which people
supposedly always act. Rather, Bourdieu concluded that actors either play
rules off against each other more or less as they see fit, so that one can scarcely
refer to the following of rules, or follow them only in order to disguise concrete
interests. This is particularly apparent in the first chapter of the book, in
which Bourdieu scrutinises the phenomenon of ‘honour’. In Kabyle society –
and in other places as well, of course – honour plays a very important role; it
seems impossible to link it with base economic interests because ‘honourable
behaviour’ is directly opposed to action oriented towards profit. A man is
honourable only if he is not greedy and cannot be bought. And, in Kabyle
society, the rituals by means of which one demonstrates that one’s actions are
honourable and that one is an honourable person are particularly pronounced.
Bourdieu, however, demonstrates that these rituals of honour often merely
mask (profit-related) interests; the actors see this link between honour and
interests – or at least unconsciously produce it – and people uphold rituals of
honour because they enable them to promote their interests.

The ritual of the ceremony of presenting the bridewealth is the occasion for a
total confrontation between the two groups, in which the economic stakes are no
more than an index and pretext. To demand a large payment for one’s daughter,
or to pay a large sum to marry off one’s son, is in either case to assert one’s
prestige, and thereby to acquire prestige […]. By a sort of inverted haggling,
disguised under the appearance of ordinary bargaining, the two groups tacitly
agree to step up the amount of the payment by successive bids, because they have
a common interest in raising this indisputable index of the symbolic value of their
6 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

products on the matrimonial exchange market. And no feat is more highly praised
than the prowess of the bride’s father who, after vigorous bargaining has been
concluded, solemnly returns a large share of the sum received. The greater the
proportion returned, the greater the honour accruing from it, as if, in crowning
the transaction with an act of generosity, the intention was to make an exchange
of honour out of bargaining which could be so overtly keen only because the
pursuit of maximum material profit was masked under the contests of honour
and the pursuit of maximum symbolic profit. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 56)

Rituals of honour thus conceal very tangible interests, which are overlooked if
one merely describes the logic of the rules, as do structuralist anthropologists.
What is more, for precisely this reason, rules are by no means as rigid and have
nothing like the determining effect on behaviour that orthodox structuralist
authors assume. As Bourdieu observed, rules that do not tally with actors’
interests are often broken, leading him to conclude that an element of
‘unpredictability’ is clearly inherent in human action with respect to rules
and patterns, rituals and regulations (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 9). This places
a question mark over the entire structuralist terminology of rules and its
underlying premises. Bourdieu puts forward the counter-argument that the
following of rules is always associated with an element of conflict. If rules
are not, in fact, ignored entirely – which certainly occurs at times – every
rule-based act of exchange, every rule-based conversation, every rule-based
marriage must also at least protect or enforce the interests of those involved
or improve the social position of the parties to interaction. Rules are thus
consciously instrumentalised by actors:

Every exchange contains a more or less dissimulated challenge, and the logic
of challenge and riposte is but the limit towards which every act of communication
tends. Generous exchange tends towards overwhelming generosity; the greatest
gift is at the same time the gift most likely to throw its recipient into dishonour
by prohibiting any counter-gift. To reduce to the function of communication –
albeit by the transfer of borrowed concepts – phenomena such as the dialectic
of challenge and riposte and, more generally, the exchange of gifts, words,
or women, is to ignore the structural ambivalence which predisposes them to
fulfil a political function of domination in and through performance of the
communication function. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 14, emphasis in original)

Bourdieu accuses structuralism of having failed entirely to take account of

how the action undertaken by social actors is related to interests in favour of a
highly idealised description of rules and cultural patterns. People, according to
Bourdieu, can manipulate rules and patterns; they are not merely the passive
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 7

objects of social classification systems. Because actors pursue their interests,

we must assume that there is always a difference between the ‘official’ and the
‘regular’ (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 38) and between (theoretically) construed
models and the practice of actors. It may be very helpful to identify social rules,
but it is by no means sufficient if we wish to get at actors’ practice:

The logical relationships constructed by the anthropologist are opposed to

‘practical’ relationships – practical because continuously practised, kept up, and
cultivated – in the same way as the geometrical space of a map, an imaginary
representation of all theoretically possible roads and routes, is opposed to the
network of beaten tracks, of paths made ever more practicable by constant use.
(Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 37)

Ultimately, this is a profound criticism of structuralism (as the title Outline

of a Theory of Practice indicates), particularly given that Bourdieu also resists
applying the Saussurian paradigm of linguistic analysis – so inspiring for
structuralists – to the social world (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 24). In this way,
he casts doubt on the theoretical and empirical fruitfulness of the structuralist
anthropology and sociology of Lévi-Strauss.

[The only way] the Saussurian construction [...] could constitute the structural
properties of the message was (simply by positing an indifferent sender and
receiver) to neglect the functional properties the message derives from its use in a
determinate situation and, more precisely, in a socially structured interaction. As
soon as one moves from the structure of language to the functions it fulfils, that
is, to the uses agents actually make of it, one sees that mere knowledge of the
code gives only very imperfect mastery of the linguistic interactions really taking
place. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 25, emphasis in original)

Examining the actual practice characteristic of the ‘objects of investigation’

more closely, according to Bourdieu, reveals how inappropriate or insufficient
structuralist analysis is. To put it in slightly more abstract terms, Bourdieu
introduces elements of action theory into his originally structuralist theoretical
framework – namely, the idea of conduct at variance with the rules and related
to interests. This was to change the structuralist paradigm markedly. As he was
to state later in another publication, he objected in particular to the ‘strange
philosophy of action’ inherent in structuralism, which ‘made the agent
disappear by reducing it to the role of supporter or bearer of the structure’
(Bourdieu, 1996 [1992]: 179).
Yet, Bourdieu does not break entirely with structuralism. He always
remained attached to structuralist thinking, as evident in the fact that he
8 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

termed his own approach ‘genetic’ or ‘constructivist structuralism’ (see, for

example, Bourdieu, 1990 [1987]: 123). The exact nature of this attachment,
however, was to become clear only as his oeuvre developed. This is, of course,
due to the predominantly empirical orientation of Bourdieu’s work, which
sometimes makes it appear unnecessary for him to locate and distinguish his
own concepts with respect to other theoretical approaches. It is only in his next
major theoretical work (Bourdieu, 1990 [1980]: 4) that we find clear evidence
of how structuralism ‘influenced’ him, when, for instance, he praises it for the
‘introduction into the social sciences of [...] the relational mode of thought’
and having broken with ‘the substantialist mode of thought’. Bourdieu’s
thought leans heavily on structuralism (and, at times, also on functionalism).
Thus, for him, it is not the individual actor that is the key analytical lodestone;
rather, it is the relations between actors or the relations between the positions
within a system – that is, in Bourdieusian terms, the positions within a ‘field’ –
which are crucial. ‘Fields’, to cite a definition provided by Bourdieu, are:

structured spaces of positions (or posts) whose properties depend on their

position within these spaces and which can be analyzed independently of the
characteristics of their occupants (which are partly determined by them). There
are general laws of fields: fields as different as the field of politics, the field
of philosophy or the field of religion have invariant laws of functioning […].
Whenever one studies a new field, whether it be the field of philology in the
nineteenth century, contemporary fashion, or religion in the Middle Ages, one
discovers specific properties that are peculiar to that field, at the same time as
one pushes forward our knowledge of the universal mechanisms of fields [...].
(Bourdieu, 1993 [1980]: 72)

According to Bourdieu, it is not useful to analyse the behaviour of individual

actors in isolation, as many theorists of action do without further reflection,
unless one also determines an actor’s position within such a ‘field’, in which
action becomes meaningful in the first place. ‘Fields’ offer options for action,
but only certain options, which simply means that other options for action are
excluded and that the actors are subject to constraints. The logic of action
within the religious field is necessarily different from, for example, that in
the artistic field because the constraints are different. These constraints and
boundaries influence how prone actors – prophets and the faithful, artists
and the viewing public – are to take action. This is why it is inevitably quite
unproductive to restrict oneself to examining the biography of an actor,
prophet, artist or author in order to explain religious or artistic phenomena
(Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 115 ff.).
In light of this, Bourdieu consciously refrains from referring to ‘subjects’;
at most, he talks of actors. For him, actors are ‘eminently active and
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 9

acting’ – a fact overlooked by structuralism. Bourdieu, however, believes that

Foucault’s provocative structuralist notion of the ‘looming end of man’ or
the ‘death of the subject’ is justified in as much as this was merely a way
of stating the (structuralist) insight into the crucial significance of relations
and relationships (within fields) and expressed the well-founded rejection
of the idea, found in the work of Sartre and many other philosophers and
sociologists, of a self-creating and autonomous subject (see the foreword to
Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: viii ff.). Time and again, Bourdieu was to defend
this structuralist ‘insight’ with great vehemence; it was also the basis of his
attacks on certain sociological or philosophical currents, which, as he puts it,
give sustenance to the ‘biographical illusion’. Bourdieu mercilessly assails any
notion that people create their own biography and that life is a whole, arising,
as it were, from the subject’s earliest endeavours and unfolding over the course
of their life. He repeatedly points to the fact that the ‘meaning and the social
value of biographical events’ are not constituted on the basis of the subject,
but on the basis of actors’ ‘placements’ and ‘displacements’ within a social
space, which lends biographical events their meaning in the first place – the
meaning which they ultimately take on for the actor (Bourdieu, 1996 [1992]:
258 ff.; see also Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: 75 ff.). Thus, rather than ‘subjects’,
people are actors in a field by which they are profoundly moulded.
Yet, we wish to avoid getting ahead of ourselves in our discussion of
Bourdieu’s work. Let us turn once again to his early book, Outline of a Theory
of Practice (1977 [1972]). Although this text is rather wordy in places, and
Bourdieu was to provide a clearer explanation of his position only at a later
stage, it undoubtedly sets out his synthetic aspirations. For Bourdieu made
it absolutely clear that all action-theoretical perspectives are insufficient
in isolation: neither symbolic interactionism nor phenomenological approaches
within sociology, such as ethnomethodology, are capable of deciphering the
really interesting sociological facts. For him, these approaches are too quick to
adopt the actor’s perspective; they take on his or her naïve view of the givenness of
the world, forgetting how crucial are actors’ positions in relation to one another and to
the field within which they move. To reinforce his ‘objectivist’ stance, Bourdieu
borrows not only from structuralism, which seems to him overly idealistic in
certain respects. He also draws on Marx’s ‘concrete’ materialism when he
points, for example, to the conditions of production on the basis of which
marriage rituals take place and without which they cannot be understood:

It is not sufficient to ridicule the more naïve forms of functionalism in order

to have done with the question of the practical functions of practice. It is
clear that a universal definition of the functions of marriage as an operation
intended to ensure the biological reproduction of the group, in accordance
with forms approved by the group, in no way explains Kabyle marriage ritual.
10 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

But, contrary to appearances, scarcely more understanding is derived from

a structural analysis which ignores the specific functions of ritual practices
and fails to inquire into the economic and social conditions of the production of the
dispositions generating both these practices and also the collective definition of
the practical functions in whose service they function. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]:
115, emphasis in original)

Critical of the theory of action he describes as subjectivist, Bourdieu

ultimately asserts the pre-eminence of an objectivist form of analysis in which the
structures of a social field are determined by the sociological observer – structures
that impose constraints on actors, of which they themselves are generally
unaware. Loïc Wacquant, a sociologist closely associated with Bourdieu, has
put this in the following way, drawing a comparison between the ‘objectivism’
of the Durkheimian method of analysis and that of Bourdieu:

Application of Durkheim’s first principle of the ‘sociological method’, the

systematic rejection of preconceptions, must come before analysis of the practical
apprehension of the world from the subjective standpoint. For the viewpoints
of agents will vary systematically with the point they occupy in objective social
space. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 11)

At the same time, however, Bourdieu regards (objectivist) structuralism on its

own as insufficient, just as he does the equally objectivist functionalism, which
ignores actors’ perspectives. His sociological approach is intended to take
full account of actors’ power and capacity to act. This means, however, that
Bourdieu wishes to sail – and, as he admits, cannot avoid sailing – between the
Scylla of ‘phenomenology’ or ‘subjectivism’ and the Charybdis of ‘objectivism’.
For him, all of these forms of knowledge are deficient in and of themselves, which
is why he wishes to develop a third mode of sociological understanding: his
‘theory of practice’ – an approach which goes beyond ‘objectivism’ and takes
what actors do seriously. This can succeed only if it is shown that there are
‘dialectical relations between the objective structures [of fields] […] and the
structured dispositions [of actors]’ (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 3, emphasis in
original; our insertions), that is, that action and structures determine one
another through their interrelationship.
What Bourdieu is trying to do here is similar to arguments developed by
Anthony Giddens (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]: 281–307): Bourdieu also
refers to ‘structuring’ or ‘structuration’. Though this active conception never
attained the systematic significance that it did in the work of Giddens (in part
because Bourdieu was not a ‘pure’ social theorist and would probably have
had no interest in developing the kind of social ontology present in the work
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 11

of Giddens), it is nonetheless clear that Bourdieu is aiming to develop a stance

which, in contrast to functionalists and structuralists, assumes that structures
are ‘made’ and continuously reproduced by actors. In contrast to the ideas
supposedly expounded by pure action theorists, however, he also emphasises
the profound and causal impact of these structures.
2. So far, we have defined Bourdieu’s theoretical approach only vaguely;
his cited statements generally represent declarations of intention that
underline the need for a theoretical synthesis rather than providing one. When
Bourdieu states that he wishes to proceed neither ‘phenomenologically’ nor
‘objectivistically’, this is a purely negative definition of his project. The question
arises as to how he incorporates the action-theoretical elements – the level of
actors – into his approach and how he conceives, in concrete terms, the actions
carried out by actors that drive the process of structuration, which, in turn,
structures their actions. Here, there is an evident need to scrutinise Bourdieu’s
relationship with utilitarianism and its theory of action, particularly in light of
the fact that Bourdieu refers so often to actors’ ‘interests’. And a number of
interpreters (see especially Honneth, 1995 [1990]) have, in fact, expounded the
thesis that Bourdieu’s approach represents an amalgamation of structuralism
and utilitarianism – a hypothesis or interpretation of his work which, considering
how he reacted to it, certainly infuriated Bourdieu like no other and which
he rejected vehemently on numerous occasions. In fact, Bourdieu emerges as
a harsh critic of utilitarianism and the rational choice approach in many of
his writings – and it is very hard to reconcile key aspects of his work with the
basic assumptions of utilitarian or neo-utilitarian arguments. Nevertheless,
this does not render superfluous the issue of whether other – perhaps equally
important – aspects of his work are not redolent of utilitarianism. What then
(see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]: 94–122) distinguishes Bourdieusian actors
from their utilitarian counterparts?
We have already hinted at Bourdieu’s first criticism of utilitarian thought.
Since it places the isolated actor centre stage, it ignores the relational method
of analysis, which – according to Bourdieu – is a prerequisite for attaining key
insights into the functioning of the social world. This criticism is intended to
apply not only to utilitarian theories, but, in principle, to all action-theoretical
approaches. His second criticism is more specific: Bourdieu assails utilitarian
approaches for systematically failing to address the issue of the origin of utility
calculations and interests. ‘Because it must postulate ex nihilo the existence of a
universal, pre-constituted interest, rational action theory is thoroughly oblivious
to the social genesis of historically varying forms of interest’ (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 125). In addition, in his anthropological studies, Bourdieu
showed again and again that the rational-economic calculations typical of
modern Western capitalism are not found in other societies in this form.
12 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Thus, according to Bourdieu, utilitarians turn a way of calculating actions

that developed in modern capitalist societies into a human universal. More
significant and more typical than this very well known criticism is Bourdieu’s
third objection, namely that utilitarians confuse the logic of theory with the
logic of practice:

The actor, as [this theory] construes him or her, is nothing other than the
imaginary projection of the knowing subject (sujet connaissant) into the acting
subject (sujet agissant), a sort of monster with the head of the thinker thinking his
practice in reflexive and logical fashion mounted on the body of a man of action
engaged in action. […] Its ‘imaginary anthropology’ seeks to found action,
whether ‘economic’ or not, on the intentional choice of an actor who is himself
or herself economically and socially unconditioned. (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 123)

Here, Bourdieu first of all addresses the fact that utilitarianism has a false
notion of real action processes, which are, for the most part, not entirely
rational and reflexive. The kind of rationality and reflexivity that utilitarianism
takes for granted here is possible only under particular circumstances – for
example, in the sheltered world of science –, but is quite rare under normal
conditions of practice. Action is indeed concerned with realising interests,
but only rarely in the sense of the conscious pursuit of these interests. Thus,
Bourdieu is advocating a stance similar to that of Anthony Giddens – one close
to American pragmatism (see its concept of ‘habit’). According to Bourdieu,
action generally adheres to a practical logic, which is often shaped by routine
requirements and which therefore has no need for the capacity for reflection
demanded by rational choice theorists. Determined by socialisation, earlier
experiences, etc., certain action dispositions are stamped onto our bodies;
for the most part, these can be retrieved without conscious awareness and
predetermine what form action takes. Bourdieu captures this idea with the
term ‘habitus’, also to be found in the work of Husserl. A key term within
his theory, he developed it at an early stage and was repeatedly to set himself
apart from other theoretical schools with its help.
In his Outline of a Theory of Practice, he defines the habitus as a ‘system
of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences,
functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions
and makes possible the achievement of infinitely diversified tasks, thanks to
analogical transfers of schemes permitting the solution of similarly shaped
problems, and thanks to the unceasing corrections of the results obtained,
dialectically produced by those results […]’ (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 82–83,
emphasis added).
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 13

This sounds complicated, but is in fact easy to explain. Bourdieu assumes

that – from childhood onwards, in the family, school and world of work – we
are taught certain schemata of thinking, perceiving and acting, which generally
enable us to respond smoothly to different situations, to solve practical tasks,
etc. Our physical movements, our tastes, our most banal interpretations of the
world are formed at an early stage and then crucially determine our options
for action.

Through the habitus, the structure which has produced it governs practice, not
by the process of a mechanical determination, but through the mediation of
the orientations and limits it assigns to the habitus’s operations of invention. As
an acquired system of generative schemes objectively adjusted to the particular
conditions in which it is constituted, the habitus engenders all the thoughts, all the
perceptions, and all the actions consistent with those conditions, and not others.
[…] Because the habitus is an endless capacity to engender products – thoughts,
perceptions, expressions, actions – whose limits are set by the historically and
socially situated conditions of its production, the conditioned and conditional
freedom it secures is as remote from a creation of unpredictable novelty as it is
from a simple mechanical reproduction of the initial conditionings. (Bourdieu,
1977 [1972]: 95)

As this quotation indicates, the concept of ‘habitus’ does not rule out a
certain behavioural room for manoeuvre that enables conduct of a creative
and innovative nature. On the other hand, however, we cannot step or break
out of this habitual behaviour entirely, because the habitus is an aspect of
our life story and identity. The attentive reader will discern how this links
up with Bourdieu’s investigations in cultural sociology and class theory. For
it is clear that there is no one habitus in a society, but that different forms of
perception, thinking and action are inculcated in different classes, through
which these classes – and, above all, the differences between them – are
constantly reproduced. We are, however, not yet concerned with this aspect.
What is important here is that Bourdieu deploys the concept of habitus in
the attempt to rid himself of the assumptions of utilitarianism and neo-
utilitarianism, which are highly rationalistic and anchored in the philosophy
of consciousness.
If, as we have seen, Bourdieu’s explicit effort to set himself apart from
utilitarianism is unambiguous and there are elements in his theoretical
edifice which simply cannot be reconciled with utilitarian thought, why
has he so often been accused of being ‘close to utilitarianism’ – and not
only by malicious interpreters or cursory readers? The reason is that, while
Bourdieu has certainly criticised thinking in terms of economic utility,
14 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the nature of his criticism is incapable of establishing clear distance between his
approach and utilitarian ones.
Utilitarianism is fairly differentiated internally in that the so-called neo-
utilitarians have done away with some of the assumptions of traditional
utilitarianism (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]: 94–122). Neo-utilitarians
have, for example, rid themselves of the concept of utility, replacing it with
the neutral term ‘preferences’, because only very few actions can be explained
on the basis of purely economic calculations of utility. It is true that Bourdieu’s
critique of utilitarianism in its ‘original’ form goes further than this. The
concept of habitus allows him to take leave, above all, of the model of the
actor whose deeds are consciously rational. Yet, like all utilitarians, he continues
to adhere to the notion that people (consciously or unconsciously) always
pursue their interests – or preferences. According to Bourdieu, people are
socialised into a ‘field’, where they learn how to behave appropriately; they
understand the rules and internalise the ‘strategies’ indispensable to playing
the game successfully. And the aim of these ‘strategies’ – a (utilitarian) concept
used repeatedly by Bourdieu, although he is well aware of how problematic it
is in view of his critique of utilitarianism (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992:
128) – is to improve the player’s position within a particular field or at least to
uphold the status quo.

It is not enough to say that the history of the field is the history of the struggle
for a monopoly of the imposition of legitimate categories of perception and
appreciation; it is in the very struggle that the history of the field is made; it is
through struggles that it is temporalized. (Bourdieu, 1996 [1992]: 157, emphasis
in original)

The battle over the realisation of actors’ interests is thus a factor driving
the historical change of fields. The strategies deployed in the field are not
always concerned solely with attaining economic benefits – Bourdieu would
roundly reject an economistic or primitive utilitarian perspective of this kind.
The way he puts it is that the strategies are intended to procure those goods
worth playing for within a particular field. This may, as in the field of the
economy, be financial profit; in other fields, meanwhile, strategies are oriented
towards enhancing one’s reputation or honour (which cannot necessarily
or immediately be converted into financial gain). The priority, however,
will always be to pursue those interests relevant within a particular field – in
competition with others.
There is no doubt that this line of argument entails a premise backed by
typical utilitarian notions, which one can also detect within the context of
conflict theory (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]: 174–198) and to which
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 15

Bourdieu explicitly refers: ‘the social world is the site of continual struggles
to define what the social world is’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 70). The
concept of ‘struggle’ crops up in his work as frequently as that of ‘strategy’; in
much the same way as in utilitarianism and conflict theory, there is quite often
a hint of cynical pleasure in the observation of the hypocritical behaviour of
the objects of inquiry, whose subjective motives are by no means to be taken
at face value:

The most profitable strategies are usually those produced, without any calculation,
and in the illusion of the most absolute ‘sincerity’, by a habitus objectively fitted
to the objective structures. These strategies without strategic calculation procure
an important secondary advantage for those who can scarcely be called their
authors: the social approval accruing to apparent disinterestedness. (Bourdieu,
1990 [1980]: 292n.10)

This close connection between utilitarian, conflict theoretical and Marxian

arguments is even more clearly apparent in another key Bourdieusian
concept, that of ‘capital’, which complements or completes the concepts of
‘field’ and ‘habitus’.
This concept of capital owes its existence to the following problem.
Bourdieu must explain which goods the actors in the various fields struggle
over, that is, what they are trying to achieve in deploying their various action
strategies. He rejects the notion characteristic of (primitive) utilitarianism that
social life is to be understood exclusively as a struggle over (economic) goods.
For the same reason, he criticises Marxism, as it tends to focus on the struggle
over economic goods, while ignoring or neglecting other forms of dispute
(see, for example, Bourdieu, 1985 [1984]: 723).
Bourdieu now takes the logical step already taken in much the same way
before him by conflict theorists. His concern is to bring out how social struggles are
about more than just financial utility and economic capital. Yet, peculiarly enough, the
way in which he proceeds – once again, in much the same way as does conflict
theory (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009 [2004]: 174–198) – does not entail a complete
break with utilitarian or Marxian notions. For in order to determine more
precisely what is at stake in social struggles, Bourdieu deploys the term capital,
which originates in ‘bourgeois’ and Marxian economics, but he extends its
meaning and distinguishes between different forms of capital. In Outline of a
Theory of Practice, Bourdieu criticises Marxism for having utterly neglected what
he calls ‘symbolic capital’ – a consequence of its preoccupation with economic
capital. Bourdieu, using language highly redolent of utilitarianism, puts it as
follows: Marx only recognised immediate economic interests and these were
all he allowed in his theoretical edifice, relegating all other types of interest to
16 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the sphere of the ‘irrationality of feeling or passion’ (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]:

177). What one must do, however, is apply economic calculations to all goods
(utilitarians and conflict theorists would say: ‘to all resources’):

[...] contrary to naively idyllic representations of ‘pre-capitalist’ societies (or of

the ‘cultural’ sphere of capitalist societies), practice never ceases to conform to
economic calculation even when it gives every appearance of disinterestedness
by departing from the logic of interested calculation (in the narrow sense) and
playing for stakes that are non-material and not easily quantified. (Bourdieu,
1977 [1972]: 177)

According to Bourdieu, Marxism entirely disregards the fact that actions

which at first sight seem irrational because they are not geared towards
immediate financial gain may be a means of acquiring substantial benefits
of other kinds, which Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic profits’ and which prompt him
to refer to ‘symbolic capital’ as well as economic capital. Certain deeds –
such as generous gifts, extravagant behaviour, etc. – enable people to accrue
all kinds of distinction; such deeds are a symbol of one’s own (outstanding)
position, power, prestige, etc., allowing one to distinguish oneself from those
of lower rank. This symbolic form of capital is of relevance to the class
hierarchy in a society in as much as it can be converted into ‘real’ capital in
certain circumstances. The great prestige enjoyed by an individual, the good
reputation of a particular family, the ostentatiously displayed wealth of a great
man often furnishes people with opportunities to attain economic capital as
well, in line with the motto: ‘to everyone that has (symbolic) capital, (economic)
capital shall be given’. Hence, there is nothing (economically) irrational about
symbolic capital. Rather, the accumulation of symbolic capital is a clever
way of safeguarding one’s prospects of obtaining economic capital. This
symbolic form of capital is a kind of credit, on the basis of which economic
opportunities constantly arise. In this sense, Bourdieu can state that symbolic
capital represents a ‘transformed and thereby disguised form of physical
“economic” capital’ (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 183, emphasis in original).

It is thus by drawing up a comprehensive balance-sheet of symbolic profits, without

forgetting the undifferentiatedness of the symbolic and material aspects of the
patrimony, that it becomes possible to grasp the economic rationality of conduct
which economism dismisses as absurd: the decision to buy a second pair of oxen
after the harvest, on the grounds that they are needed for treading out the grain –
which is a way of making it known the crop has been plentiful – only to have
to sell them again for lack of fodder, before the autumn ploughing, when they
would be technically necessary, seems economically aberrant only if one forgets
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 17

all the material and symbolic profit accruing from this (albeit fictitious) addition
to the family’s symbolic capital in the late-summer period in which marriages are
negotiated. The perfect rationality of this strategy of bluff lies in the fact that
marriage is the occasion for an (in the widest sense) economic circulation which
cannot be seen purely in terms of material goods [...]. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]:
181, emphasis in original)

Nevertheless, this great importance of symbolic capital is not, as this

quotation referring to Kabyle society might lead us to presume, restricted
to ‘primitive’ or pre-capitalist societies. It is true, as Bourdieu states, that
pre-capitalist economies have a ‘great need for symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu,
1977 [1972]: 191) insofar as circumstances of unadulterated exploitation and
great material inequalities exist and are always papered over symbolically
and thus concealed (or, conversely, realised in brutal fashion by means of
physical violence). This, Bourdieu suggests, arguing in a very similar way to
Marx, has changed in capitalism in that its practice of domination no longer
depends on symbolic concealment, but can be legitimised in a very different
way (for example, through the ideology of fair exchange between goods,
money and labour). This does not mean, however, that symbolic capital
plays no role in modern societies. Nothing could be further from the truth. It
was to become Bourdieu’s core project in the sociology of culture to analyse
this ‘symbolic capital’ in modern societies – particularly modern French
society – in a sober and sometimes cynical way. In his view, a convincing
analysis of modern societies must go beyond economic forms of capital and
pay heed to symbolic capital as well.
Subsequently, when he had more or less ceased to carry out anthropological
studies and increasingly devoted himself to the analysis of French society,
Bourdieu was to attempt to clarify more precisely this still relatively nebulous
concept of ‘symbolic capital’. In addition to economic capital, he introduced
the distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ capital; sometimes he also refers
to ‘political capital’, prompting observers and critics to refer to the ‘inflationary’
tendency affecting the concept of capital in his theory. There is no need for us
to understand all these extensions and differentiations in detail. It is enough
to point out that in his best-known writings, Bourdieu distinguishes between
economic, symbolic, cultural and social forms of capital. As the meaning of
the term ‘economic capital’ ought to be fairly clear, we shall briefly clarify the
other three types:

• Under the term ‘cultural capital’ he includes both works of art, books and
musical instruments, in as much as this capital is present in the form of
objects, and cultural capacities and cultural knowledge, in as much as these
18 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

have been ‘absorbed’ by actors through earlier processes of socialisation,

as well as titles (such as doctor, along with those conferred by other degrees,
etc.), because these demonstrate, as it were, the acquisition of cultural
knowledge.
• ‘Social capital’, meanwhile, covers resources through which one demonstrates
membership of or affiliation to a group, one’s (distinguished) family
background, one’s attendance at a particular elite school or university; it
refers to networks in the sense of social relationships upon which one may
draw in order to realise certain goals, that which is colloquially known as the
‘old boys’ network’ (see Bourdieu’s essay, ‘The Forms of Capital’).
• ‘Symbolic capital’ is something of a generic term emerging from the interplay
of the economic, social and cultural types of capital: all three ‘original’
capital types lay the foundations for an individual’s overall standing, good
reputation, renown and prestige in society, thus determining his or her place
in the hierarchy.

According to Bourdieu, these concepts of capital enable us to model a society’s

class structure. In his view, one ought to be aware that the forms of capital
may sometimes be exchanged or translated into one another; their conversion
is often possible. That is, in determining an individual’s position within a
society’s class structure, it is vital to study both the volume of capital available
to this individual as well as the structure of this capital (which shows which
forms of capital this individual’s total capital is composed of). To mention
one example: professors would generally be located in the middling ranks of
a modern society with respect to their economic capital, but at the same time
they possess great cultural capital (they have a large number of titles and they
not only own lots of books, but have even read many of them) and they often
have a fairly large number of social relationships with a diverse range of circles,
so that assessing their social position requires a multidimensional approach.
To elucidate Bourdieu’s mode of analysis, we have provided a model of class
developed entirely on the basis of his theoretical framework, but in simplified
form, as drawn up by Klaus Eder 1989b: 21n.6), taking only the cultural and
economic forms of capital into account, for former West Germany. The
vertical line is intended to indicate the absolute volume of available capital; the
horizontal, the relative proportion of both forms of capital.
According to this diagram, the volume of capital enjoyed by doctors
and members of the independent professions is quite similar, though
the composition of this capital is very different: while doctors possess a
comparatively small amount of economic capital, their cultural capital is
relatively great compared with private sector professionals. Farmers generally
have neither particularly great economic nor cultural capital, while in the
case of craftspeople, one is struck again by the great discrepancy between
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 19

volume of capital +
doctors independent professions
managerial staff industrialists and businesspeople
university lecturers
grammar school teachers
primary school teachers engineers
artist-craftspeople small traders
economic capital – economic capital +

cultural capital + cultural capital –

middle management
artisans
white-collar workers in commerce/offices
self-employed persons
middle administrative staff
farmers
skilled workers
semi-skilled workers
volume of capital –

relatively great cultural capital and relatively meagre economic capital, etc.
Of course, we could argue endlessly over whether, for example, the cultural
capital of craftspeople and professors in relation to one another is ‘correct’
here, and we would have to look closely at the methodological approach to
determining capital that underpins this diagram. This, however, is of no
concern to us here.
What we wish to get across is that subtle analyses of social structure of this
kind provide a more convincing class theory – and above all one that is more
in keeping with the times – than orthodox Marxism. But that is not all. The
introduction of differing concepts of capital remedies Marxism’s obvious lack
of a sociology of culture – and this is a key reason why Bourdieusian theory
seemed so appealing to ex-Marxists. The deployment of a sophisticated
conception of capital allowed them a degree of distance from Marx, without
requiring them to enter wholly new theoretical territory.
At the same time – and this brings us back to our initial question concerning
the traces of utilitarianism in Bourdieu’s theoretical edifice – a concept of
capital originating in the economy reinforces the utilitarian (and conflict
theoretical) ‘feel’ of Bourdieusian theory to which we referred earlier: the field
of culture is described with fundamentally the same conceptual apparatus as
that of the economy. For, in both spheres, actors’ interests play the decisive
role; it is only the types of capital – and hence the forms of what is a stake –
which differ. The main concern is always with profits and losses and the
20 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

struggles and disputes over them. Bourdieu’s model of action – coupled with
his concept of habitus – always remains the same and takes fundamentally the
same form with respect to the various fields.

The theory of action that I propose (with the notion of habitus) amounts to
saying that most human actions have as a basis something quite different from
intention, that is, acquired dispositions which make it so that an action can and
should be interpreted as oriented toward one objective or another without anyone being
able to claim that that objective was a conscious design [...]. (Bourdieu, 1998
[1994]: 97–98, emphasis in original)

It thus comes as no surprise that Bourdieu formulates his ambitions with

regard to the production of ‘grand theory’ in a language that does little to
conceal its economistic or utilitarian taproots. The overriding and long-term
goal of his work – as he was to express it – was to produce a ‘general theory
of the economy of practices’ (Bourdieu, 1996 [1992]: 183, emphasis added) – a
theory capable of comprehensively interpreting the logic of the interest-based
struggle over specific types of capital in very different fields.
As a result of these echoes of utilitarianism in his theory of action, ‘supra-
individual’ or collective phenomena are also described solely under utilitarian
premises: for Bourdieu, ‘culture’ is no more than a game in which different
classes enforce their particular conceptions of aesthetics in an attempt to set
themselves apart from other classes. Bourdieu sees the ‘public sphere’ – the
idea of the unconstrained and pluralistic exchange of political arguments,
prized so highly by Dewey and Habermas – primarily as something introduced
for strategic reasons in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by a class of
high-ranking bureaucrats as a means of asserting themselves against their
competitors (such as the aristocracy) (Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: 23–24). As
Bourdieu sees it, what is invariably at issue here – but by no means only here –
is the acquisition of capital, though ‘capital’ can mean different things. In line
with the rules that pertain within specific fields, actors pursue their interests
as they relate to these fields, though, because they have become habituated to
them, actors are not always aware of these interests. This is why, particularly
in his later work, Bourdieu also uses the term illusio (from ludus = ‘game’) as
an alternative to ‘interests’, to make it clear that these do not refer solely to
(conscious) economic interests.

I much prefer to use the term illusio, since I always speak of specific interests,
of interests that are both presupposed and produced by the functioning of
historically delimited fields. Paradoxically, the term interest has brought forth
the knee-jerk accusation of economism. In fact, the notion as I use it is the
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 21

means of a deliberate and provisional reductionism that allows me to import

the materialist mode of questioning into the cultural sphere from which it was
expelled, historically, when the modern view of art was invented and the field
of cultural production won its autonomy [...]. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992:
115–116, emphasis in original)

By deploying the term ‘illusio’, Bourdieu believes that he has distanced himself
sufficiently and conclusively from utilitarianism. He also thinks he can do
without a typology of action of the kind produced by Jürgen Habermas, with
its distinction between purposive-rational and communicative action. Such
a distinction, according to Bourdieu, would merely ignore the existence of
different forms of non-material profit in disparate fields. For him, capital exists
in various forms, but action does not; actors do their best to accrue the different
types of capital within the various fields. Habermas’s typology of action is said
to be merely an idealistic means of disguising this fact. Despite all his criticisms
of utilitarianism, Bourdieu overlooks the fact that this is exactly the position
advocated by neo-utilitarians: they too make no mention of different types of
action, referring only to actors’ attempts to realise their various preferences.
They too declare a typology of action absurd or useless, because action in itself
is very easy to explain, as it always revolves around obtaining what one wants.
Yet, what is remarkable here is not just Bourdieu’s proximity to (neo-)
utilitarianism, which was a recurrent feature of his work. What is also of interest
in this context is the fact that Bourdieu’s position appears not to be entirely
consistent. For even if we were to accept his ‘theory of habitus’, which does
not assert that action is entirely determined, we would still be faced with the
problem of explaining the actors’ room for manoeuvre with respect to action, the
flexibility of action within the boundaries set by the habitus. In concrete terms, within
a field that demands a particular habitus, how are the various ‘interests’ realised
by the actors? It should at least be conceivable that normative, affective, etc.
forms of action play a role within the variable options for action opened up by
the habitus. In fact, a typology of action would be very helpful, if not essential,
to shed light on this spectrum of action, because it is the only way of guarding
against an overly narrow – perhaps, once again, utilitarian – conception of
action. But Bourdieu does nothing to address this issue. He seems rather
unaware of it, which suggests a lacuna in his theory. This is also apparent
in the fact that, in his studies of art, for example, Bourdieu only illuminates
writers’ and painters’ efforts to establish themselves and obtain distinction
along with the constraints upon them, but remains strangely silent about their
artistic creativity. This is not to say that this creativity can be described without
reference to the logic of the various ‘fields’. Bourdieu’s critique of idealist
notions of the artist’s self-creation is entirely justified. If the habitus is not to be
22 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

understood deterministically, however, the theorist must pay some attention at

least to non-determined aspects of action, that is, those aspects of social life that
are shaped by what we may call the ‘creativity of action’ (Joas).
3. We have now outlined Bourdieu’s theoretical premises from a critical
angle and presented his basic concepts of field, habitus and capital more or less
in isolation from one another. Our concern now is to lay bare how these three
concepts connect in Bourdieu’s thinking and thus to present his theoretical
construct in its entirety, as well as identifying the problematic features of its
‘architecture’.
The concept of field – or, to be exact, Bourdieu’s analysis of fields (plural) –
forms the logical starting point of Bourdieusian theory. Social reality is
composed of various fields, in which different rules apply; rules which actors
have to follow if they wish to succeed in gaining profits – specific forms
of capital – within this field. To repeat: the field of science obeys different
rules than that of politics, education or sport. This is in a way reminiscent
of theorems of differentiation, particularly Luhmann’s systems theory. In
fact, Bourdieu is fairly close here to the idea advocated by Luhmann and his
supporters that the social world has divided into various spheres, which can
no longer be straightforwardly unified under conditions of modernity. Thus,
Bourdieu is faced with problems which are very similar to those confronted
by systems theory. He is unable to convincingly explain how many fields there are
and where exactly the boundaries between the fields lie. (Bourdieu seems to assume
that there are a large number of fields, which he believes can be determined
only by means of empirical historical investigation, though his references to
this process of determination are not particularly helpful and his own research
relates only to a few limited aspects of the social world; see Bourdieu, 1990
[1987]: 88.) Theorists of differentiation, and Luhmann in particular, have
made detailed theoretical observations in this respect, even though these too
failed to satisfy entirely. Bourdieu, by contrast, set about providing his notion
of ‘fields’ with theoretical backup only very late in his career. His comments
on the relevant problems are rather thin on the ground and are far from
being as systematic as is the case in Luhmann’s work. Yet, at least one thing
is clear: Bourdieu’s ‘field theory’ can be distinguished from the assumptions
characteristic of Luhmannian systems theory in at least two respects. First, in
contrast to Luhmann, Bourdieu places struggle centre stage, that is, his fields
are analysed in terms of conflict theory – a point which was never of any
interest to Luhmann in his analyses of ‘systems’:

If it is true that, in the literary or artistic field, for instance, one may treat the
stances constitutive of a space of possibles as a system, they form a system of
differences, of distinctive and antagonistic properties which do not develop out
of their own internal motion (as the principle of self-referentiality implies) but via
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 23

conflicts internal to the field of production. The field is the locus of relations of
force – and not only of meaning – and of struggles aimed at transforming it, and
therefore of endless change. The coherence that may be observed in a given state
of the field, its apparent orientation toward a common function […] are born of
conflict and competition, not of some kind of immanent self-development of the
structure. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 103–104)

Second, in contrast to Luhmann, Bourdieu does not assume that social fields are
radically separate and that there is thus no prospect of establishing any kind
of unity. It may be no coincidence that the Frenchman Bourdieu – citizen of
a highly centralised country – attributed a kind of meta-function to the state.
He conceived of the state as a ‘meta-field’ which is still capable of playing the
role of ‘arbiter’ between the fields owing to its capacity to establish compelling
norms (Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 127; see also Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: 33). With
this thesis, too, he set himself apart from radical theorists of differentiation
and, above all, from Luhmann, but without – we underline – endorsing the
idea that societies are integrated by norms, as is the case in the work of Parsons
or Münch.
A special habitus is moulded by the rules which apply within the specific
fields, and those who enter them inescapably (have to) adapt to this habitus.
Scientists, politicians, sportspeople, etc. have a specific habitus detectable
in how they talk, gesture, evaluate various issues, walk, etc. This does not
mean that all politicians talk, gesture, evaluate, etc. in the same way, which
would mean that their behaviour was fully determined. Bourdieu, as we
have seen, defends himself against the accusation of determinism so often
levelled against him (see, for example, Ferry and Renaut, 1990: 153–184);
he repeatedly emphasises that actors adopt a particular habitus only with a
certain, if high, degree of probability, and that this habitus also allows for
the possibility of behavioural variation:

Because the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products – thoughts,

perceptions, expressions and actions – whose limits are set by the historically and
socially situated conditions of its production, the conditioned and conditional
freedom it provides is as remote from creation of unpredictable novelty as it is
from simple mechanical reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu,
1990 [1980]: 55)

Despite all the variability, however, field-specific action, as well as the fields as
a whole, are fairly stable. This is because – as a schema of perception, thinking
and action (here, Bourdieu draws on ethnomethodological insights) – the
habitus tends to be constantly confirmed or reproduced. Since the habitus has
entered into people’s bodies and become their identity, people (unconsciously)
24 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

tend to uphold this identity. We wish to see our familiar world confirmed
repeatedly and have no interest in destroying this trust in the meaningfulness
of the everyday world. This means that through the ‘systematic “choices” it
makes among the places, events and people that might be frequented, the
habitus tends to protect itself from crises and critical challenges’ (Bourdieu,
1990 [1980]: 61). As a result, the types of habitus formed in the fields
constantly reconfirm the fields in their original form, and the same process of
structuration occurs on an ongoing basis.

Because habitus [...] is a product of a history, the instruments of construction

of the social that it invests in practical knowledge of the world and in action are
socially constructed, in other words structured by the world that they structure.
(Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 148)

Nevertheless, the habitus is not only the expression of ‘differentiated’ social

fields, as one (from a systems-theoretical perspective) may suggest. Types of
habitus are also the products of specific class realities, specific social milieux,
which reproduce these realities and milieux:

One of the functions of the notion of habitus is to account for the unity of
style, which unites the practices and goods of a single agent or a class of agents
[…]. The habitus is this generative and unifying principle which retranslates the
intrinsic and relational characteristics of a position into a unitary lifestyle […].
(Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: 8)

Bourdieu’s ongoing preoccupation with issues relating to the (French)

education system was, among other things, intended to show that this class-
based habitus is almost impossible to undo even by means of a seemingly
meritocratic education system. In fact, in his view, the opposite applies. The
education system continually reinforces these class-specific forms of behaviour,
which is why it contributes to the ongoing reproduction of social inequality
(see Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977 [1970]) – a thesis which can also be found
in the work of conflict theorist Randall Collins (see Joas and Knöbl, 2009
[2004]: 189 ff.).
Of course, this trope of the reproduction of social structures in near-
identical form associated with the concept of habitus raises the question of
how Bourdieu conceives of social change in the first place – especially given
that he is cool towards the thesis that ideas or ideologies can do much to
influence or change things. This becomes particularly clear in light of the
classical sociological concept of the ‘legitimacy of domination’. For Bourdieu,
this figure of thought, which goes back to Max Weber, is problematic right
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 25

from the outset because – through the concept of rational-legal domination,

for example – it suggests that there can be a somehow conscious discourse about
the legitimacy of domination. Bourdieu, by contrast, believes that domination
functions quite differently. According to him, from childhood onwards, people
become accustomed to structures of domination as taken-for-granted features
of the world. In institutions – such as nurseries, schools and factories – the
lower classes in particular have a self-evident acceptance of social inequality
‘drummed into’ them, which makes it almost impossible for them to turn these
structures into an object of discourse (see Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]: 53–54). And
domination is maintained not by means of ideologies or legitimising discourses –
of which many people could make neither head nor tail anyway – but by the
constant practice of compliance with existing inequalities of power.

If I have little by little come to shun the use of the word ‘ideology’, this is not only
because of its polysemy and the resulting ambiguities. It is above all because, by
evoking the order of ideas, and of action by ideas and on ideas, it inclines one to
forget one of the most powerful mechanisms of the maintenance of the symbolic
order, the two-fold naturalization which results from the inscription of the social
in things and in bodies (as much those of the dominant as of the dominated –
whether in terms of sex, ethnicity, social position or any other discriminating
factor), with the resulting effects of symbolic violence. As is underlined by
ordinary-language notions such as ‘natural distinction’ or ‘gift’, the work of
legitimation of the established order is extraordinarily facilitated by the fact that
it goes on almost automatically in the reality of the social world. (Bourdieu, 2000
[1997]: 181)

This stance, though, makes the potential of Bourdieusian theory to contribute

to a theory of change a yet more pressing issue, and it inspired some to accuse
Bourdieu of (negative) hyperfunctionalism, because according to the logic
of his theory, despite ongoing struggles within the fields, the (normatively
problematic) unequal power structures are reproduced constantly and
stabilised ‘automatically’, making it seem almost impossible to bring about
a new situation. Bourdieu’s ideas thus offer few stimuli for a theory of social
change. The Rules of Art (1996 [1992]: 253), for example, states that processes
of change in the fields of literature and painting are most likely to be triggered
by those entering a field for the first time – in other words, the younger generation.
Bourdieu provided historical evidence of this by referring to Flaubert and
Baudelaire, demonstrating how, as newcomers to the field of literature, they
established and enforced their own new form of aesthetics, restructuring the
field significantly. Yet, to a genuine theory of social change this is of very little
help. Bourdieu stated that in light of the forms of capital available within it,
26 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

each field requires its own models of change. Given that his studies focused on
only a few fields, however, his work inevitably lacks general statements about
social change.
4. The potential of Bourdieu’s theory to cast light on the contemporary situation
is most apparent in his critiques of globalisation and writings in the sociology of
culture, of which his 1979 book Distinction was to become particularly famous.
Bourdieu, however, had formulated a conceptual and theoretical programme
for this kind of study much earlier. This is perhaps expressed most impressively
in the following passage:

In fact, the least privileged groups and worst-off classes from an economic point
of view appear in this game of circulation and distinction, which is the real cultural
game, and which is objectively organized in line with the class structure, solely as
a means of contrast, that is, as the element necessary to highlight the other, or as
‘nature’. The game of symbolic distinctions is thus played out within that narrow
space whose boundaries are dictated by economic constraints, and remains, in
this respect, a game played by the privileged in privileged societies, who can
afford to conceal the real differences, namely those of domination, beneath
contrasting manners. (Bourdieu, 1970: 72–73, emphasis in original)

Culture, as Bourdieu claims in this quotation, is a game of distinction in

which class differences are also expressed or visibly constituted for the first
time. Analogously to his concept of cultural capital – which covers a great
many things, including objects such as paintings and books, knowledge and
skills and even titles – Bourdieu defines culture very broadly indeed; it also
refers to aesthetic evaluations. In Distinction, he is primarily concerned to
assert, provocatively, that even our seemingly most personal predilections –
our opinions about how things taste, the aesthetic quality of a piece of music,
the ‘acceptability’ of articles of clothing, etc. – are determined by a class
habitus. His simple thesis is that ‘taste’ or aesthetic judgements classify the very
individuals engaged in classification, because they reflect existing economic
opportunities or economic constraints.
What is both provocative and fascinating here is not just how distraught we
feel when Bourdieu takes such pleasure in casting doubt on our most sublime
feelings and perceptions, tracing them back to seemingly banal or profane
realities. Émile Durkheim’s book Suicide, which interpreted what appears to be
the freest of all free decisions – to take one’s own life – as a socially determined
phenomenon, was shocking in much the same way. Arguments of this kind
contradict utterly our view of ourselves as self-determining beings, which is
why they distress us so much. Yet, Bourdieu’s writings, especially Distinction, are
provocative for another reason. Ultimately, he attempts to equate or at least
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 27

associate aesthetics, the theory of the good and the true (in art), with banal
quotidian tastes. Bourdieu wishes to show that what aesthetic theory acclaims
as great music, great paintings and great literature is, in reality, nothing other
than a form of perception derived from specific economic realities. According
to Bourdieu, great art was and is always partly a product of class conflict; the
ruling classes have managed to define their aesthetic perceptions as ‘legitimate’
art, concurrently veiling or airbrushing out entirely how this aesthetics is
determined by class. The aim of his programme of ‘anti-Kantian “aesthetics”’
is thus to expose and demystify.
In this connection, he establishes the dichotomy between so-called ‘luxury’
and so-called ‘necessity-driven’ taste. The latter is typical of the lower strata
and classes within a society. It is associated with immediate material problems
of life, with the everyday experience of lack, with the sense of economic
insecurity, etc. Under such circumstances it is supposedly impossible to
devote a great deal of time and effort to refining one’s behaviour. In line
with this, the aesthetic perceptions and everyday behaviour of the lower
strata are also very different from those of the ruling classes, as apparent
even in their eating habits.

In the face of the new ethic of sobriety for the sake of slimness, which is most
recognized at the highest levels of the social hierarchy, peasants and especially
industrial workers maintain an ethic of convivial indulgence. A bon vivant is not
just someone who enjoys eating and drinking; he is someone capable of entering
into the generous and familiar – that is, both simple and free – relationship that
is encouraged and symbolized by eating and drinking together, in a conviviality
which sweeps away restraints and reticence. (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 179)

To be sure, it is not only how people eat that distinguishes this necessity-driven
taste; what is eaten is also fundamentally different from that typically consumed
by the ruling classes. Bourdieu marshals a mass of statistical evidence and
nuanced observational data to demonstrate how variable eating culture is,
pointing out that the upper classes always tend, sometimes consciously, but
more often unconsciously, to set themselves apart from the eating culture
of the lower classes through the refinement of the mealtime experience, in
order to develop ‘distinction’. The extravagant tastes of the upper strata are
always in part an attempt to demarcate themselves from others, to attain
distinction, which continually reproduces class differences and class boundaries.
Intellectuals, businesspeople, journalists, etc. go to Chinese, Vietnamese and
Burmese restaurants as a matter of course, something a worker, even if he
could afford it, would never dream of doing because his notions of good food
are very different. (All such observations, of course, represent snapshots of a
28 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

particular historical period.) Anyone born into the upper classes is socialised
into a particular taste in food and corresponding habitus, through which
she almost automatically sets herself apart from individuals of other classes.
It is not just their table manners but also their seemingly primal tastes that
distinguish the ‘aristocrats’ from the ‘plebeians’. This was true in the past; and,
according to Bourdieu, it is also true in the present.
A similar pattern is apparent in the different ways in which members of
different classes relate to art. Extravagant tastes and an aesthetics to match,
because they are free of economic constraints, have no specific purpose and are
seemingly disinterested, which is why members of the upper classes get a good
deal more out of abstract art – Braque, Delaunay, Malevich, or Duchamp –
than the lower classes, who are unfamiliar with disinterested conditions
and thus view art in close association with practical tasks of everyday life.
They perceive a painting by Braque, for example, as incomprehensible or
unappealing and are always more likely to hang a Spitzweg reproduction or
one of Caspar David Friedrich’s works in their sitting room than a Delaunay.
‘Is that what they call art?’ – this question is always on the tip of the tongue
of the worker or of the petit bourgeois as he or she looks at a Malevich, while
artistically inclined intellectuals may see a painting as particularly interesting
and expressive precisely because it is rather inaccessible and – as Bourdieu
would assume – one can thereby gain distinction, setting oneself apart from
the philistines. Much the same applies to the realm of music. If workers listen
to classical music in the first place, it tends to be Smetana’s The Moldau rather
than the unmelodic ‘noise’ of a Shostakovich.
Bourdieu never tires of tracking down similar patterns in the realms of
sport, political opinion, film, clothing and leisure time activities. For him, what
is always evident here is that the ruling classes determine the legitimacy of a
particular activity within the various cultural fields: they declare, for instance,
the latest forms of avant-garde art to be real art on the basis of their need for
distinction, while all that came before takes on an air of triviality, of the not
truly artistic, especially if the lower classes begin to appropriate these now
‘outdated’ forms of art.
Taken together, Bourdieu’s investigations cause him to expound the
thesis that the habitus acquired within a particular class – as an ensemble of
schemata of perception, cognition and action – defines a particular ‘lifestyle’
by means of which the classes set themselves apart from one another
‘culturally’. The different types of lifestyle found within a society point to
symbolic conflicts over the efforts made by members of different classes
to achieve distinction. According to Bourdieu, this is precisely what we
need to grasp, because this is the only way to adequately describe the
class structure of a society and its dynamics – something which orthodox
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 29

Marxism was incapable of doing as a consequence of its lack of, or blindness

to, a theory of culture.
Bourdieu’s account, rooted in cultural sociology, is of relevance to the
diagnosis of the contemporary era in that his view of the perpetual reproduction
of class-based inequality appears to leave little prospect that things will get
better. To some extent at least, this is at variance with Bourdieu’s role as a
public critic of the French education system and of globalisation, to which we
alluded at the beginning of this chapter; one may ask how this engagement
can be reconciled with his diagnosis of the apparently unalterable and
stable nature of social structures. Nonetheless, he himself believes that this
‘contradiction’ can be resolved by pointing to the fact that freedom is possible
only if one knows and recognises the laws governing how a society is structured:
‘[s]ociology frees by freeing from the illusion of freedom’ (Bourdieu, see Dosse,
1997 [1991], vol. II.: 67). Constant references to people’s supposed ‘free will’
may in fact form part of a discourse of power if it ignores either the limits of
one’s own potential to take action or those applying to ‘others’; conversely, the
assertion that social relations are determined may be the point of departure for
a discourse of liberation. And Bourdieu always claimed that his academic work
was advancing just such a discourse of liberation. Especially during the final
decade of his life, he tried to mobilise left-wing intellectuals to form a counter-
power to what he saw as the ever-advancing and threatening economisation
of every aspect of human life and the hegemony of laissez-faire liberalism.
No-one engaging in such activities can have an entirely pessimistic worldview.
Despite all his references to the constant reproduction of patterns of social
inequality, his diagnosis of the modern era must entail an element of hope.
This brings us to the end of our account of Bourdieusian theory. It only
remains to investigate briefly its impact.
5. Bourdieu’s writings have enjoyed a wide readership, and have exercised
a magnetic effect well beyond the bounds of sociology, within which political
sociology and the sociology of social inequality have benefited most from his ideas.
In France, for example, Bourdieu gathered a large number of collaborators
around him who went on to develop his research approach or applied it to
new topics. Studies in historical sociology on specific strata and professional
groups are the leading case in point, a representative example being Luc
Boltanski’s Les cadres. La formation d’un groupe sociale (English title: The Making
of a Class: Cadres in French Society, 1987 [1982]). In Germany, it is research on
inequality that has most often drawn on Bourdieusian theory, with a particular
focus on the concept of lifestyle (for an overview, see the anthology edited
by Klaus Eder entitled Klassenlage, Lebensstil und kulturelle Praxis (1989a) [Class
Situation, Lifestyle and Cultural Praxis] and Hans-Peter Müller’s Sozialstruktur und
Lebensstile (1992) [Social Structure and Lifestyles]. Yet, Bourdieu has been received
30 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

in sometimes peculiar fashion: in Germany, the concept of lifestyle (which is

not, however, based solely on his ideas) has increasingly been separated out
from the arguments of class theory. This has created the impression that people
can more or less freely choose their lifestyle, inspiring the dubious assertion
that it is thus almost impossible to discern ‘real’ classes in German society
(see, for example, Gerhard Schulze’s Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der
Gegenwart (1992) [The Experiential Society: A Cultural Sociology of the Present]). This
is an argument quite alien to Bourdieu’s way of thinking. Turning to North
America, a study published in 1992 by the French-Canadian Michèle Lamont
(Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle
Class) created quite a stir. This was a comparative study of social structure,
executed in the spirit of Bourdieu, but which went beyond him in as much as it
took seriously the moral discourses of these classes, which Bourdieu tended to
neglect, eschewing their immediate reduction to other factors. Lamont (born
in 1957) brought out in impressive fashion how much the images and ideas
of a morally good life and conduct differ among the upper middle classes
of American and French society and how well suited moral stances are to
highlighting the boundaries between classes.
Bourdieu’s influence on history was almost as great. Concepts such as ‘capital’,
‘field’ and ‘habitus’ clearly helped remedy certain theoretical shortcomings. A
good example of this is a work which was certainly influenced by Bourdieusian
theory and which tackles a topic frequently subject to Bourdieu’s attentions –
one which we were unable to deal with in greater depth in this chapter. We are
referring to Christophe Charle’s Naissance des ‘intellectuels’: 1880–1900 (1990)
[The Emergence of ‘Intellectuals’: 1880–1900], which brings out vividly how the
image of intellectuals was constituted during this period of history and the
various strategies pursued by these intellectuals to set themselves apart from
their ‘competitors’ and free themselves from state and church.

Notes
1 Originally published as Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009 [2004]) ‘Between
Structuralism and Theory of Practice: The Cultural Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’, in
their Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, trans. Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 371–400.
2 Translation revised by Simon Susen.

References
Boltanski, Luc (1987 [1982]) The Making of a Class: Cadres in French Society, trans. Arthur
Goldhammer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1958) Sociologie de l’Algerie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice 31

Bourdieu, Pierre (1970) Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen, trans. Wolfgang Fietkau,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1985 [1984]) ‘The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups’, trans.
Richard Nice, Theory and Society 14(6): 723–744.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986 [1983]) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in John Richardson, Handbook
of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, trans. Richard Nice, New York:
Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity
Press in association with Basil Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1987]) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans.
Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1980]) Sociology in Question, trans. Richard Nice, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1992]) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans.
Susan Emanuel, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1994]) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, trans. Randall
Johnson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Luc Boltanski, Robert Castel and Jean-Claude Chamboredon (1990
[1965]) Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, trans. Shaun Whiteside, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1977 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society
and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, London and Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Charle, Christophe (1990) Naissance des ‘intellectuels’: 1880–1900, Paris: Minuit.
Dosse, François (1997 [1991]) History of Structuralism (2 Volumes), trans. Deborah Glassman,
Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Eder, Klaus (ed.) (1989a) Klassenlage, Lebensstil und kulturelle Praxis. Theoretische und empirische
Beiträge zur Auseinandersetzung mit Pierre Bourdieus Klassentheorie, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Eder, Klaus (1989b)‚ Klassentheorie als Gesellschaftstheorie. Bourdieus dreifache
kulturtheoretische Brechung der traditionellen Klassentheorie’, in Klaus Eder
(ed.) Klassenlage, Lebensstil und kulturelle Praxis. Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zur
Auseinandersetzung mit Pierre Bourdieus Klassentheorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
pp. 15–43.
Ferry, Luc and Alain Renaut (1990 [1985]) ‘French Marxism (Bourdieu)’, in Luc Ferry and
Alain Renaut (eds.) French Philosophy of the Sixties: An Essay on Anti-Humanism, trans. Mary
H.S. Cattani, Amherst and London: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 153–84.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1990]) ‘The Fragmented World of Symbolic Forms: Reflections on
Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture’, in Axel Honneth, The Fragmented World of the
32 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy, edited by Charles W. Wright, Albany: State
University of New York Press, pp. 184–201.
Joas, Hans (1996 [1992]) The Creativity of Action, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Paul Keast,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009 [2004]) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures,
trans. Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamont, Michèle (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American
Upper-Middle Class, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, Hans-Peter (1992) Sozialstruktur und Lebensstile. Der neuere theoretische Diskurs über soziale
Ungleichheit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Robbins, Derek (1991) The Work of Pierre Bourdieu: Recognizing Society, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Schulze, Gerhard (1992) Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart, Frankfurt am
Main and New York: Campus.
CHAPTER TWO
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist?

Bridget Fowler

Derek Robbins states categorically that ‘[t]here are no grounds for considering
Bourdieu was ever a Marxist’ (2006: 513), whilst Brubaker argues that
although Bourdieu might appear to be in the Marxist tradition, his critiques
of Marxism should make us think otherwise (1985: 761). Although I shall be
taking issue with both of these conclusions, I do not want to claim the opposite:
that Marx alone influenced him. Bourdieu was unusually inventive in drawing
also on Weber, Durkheim, Husserl, Mauss, Elias, and Pascal, not to mention
others. Given more space, I would draw out all of these different strands in
the texture of his work, whilst acknowledging that, at his best, his syntheses
possess a masterly originality. Having rejected ‘histmat’1 or Stalinist orthodoxy
(Bourdieu, 1990: 3), however, it is my contention that Bourdieu is one of the great
heirs of the Western Marxist tradition.2 It was not simply a youthful flash in
the pan that led him to suggest his lycée students read The Communist Manifesto 3
(Lescourret, 2008: 65–66).
My general proposal is this: a strong case can be made for the influence
of Marx on Bourdieu’s early writings. A more intricate case needs to be
made for the view that Bourdieu continued to be influenced profoundly by
Marx, despite the development of his distinctive language: the now-familiar
concepts of habitus, field, doxa,4 allodoxia, and so on. Paradoxically, to defend
Marx, Bourdieu chose to wrest some aspects of other theories from idealism – particularly
Durkheimian structuralism – aiming to further strengthen historical materialism (1968
[1968]; 1992: 164).5 Yet, the reverses of labour after 1968 and the massive
impact of the move towards finance capital temporarily discredited Marxism;
hence, Bourdieu was impelled to develop a fresh set of terms. Despite this
reconceptualisation exercise, it is my view that he effectively operates within the
Marxist tradition, demystifying further our understanding of how domination
operates and endures. Thus, what he tellingly calls his ‘theory of practice’
has drawn attention to misrecognised or misunderstood features of social
34 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

action, particularly those that function analogously to the extraction of surplus

value in the labour process. Indeed, the title, ‘theory of practice’ itself evokes
the Marxist lineage of the term ‘praxis’, although Bourdieu has always been
careful to distinguish himself from ‘trendy Marxism’ (1990 [1987]: 22). I am
arguing, then, that Bourdieu shares with Marx the hope that by means of such
demystification ‘the practical relations between man and man […] [would]
generally present themselves in a transparent and rational form’ (Marx, 1976
[1867]: 173).
Bourdieu writes memorably of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic
capital. The multiplication of these various forms serves to increase the amount
of social energy a family has at its command: at root, a materialist concern (1996
[1989]: 187; 1998 [1984]: 70–71). Chief amongst such mechanisms is symbolic
capital, which legitimates other forms of capital. By conferring reputations
along with such symbolic ‘baubles’ as OBEs, knighthoods, and Nobel Prizes,
symbolic capital offers its holders not just recognition but greater justifications
for living (2000 [1997]: 239). Such legitimacy encourages more investments of
energy of the same kind.6
Of course, ‘symbolic capital’ could be said to be the reinvention of Weber’s
idea of status, and indeed Bourdieu refers to Weber’s well-known opposition
of class and Stand in this context (1992: 237–238). Bourdieu arguably puts
this too reductively when he states in Language and Symbolic Power that symbolic
capital is simply the internalised or incorporated form of ‘capital of whatever
kind’ (1992: 238). In contrast, his later works distinguish sharply between the
cultural and symbolic capital possessed by consecrated artists or writers as
against the economic capital of businessmen (with or without the addition of
reputability or symbolic capital). He thus recognises – in a more classically
Weberian fashion – that the historical divergence between the different ruling
classes or dominant class fractions leads to specialised dispositions towards the
various types of capital accumulation (1984 [1979]: 254; 1996 [1989]).
Further, young, as yet unrecognised artists – part of the dominated fraction
of the dominant class – feel an acute powerlessness, both within the cultural
field and within the wider field of power. As a consequence, they are prone to
identify with the position of the working class (1993: 44). Nevertheless, suggests
Bourdieu, such a transient generational position imparts only a temporary
radicalism. Therefore, the alliance of workers with artists or intellectuals is a
fraught one, subject to the sabotage of a facile rhetoric and to all the everyday
distances of divergences in habitus7 (1988 [1984]: 179–180; 1993: 44).8
Yet, in general – for Bourdieu – symbolic capital reinforces the attraction
of the upper hierarchical positions in the division of labour and clears the way
for the performance of such practices. For example, the sociology of science
discloses that the symbolic capital of being placed in a reputable laboratory
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 35

within a high-ranking university is associated with greater credibility as an

experimenter (2004 [2001]: 20–21). Hence, as Bourdieu saw it, symbolic
capital consolidates a group, motivates its members to dedicate themselves
ascetically to its demands and gives them the same inner assurance of success
that the Puritan businessman gained from his work (Bourdieu, 1996 [1989]:
47–50 and 110–111; compare Marx, 1976 [1867]: 739 and 741). Bourdieu is
evidently referring here to the Weber thesis. Unexpectedly, however, he also
intertwines this observation with the words of Marx in Capital: ‘capital breeds
capital’, he argues, writing of academic symbolic capital (1988 [1984]: 91).9
Bourdieu’s whole corpus brilliantly examines a central Marxist idea: the
ossification of fluid individuals into a dominant class, with enduring interests
and the inheritance of class powers. As everyone knows, he shows that the
structures aiding the reproduction of class advantages occur across generations
(1998 [1994]: 107–108). But, despite his critics’ denials, he also demonstrates
how such transmission is beset by contradictions and crises10 (Boyer, 2003: 274–
275). Many such contradictions or conflicts take transfigured forms within
contemporary industrial societies. Thus, older struggles persist, like those
between priests and prophets or between the noblesse de robe (nobles of the
gown) and noblesse d’epée (nobles of the sword); new clashes also emerge, like
those between radical lawyers and law-lords, or between rising avant-gardes
and academies (Bourdieu, 1991 [1971]). Crucially, at certain rare moments
of catastrophe, authors of allegedly cranky or outlandish ideas may trigger
symbolic revolutions. In the deepest crises, contradictions in the economic order
massively accumulate, bringing widespread poverty and downward mobility.
Then these figures of symbolic revolution and creative destruction ignite the
flames of political and social revolutions.
Bourdieu may not have theorised at great length any specific
transformation – neither the French Revolutions nor the brief Paris
Commune. Yet, it is an illusion to conclude that within his theory, there is
only ‘eternal reproduction’. Surprisingly, however, many very perceptive
and cogent writers have argued this, in relation to both his theory of class
power and his theory of masculine domination (Archer, 2007; Callinicos,
1999a, 200611; Calhoun, 1993: 70; Rancière, 2004 [1983]: 195; Susen,
2007: 221–223 and 312).
If Bourdieu in fact retains the major ideas of Marx, it is necessary to reflect
on those texts concerning symbolic violence in which Bourdieu upbraids
Marxists (1992). I want to clear the ground here initially by arguing that
Bourdieu neither abandons the Marxist method of historical materialism as
an approach or guiding thread, nor repudiates Marx’s own texts. Rather, he
seeks first to make historical materialism more complex and to incorporate
an analysis of symbolic power alongside economic power. More about this later.
36 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Second, he wants to draw attention, as he always has, to ‘false radicalism’.

In his view, such false radicalism rests on a simplistic model of the working
class’s affinity for revolution, thus resorting too easily to explanatory motifs
of seduction by embourgeoisement and consumerism, or to a moralistic
rhetoric of betrayal – as in the condemnation of an aristocracy of labour.
Such false radicalism springs from a naively realist view of class. Instead, he
emphasises not only people’s position in the social space (that is, their objective
abundance or scarcity of capitals), but also how they subjectively construct
the principles of vision and division within the world (Bourdieu, 1987, and
1992: ch. 11). Therefore, in any given conjuncture, national antagonisms or
religious divisions – as between Protestant and Catholic – may be substituted
for class explanations of suffering (Bourdieu, 1987). Nevertheless, in times of
crisis, when the critiques of the proletarianised intelligentsia no longer seem
outlandish, the working class becomes full of potential. In Bourdieu’s striking
phrase, it feels itself to be a ‘mystical body’ created through ‘an immense
historical labour of theoretical and practical invention’ (1985 [1984]: 742).
In thus acknowledging actors’ active construction of class solidarities, as opposed
to their other forms of solidarity or hierarchy (1992: 241–243), Bourdieu
should be aligned not with non-Marxists, but with culturalist Marxists, such
as E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams. These thinkers locate a difficult,
protracted, and at times even reversible process in developing a culture of
class. Indeed, it should be noted that Bourdieu was first published in Britain
by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). Both
Thompson and Williams were adopted by the CCCS as founding figures.
In a break with mechanical materialism – which recalls Durkheim –
Bourdieu also accepts that there are important ‘theory effects’ that spring
from the power of representations as such (1992: 251; also 1990 [1987]:
49). Marxism, he claims, may benefit precisely from its own rhetoric as
a doctrine about the future. On the model of a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’,
such a theory is a particular kind of performative linguistic act. Hence, its
heterodox conclusions may come to possess great social force, although – as
Homo Academicus clarifies – only under certain conditions. Marx, of course,
had said as much himself, accepting, in his writing on Hegel, that ‘theory
also becomes a material force once it has gripped the masses’ (Marx, 1975
[1843–4]: 251). Bourdieu rightly goes further in arguing that Marxism ought
to possess the reflexivity to understand the precise place of these various
determinants (1992: 251).
Paradoxically, Bourdieu provides his most powerful critique of orthodox
Marxism (‘histmat’ or ‘diamat’) by taking up and extending Marx’s own
analytical instruments to great sociological effect. In Distinction, he explores
the Marxist notion of fetishism, daring to apply it to the realm of culture
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 37

(1984 [1979]: 250–251).12 Thus – following Benjamin earlier – he elaborates

in many works a theory of the cultural fetishism of consecrated art. In Language
and Symbolic Power, he takes up a theme that also becomes a constant of several
texts: the sociological reality of political fetishism (1992: ch. 9; Wacquant,
2005: ch. 3). In particular, he exposes the mechanisms whereby spokespersons
become invested with the ‘mystery of their ministry’: in Durkheimian fashion,
he argues that their power lies in their organic connection to the very social
group that mandates them. Yet, such spokespersons acquire their own
bureaucratic or apparatchik interests (Bourdieu, 1992: 214–215). Like the
great lords of the Church before them, they slowly substitute themselves for the
masses they claim to represent. Since factionalism is everywhere denigrated as
the worst political sin, Bourdieu wittily reveals that the rank-and-file are often
forced to remain powerless – they have only the unhappy options of ‘exit’
(departure), ‘voice’ (the censored choice of autonomous protest) or secretly
forming another organisation (1992: 208).
As against Brubaker’s view that Bourdieu is, in effect, anti-Marxist in these
works, certain key points ought to be made. On the one hand, his debt to
Marx is in evidence, not least in linking political fetishism back to Capital.
For example, in this context, he interestingly quotes one of Marx’s main
discoveries: ‘Value does not wear a statement of what it is written on its own
brow’ (Bourdieu, 1992: 205). On the other hand, it has always been part of
the ongoing tradition of Marxism itself that it castigates a facile utopianism in
the name of science (Marx and Engels, 1940 [1845]: 180–193). Hence, rather
than concluding that Bourdieu intends his sociological analyses to be against
Marxism, we could suggest that he writes in the spirit of a Marxist critique: one
that is wedded to a democratic revulsion against oppressive rule in all its forms
(see Nimtz, 2000).
This interpretation is strengthened by Bourdieu’s distinctive critique of
other leading social theorists. He views these thinkers as having lapsed into
divergent forms of idealism. Thus, Derrida has a powerful criticism of Kant
but is ultimately too restricted to the philosophical institution and the scholastic
attitude (1984 [1979]: 494–498 and 499–500). He consequently has no basis
for escaping from the confusion to which Marx himself drew attention –
mistaking the world of logic for the order of things (2000 [1997]: 53 and 55).
Habermas’s model of communicative action with its ‘rationalist absolutism’
has neglected the strategic pursuit of interest within the lifeworld itself,
relegating interest solely to the sphere of instrumental reason characteristic
of the capitalist market system (2000 [1997]: 65–66; 2002b: 46, 254, and
271–272).13 Foucault – whose affectionate obituary he wrote (2002b: 178–181) –
nevertheless errs by remaining too much in the ‘firmament of ideas’ (1993: 33;
1996 [1992]: 197–198): he fails to connect his épistèmes to social experiences
38 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

and structuring structures. Austin correctly understands the extraordinarily

transformative power of words, but is curiously silent about the manner in
which social roles – power – authorise specific agents’ utterances. These social
roles provide the conditions underpinning the illocutionary force of significant
agents’ words, whilst withholding such conditions from poorly placed others
(1992: 108–116). One could go on.
Bourdieu’s own analysis of language as symbolic power is totally congruent
with that of the dissident Marxist, Vološinov (1973 [1930]) – a member of
the small group around Bakhtin in the 1920s. Bakhtin himself is also cited
favourably by Bourdieu (1984 [1979]: 491–504; 1992: 40 and 88). Both
social theorists – Vološinov and Bourdieu (1992: 33–34) – seek to go beyond
Saussure. Stressing that the sign is the possession of the whole community,
they argue that it is multi-accentual, each speech-act bearing the vibrant but
conflicting meanings of different social classes. (Hence Vološinov: ‘A sign
that has been withdrawn from the pressures of social struggle […] inevitably
loses force, degenerating into allegory, and becoming the object not of live,
social intelligibility, but philological comprehension’ (1973 [1930]: 23).) The
link between a confident and highly articulate use of the hegemonic language
and a sense of mastery or ease in one’s linguistic habitus is also common to
both thinkers (1984 [1979]: 255–256; 1992: 52). Bourdieu stresses that those
agents possessing a dominant class habitus may also gain social honour by
linguistic ‘strategies of condescension’, for example, by speaking to local voters
in the dialect form, despite their known capacity for great eloquence in the
dominant form of French (1992: 68–69). Similarly, Vološinov had suggested
that a highly individualistic use of language has its roots in the bourgeois or
patrician’s sense of self-confidence: such members of the elite feel that the
entire social order will be generous to them, since they possess both ‘social
recognizance’ and ‘tenability of rights’ (1973 [1930]: 89). Bourdieu makes the
same point in reverse, citing a Béarn worker’s confession that he does not know
how to speak (in standard French) – a man who is nevertheless very voluble when
drinking in the café (1992: 69 and 98–99; see also 2002a).
Brubaker, like others, has dissected the inner kernel of Bourdieu’s thought
as the attempt to subsume within a new theory the opposites of objectivism and
subjectivism (1985: 750–753). This is true, but perhaps Bourdieu is thinking
in the tradition of Western Marxism here, rather than as an unfounded
innovator. For example, when Marx unveils the ‘metaphysical subtleties and
theological niceties’ (1976 [1867]: 163) of the mundane commodity form,
he too is criticising both objectivism and subjectivism. Let us pursue Marx’s
argument a little longer.
On the one hand, Marx states that we have to explore commodities beyond
their physical objectivity (that is, the objectivity both of the raw materials from
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 39

which they are composed and the muscles, brains etc. used in making them).
Underpinning this are the varying durations of abstract labour that are
embodied in each category of commodity. Of course, such labour can be
reduced to ‘simple’ labour and hence to average productivity, but only via the
connections that link producers together within the web of the division of
labour. Such connections are only revealed where there is no massive fault-line
between them, such as the division between slaves and free labour. (Indeed,
remarks Marx, this latter division had been so salient in Ancient Greece that
even Aristotle had failed to systematically think through the idea he had been
the first to entertain intellectually: that labour might be comparable.) Hence,
producers may act individually, even privately, but they are affected, willy-nilly,
by the whole market. It is this structure of abstract labour – partly an analytical
construct – which regulates the amount of socially necessary labour needed
at any given time to produce a given commodity. Similarly, we might add,
individual academics in Britain are regulated by abstract labour to produce
their research outputs in a certain period with the imperatives of the RAE or
REF14 in mind.
On the other hand, when individuals try to grasp the form of the commodity,
they mistakenly endow the physical form with a nature garnered from their
own subjective interpretations of the world. Commodities are thus approached
in the spirit of necromancy; as Marx says, the objects themselves, when they
appear on the market, come to be endowed with an alluring, yet frightening,
independence or autonomy, seeming to control the puny men and women who
are their own producers. This subjective experience is, of course, inadequate: it
makes the commodity into a magical force, and creates a world turned upside
down. Hegel had shown how God or Spirit was only a constituent of people’s
subjective world-construction – ‘the products of their own brain’ – even if
actors had come to see these gods as alienated spirits, dominating them. Marx
is arguing that commodities, as the alienated objects of men’s own labour,
dominate them in similar fashion.
Thus, Marx is waging a war on two fronts. Against taking refuge in
‘phantasmagoric’ interpretations, he stresses that these fail to confront the
historical objectivity of structures within the real world. But these economic
tendencies that operate like laws of gravity – i.e. independent of the will of
the actors – also hide a secret. This is that it is our own private labour and
choice of working practice, whether chiefly intellectual or chiefly manual,
that is orchestrated collectively, behind our backs, within a ‘socially necessary’
duration of labour-time. Each society imposes this changeable norm upon our
subjective awareness.
Bourdieu develops analogous critiques to that of Marx vis-à-vis
unacceptably objectivist and subjectivist strands in social theory. Against
40 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

both Althusserianism and structuralism, he stresses that agents are not

merely objective bearers of structures, or role-followers (1996 [1989]: 53).
Instead (as stressed by Goffman), they are active role-takers, negotiating their
performances in the light of back-stage strategies rather than exhibiting dumb
conformity to the rules. Conversely, on ethnomethodologists, he censures their
incapacity to consider the wider historical arena of structures, the setting for
the strategic constructions of actors. Hence, for example, the power of the
state in defining the statistical principles of classification detailing ‘[w]hat is a
family?’ (1998 [1994]: 66–67 and 72).
In sum, the concepts of field, habitus, fractured habitus etc. can be seen
as so many recurrent moves within the theory of practice to steer between
the Scylla of objectivism and the Charybdis of subjectivism. In doing so,
Bourdieu explores the arenas of modern capitalist society that Marx had
rarely addressed, such as modernist art and literature. Not the least among
his concerns is their unexpected contribution to the symbolic adornment of
the powerful. I shall now consider, under six headings, further instances of his
debt to Marx.

Further Textual Evidence for Viewing Bourdieu

as a Non-Stalinist Marxist
(1) Algeria
There are references throughout Bourdieu’s work to the terms in which
Marx characterises economic thought. Marx refers critically to the axiom of
classical economic thought, namely that the highest rationality is the pursuit
of production and wealth for its own sake: in Bourdieu, this is expressed as
the doctrine of ‘the economy for the economy’s sake’. Like Marx, Bourdieu
poses the issue of when such an economic rationality is pursued. Far from
being a universal outlook, he insists, it is a historical acquisition. The question
appears in his well-known work, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977 [1972]).
The same points are made earlier in Le déracinement (1964), Bourdieu’s and
Sayad’s remarkable study of Algerian ex-peasants and casualised workers,
undertaken amidst all the dangers of the Algerian War. This shows the gradual
acculturation of Algerian workers to a Western conception of work: the
notion that it consists of paid employment. Imbued with this new principle,
they become distanced from the peasant ethos, in which the only real work
had been labour on the land – a ‘semi-artistic’ work with nature.15
Now, even in 1958, Bourdieu acknowledges the Western mantra of
a ‘clash of civilisations’: he grants that peasants do not readily display the
practices summed up in economists’ rational choice theory (2008), but he
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 41

breaks with those ‘acculturation theorists’ who saw tradition alone as blocking
the acceptance of (French) modernity. Rather, the clash is a consequence of
domination and especially of domination via the primitive accumulation of land.
The Algerians’ jointly-possessed property was seized from them, starting
with the 1863 Sénatus-consulte Law and cemented with the further
legalisation of the French colonists’ hold over their land in 1873.16 In brief,
Bourdieu’s studies of Algeria show how similar processes occurred there to
those Marx saw with his own eyes in the Rhineland or discovered, through the
Scottish Enlightenment, about the Highland clearances. Indeed, Bourdieu’s
language with respect to Algeria is of ‘social surgery’: the ‘social vivisection’
and fragmentation of a whole society in order to institute individual land
ownership, and to legitimate large colonial estates (1961: 105).17
Who then are the bearers of the ‘economic habitus’ in this sense of rational
efficiency and rational risk-control? Bourdieu notes that in capitalist modernity
this ‘[ John] Stuartmillian view’ of economic life is inculcated everywhere, even
into the very young. He quotes schoolchildren in Lowestoft in the 1950s who
had gone so far as to form their own insurance society to protect them against
risks: they got four shillings for each caning on the backside (2008: 247).
What stands in the way of rationally maximising gain? He calls this,
in 1977 [1972], the good faith economy – the gift economy of the peasantry.
Ultimately this is founded on ‘a whole art of living’. Underneath this familiar
anthropological conception is there not also here a covert reference to Marx?
Marx had proposed that Aristotle and the ancients had a nobler conception
than modern thinkers about what the social world was for: the engendering of
a good society. In such a society, the entire social order revolved around the
production of men rather than production for profits’ sake: ‘[In Ancient Greece]
the human being appears as the aim of production rather than production
as the aim of mankind and wealth as the aim of production’. (Marx, 1973
[1857]: 487–488.) In identical terms, Bourdieu invokes Aristotle, depicting
the Kabylian Algerians as possessing the ‘logic of the philia’ – a logic based on
community and friendship – rather than a modern ‘economic habitus’ (2008:
207–208).18
Bourdieu’s writing on Algeria refers frequently to time and to different
experiences of temporality (for example, 2008: 89–91). Here, he clearly takes
issue with the simplistic economic interpretation of Paris intellectuals, such
as Fanon, who argues that those who are most impoverished and dispossessed
will be the most revolutionary. Explicitly adopting a ‘culturalist’ theory,19 he
contends instead that the greatest misery – that of the Lumpenproletariat – is
incompatible with organisation or long-term planning. Rather, such lived
experience is felt as a hand-to-mouth existence, where next week’s food is
precarious – if not today’s.
42 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

At this point, early in his career, we notice him classifying perceptions

of the future and the past, just as Husserl (1970 [1936]) had done.20 Yet,
Husserl’s analysis of the underlying phenomena of everyday life provides
no clue as to how social structures – such as those of aristocracy, hierarchy
or gift exchange – shape experience. For Bourdieu, in contrast, the sense of
time has to be grasped as interwoven with the mode of social existence that
the group possesses. Thus, there are gulfs in temporal experience dividing
various groups. First, traditional peasant communities anticipate the future via
a cyclical view of natural and social life: Bourdieu follows Marx in calling this
‘simple reproduction’ (2008: 93). Second – as we have seen – the deracinated
urban sub-proletariat of ultra-precarious workers, cut off from their rural
past, are condemned only to experience the present. Third, a more secure
section of the proletariat, emerging in great cities, nurtures the conception of
an alternative future: one radically different from the past. In other words, the
stable working class alone is able to conceptualise their present as an arena of
injustice provoked by historically determined structures, rather than seeing the
present as the province of a magical fatalism.21 Here, Bourdieu is enhancing
Marxism with a phenomenological awareness of the impact of extreme
poverty (cf. Moore, 1973; cf. also Vološinov, 1973: 88–89).

(2) Education and Class

Especially since the Second World War, the role of education in legitimating
class has been quite extraordinary. Until very recently, education served
to remove from contestation an entire sphere of unequal rewards on the
assumption that students were universalistically selected. Now Marx, of
course, had criticised as bogus the universalism that Hegel had identified with
the German State bureaucracy (Marx, 1970 [1843]: 41–54; 1975 [1843–4]:
99–116).22 In very similar terms, Bourdieu had become disenchanted with the
spurious claims to universalism of the French state. I have referred already to
Bourdieu’s openly acknowledged debts to Marx. Perhaps the most well-known
is Reproduction’s famous assessment of the examination, which recycles once
more Marx’s earlier irony:

The examination is nothing but the bureaucratic baptism of knowledge, the

official recognition of the transubstantiation of profane knowledge into sacred
knowledge. (Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, Marx, 1975 [1843–4]:
112, quoted from Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990 [1970]: 141)

Is it not this same ‘sacred knowledge’ that Bourdieu later calls ‘certified cultural
capital’ or alludes to as the ‘consecrated canon of texts’? As all his work reveals,
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 43

the dominant classes, from the twentieth century on, reproduce themselves
not only through material mechanisms, via the inheritance of money and
businesses, but also culturally, via privileged access to educational success.
Their young people’s high recruitment qualifications, conferred by both home
and school, are the normal yield of the bourgeois family upbringing.
Bourdieu continues later to extend his gaze to the deeper social realities
of class and culture. In particular, he demystifies the elite – especially that
section of the French elite that occupies the highest positions in the state, as
well as the public corporations. Their rigorous and ascetic training in the
Grandes Écoles produces an extraordinary esprit de corps or what he calls
a ‘social magic’. In the second chapter of The State Nobility (1996 [1989]),
Bourdieu first subjects this fraction of the dominant class to a statistical
analysis, ‘objectifying’ it to reveal its highly privileged origins. Second, he
undertakes a subtle content analysis of teachers’ comments on philosophy
essays written in the preparatory classes for the Grandes Écoles. Acting
without the teachers’ knowledge, he undertakes a kind of sociological
experiment, matching each set of essay comments to the physically separated
records on the students’ social backgrounds. The results are surprising: he
shows that the essays of children from the higher civil service tend to be
praised as ‘brilliant’ or ‘masterly’, the essays of petty-bourgeois students
are chided for being ‘pedestrian’ or at best ‘solid’, while the work of young
people from the lower classes – such as cleaners’ children – are derided as
‘derivative’ and ‘unoriginal’. These teachers would be horrified if accused of
deliberately classifying such students’ essays by their class origins. Yet, they
have operated such a selection unconsciously, seduced by the more academic
culture possessed by the children of the dominant class.
Could we even go so far as to suggest that this ‘machine of cognitive
misrecognition’ – as Bourdieu provocatively calls it – has a parallel place to
Capital’s paradoxes about the extraction of surplus value (Marx, 1976 [1867]:
279–80, 293–306)? For Marx, in Capital, the front stage or bourgeois public
space is the sphere of fair contracts between masters and labourers – ‘Freedom,
Equality, Property and Bentham’. Yet, in the back regions, when the factory
door slams shut, the workers know they are going to get ‘a tanning’ (a skinning)
(Marx, 1976 [1867]: 279–280). Similarly, for Bourdieu, the state, front-stage,
makes a claim to the universalistic treatment of all its schoolchildren. Yet, back-
stage, when the school doors bang shut, the proclaimed equality of each pupil
can be shown to be paper-thin, undermined by the deeper-laid mechanisms
of class reproduction. A symbolic violence is perpetrated towards the ordinary
child – creating the irremovable feeling of their own, individual failure (1984
[1979]: 156).23 Such symbolic injury, I might add, supplements the sometimes
physical violence of surplus value extraction in the workplace.
44 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

(3) The Cultural Field

In late capitalist societies, Bourdieu claims, even art has come to serve
ideological functions, similar to religion. Nobody, he comments wryly, has had
any reason to unveil the interests behind ‘the game of culture’ (1984 [1979]:
12). To remedy this, he must demystify the modern aristocracy of culture: the
cultivated elite. First, Bourdieu insists that the individual lover of art is drawn
to artistic works that are backed by the entire imprimatur or aura of the art-
world itself (1984 [1979]: 86). Indeed, what is often seen as the ‘natural gift’ of
a creative subject masks the historical ‘privatisation’ of artistic production: an
artistic production that had once been recognised – even as late as Herder –
as founded on collective social property. Furthermore, such art-lovers’
discriminating choices confer hidden symbolic profits:

The denial of the low, coarse, vulgar, venal and […] in a word, natural
enjoyment which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture implies an affirmation
of the superiority of those who [are only] satisfied with sublimated, refined,
distinguished […] pleasures. That is why art and cultural consumption are
predisposed, consciously or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social
differences. (1984 [1979]: 7)

In Bourdieu’s words, art is now the ‘spiritual point d’honneur’ of the bourgeoisie
(1993: 44). At present, consecrated avant-garde art – from surrealism to land
art or photorealism, ought to be seen less as a protest and more as a status
ornament – a kind of spiritual brooch, which proclaims the higher humanity
of its wearer. Now Bourdieu is making a veiled allusion here to the well-known
sociological comment by Marx about religion as a spiritual point d’honneur:

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic
in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction […]
its universal basis of consolation and justification. (Marx, 1975 [1843–4]: 244,
my emphasis)24

Similarly, Bourdieu:

The cult of art and the artist […] is one of the necessary components of the
bourgeois art of living, to which it brings a supplément d’âme, its spiritualistic point
of honour. (1993: 44, italics in original)

I shall show below how Bourdieu’s analysis of religion – with its complex
character as doxa and heterodoxy, ideology and utopia – becomes important
for his theoretical modelling of the secular cultural field.
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 45

(4) Struggles Within the University World: Homo Academicus

Homo Academicus contains a chapter on the explosion of contradictions which
made up the events of May 1968. Often overlooked within his work, it
provides the nearest we have to Bourdieu’s theory of revolution. Interestingly,
he sees current unrest as engendered by crushed expectations: chiefly, the
occupational hopes that had been nurtured within an expanded educational
field, only to be dashed later. Direct insurrection of labour against capital is
now unlikely, he states.
Nevertheless, despite this apparent break, there are still some parallels
with Marx. Marx writes of the concentration of the capitalist class, with
small businesses going to the wall in the interests of the wider class; similarly,
for Bourdieu, the main discontent triggering the 1968 academic crisis was
stemmed by a parallel concentration of cultural capital, within the hands of
the few. What does this imply? In an observation that has obvious implications
today, he comments that those groups who spent three or four years on a
degree and then discovered that they were doomed to manual or unskilled work
were particularly resentful, caught, as they were, in a dialectic of qualification and
devaluation (‘downclassing’). So also were young lecturers, in 1968 fearful then –
as now – that they would never get the promotion that was due to them.
An educational crisis of disappointed aspirations can affect a whole
generation, but it does so with an accumulation of crises specific to each field.
A contradiction within one field, like the universities, may be linked through
a chain reaction to similar contradictions in analogous fields – in radio and
television, for example.25 Then the different senses of time operating within
these separate worlds can be brought together: by means of crisis within this
uneven development, the agents become contemporaneous, expressing their different
miseries (1988 [1984]: 180). Here you have the preconditions for a successful
revolution (1988 [1984]: 172).
In a vivid phenomenological analysis, Bourdieu reveals how at the critical
moment everything changes. By overturning their usual future, the crisis
provokes actors to forget their place. In the festive atmosphere, students use
slang even with professors, everything is turned upside down and a sense
of ‘open time’ emerges (1988 [1984]: 162); a vague and almost empty
time, common to the different fields, seizes everyone (1988 [1984]: 185; cf.
Durkheim, 1987 [1897]: 210).
Yet, he also draws attention to the unseen force of the hierarchy of capitals
separating workers, who are low in cultural capital, from professionals, who
are much higher. The alliance forged between workers and intellectuals
(as with artists) is thus very fragile – a thing of rhetoric, rarely based on real
interaction but nevertheless strengthened by down-classing (1988 [1984]: 164
and 179). We should read this as a realist’s warning about facile utopias, whilst
46 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

noting Bourdieu’s continued evaluative stand in favour of a ‘feasible utopia’

(1998 [1997]). Here, I would see Sintomer (1996) as fundamentally right in his
analysis of Bourdieu – that he had two phases: a critical ‘ethic of suspicion’
and a positive ethic of liberty and justice (1996: 91). The first one is a phase of
demystification (which subjects ideologies such as the Romantic artistic critique
of capitalism to further disenchantment). The second is one that builds on the
concept of ‘historical transcendent universals’ (such as autonomous scientific
experimentation). It sees these as enabling a ‘corporatism of the universal’:
a Realpolitik of Reason and Morality which favours liberty, cooperation, and
democratic civil rights (Sintomer, 1996: 95–97).

(5) Quixotism: A Different Conception of Agency

Brubaker claims that Bourdieu never uses the Marxist concept of modes or
relations of production (1985: 761). Now, while he rarely uses these terms
in the orthodox fashion, he does refer to the new ‘school-mediated mode of
reproduction’ (1996 [1989]: 285), in which these same historical divisions are
present, but at a deeper level. Another indicator of their persistence is his use
of the motif ‘Le Mort Saisit Le Vif ’ (Death Seizes the Living) – a phrase that
periodically appears in his work, most evidently in an important article on
absolutism (1980). The title of this article, ‘Le Mort Saisit le Vif ’, is again a
covert reference to Marx. He comments in Capital on the absence of any neat
succession of modes of production:

Alongside the modern evils, we suffer from a whole series of evils arising from
the passive survival of archaic and outmoded modes of production, with their
accompanying train of anachronistic social and political relations. We suffer
not only from the living, but from the dead. Le Mort Saisit Le Vif ! (Marx, 1976
[1867]: 91)

The suffering provoked by the grip of the dead is never very far away when
Bourdieu is debating the nature of peasant society. Indeed, unlike others from
the Western Marxist tradition, this ‘outmoded [rural] mode of production’ is
one of his recurrent concerns, contrasting with the concentration on the city
within the work of Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Lefebvre.26 Thus, he
grasps with great poignancy the sacrifices made by second sons of peasants
who often give up even marriage and reproduction (children) in order to
preserve their inherited way of life (2002a). The interviews with small farmers
in The Weight of the World make the same point: their acceptance of protracted
hours and a low level of income could be explained only as their ‘obligation’
to the family farm that had been passed onto them by those brought up in
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 47

an earlier, agricultural way of life (1999 [1993]: 381–391). As he points out,

they have been ‘inherited by their heritage’ – another reference to Marx
(A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, quoted in 1992: 122; see also
1990 [1987]: 57–58, 2002a: 169).
Further, Bourdieu refers, throughout his early work, to the Don Quixote
syndrome. In this, there is a radical discrepancy between the world as the
agent’s habitus led them to expect it and its real structures. Now in Don
Quixote, Cervantes alludes to the gulf in seventeenth-century Spain between
the idealised chivalric rules of the aristocratic feudal habitus and the actual
world of the transition to commercial capital, where money rules supreme.
‘Quixotism’ as a syndrome is here used as a shorthand by Bourdieu to refer
to the clash of expectations with new realities, just as Marx had earlier used it
in the same way, referring in many works to the character of the ‘Great Don’
(Marx, 1976 [1867]: 176 and 179).27
After Distinction (1984 [1979]: 109), Bourdieu drops his explicit references
to Quixote. From his earlier concept of Quixotism, however, he retains a more
general type: that of a fractured habitus (habitus clivé).28 It is this fractured or cleft
habitus that leads its bearers to become subversive, capable of artistic and
intellectual, or even social, revolutions. Hence, the significance of the fact that
Manet, for example, had a subversive habitus, in which his dispositions were
in ‘dynamic friction’ with his position in the field that he had entered. It is this
that led him to introduce the break with Academicism in the field of modern
art (2002 [2000]: 31–32; Bourdieu and Chartier, 2010: 89–95). Similarly
with Beethoven, Flaubert and Heidegger (2002 [2000]: 31–32; Bourdieu and
Chartier, 2010: 90–103). In brief, the reference to Quixotism provides another
hint – pace Brubaker – that Bourdieu is profoundly influenced by Marx.

(6) Finally, Bourdieu’s General Theory of Cultural Power

Bourdieu’s demystifying gaze has been stressed, but we can also see the
glimmerings in his work of other – more emancipatory – theories. In the little-
known Genesis and Structure of the Religious Field (1991 [1971]), Bourdieu aims to
get beyond the magic circle surrounding the respective sociologies of religion
of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. He will integrate them, not eclectically, but by
providing the geometrical place where their various perspectives meet (1991
[1971]: 2). Yet, this path-breaking work on fields also possesses a problematic
of key significance that comes straight from Marx. In The Eighteenth Brumaire,
Marx had debated why the 1848 French revolution had failed to take off.
Although all the objective prerequisites for a revolution existed – in terms of
material inequalities – the absence of a new critique of society and a fresh
vision of the future fatally undermined the revolutionaries.
48 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu takes this and reworks it into a theory of prophets (1991 [1971],
sections 3 and 4). The prophets’ critique is of religion – especially of the priests’
religion; however, their critique is not without relevance for later popular
movements. They demand, for example, the democratisation of the gift of grace,
and ‘autogestion’: the workers’ control, so to speak, of religious movements.
Such prophets, like the proletarianised intelligentsia more widely, often come
from a precarious and powerless position within the Church. This makes it
easy for them to empathise with the low place of the subordinate classes.29
The battles they fight within the Church only begin to have any impact on
the political order when they are linked to a subversive political doctrine and
resonate in a period of crisis.
Bourdieu objectifies the conditions of prophetic new ways of seeing and
their power:

If there is, doubtless, no symbolic revolution that does not presuppose a

political revolution, the political revolution is insufficient by itself to produce
the symbolic revolution, which is necessary to give it an adequate language,
the condition for its full accomplishment [i.e. as a political revolution…]. For
as long as a crisis is without its prophet, the schema by which one thinks the
upside-down world are still the products of the world to be reversed. (1991
[1971]: 37, trans. amended)

He then quotes the famous lines of the Eighteenth Brumaire:

The tradition of dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the
living. And, just when they appear to be engaged in revolutionary transformation,
they timidly conjure up the spirits of the past to help them, they borrow their
names, slogans and clothes […]. Luther put on the mark of the apostle Paul,
the revolution of 1789–1814 draped itself as the Roman Republic […]. (Marx:
1974: 146–147)

Bourdieu adds that the

political revolution finds its fulfilment only in the symbolic revolution that
makes it exist fully, in giving it the means to think itself in its truth, that is, as
unprecedented, unthinkable and unnameable according to all the previous grids
of classification and interpretation […]. (1991 [1971]: 37)

Hence, the power of doxa and heterodoxy in his work, which he regarded –
following Husserl – as more fundamental than questions of ideology. Unlike
the other poststructuralists influenced by Husserl, however, he notes the
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 49

underlying social conditions helping to spread the conditions for the break
with orthodoxy:

[ J ]ust as the priest is allied to the ordinary order, so the prophet is the man for
situations of crisis, when the established order is rocked and the whole future
is suspended […] Marcel Mauss noted ‘famines [and] wars, instigate prophets,
heresies [...] violent contacts broach even the division of the population [...]
hybridisations of entire societies [...] necessarily and precisely cause new ideas
and new traditions […]’. (1991 [1971]: 34, trans. amended)

This concern with the social conditions for symbolic and political revolutions
recurs throughout Bourdieu’s work. We can see it, for example, in his critique
of Weber’s theory of charismatic leader, which he regards as too individualist
(1991 [1971]: 20–21). Weber is still insufficiently aware of the leaders’
dependence themselves on the masses that they empower, not just the masses’
mould-breaking acts when they are supported by the charismatic leader (1987
[1971]; 1991 [1971]: 21).
We can see this same concern for social conditions in Bourdieu’s analysis
of scientific revolutions and especially his critique of Kuhn’s purely internalist
account of such revolutions (2004 [2001]: 15).30 But it flows also through
his work on secular, modernist artists and writers, especially those groups
positioned inside the restricted cultural field, who act as sources of resistance
and transformation. See here his references to Manet (2004 [2001]: 16), to
Baudelaire’s ‘realist formalism’ (1996 [1992]: 107), to Virginia Woolf (2001
[1998]), and to Mapplethorpe (Bourdieu and Haacke, 1995 [1994]).
In brief, for Bourdieu, the social structures conducive to conflicting visions
or divisions of the world were of key importance in his understanding of
the political. Within these, however, he was always especially concerned with
those disruptive discourses that denaturalise the social, that reject ‘the racism
of class’ and that refuse to grant an essential necessity to the contemporary
arrangements of everyday life. Such heterodoxies can all be seen as vital for
a transformative politics. For Bourdieu, a symbolic revolution may flare up
within any given cultural field. Yet, unlike the easy substitution of each avant-
garde by its successors, such symbolic revolutions do not by themselves remove
the more difficult need – from the perspective of the dominated – for a further,
politico-economic transformation.

Conclusion
Terry Lovell (2003) has strikingly used the case of the charismatic African-
American leader, Rosa Parks, to show how she ‘resisted, with authority’, the
50 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

bus segregation of the late 1950s in the Southern States of America. Her quiet
courage matched the needs of the forcibly subordinated African-American
masses. Lovell uses Bourdieu’s critique of Weber’s over-individualistic theory
of charisma to interpret this case – a development from the Genesis article
quoted above. Yet, writers like Jeffrey C. Alexander can still state, in The Civil
Sphere, that Bourdieu has no understanding of ‘universalism’ or ‘cross-sectional
solidarity’, and hence his theory can throw no light on the epoch-making
events of Civil Rights (2006: 562).
The contrary, it seems to me, is true. Bourdieu’s Genesis and Structure of
the Religious Field provides an invaluable account of the symbolic revolutions
necessary for such political undertakings, and in this work, allusions to the
writings of Marx play a prominent part. Nonetheless, Bourdieu’s work does
not give us simply new tools for social transformation. It also aids towards a
reflexive understanding that could stop revolutions being betrayed (Bourdieu
and Wacquant, 1992 [1992]).31 In particular, we might learn from his grasp
of the way personal resentment can draw people towards revolt, whilst also
being a poor start for a post-revolutionary epoch. This occurs especially when
the revolutionaries are more concerned with ‘lopping off the tall poppies’, as
opposed to a more ‘generous’ ‘ressentiment’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992
[1992]: 212). The ethno-sociologist, he once argued, ought to be a kind of
‘organic intellectual of humanity’ (2008: 355): in other words, they should
be concerned with the social conditions that create the ‘social magic’ of the
present, so to dissolve that magic’s subterranean force.
I hope to have shown that far from Bourdieu’s ‘political turn’ having been a
feature of the last years of his life – from The Weight of the World onwards – he
possesses throughout his writings an agenda that was very similar to that of
Marx. Indeed, his sociology is a contribution to an enhanced and sophisticated
Western Marxism that might restore the power of Marx’s original ideas within
new social contexts. In this sense, perhaps Verdès-Leroux has a grain of truth
in her otherwise ludicrous allegation that Bourdieu is a ‘sociological terrorist’
(Verdès-Leroux, 1998: 5). He is indeed one of the streams of great social
thinkers concerned fundamentally with justice, with the mechanisms of how
social injustice becomes customary, and with the transformative consequences
of this knowledge.

Notes
1 ‘Histmat’ or ‘diamat’ were the bowdlerised forms of Marxist thought taken up in the
former Eastern European State socialist societies, characterised especially by mechanical
materialism, and a strong emphasis on the inevitability of historical progress.
2 Amongst such names I include Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno, Benjamin, Williams, and
E. P. Thompson. I cannot go into detail here about the links between these writers and
Bourdieu, all of whom have been cited by him.
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 51

3 Lescourret (2008: 65–66) gives this account of an episode when Bourdieu taught at the
lycée in Moulins, before his conscription to the Algerian War.
4 This concept is borrowed from Husserl (1970 [1936]), just as ‘habitus’ is acknowledged
by Bourdieu to have had numerous progenitors.
5 I have no space here to discuss Bourdieu’s innovative approach to symbolic forms,
that is, to Durkheim’s social categories as opposed to Kant’s transcendental-universal
categories. Just as a culturalist Marxist, E. P. Thompson, was to see symbolic forms –
such as the idea of the working class – as emergent imagined entities which subsequently
became established as part of a ‘whole way of struggle’ (1968), so also Bourdieu stressed
symbolic forms as cultural communications based on classification.
It should be noted here that classification rests on distinctions within a dialectic
of superiority and inferiority (or ‘culture’ and mere ‘subcultures’). In this light the
whole of Distinction could be regarded as a Durkheimian study based on the secular
equivalent to that of the sacred and the profane. Divergences in habitus are thus
the arena for a disjuncture between celebratory reaffirmations and peremptory
dismissals. Yet, whereas Durkheim looked forward to modernity as going beyond the
anomic and forced division of labour to centre on the ‘sacred individual’, Bourdieu
shows continued clashes in perspectives on the sacred and profane (1984 [1979]:
ch. 1; Durkheim, 1995 [1912]).
6 In British sociological thought, Marx and Weber tend to be opposed. For Bourdieu, in
contrast, the great Weberian exploration of legitimation largely strengthens the Marxist
conception of domination, much like the Gramscian theme of hegemony. Bourdieu
characterises his method in In Other Words as analogous to, but broader than, Althusser’s
deployment of Marx: viz thinking ‘with Marx against Marx or with Durkheim against
Durkheim, and also, of course, with Marx and Durkheim against Weber, and vice
versa’ (1990 [1987]: 49).
7 On habitus, see Fowler (1997: 3 and 46).
8 Benjamin’s essay on the ‘author as producer’ makes an analogous argument about the
identity of position between workers and cultural producers: Bourdieu, however, also
draws out the discrepancies that might lead the alliance to founder (Benjamin, 1973
[1966]).
9 In both these cases – cultural capital in the case of science; the first generation in the case
of economic capital – what is at stake, is the life and death struggle to the commitments
of the game. Weber is well-known on this, although I prefer Christopher Hill’s
reassessment. Social theorists sometimes forget, however, that Marx also acknowledged
that for the Manchester businessman ‘his own private consumption counts as a robbery
committed against the accumulation of his capital’. The modernising entrepreneur, he
writes ‘views accumulation’ in tragic terms, as a ‘renunciation of pleasure’ (Marx, 1976
[1867]: 739 and 741), whilst simultaneously disregarding the structural underpinning:
the fact that he chiefly makes his money by the extraction of surplus value (1976 [1867]:
300–301).
10 For example, Calhoun has argued that Bourdieu lacks such an analysis of ‘contradiction’
or any other ‘motor of history’ (1993: 70). The term ‘crisis’ appears most strikingly in
the title of a late collection of articles dealing with the ‘crisis of peasant society, in the
Béarn’, or ‘the end of a world’. In the crisis and marginalisation of this peasant society,
profound social suffering is manifested first and foremost in the relegation of a high
proportion of the second sons of peasants to bachelorhood. It is also revealed, secondly,
in the low self-esteem and the awkward use of the dominant French language by the
middle-aged farm-workers, in notable contrast to the confident Béarn dialect of the
older generation of peasants (2002a).
52 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

11 In his latest analysis of Bourdieu, Callinicos claims that there is only a ‘relatively weak
conception of systemic contradiction’ (2006: 82).
12 Bourdieu states: ‘The value of culture, the supreme fetish, is generated in
the initial investment implied in the mere fact of entering the game, joining in
the collective belief in the value of the game […;] the opposition between the
“authentic” and the “imitation”, “true” culture and “popularization” conceals […]
the fundamental recognition of the cultural game and its stakes’ (1984 [1979]:
250). The similarities here between Bourdieu and Adorno, another member of
the Marxist tradition, are very striking, especially where Adorno emphasises the
contemporary ‘hollowing- out’ of certain elements crucial to art in earlier epochs:
‘The possibility of neutralization – the transformation of culture into something
independent and external, removed from any possible relation to praxis – makes
it possible to integrate it into the organization from which it untiringly cleanses
itself (1991 [1972]: 101)’. Or, much as in Distinction, Adorno asserts the need for
a relational analysis: ‘Culture is viewed as pure humanity without regard for its
functional relationships within society’ (1991 [1972]: 93). Adorno even links the
taste for ‘culture’ or ‘pure art’ – including modernism – to high cultural capital:
‘Culture long ago evolved into its own contradiction, the congealed content of
educational privilege […], for that reason it now takes its place within the material
production process as an administered supplement to it’ (1991 [1972]: 109).
13 For an illuminating account of the relationship of Bourdieu vis-à-vis Habermas, see
Susen (2007).
14 The United Kingdom’s RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) – imposed typically
at four-yearly intervals between 1986 and 2008 – was intended to ‘produce high
quality profiles for each submission of research activity made by [higher educational]
institutions [so that the funding bodies may] determine the grant for research to the
institutions which fund’ (see http://www.rae.ac.uk). Its successor, the REF (Research
Exercise Framework), has the same purpose, but bases its allocations on quality –
primarily judged by citation numbers – the wider impact of the research, and the
vitality of the research environment (see http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref).
15 We might note here, in passing, that the term ‘semi-artistic’ is also Marx’s concept in
the Grundrisse (Marx, 1973 [1857]: 497).
16 He refers to these Acts as real ‘machines of war’ designed to disaggregate dangerous
economic and political unities (2008: 67).
17 See also citations from Bourdieu in Yacine (in Bourdieu, 2008: 37; cf. Marx, 1973
[1857] and 1976 [1867], I, Part 8.
18 In The Algerians (1962 [1958]) Bourdieu introduces a telling phrase, and one that has
been misunderstood by those who criticise him as purely cynical. He refers to the good
faith gift exchange as operating on a ‘double register’, possessing elements of ‘unavowed
self-interest’ as well as ‘proclaimed generosity’ (1962 [1958]: 107). Later, in Pascalian
Meditations, he clarifies this, invoking as a mistaken ‘theoretical monster’ the idea that
agents might simultaneously give generously and consciously expect a useful return (2000
[1997]: 194).
19 Later, in an Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, he cites favourably the British culturalist
historian, E. P. Thompson (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 91n.35; 92n.36–37); he
also notes Williams’ The Country and the City as a ‘très beau livre’ (2002a: 254).
20 However, he also remarks (1991 [1971]: 39n.15) that another source was Capital,
Volume II.
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 53

21 In the later history of the working class, more individuated structures of education and
management lead those without capital to experience their futures in the categories of
mental illness rather than collective critiques (1984 [1979]: 156).
22 For example, in Marx’s Early Writings (1975 [1843–4]) the Hegelian notion of the early
nineteenth century German bureaucracy as the concrete embodiment of universal
rational knowledge is examined and found wanting. Going further, Marx argued that
Hegel’s claims for universalism on behalf of the Prussian bureaucracy in fact concealed
the civil servants’ sectional interests:

The bureaucracy appears to itself as the ultimate purpose of the state […] The
bureaucracy is the imaginary state alongside the real state; it is the spiritualism of
the state […] Within itself, however, spiritualism degenerates into crass materialism,
the materialism of passive obedience, the worship of authority, the mechanism
of fixed, formal action […]. As for the individual bureaucrat, the purpose of the
state becomes his private purpose, a hunt for promotion, careerism […]. (Marx, 1975
[1843–4]: 107–108.)

Such criticism of Enlightenment rhetoric as based on a disputable or ‘false universalism’

was initiated early in Marx’s career, in 1842–3 (McLellan, 1973: 66–67). That this well-
known critique of Hegel by Marx was familiar to Bourdieu and Passeron is evident
from their quotation from it on the nature of examination knowledge, as we shall see.
I suggest that this issue is of continuing importance to Bourdieu, who can be seen as
exploring further the emphasis that Marx had put on the role of education in his early
work on civil society (McLellan, 1973: 74).
23 Bourdieu has two, interlinked views of the school – first, as we have seen, that it is an
arena for a rigged competition, where symbolic violence occurs. The second stresses
the gender divisions that also come into play, operating alongside pride in a manual
worker identity, so as to distance the working-class boy from the school. Instead he will
celebrate his toughness, masculinity and nonconformity by various anti-school displays
of subversive wit (1992: 95–97). Without wanting to reduce Bourdieu’s sociological
advances to the effects of a troubled youth, we might guess that he himself was one
of these proudly independent school students, distinguished at first mainly for his
‘fractured habitus’ (2004: 111) and ‘bad character’ (2004 [2001]: 121). He was, he
recalls, indignant about the arbitrary discipline imposed in the lycée, which – especially
at night in the boarding section, resembled both Genet’s penitentiary and Goffman’s
asylum. Interestingly, he tells us that he was given between 200 and 300 detentions and
would have been expelled, save for the weight of his parents’ hopes for his future (2004
[2001]: 120–125).
24 The other main axis of relationships to culture is the popular aesthetic: which he
christens the ‘naïve gaze’, evoked in rock and pop music, figurative reproductions of
beautiful women, and highly moralistic sentimental literature (or industrial novels).
His sources for theorising this popular culture are not just Émile Rousseau, Richard
Hoggart and Raymond Williams. They are also writers such as Bakhtin, who represents
the earlier 1920s and 30s heterodox Marxism of the Tartu School (cited 1984 [1979]:
604). Bakhtin’s Rabelais and his World draws particularly on the pithy speech, grotesque
realism and gay laughter of workers and peasants, especially during Carnival. Note
here, again, that Bourdieu’s sociology of cultural consumption is backed by studies
which originated in dissident Marxist circles.
54 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

25 ‘The probability that the structural factors which underlie critical tension in a particular
field will come to engender a situation of crisis, fostering the emergence of extraordinary
events […] reaches a maximum when a coincidence is achieved between the effects of
several latent crises of maximum intensity.’ (1988 [1984]: 161–162). Bourdieu develops
this theory of the interconnected series of field-based changes in relation to crises by
using the work of Cournot (1988 [1984]: 174).
26 I am grateful to Georgia Giannakopoulos for general comments and especially for
clarifying this point.
27 Don Quixote figures in Marx as a figure who had to learn that certain codes of
civilisation (e.g. knightly chivalry) were not eternal: ‘And there is Don Quixote who
long ago paid the penalty for wrongly imagining that knight errantry was compatible
with all economic forms of society’ (1976 [1867]: 175, footnote 35 appears on page
176) (see also Prawer, 1976: 240–241 and 292–293). Bourdieu uses Sancho [Panza] as
an example of someone who fails to adopt a relational understanding of the modern
world, citing Marx’s delineation of him in The German Ideology to make the point
(Bourdieu, 1968 [1968]: 692–693).
28 In Distinction, the same idea emerges as a radicalised concept of anomie, hysteresis. In
this, the habitus adapted to entry to an earlier professional world is forced to adjust, due
to a mismatch of economic opportunities (1984 [1979]: 68).
29 They are especially compelling when their own precarious position within the religious
field is accompanied by an earlier contrasting experience, for example, of class privilege
(cf. fractured habitus, above) (1991 [1971]: 34).
30 See the vital passage critical of Thomas Kuhn:

Kuhn’s merit […] is that he has drawn attention to the discontinuities, the revolutions
[in scientific knowledge]. But because he is content to describe the scientific world from
a quasi-Durkheimian perspective, as a community dominated by a central norm, he
does not seem to me to put forward a coherent model for explaining change. It is true
that a particularly generous reading can construct such a model and find the motor
of change in the internal conflict between orthodoxy and heresy, the defenders of the
paradigm and the innovators, with the latter sometimes reinforced in periods of crisis, by the fact
that the barriers between science and the major intellectual currents within society are then removed.
I realize that through this reinterpretation I have attributed to Kuhn the essential part
of my own representation of the logic of the field and its dynamic. But this is also,
perhaps, a good way to show the difference between the two visions and the specific
contribution of the notion of the field […]. (2004 [2001]: 15–16, my emphasis.)

Bouveresse (2003) has criticised this, arguing that where fields like science have high
demands for entry, the homologies with the field of power – and openness to it – are
concomitantly reduced (see also Lane, 2006). It is a pity that Bourdieu never specified
exactly what he meant by the openness of science – at a time of symbolic revolution –
to the major intellectual currents swirling more broadly in the field of power, but there
is certainly evidence for this in relation to the Newtonian revolution.
31 Lane (2006) has written a scathing indictment of the lacunae of Bourdieu’s sociological
theory. In my view this is a misleading critique of why Bourdieu strategically supported
French Republicanism in 1995, viz, as a bastion of ‘civilisation’ against neo-liberalism.
Lane’s assessment of Bourdieu’s ‘nostalgic’ classical canonical modernism hides the fact
that his own stance – one that emphasizes the innovative aspects of commerce – may
also be a cloak for an uncritical defence of the market. Nevertheless, Lane is right about
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 55

three issues, first, Bourdieu’s theoretical omissions (as well as insights) in his over-static
view of masculine domination, second, his formulaic dismissal of all uneducated voices
in the sphere of cultural production, and third, his confusing view of Republicanism.
Despite his images of the ‘Left Hand’ and the ‘Right Hand’ of the State, Bourdieu’s
Republicanism retains at least a residue of Durkheim’s problematic notion of the State
as the social brain of the societal organism.

References
Adorno, Theodor W. (1991 [1972]) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, trans.
Anson G. Rabinbach, edited with an introduction by J. M. Bernstein, London: Routledge.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2006) The Civil Sphere, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Archer, Margaret (2007) Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social
Mobility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benjamin, Walter (1973 [1966]) Understanding Brecht, trans. Anna Bostock, introduction by
Stanley Mitchell, London: NLB.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1962 [1958]) The Algerians, trans. Alan C. M. Ross, with a preface by
Raymond Aron, Boston: Beacon Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1968 [1968]) ‘Structuralism and Theory of Sociological Knowledge’,
Social Research 35(4): 681–706.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980) ‘Le mort saisit le vif ’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 32–33: 3–14.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction, trans. Richard Nice, London: RKP.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1985 [1984]) ‘Social Space and the Genesis of Groups’, Theory and Society
14(6): 723–744.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987) ‘What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical
Existence of Groups’, trans. Loïc Wacquant and David Young, Berkeley Journal of
Sociology 32(1): 1–18.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987 [1971]) ‘Legitimation and Structured Interest in Weber’s Sociology
of Religion’, in Scott Lash and Sam Whimster (eds.) Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity,
trans. Chris Turner, London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 119–136.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987 [1987]) ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, Sociological Theory, 7 (1)
14–25.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity
Press in association with Basil Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1987]) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans.
Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991 [1971]) ‘Genesis and Structure of the Religious Field’, trans. Craig
Calhoun [et al], Comparative Social Research 13: 1–44.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John
B. Thompson, trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, edited and
introduced by Randal Johnson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1989]) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans.
Lauretta C. Clough, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1992]) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans.
Susan Emanuel, Cambridge: Polity Press.
56 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1994]) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, trans. Randal Johnson
[et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1997]) ‘A Reasoned Utopia and Economic Fatalism’, New Left
Review 227: 125–130.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001 [1998]) Masculine Domination, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002a) Le bal des célibataires, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002b) Interventions Politiques, 1961–2001: Textes et Contextes d’un Mode
d’Intervention Politique Spécifique, textes rassemblés et présentés par Franck Poupeau,
Marseille: Agone.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002 [2000]) ‘Habitus’, in Jean Hillier and Emma Rooksby (eds.) Habitus:
A Sense of Place, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 27–34.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2004) Esquisse pour une auto-analyse, Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2004 [2001]) Science of Science and Reflexivity, trans. Richard Nice,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2008) Esquisses algériennes, textes édités et présentés par Tassadit Yacine,
Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Alain Accardo et al. (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social
Suffering in Contemporary Society, trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Chartier, Roger (2010) Le Sociologue et L’Historien, Marseille: Agone.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Hans Haacke (1995 [1994]) Free Exchange, Cambridge: Polity Press in
association with Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society
and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Abdelmalek Sayad (1964) Le déracinement : La crise de l’ agriculture en
Algérie, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992 [1992]) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bouveresse, Jacques (2003) Bourdieu, savant & politique, Marseille: Agone.
Boyer, Robert (2003) ‘L’Art du judoka’, in Pierre Encrevé and Rose-Marie Lagrave (eds.)
Travailler avec Bourdieu, Paris: Flammarion, pp. 267–279.
Brubaker, Rogers (1985) ‘Rethinking Classical Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre
Bourdieu’, Theory and Society 14(6): 745–775.
Calhoun, Craig (1993) ‘Habitus, Field, and Capital: The Question of Historical Specificity’,
in Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical
Perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–88.
Callinicos, Alex (1999a) Social Theory: A Historical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Callinicos, Alex (1999b) ‘Social Theory Put to the Test of Politics: Pierre Bourdieu and
Anthony Giddens’, New Left Review 236: 77–102.
Callinicos, Alex (2006) The Resources of Critique, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Durkheim, Émile (1987 [1897]) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, trans. John A. Spaulding and
George Simpson, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, Émile (1995 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Karen Fields,
New York: Free Press.
Elias, Norbert (2006 [1969]) The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott, ed. Stephen Mennell,
Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? 57

Fowler, Bridget (1997) Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations, London: Sage.
Husserl, Edmund (1970 [1936]) The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology:
An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, trans. David Carr, Evanston: Northwestern
University Press.
Lane, Jeremy F. (2006) Bourdieu’s Politics: Problems and Possibilities, London: Routledge.
Lescourret, Marie-Anne (2008) Pierre Bourdieu. Vers une économie du bonheur, Paris: Flammarion.
Lovell, Terry (2003) ‘Resisting with Authority: Historical Specificity, Agency and the
Performative Self ’, Theory, Culture & Society 20(1): 1–17.
Marx, Karl (1970 [1843]) Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’, trans. Annette Jolin and
Joseph O’Malley, edited with an introduction and notes by Joseph O’Malley. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Marx, Karl (1974) Political Writings (Volume 3), ed. David Fernbach, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, Karl (1975) [1843–4] Early Writings, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, Karl (1976 [1867]) Capital, Volume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1940 [1845]) The German Ideology, London: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Marx, Karl (1973 [1857]) Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, trans.
Martin Nicolaus, Harmondsworth: Penguin in association with New Left Review.
McLellan, David (1973) Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, London: Macmillan.
Moore, Barrington (1973) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the
Making of the Modern World, London: Penguin.
Nimtz, August H. (2000) Marx and Engels: Their Contribution to the Democratic Breakthrough,
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prawer, Siegbert Salomon (1976) Karl Marx and World Literature, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rancière, Jacques (2004 [1983]) The Philosopher and his Poor, edited Andrew Parker, North
Carolina: Duke University Press.
Robbins, Derek (2006) On Bourdieu, Education and Society, Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Sapiro, Gisèle (1999) La guerre des écrivains : 1940–1953, Paris: Fayard.
Sintomer, Yves (1996) ‘Le corporatisme de l’universel et la cité’, Actuel Marx 20, Deuxième
Semestre: 91–104.
Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology,
Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Thompson, Edward P. (1968) The Making of the English Working Class, Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Verdès-Leroux, Jeannine (1996) Le savant et la politique : Essai sur le terrorisme sociologique de Pierre
Bourdieu, Paris: Bernard Grasset.
Vološinov, Valentin N. (1973 [1930]) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, trans. Ladislav
Matejka and I. R. Titunik, New York: Seminar Press.
Wacquant, Loïc (ed.) (2005) Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics: The Mystery of Ministry,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Williams, Raymond (1977) Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Internet References
RAE http://www.rae.ac.uk (accessed 12.05.10).
REF http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref (accessed 12.05.10).
CHAPTER THREE
From Marx to Bourdieu: The Limits
of the Structuralism of Practice1

Bruno Karsenti
Translated by Simon Susen 2

I. Marx
(1) The Question of Anthropological Distinctiveness: The Production
of the Means of Subsistence as the Foundation of Society
Let me begin by quoting Marx from the German Ideology:

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, or

anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from
animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step
which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means
of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life. (Marx and
Engels, 2000/1977 [1846]: 177)

From a materialist point of view, the main criterion for distinguishing one
species from another is its way of asserting itself as a living species. Thus,
one can distinguish humans from animals on the basis of their capacity to distinguish
themselves from other species through the physical organisation of their life forms. This
distinctiveness, which cannot be brought into being by reference to an
external force – such as consciousness, thought, or religious sentiment – is
rooted in a given activity, namely in production, that is, in the production of the
means of subsistence. The human body is designed to produce, and reproduce
through its production, and thereby ensure its own existence. As the existential
importance of the verb ‘to produce’ suggests, anthropological specificity is derived
from human productivity: in the last instance, to be able to produce means to be
able to produce the means of subsistence. Humans do not find themselves
60 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

immersed in a world where all necessary means of subsistence are always

already given, but they have to act – and act collectively – upon the world to
produce their own means of subsistence, that is, means of subsistence that they
themselves bring into existence.
It is worth emphasising the centrality of this simple criterion: a species
which produces its means of subsistence, and which is therefore capable of
controlling the process of its own reproduction, affirms its distinctive identity
as a species within a given life form. To be more precise, it intervenes indirectly
upon the process of its own reproduction, that is, from outside by using the means
that it produced itself to guarantee the reproduction of its own existence.
Hence, rather than focusing solely on the act of production – which is central
to the Marxist world view – we also need to take into consideration the notion
of means and, more importantly, the status attributed to it by Marx. Humans
live literally within their means of subsistence. Their life consists of nothing
but the search for the means of subsistence, which they produce themselves. To
be sure, the relation humans establish with their means of subsistence is far
from straightforward. Their means of subsistence are not externally given
instruments used exclusively to pursue a previously fixed aim. Rather, their
means of subsistence constitute life as such – that is, they constitute, in Marx’s words,
‘life forms’ (Marx and Engels, 1968 [1846]: 46). As a consequence, human life
is subject to permanent transformation determined by the various means of
subsistence produced by humans themselves.
As Marx remarks, technological progress is so dynamic that the human
species succeeds in emancipating itself from the cycle of reproduction by
which other species are determined. Progress (Fortschritt), which literally makes
society proceed (fortschreiten), situates the human species within a sociohistorical
process: what is produced by one generation will be passed on to the next
generation; every generation is confronted with the task of acting upon what
has been transmitted from the past by generating new means for its subsistence,
which it then hands down to the next generation, and so on.

(2) The Question of Anthropological Contradiction: The Critique

of the Division between Producers and Non-Producers
In light of the above, one can understand the importance of critique in relation
to the exploitation of resources derived from the gradual differentiation of social
activity. Something occurs in the very heart of the activity that is aimed at the
production of the means of subsistence: as an activity undertaken by various
subjects, it divides by producing differentiation and differentiates by producing inequality.
At the core of this inequality lies a contradiction – namely, the fact that the
very process of social production undermines itself. Production, understood as
From Marx to Bourdieu 61

social production, is divided into production and non-production – that is, into two
contradictory processes. Certain agents are ‘kept in reserve’ through a process
which creates a division between those who own and those who do not own
their labour power, thereby contributing to the continuous reproduction of
their respective existence. The collective agent that is kept in reserve reproduces
itself without producing anything, for its conditions of existence depend on its
exclusion from the production process. Indeed, the production of its means of
subsistence is a form of non-production. At the heart of this curious reality
lies a paradoxical structure derived from the means of subsistence, through
which humans collectively develop their lives and through which their lives
are inevitably shaped.
On the basis of the previous reflections, we can understand the particular
meaning given to critique in Marxian thought. The force of critique, in the
Marxian sense, is not rooted in a principle of justice situated outside the
social process or founded on an independently existing ideal order: inequality
is not denounced from an a priori position of equality; rather, it is conceived
as the effect – or, to be exact, as the contradictory effect – of a sociohistorical
process. Based on the social production of means, and reflected in people’s
capacity to assert themselves as social producers of their means of life
(Marx and Engels, 1968 [1846]: 58–60), production is doomed to affirm
itself by negating itself and to negate itself by affirming itself. It is in the
paradoxical interdependence of negation and affirmation that we find a resource not
so much of a critical view or interpretation, but rather of a critical situation,
that is, of a social state of affairs whose main point of reference is the
capitalist mode of production.
Social conditions are determined by the division of labour and, in class-
divided societies, the evolution of the former cannot be dissociated from the
existence of private property, which underlies the constitution of the latter.
Social conditions, insofar as they are determined by the division of labour,
emerge when producers and non-producers, who are divided in terms of
their positionally differentiated relation to the means of production, enter
into a determinate relation within a given mode of production. The task of a
materialist critique, therefore, is to shed light on the material foundations of society.
This is precisely what makes it materialist: it is not a critique put forward by an
interpreter who observes his or her object from the outside, but it is a critique
anchored in the reality it describes, thereby facing up to the contradictory
movement of society by following the transformations of history. Critique, in
the materialist sense, is prepared to confront the contradictory nature of its
own existence. In other words, materialist critique is, by definition, a critique based on
contradiction. Critique, in this sense, is indeterminate, for it exists in the heart
of an indeterminate – that is, still-to-be-produced-and-reproduced – reality.
62 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

In order to mobilise critique effectively, it needs to accept that it is itself

socially embedded.
Thus, the Marxian critique rejects the very idea of a detached interpretation
of reality: the main fault of ‘ideological’ thinkers in Germany was that they
failed to take into account their own embeddedness in German reality. In
fact, the key mistake of interpreters, no matter how critical they may claim
to be, is to conceive of critique regardless of the situation by which they are
themselves conditioned. From a Marxian point of view, this limitation is, first
and foremost, an expression of the socio-material contradiction that exists between
producer and non-producer. Given its central importance, this contradiction is a
major point of concern in the German Ideology, where it is examined in terms
of the opposition between material labour and intellectual labour.

(3) The Question of Anthropological Development: The Critique

of the Division between Material Labour and Intellectual Labour
In order to do justice to the significance of the opposition between material
labour and intellectual labour, we need to acknowledge that it plays a pivotal
role in the German Ideology: by uncovering, and indeed situating himself in the
heart of, the opposition between material labour and intellectual labour, Marx
immerses himself in the exercise of critique. In so doing, he recognises that
contradiction is fundamental to the emergence and development of thought –
understood as a dynamic dimension, rather than as a static representation, of
reality. Human beings develop their capacity to think always in relation to a determinate
stage of production. When analysing the process of production as well as the
intrinsic contradictions of this process, intellectual labour appears as a form of
activity that is founded on a gap between its own existence and the existence
of the process of production, and consequently on the fact that, paradoxically,
intellectual labour remains materially caught up in an already given reality
and hence in an already given product.
According to Marx, the ownership of the means of production marginalises
certain agents by excluding them from participating in the production process.
Why, then, should it be necessary to conceptualise this process of exclusion
in terms of an opposition between material labour and intellectual labour?
Should we regard this division as the most crucial source of the segmentation
of tasks in modern society? And, if so, how can we make sense of what Marx
refers to as ‘the production of ideas’? Can, at least under certain conditions,
‘the production of ideas’ be treated in the same way as ‘the production of
things’? These questions touch upon a dilemma which Marx, without any
doubt, located in the sort of critical activity that is associated with his own
endeavour. This dilemma has never ceased to reappear in the history of
From Marx to Bourdieu 63

Marxism – particularly in recurring charges of theoreticism, which is often

regarded as the supreme form of betrayal of the revolutionary project.
The following discussion seeks to explore the ways in which the above
problem manifests itself in the way in which critique is conceived of in a
sociology that claims to be part of the Marxian heritage: the sociology of Pierre
Bourdieu. It is worth pointing out, however, that this problem is particularly
important with regard to the aforementioned passages from the German Ideology,
all of which are concerned with the fundamental contradiction arising from the
capitalist division of labour. When examined more carefully, it becomes clear
that Marx’s analysis of the opposition between material labour and intellectual
labour is an attempt to develop a critical study of social relations which seeks
to be more than a mere interpretation of things, since it is explicitly oriented
towards the transformation of reality, or at least clearly aimed at contributing
to its transformation.
Yet, in what way does Marx emphasise the importance of the opposition
between these two types of labour? In essence, he does so by uncovering the
material conditions which underlie the activity of thinking. As a consequence,
the non-producers are considered as specialised agents of thought. Do
they, however, regard themselves as non-producers? How exactly should we
conceive of the activity of thinking in relation to other activities that are
structured by the division of labour? How can we make sense of the activity
of thinking in terms of the social contradictions that permeate the production
of the means of subsistence? From Marx’s point of view, the thought that is
generated by non-producers emerges through the contradictory development
of production as a process that is always already confronted with its own
negation. In this sense, it is not a positive dimension of production to which
the producers are materially attached. Non-producing subjects are able
to think because of, rather than despite, the fact that they do not produce
anything: but what do they think?
Let us restate the problem: if the producers are thinking subjects, their
thoughts exist necessarily in relation to their productive practices. Yet, if the
act of thinking is considered as a privileged practice, we are dealing with
something completely different: to conceive of thinking as a process situated
outside practice means to assume that production and non-production continue to be
opposed to one another within the relational framework of social structures. In
the light of this structural opposition, it seems that the life of non-producers never
ceases to be dependent: for them, there is an ineluctable imperative epitomised
in a specific form of production of the means of subsistence – as for every
human being. In addition, the distinctiveness of their own condition, as
human beings, continues to be important to them. Their existence, however,
has become somewhat paradoxical: in order to exist, humans need to produce means of
64 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

subsistence; and, in so doing, they produce and reproduce the very conditions which maintain
the contradiction between production and non-production. To conceive of thought in
materialist terms means to consider every reflective activity as being socially
embedded. All thought, insofar as it faces up to its own situatedness in the
conditions of social existence, has to be oriented towards this objective. This
has the following consequence: we have to accept that the content of all thought is
nothing but the content of society, that is, of a set of social structures, understood as
a social totality whose constitutive contradiction is twofold: to be accepted and
neglected as well as perceived and concealed by the carriers of its existence.

(4) The Possibility of a Marxist Sociology

Now we are at the heart of the dilemma that concerns the question of the
very possibility of a Marxist sociology, understood as a social theory which
escapes the logic of dubious ideological methods. Critique, in strictly Marxian
terms, is suspicious of the sociological project in that the former reminds us of
the fact that the latter may prove incapable of overcoming its own ideological
nature. Indeed, it may well be the case that a sociological view can only be
ideological, entirely produced on the basis of non-producers’ thought,
oriented towards reproducing a form of structuration that reinforces, rather
than undermines, the gap between production and non-production. I do not
intend to go into the different ways in which Marxists have portrayed sociology
as a bourgeois and conservative science.3 Marxists certainly have succeeded in
developing different forms of protest as well as different ways of rewriting
the social sciences. (In France, for example, this applies to the work of Henri
Lefebvre.4) The issue on which I want to focus here, however, is the problem of
ideology as it is appears in the German Ideology – especially with regard to the
sections in which the development of intellectual labour is examined in terms
of an integral process of the division of labour.
The act of theorising in particular and the act of thinking in general are part
of a contradictory process: the conditions of existence which underlie all acts of
theorising and thinking depend on a gap which has to be maintained even if it
constitutes a source of contradiction. As critical subjects, we have to reflect on
this gap in a radical – that is, distrustful – way. One can describe this gesture
in the following terms: to think in terms of contradiction means both to accept and to
question the very possibility of contradiction. The possibility of contradiction is a
precondition for the possibility of thinking. Thinking is an activity that seeks
to maintain itself within existence; one must not think of thinking only in terms of
its proper content. Theoretical thinking is permeated by a native perversion: its
existence depends on its capacity to un-realise its content and thereby perpetuate
the contradiction that has brought it into existence in the first place. In order
From Marx to Bourdieu 65

to ensure that the possibility of theoretical thinking is not shattered by its own
impossibility, one has to transform the reality of its very possibility, that is, one
has to retranslate the reality of contradiction into the possibility of its own
condition. Concealing the contradiction – in the sense of covering it with a mask
that makes it invisible – is the game of theory, that is, the game of thinking treated
and lived as a detached form of existence.
Under these conditions, critique can be contaminated with the perversion
of theory. Critique finds its object in contradiction. Yet, in order to avoid
contradiction, it has to be treated as real; and, in order to be treated as real,
one has to be in a position to see it – that is, one has to be able to push
social structures to the conditions of their own impossibility. We need to grasp
the power of contradiction in order to comprehend its structuring effect, but
without turning away from it. In order to achieve this, one has to fall back upon
theory – and this is precisely where the difficulty lies. We need to make sure
that theory allows us to see the social structures within which it emerges and
by which it is produced, so that it cannot possibly ignore the extent of its own
social conditioning. A genuine understanding of social structures, which takes
into account the initial contradiction upon which modern society – structured
in accordance with the division of labour – is based, contains an awareness of
the division between practice and theory. This is where Bourdieu comes into play.

II. Bourdieu
(1) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: Beyond Objectivism
and Subjectivism
In order to face up to the Marxian challenge, we need to think in terms of
structures: the contradictions inherent in social activity are embedded in social
structures. Critique has to start with a reflection upon social divisions and, more
importantly, with a reflection upon the distorting effects of social divisions. In
this sense, critique is concerned with, and seeks to uncover, the very conditions
that make a theoretical approach to the social world possible in the first place.
A critique that is concerned with the social conditions in which theory is
produced is essential to the very project of social theory. For what lies at the
heart of critique is the real – however contradictory – object that is always
already part of social relations.
Bourdieu’s project is marked by a paradox that can be described as follows:
the enemies of real thought on structures are the social thinkers who, by focusing on structures,
rob society of its real processes of structuration. Why do they do so? They do so
because they think about structure without relating it to the most fundamental
contradiction – that is, without relating it to the source of contradiction outside
66 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

which structuration cannot take place – and because they conceive of society
as a functioning totality – either objectively, as a structural process regulated from
outside, or subjectively, as a set of independently existing wills, each of which
can follow its own interests. It does not really matter whether the emphasis is
on objective mechanisms or on intersubjective agreements, for in both cases one fails
to grasp the functioning of social reality. As a consequence of this failure,
one is forced to reinforce the contradiction, reproduce it, and reproduce one’s
own existence by reproducing the contradiction. By contrast, to confront the
contradiction means to go back to the very basis of this contradiction. It means
to return to the place itself where the division between practical activity and
theoretical activity originates; in short, it means to revisit it theoretically and
thereby develop a critical stance through the very process of problematising
the fundamental contradiction of society.
To be sure, this task reflects an internal struggle in the social sciences.
Bourdieu’s contribution consists in the fact that – in one of his masterpieces,
namely in the Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977 [1972]), written in the
1960s – he put his finger on the nature of this struggle. Sociology, in the
Bourdieusian sense, is to be conceived of as a theory of social structures; yet, as
such, it is to be understood as a critical sociology, which, by definition, rejects
reductionist forms of sociology (whether they emphasise the alleged power
of objective regulation or the alleged power of intersubjective agency). Such a critical
sociology, in the Bourdieusian sense, needs to face up to a struggle between two
influential paradigms in the social sciences – that is, to a struggle between two
antithetical approaches: sociology and ethnology. The big enemy of a true sociology
of structures is ethnology, or at least the predominant form of ethnology of the
1960s, which was heavily influenced by the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss.

(2) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: The Struggle

between Sociology and Ethnology
A sociology that claims to be genuinely committed to the Marxist project can
only be anti-Lévi-Straussian. Such an approach, however, has to be seriously
devoted to the study of social structures. In fact, it can only succeed in
sustaining itself on the level of immanent contradiction by confronting, and
thereby undermining, the reproductive logic of social structures. That being
said, we must not lose sight of one key challenge: the challenge of moving towards
a transformation of the contradiction. In Marxian thought, critique is conceived of
in terms of transformation, because it embodies the abolition of the division of
labour, starting with the abolition of the separation between manual and intellectual
work. Within the Marxian framework, critique is an integral part, and indeed
a cornerstone, of a theory of revolution.
From Marx to Bourdieu 67

Let us turn our attention to the opposition between sociology and ethnology.
Sociology, if taken seriously, compels us to oppose a certain ethnological
disposition. This disposition manifests itself in a particular scientific way of
approaching things; it is a stigmatised disposition. What does this mean? Going
back to the original meaning of the ethnological disposition, one will notice
that it lies at the heart of the existence of the stranger, understood as the
stranger in relation to a given practice. Put differently, the ethnologist is a ‘type of
person’: he or she represents the agent who is kept in reserve as a non-producing
agent. The ethnologist is a stranger who is always already situated one step
behind the initial contradiction and who, within the structuring process
derived from the division of labour, stays, nevertheless, outside this very process.
Once the division of labour is put in place, ethnologists try to get back on their
feet, but without ever achieving this goal.
Bourdieu’s work is situated in the thematic horizon of the German Ideology,
at least in the following sense: to assume that there is a division of labour means
to suggest that different individuals do different things, and that, furthermore, the
original way of generating inequality based on private property is the creation
of a social gap. This gap is maintained through the reproduction of life
conditions derived from a productive process in which there is a whole group
of actors excluded from the very process of production. This gap, however, is for
the agents themselves a new existential condition, namely a new condition shaped
by the reproduction of their own lives.
The point is to make this widening gap visible the very moment its
reproduction takes place. Every time its reproduction is under way it
regenerates its own conditions of existence. How does this work? In relation
to this question, Bourdieu seeks to bring together two different tasks that he
considers to be complementary and mutually supportive: on the one hand, he
proposes a theoretical framework for studying the logic of practice; and, on
the other hand, he develops a critique of silent and hidden conditions, which
escape the theoretical eye. In short, we are dealing with a commitment to both
exploring the production of practice and questioning the production of theory.
The complementarity of these two tasks can be described as follows: the only
thing we know for sure about practice is that its very existence depends on practice and that
one cannot, after undertaking a scholastic rupture, project an imagined logic of theory upon
a lived logic of practice. The construction of an autonomised theory is always
conditioned by the condition of scholastic theorising itself. The only guarantee
that one can find in a solid theoretical critique – understood as a critique of
its own limits and of the power it can exercise over practice – is that it allows
us to see the paradoxical practice that sustains it whilst trying to escape its
own practical attachment to the process of production. It seems, therefore,
convenient to have a specific practical logic in mind, which is the kind of logic
68 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

commonly used to raise theory out of its practical context. This, in many ways,
is a reflexive task, which needs to be repeated over and over again, and this is
where critique – in the Marxian sense, as adopted by Bourdieu – must start.

(3) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: From the Logic

of Theory to the Logic of Practice
Lévi-Straussian structuralism has been criticised on a number of counts. One
may argue, for example, that it can be converted into an interpretive attitude,
similar to those interpretations that Marx had already sought to overcome
in his famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. According to Bourdieu, Lévi-
Straussian structuralism falls into the same trap as interpretive approaches,
such as symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. The scenario in
question is actually rather straightforward and may be described as follows:
when ethnologists arrive at a given place or their ‘field’, their first reaction is
to demand three items, which may be given the following tentative titles: a code,
a grammar, and a map.

(i) A code: It is assumed that rules have a meaning regardless of their application
by concrete subjects, that is, independently of the social situations in which
subjects find themselves immersed. Against this view, Bourdieu proposes a
theory which captures the determinacy of social actions by putting forward
the idea of generative schemes of actions (the habitus), whose existence reflects
the regulative nature of social action, rather than the normative dimension
of rules. This theoretical programme, proposed by Bourdieu, is deeply
suspicious of abstract legalism.
(ii) A grammar: For Bourdieu, the adoption of a set of discursive rules represents
an obstacle to a truly sociological point of view, because a sociorelational
approach to reality does not permit us to reduce the production of rules
to a mere form of discourse. According to Bourdieu, even the notion of
generative grammar falls into the trap of discursive idealism. Of course, one
can say that the notion of grammar gives the speaker a new place within
linguistic analysis, a place defined in terms of the separation between
langue and parole. Nevertheless, the conceptual pair competence/performance
remains trapped in a horizon of abstraction, which removes the speaker
from the context of enunciation and ignores the social conditions that allow
linguistic utterances between socially situated and qualified actors to come
into existence in the first place. More generally, the linguistic paradigm in
the social sciences is caught up in an illusion, comparable to the vision of
the arriving stranger, when seeking to comprehend how one speaks – that
is, the way everybody speaks and understands.
From Marx to Bourdieu 69

The hypostatisation of language as the allegedly most pure source of

meaning is an expression, perhaps the main expression, of the detachment
which gives rise to the vision of the stranger. To be sure, this exogenous
approach is typically the strategy of those who situate themselves outside
the contradiction, after the rupture, and who seek to conceal their artificial
detachment by suggesting that there is a common language, or at least a
common use of language. In this regard, it does not really matter whether
one claims to stand in the tradition of Saussure, Jakobson, or Chomsky.
The main problem of which we need to be aware, however, is that by
converting language into the main paradigm for understanding processes of social
structuration, one fails to grasp the contradictory core of these processes.
That being said, it is more fruitful to search for evidence in sociolinguistics,
understood as a social characterisation of linguistic acts, rather than as a
social application of linguistics.
(iii) The map: The critical reflection on this element is, as far as I can see,
central to the theoretical project associated with the work of Bourdieu.
The idea of mapping the space of the investigation – of having a full grasp of
the space where the investigation takes place – is based on the assumption
that the mapped space of the investigation is isomorphic to the lived space
of the actor. In fact, it is assumed that the ethnologist moves within
this space in the same way as the actor. To ask for, or draw up, a map
means to contribute to the uncoupling of theory from practice, but on a specific
level, which is hardly visible and appears to be completely neutral: the
uncoupling between producer and non-producer is here conceived of as
the uncoupling between producer and non-producer of movements.
Practice is productive; in order to produce, it does not cease to engage
in constant movement. Movements are inscribed in a certain space, but a space which
is not homogenous or empty. On the contrary, it is a space whose existence
depends on the very movements by which it is produced. It is not a self-
contained space, but a space with content, which forms part of movement
itself. Yet, the ethnologist’s map seems to suggest precisely the contrary: it is an
empty and orientationless space, void of those who move within it, who convert
it into a lived space through their practices and whose movements are
based on their tasks within this space.

I want to insist on the importance of this critique of the map, which, it seems
to me, touches upon the epicentre of Bourdieu’s thought, at least in relation
to the initial stages of his theoretical project. The map is the privileged space of
the thinker, something that does not shift, or that shifts only with the finger,
ideally to project itself towards no matter what point to determine what
could be its situation, if there were any situation at all. The map constitutes a
70 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

space where nobody is physically engaged, and where one can reconstruct
in a backwards move what one has already constructed forewards, because
the backwards and the forwards have no concrete meaning, and because the
paths are still reversible. The ‘turning back’, the ‘change of course’, and the
‘being inclined’ do not at all imply the reconfiguration of space. The map,
in this sense, is the most tangible instrument for those who do not know
the field, because there is nothing to be known in it and because it does
not require any major form of commitment; in short, because one’s life is
not at stake in it. It is the instrument of the negation of the logic of practice,
inseparable from the effectively undertaken movement. And one sees that
ethnologists, the very moment they find themselves immersed in this kind
of situation, convert themselves immediately into theoreticians: deceptively
homogenous, genuinely indifferent towards the bodies by which they are
surrounded, and compulsively obsessed with the search for totality in terms
of the ‘big picture’.
By contrast, the space of practice is a space of positions, where every place is
socially signified in terms of social activities, and where the trajectories do not
possess the ideal reversibility for which the indifferent traveller seems to strive.
It is a space permeated and reconfigured by the game of positions and by their
temporal situatedness, recognised and played as the key action referred to as a
singular position. This applies, of course, to both social and temporal space.

(4) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: From Cognitive

Detachment to Bodily Engagement
The suspicions one may have about the notions of grammar and code are fully
confirmed at this juncture: Bourdieu’s critique, even if it refuses to acknowledge
this, points clearly in the direction of a phenomenological reading, no matter
how vehemently he insists upon the need to study the power of objective
structures – a theme which is particularly important not only in Merleau-
Ponty’s The Structure of Behaviour (1942), but also in the work of Goldstein (1934)
and in Guillaume’s The Psychology of the Form (1937). When reflecting upon
contemporary forms of social analysis, we have to explore the implications of
the tendency to focus on the power of objective structures. According to Marx,
the main source of social contradiction is to be found in the uncoupling process
between producer and non-producer. According to Bourdieu, we need to examine
social divisions in relation to the body, and we therefore need to provide an
analysis of the body.
A critical structuralism – a structuralism that is critical of both structuralism
and structural anthropology, as in the case of Bourdieu – can only be a
structuralism of practice. Such a structuralism of practice locates the emergence of
From Marx to Bourdieu 71

contradiction in bodily experiences made by socially situated subjects, that is, by subjects
who are situated in a space which is theirs and which they absorb subjectively
by living and moving in it in different ways and by individuating themselves as
situated bodies through these movements.
The return to the place of contradiction is a return to the place of the body. Of course,
as Bourdieu knows only too well, there is a lot of room for phenomenological
temptations, and he tries hard not to fall into the subjectivist trap. In essence,
phenomenological approaches conceive of social relations as intersubjective
relations between agents who occupy certain positions in the social space and
who establish these relations by unfolding a ‘natural attitude’ derived from
the transcendental experience of the world – that is, from an experience that
is based on the subjective constitution of being in the world. This position,
however, is problematic in that it fails to account for the following:

(i) Social positions are already given (since, as Marx pointed out, they reflect the
very structure of the division of labour), and actors are constrained by
occupying these conditions. In other words, the social world has an objective
structure, and this structure is not the result of a set of subjective acts.
(ii) The natural attitude is a social attitude, even though it presents itself as a natural
attitude. The subject’s adjustment to the world is a construction founded
on the collective experience of people who live in society. The elimination
of this construction presupposes the construction of the means mobilised
for this very elimination. We typically encounter this kind of elimination
in theories that ignore practice.

From then on, the challenge consists in developing a theory of the body capable
of addressing the above issues. A sociological theory of the body attributes a
social dimension to the body – that is, it inserts the body into a space of social
positions. It is nevertheless a body in the sense that its socialisation is not a refusal
of the ability to develop a sense of selfhood, but rather a relation to a bodily
constituted self that can only be understood as a socially composed self – that is,
as a socially mediated self.
To put it more simply, the socialisation of the body is not accomplished
through the mere imposition of external norms (that is, through the repression
of a pre-given physical nature in the sense of the repression of a natural body
that is subjected to an objectively existing system of cultural norms). Rather, it
is to be regarded – at least according to Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice –
as a bodily dialectics, that is, as a dialectics which proceeds in two directions:
exteriorisation and interiorisation, representing two movements which must not be
conceived of in terms of a linear succession, not even in terms of alternation,
but in terms of an overlap between opposite, and yet interdependent, operations.
72 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

(5) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: From Nature

without Culture to Culture with Nature
When examining the body – the body of anyone, regardless of their position
in the contradictory structure of the social space – Bourdieu does not deny
the existence of universal natural characteristics or of fundamental bodily
experiences. He insists, however, that these experiences are universal in the
sense that ‘there is no society that can do without them’ (Bourdieu, 1972:
289). It is in this remark that Bourdieu’s theory seems to be in line with the
structuralist position. At the same time, one can say that it is in this position
where Bourdieu remains close to Marx – that is, close to the idea that
anthropological distinctiveness originates in the production of the means of
subsistence, which equip human beings with the ability to be creators of their own
condition, whilst remaining exposed to the constraining power of the conditions
which they themselves created.
With regard to structuralism, one recognises the echo of what Lévi-Strauss
describes, at the beginning of his The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1968
[1949]), under the title ‘Intervention’. At the level of nature, an empty space
is naturally deepened – that which concerns the wedding, which constitutes
a social vehicle for biological reproduction. Yet, whilst representing a source of
indeterminacy amongst superior apes (because nature does not determine with
whom), reproduction amongst humans constitutes a problem that has to be
collectively – that is, socially – resolved. One will notice that, similar to Marx’s
writings, we are essentially dealing with the problem of means.
The wedding is the means of reproduction; from a Lévi-Straussian
perspective, humans produce this kind of means to ensure their survival as a
species. In this sense, The Elementary Structures of Kinship represents a genuinely
Marxist oeuvre, as it remains loyal to Marx’s emphasis on anthropological
distinctiveness when examining the cultural ‘Intervention’ upon seemingly
natural processes. How do humans produce? This question can be answered
only with reference to the concept of means. Culture needs to intervene, but
it intervenes through a vacuum, this vacuum that nature has dealt with itself,
without developing it and, hence, without providing this determination with
means necessary for social existence, which, by definition, transcends the realm
of a purely biological existence. There is an intervention because there is a
problem, and every anthropological problem is a problem of means.
Bourdieu is firmly situated in this line of argument, emphasising that
society ‘takes side’. The existence of nature poses a challenge to the existence
of society, and it constitutes a very complicated challenge indeed. Human
beings are defined by their capacity to confront the challenge of natural indeterminacy by
virtue of cultural determinacy. This explains Marx’s emphasis on the means of
subsistence, Lévi-Strauss’s interest in reproduction, and Bourdieu’s reflections
From Marx to Bourdieu 73

on the existence of the body. Social life, insofar as it is concerned with the
fabrication of means, is essentially a response. That said, it becomes clear that
the structural approach – which remains important in Bourdieu’s work –
excludes an external relation between nature and culture, as it is characterised
by the internal articulation between two levels, starting from the deepened
vacuum of the first level. With this in mind, we can understand the extent
to which this perspective underlies Bourdieu’s theory of bodily socialisation, as
illustrated in his Outline of a Theory of Practice.
When reflecting upon the existence of universal bodily determinations,
and thus when examining the existence of a small number of fundamental
sensations linked to central bodily functions, the problem of positioning
emerges. What is natural is the space of variability accepted by a small number
of sensations; what is social is the effectively developed variation. The space
of variability is the space of the problem by whose internal nature the answer
is determined. How does the problem manifest itself ? Bourdieu’s response
to this question is unambiguous: the problem manifests itself in practice, that is, in
bodily practice – and hence in the subject’s practical involvement in the world, to which
it has to adjust. In order for this to be possible, the subject has to appropriate not
only the world by which it finds itself surrounded, but also the body in which it
finds itself embedded. Practice, then, has to be reconnected with the original
disposition of the inserted and positioned body: practice, in this sense, is the natural
deepening of the problematic vacuum; it is the filling of, and social solution
to, this vacuum. In other words, practice is the natural and unchangeable
condition of its own problematic constitution. Given its worldly nature,
practice is bound to be social and changeable, as well as inseparable from bodily
positions developed in relation to a given world.

(6) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: The Subject’s Bodily

Existence between Throw and Fall
What connects the invariance of fundamental sensations (their relative
resemblance, the limited variability of what a body can and cannot do) to the
variation of practices is the fact that practice is an encounter between the body and
the world – an encounter which is contingent upon the body’s position in the
world. We can say that this position is, on a primordial level, a throw, a fall,
which is the very first symptom of its problematic constitution, of the deepening
of the natural problem, which is socially perceived as a problem.
Given that it constitutes the very first symptom of its problematic
constitution, we have to start with this throw taking into account its contingency.
The ‘taking side’ is indicative of a necessity: ‘one has to go there like this and
not otherwise’. This necessity acquires meaning on the basis of our existential
74 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

contingency: one is here and not there. Given its bodily existence, the subject is
always a being-thrown-into-existence. The body has natural dispositions, but what
we cannot find in the nature of the body is the solution to the problem of
its fall, of its position. The response, the ‘taking side’, is the response which
only society can give to a problem of the body, that is, to the body experienced as a
problem. The force of the response lies in the fact that the response itself has a
bodily nature, inscribed in the place of the emptiness of the body – that is, of the
body that senses its emptiness – under the condition of indeterminacy that
permeates the position of the body.
Once the emptiness is noticed, this emptiness on which the body turns its
back, awaiting and understanding the response, it can be described as the
condition of strangeness in the world. The thrown body is strange, and it seeks
to overcome its strangeness through practice. Surely, this is where practice seeks to
respond. It is the place of all primordial necessity (varying according to the
places of the fall) based on the strangeness that needs to be overcome. In this sense,
practice is the proof of the fall within the same movement where it tries not to
see it as such, to belong to the world where it has taken place, to absorb the
irrevocable strangeness of the thrown body.
Thus, we can say that practice is the reduction of the stranger. This can
also be understood from an angle that is different from the one previously
mentioned. The reduced stranger is not the theoretical stranger – who appears
as a traitor of practice, guilty of the disembodiment of the habitus whilst
undertaking an action, and who objectivates the rules, draws the maps, and
codifies the languages. Rather, it is a bodily stranger, who has a body before
having a body – if it is true that the only genuine body is a simultaneously
appropriated and misappropriated body – within a habitualised and habitualising
relation to the world, driven by the eternal ‘dialectics of interiority and
exteriority’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 256). A body that cannot be described as a
proper body in this sense first emerges as a stranger to the world into which
it has been thrown, and indeed as a stranger to the subject itself, before being
formed and reformed through the dialectical interplay between disposition
and situation. In short, the human body is a contingent body and, therefore, a body
for which literally nothing is necessary.
Interestingly, Bourdieu talks about this figure only on very few occasions.
It seems to serve the function of a tacit premise underlying his argument.
Whenever he makes it explicit, though, it appears as a source of enlightenment,
particularly in his self-reflexive writings, which culminate in his plea for a socio-
analysis. It is open to debate whether or not he lives up to the high standards of
a genuine socio-analysis. In any case, he seems to situate himself on a higher
level, on the level of practice as an adjusted response, as a search for adjustment,
triggered by the encounter between the body and the world in the moment of their
From Marx to Bourdieu 75

simultaneous emergence. It is worth emphasising that this process takes place

between two levels of strangeness, that is, between two forms of being strange in
the world: on the one hand, the pre-social state, which can never be experienced
as such and which has the status of an obsessive fear on which we turn our
back; on the other hand, the ideological drift, which allows us to escape the logic
of practice through the logic of theoreticism.
The key question, then, is this: how is the body extracted from the pre-body? In
other words, how is the body removed from the situation of the throw? This is the
point where Bourdieu brings the aforementioned return of the place of the
contradiction into play – the place where practice separates itself from this
very contradiction. This place is regarded as a physical place: it is the place
where the ‘taking side’ occurs.
By acknowledging that this place is physical we can identify a gap in the
Lévi-Straussian framework, a gap which is not mentioned in Bourdieu’s
critique of Lévi-Strauss, but which is nevertheless relevant to measuring both
the distance and the proximity between these two thinkers. What, in Lévi-Strauss,
takes place in the wedding – and only in the wedding – is tantamount to what,
in Bourdieu, is located in the individual body as a thrown body impregnated
with memory. (From a Lévi-Straussian perspective, the wedding is a socially
recognised vehicle for the regulation of sexuality. This link between sexuality
and reproduction has recently been re-examined in Luc Boltanski’s La condition
fœtale, published in 2004.) Thus, Lévi-Strauss’s initial question concerns the
sexual function of the body: how can the body be socially formed to ensure
the biological mechanisms of breeding? This is the point of incursion of
‘Intervention’ (Lévi-Strauss 1968 [1949]: 37), and this is what justifies the
pivotal role of the prohibition of incest. Bourdieu is concerned with the
question of what the body does with itself (and, in this context, it is important
to underline the subjectivist nature of the question). This question is relevant
not only in relation to other bodies within a set of social relations, but also in
relation to the world as a whole. The social construction of the body contributes to
both the reproduction of the species as a collectively adjusted form of being and the
reproduction of the body itself as an individually adjusted form of being.
We are therefore confronted with a pre-body, ‘a field universally imposed on
social positions’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 289). In this regard, the analysis undertaken
in Outline of a Theory of Practice is unambiguous: the point emphasised by
Bourdieu is that, within this ‘position-taking’ process, the spatial distinctions
are established in analogy with the human body. Hence, the body is a point
of reference for the structuration of space. Put differently, there are ‘elementary
structures underlying bodily experience’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 289). (This statement
can be found in full in the Outline of a Theory of Practice, and this allusion is
unequivocal.) These structures can be described in terms of their coincidence
76 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

with the principles of structuration of the objective space: inside-outside,

up-down, front-back, right-left – these are the polarities that structure the space
analogically to the experience of the body, within its proper structure. This
co-incidence between two languages – between the structural language of the body
and the structural language of the world – can be explained in two ways:

(i) One may assume that everything is just projection. According to this view,
we need to focus on the idea of an innate bodily competence. This, Bourdieu
asserts, would mean to suggest that there is a ‘science infused with hidden
bodily reactions’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 290), which is a view that should be
avoided.
(ii) One may claim that the body cannot be said to be situated outside a network
of social relations. If we recognise that the body is situated in the world,
then the body’s existence can be proven. Hence, we are dealing with the
existence of a known body. It is known, however, only because the knowledge
of its existence and of the world in which it exists is always already spatially
situated. It is a body capable of enriching itself through self-perception,
which it would not be capable of without this structuration of the world. In
fact, the structuration of the world is, for the body, a way of asserting its
existence and accomplishing its own structuration.

The question that remains is why the second solution prevails over the first one.
The main reason for this is that the natural experience of the body is insignificant,
because the ‘small number of fundamental sensations’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 289)
shared by all human beings is a sparse material unfit to provide the basis for a
genuine experience. This means that the experience of the thrown body, the
test of the strange body for every practice, cannot have the positive consistency
of a natural bodily experience. The body is proper only through appropriation, through
appropriation in situated action. Yet, how can we explain the coming into existence
of the coincidence, the original scenario of simultaneous emergence? And
how can we explain that the body obtains value through structuring themes?
The response to these questions given by Bourdieu is based on a deeply
problematic idea: the body, in its original form, needs to be able to anticipate itself.
According to this view, the world is not an opaque and strange world but a
penetrable world, in the sense that it positions itself as a supportive zone for
pre-perceptive anticipations (Goldstein’s influence, through Merleau-Ponty,
is obvious here). Emotions may have the ability to escape this structure of
anticipation. At this point, we need to emphasise the influence of Mauss’s
essays, not only his essay on bodily techniques (1966 [1935]), but also his
essay on the expression of emotions, laughter, and tears (1969 [1921]). In
short, the body is emotionally charged – and so is our bodily relation to the world.
From Marx to Bourdieu 77

To perceive oneself as a self requires perceiving oneself through one’s

relation to the outside world – a world in which the perceiving body
has anticipated itself, rather than projected itself, as if it had previously
embodied the things which it had to absorb from the outside. In this
context, ‘anticipated’ – or ‘compelled’ – means ‘given in advance’ or, to
be exact, ‘a sought-after-given-in-advance’ aimed at reincorporating what
still has to come into existence.

(7) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: The Subject’s

Home in Hysteresis
When examined more closely, it becomes apparent that, in its literal sense,
the expression ‘dialectics of interiorisation-exteriorisation’ (Bourdieu, 1972: 256) is
problematic. This is due to the fact that the described relationship is neither
about interiorisation nor about exteriorisation – at least not if it is understood
within a sequence of operations. There is no exteriorisation, because what the
body exteriorises is not derived from an interior source in the sense of a place
that is tantamount to a home. On the contrary, if there is anything like a bodily
home, it is the body’s environment. From this perspective, strangeness cannot be seen
directly, but it is only as a failure in the process of integration into the home
that the world allows for the self-anticipation of the body through practice. ‘To be
at home’ means ‘to be in the world’, and it means ‘to be in the world through anticipation’.
It is only the interiorised body through its adjustment to the world, it is never
a structure that is strange to it (an objective rule), but it is what is already put
in place, thereby anticipating itself. It is a structure that already belongs to the actor,
although the former is not the same as the latter.
One will notice that the language of anticipation is far from neutral. It puts
the emphasis on a certain operation of time, from which the body cannot
escape. This is what Bourdieu seeks to grasp under a concept of which,
unfortunately, he never made use in a more systematic and detailed way:
hysteresis. This concept can be found particularly in his Distinction (1979) and
in his The Logic of Practice (1980); in its orthodox form, however, the doctrine
is relegated to a second level. If there is anticipation, this is because the body
is belated and because the structuration of the socialised body is a way of escaping its
belatedness, whatever happens. The human body, in the Bourdieusian sense, is a
social body, a body through which society provides the answer to the temporal
question of belatedness.
Metaphors permit us to find the answer to the relative problem of the
situated being – perceived as a specifically bodily problem – in the primary
experience of the social world, the situation into which one is thrown. The body
presupposes the capacity to adjust: the capacity to adjust to something that is, in
78 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

fiction, given as something already realised – as something that experiences

the world as its own world and, therefore, as its home. What makes this
possible is practice, but on condition that it converts the metaphor into metonymy,
thereby accomplishing incorporation. Education, which is based on the
pedagogy of the body, is the realisation of metonymy, which gets under way
with its original transformation into metaphor. What this process seems to
guarantee is the possibility of not being belated, of giving it the means to
fill the gap caused by its belatedness, as a sign of its insurmountable anxiety
over the possibility of turning out to be the stranger that the subject has
always already ceased to be.
Society has to treat the body as a carrier of memory. Memory is a reminder: a
means of a particular sort, indeed – according to Bourdieu – the first means
which consists in not having to think and rethink its adjustment, in the sense
of experiencing practice, rather than replaying it as a form of belatedness
that is still to be accomplished. What lies at the heart of practice is the power
of hysteresis, which can only be sustained insofar as it is overcome. What is
revealed in the pathological figure of the hysterical – suggesting that ‘a spoken
expression was literally the bodily expression which it expresses’ (Bourdieu,
1972: 290) – is precisely the metaphorical failure: this is the one which falls
again into the disastrous hysteresis, which already looks out for practice due to
its capacity to assume and overcome it. Its antonym is the well-adjusted agent,
who enjoys living within the limits of his or her hysteresis, who is not belated,
or – to be exact – whose belatedness is correctly absorbed.
Why is it belated? In essence, it is belated because the body is not of the world, because
the dispositions and situations are not homologous. There is a delay because there
is a fall, because the birth into the social world happens too quickly, and
because the birth process lacks the continuity that would allow for a linear and
flawless insertion into the world. Practice, therefore, is the perceived expedient to
resolve what – drawing on both psychoanalytical and biological terminology –
may be called a condition of prematurity. This is why habituation is first and
foremost determined as an available memory – that is, as a stock of already
tested physical schematisations. We need to take into account, however, that it
is not completely obscure: it belongs to the order of the implicit, a know-how on
this side of a discursive knowledge, which could be enounced without known
rules, applied after having being known. In the logic of practice, memory
plays the same role with regard to its application, asserting and consolidating
itself by treating novel situations on the basis of situations previously proved
and already overcome through the adjustment of dispositions.
Nevertheless, one can see very clearly that the form of memory about
which we have been talking here – the one concerning the reminder –
conceals another form of memory, which is also quite worrying, and one
From Marx to Bourdieu 79

which is irreducible not only to all know-that but also to all know-how: the
memory of the fall. The latter, as opposed to the former, is essentially opaque.
The only element that makes it visible is belatedness, which activates the logic
of practice in the temporary activity of research, that is, in its treatment of
hysteresis. In this regard, the examination of belatedness has a symptomatic
value: not as a sign of the fall, and hence of arbitrariness, but of what
expresses it in order to conceal it.

(8) Bourdieu’s Structuralism of Practice: The Preponderance

of Practice and the Need for Socio-Analysis
It is a well-known fact that Bourdieu has always been in close contact with
psychoanalysis, whilst at the same time keeping a critical distance from it. In
close proximity to psychoanalysis, he elaborates and prescribes a technique
called socio-analysis (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: especially chapter 1) –
a major procedure of a sociological form of vigilance, to which I have already
referred above and which compels us to remove, or at least become aware of,
self-imposed barriers characteristic of theoreticist approaches. In opposition
to the deviating and – to use Comte’s words – digressing theoretician, we
play the ideological role of the gravedigger of the structural contradiction. If,
following Bourdieu, psychoanalysis has to be revised, this means that, within
the framework of psychoanalysis, the logic of thought has to be reconnected
with the logic of practice. What follows from this is that we need to establish a
system of thought that arises from a non-thetical consciousness, rather than from
an unconscious in the Freudian sense.
To put it bluntly: contrary to what has been said and written in the vulgate,
the habitus is not an unconscious disposition in the proper sense of the term. Rather, it
constitutes an infra-conscience, composed of both awareness [connaissance] and
unawareness [méconnaissance]. Paradoxically, unawareness is the condition for a
certain form of knowledge. The know-how is a kind of knowledge that lacks knowledge
about what it actually does, detaching itself from the very process of doing and
treating it as an object. At the same time, anticipation – in its practical fluidity –
is a mechanism in which a certain form of consciousness is at work, but a form
of consciousness that is not conscious of itself when undertaking actions. This
ambiguous regime in which Merleau-Ponty’s footprints prevail over those of
Freud and Marx, and where the light and the dark sides support one another,
authorises a new take on the mode of self-consciousness: it is possible to see its
practice on condition that it is possible to see that ‘seeing it’ means ‘ceasing to
see it’. We are therefore dealing with an unhappy retake, under the irrepressible
form of a ‘bad’ conscience, which cannot be resisted by the permanent problem
of vigilance.
80 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

On the conceptual level, this is where it becomes clear that this type of
unconscious does not have anything to do with the unconscious in the Freudian
sense – an unconscious which would not be a non-thetical consciousness,
as simply another type of consciousness, but a mental regime different from
consciousness itself, governed by an autonomous logic. To be sure, this is not just a
question of semantics. With the previous emphasis in mind, it is possible to
understand what would be analogous to a true unconscious in the Bourdieusian
sense, namely an unconscious that designates both the unconscious in his
theory and the unconscious of his theory. We are dealing with an unconscious
involved in practice, which does not necessarily live in practice, because
belatedness is always already blamed and because practice out of vocation
is to be concealed. If we have to give it a place, it is, rather, the one of the
arbitrary fall in a certain point of the social space, of the body that is not
involved with itself and with its world within its being-thrown-into-existence,
and of the body before the proper body. This place cannot be caught up in
itself; indeed, from another point of view, it must be possible to put your
finger on it, point in its direction, and thereby take a critical position. It is
its real force – more profound and more effective than the denunciation of
the training that is at work in processes of habituation. It is the last resource
of indignation, on this side of practice, and it is this resource that Bourdieu
tacitly rediscovers when he uses critique against the other side, for instance,
against the theorist who believes to stand above the logic of practice and who
has left the home that practice represents.
It occurs to Bourdieu to define habitus as ‘making a virtue of necessity’
(1972: 260). In order for it to be a virtue, however, it first has to become
a necessity. With the tools offered by Bourdieu concerning this process of
‘becoming necessity’, the view can only be thrown at a dark foundation,
which can be converted into a clear motive of indignation: it is arbitrary, and
it appears to be necessary – this is the scandal. Yet, before deciding whether
or not we are dealing with a scandal, it remains to be seen if a description
can be put in place about what exactly occurs on the level of experience.
Let us reconsider the initial scenario: society, insofar as it ‘takes side’,
imposes a determination on the body, but at the same time it salvages it, precisely
by making it proper, appropriated by itself and by the world. Coincidence
takes place without having to presuppose the existence of a conductor,
without requiring the existence of a big legislator who sets out the rules
of adjustment. The body is not initially trained: it trains, or retrains, itself
through the resolution of the distance between itself and the world. Practice
is a safeguard, even if it converts the arbitrary into the necessary, and even if
it conceals the vision of the arbitrary. This is where the dilemma lies. In this
sense, one could also say that there is such a thing as a virtue of practice, which
From Marx to Bourdieu 81

is not so much a virtue made on the basis of necessity which it imposes, but
rather a virtue inherent to the salvation which it provides for a body that has to
bypass its condition as a thrown body, strange to the world in which – whatever
happens – it survives, in an irrepressibly contingent manner.
Therefore, it is necessary that the body lives its belatedness in a way that allows it
not to be belated, as a form of belatedness charged with dread and confronted
by the adjusting efforts which the body never ceases to make. This is where
the first visage of hysteresis can be found. And this is why the memory-laden
experiences, in which the body is heavy, are haunted by another memory,
which is still threatening: the memory of the misadjusted body. In this light, it
is understandable that every experience of maladjustment is damaging, but maybe it
is for a different reason than the one invoked by Bourdieu. If it is damaging,
this is not because practice has failed, or because the situation turns out to
be untouchable by the dispositions, but because the social unconscious is
affected, because the other situation under every condition seizes the subject
and paralyses it in its movement. Thus, the subject would be stopped not by
an obstacle which it encounters on its way, but by a type of memory that is
different from the naturalised reminder: a memory that is different from the
one of the memory-laden body – a body which is filled with accumulated
practical knowledge.
Following this interpretation (which we do not find in Bourdieu’s oeuvre),
the unconscious is a matter not so much of practice as such, but rather of the flaws
and failures of practice – and, more importantly, not so much because they are
failures but because they make the general economy of failures and successes visible.
This process functions not in terms of necessity but in terms of the arbitrary
nature of strangeness in the world, and of a determination to be there at all cost,
without any possible justification. As a consequence, however, the notion of the
arbitrary ceases to have the same meaning; that is, it does not refer to the idea
of indignation: not to be at home does not mean to fail to be at home; rather,
it designates the idea of getting hold of oneself at one’s side, in discrepant
relation to oneself and to the world, on the level of the primary condition that
there is both a self and a world, adjusted to the misadjusted, but nevertheless
mutually related. This means that, in order to allow for the possibility of an
analysis of this kind of relationship, one has to detach oneself.
It must be emphasised that, to a significant extent, these considerations
make us move away from Bourdieu’s structuralism of practice – that is, from the
form of structuralism which Bourdieu seeks to make work by drawing upon
the structural approach in the sense of what he refers to as the ‘elementary
structures of bodily experience’ (1972: 289). These considerations, then,
induce us to turn away from Bourdieusian structuralism, because, in a way,
they oblige us to pose the following question: to what extent are structures really
82 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

part of practice? Should we not rather seek to develop a conceptual framework

that allows us to understand how the logic of practice – through processes of
habituation and habitation – supports or expresses an aspect of socialisation
which is different from the one that passes through the adjustment of the
body itself ? On this level, for sure, the function of the arbitrary should be
envisaged – in itself and not in its recovery – as a function of structuration.
After all, authentic structuralism, whether it is linguistic or anthropological,
does not assert anything else. It is most essentially defined by an ambitious
coarticulation of the arbitrary and the necessary, which is not tantamount to
imposing the existence of the latter with the aim of concealing the existence
of the former. It is nonetheless true that, for this reason, it is diverted from
the matrix of the body and the practices generated by it.

III. From Marx to Bourdieu

(1) The Enlightening Function of Hysteresis
I think that, in the light of the above reflections, it is pretty obvious that
I consider the concept of hysteresis to play a pivotal role in allowing us to
shed light on some of the main limitations of the Bourdieusian approach.
Hysteresis – or, if you prefer, belatedness – is symptomatic of the inertia of the
habitus: the proper weight of the body that has to develop the necessary
resources to move within a space where it has to find an ‘objective sense’,
allowing it to act upon the outside world – a world in which it has its place
and where it is not a stranger. In this sense, hysteresis is a feature not of
the pre-body but of the already appropriated body, engaged in a world where
it is already disposed of structures that have already been tested. Structural
dispositions guarantee, retrospectively, the renewal of this incorporation.
If the belatedness of our subjectivity never disappears and if hysteresis is a
constitutive component of our habitus, this is so because, as Bourdieu
remarks, social life always proceeds through the non-collection of two distinct
levels: the structural level of incorporated dispositions and the structural level
of situations. Put differently, hysteresis is an irreducible component of a bodily
interiorised history. The habitus, once properly incorporated, is out of touch
with short-term history, structuring the situations with which subjects are
confronted in the course of their experience.
Here, we are not concerned with the belatedness caused by the fall; rather,
our task consists in showing that delay represents the temporal mode of the present
itself – that is, of the present in and through which the subject, by virtue of
permanent adjustment, establishes a relation to the world. The social world
defines situations, but it constitutes a world which is structured in its own
From Marx to Bourdieu 83

manner, and which is involved in a process of transformation. It is this process

which historical materialism, after all, has sought to grasp by developing –
with the help of concepts such as mode of production – a science of history
and of structural transformation. This history, if it does not have any other
base than the one created by actors themselves by virtue of their practices, evolves
in an objective manner that determines what humans do and what they can
do. Hence, the discrepancy between effective practices and materialist history
lies in the inertia inherent in habituation. Given that it is structurally determined
by the incorporation of schemes of action, practice can never act and react in
new situations that contribute to its reproduction. It is disposed, because it is,
in fact, pre-disposed, under a fundamentally reproductive authority. It is based
on the reproduction of the world, which – in accordance with its previously
tested schemes – it recognises, questions, and desires. This is how the bodily
subject is socially maintained. It is, in addition, the reason for its inevitable delay
with regard to what is still to occur, illustrating that the two structural levels –
the level of dispositions and the level of situations – are not the same. In brief, it is
the task of dispositions to respond to situations – that is, it is the task of interior
structures to respond to exterior occurrences.

(2) The Social Function of the Habitus

Following Bourdieu’s description, the development of the habitus is socially
mediated: it is accentuated by apparatuses of inculcation, which succeed and
reinforce one another in accordance with the principle that a ‘structuration of
higher level determines that of a lower level’ (1972: 284): from the family to the
school, from the school to the profession and to culture. This is how class-
based forms of habitus are constructed in terms of social constellations that
are homologically related to each other. Solidarity emerges within every class,
a solidarity that needs to be conceived of in terms of habituation-habitation
processes. If it is true, however, that the higher level determines the lower level,
then everything is at stake at the lower level: from there, it becomes obvious
that socio-analysis, as a reconstructive effort, will have a target which remains the
same and which will always bring us back to the threshold of the thrown body,
to the ‘here’ rather than the ‘there’.
Nonetheless, the proper history of the individual is not the history that takes
place. The habituated body is embodied history, but precisely for this reason, it is also
a weighty history – a history reproduced through the body under the form of its
social history, which brings it back to its past socialisation: a history that is out
of step with situations historically determined by the transformations of the
mode of production and the social relations derived from it. Stressing this phase
difference, Bourdieu also reveals the limits of the crypto-phenomenological
84 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

perspective, which he actually shares and which is based on a theory of the

body. History makes progress outside the body and trains the bodies through
its own development. From this perspective, one can only remain Marxist if
one seeks to locate history outside the body, create a profound gap between
the two levels, and return to the concepts of mode of production and class
relations when examining the practical adjustment of the body.
Put differently, the discrepancy that defines the concept of hysteresis on this
level only illustrates the difficulties arising from the attempt to collapse practice
and production into each other by virtue of an unorthodox interpretation of
Marx. From a Marxist standpoint, practice is a productive activity. What becomes
evident here is that, if we want to understand the extent to which practices
are socially determined, the history of the producer must not be confused with
the history of production. The history of the producer is, in this case, the history
combined with the past, based on the mode of reproduction of practically
incorporated schemes. It is not identical to the history of production, which
intercepts with reproduction, testing it in new situations, imposing itself by
reviving it, and finding positions in the world which are not delivered by past
experiences of already undertaken adjustments. In this sense, all anticipations
are inevitably foiled by history, at least by the agents that have found a home in their own
practices, especially by those whose structuring practices do not possess the
sufficient fluidity and lability to situate and inscribe themselves in a pertinent
manner in the – historically structured – new world.

(3) The Problem of Alienation and the Ethnological Fallacy

At this point, Bourdieu’s sociology, conceived of as a form of structuralism of
practice, acquires its political meaning. Insisting on the hysteresis of the habitus,
the problem of bodily expropriation – to which all social subjects are constantly
exposed – becomes important. Here we are confronted with the experience of
becoming strange, becoming strange to both oneself and one’s environment. In
short, we are confronted with the problem of alienation.
This alienation, as we have seen, is founded on a discrepancy between
two levels: the level of the habituated body and the level where habituation
needs to be produced. This being said, it becomes obvious that the ethnological
fallacy is not only an epistemological fallacy, but also a political fallacy: a blindness
that leads to the alienation of the social subject – of the social fact called
hysteresis. The proper body, understood as a body that is socially tested in a
world which itself brings the body into being, converts the world into its own.
(At the same time, the proper world – understood as a world that is socially
tested in various bodies which themselves bring the world into being –
converts the body into its own.) The proper body is always, to some extent,
From Marx to Bourdieu 85

an improper body – or at least risks being improper – in relation to forms of

expropriation producing class domination.
From this perspective, there is no doubt that the ethnologist plays the worst
possible game: to put it bluntly, the ethnological approach reduces the subject to its
physical dimension, treating it from the point of view of the interpreter who
acts as a disengaged interpreter and, as such, treats the subject as an object. As a
consequence, it is not only the ethnologist who is a stranger, but it is also the
ethnologist’s object which is treated as, and therefore becomes, strange – strange
both to the ethnologist and to the ethnologist’s environment. Ethnologists
project themselves upon the actor. To the extent that they conceive of themselves
as actors, this projection appears natural to them. Literally speaking, their
strangeness does not cost them anything. The cost for the actor, by contrast,
turns out to be rather heavy. Acting the way they normally do in their world,
ethnologists show not only that they are not willing to pay the actor, but also
that they are prepared to do anything in order not to pay the actor. They need
to mobilise considerable symbolic and, strictly speaking, incomprehensible
resources in order to conceal their strangeness and thereby realise their
essential goal – namely, to be within and to stay there.

(4) From Ethnological Distance to Sociological Proximity

Within the framework of Bourdieu’s structuralism of practice, the sociologist has
to prevail over the ethnologist. Unlike the latter, the former does not come from far
away, but emerges from proximity, like a person who finds herself at home. In
the heart of our societies, the ethnologist uncovers strategies of adjustment and
maladjustment, turning the construction of the self into a form of destruction –
that is, the disappropriation determined by hysteresis, the constitutive delay of
the habitus. Its object resolves through alienation. In order for the uncovering
process to be possible, however, it is crucial that both the proper and the
improper can be pulled together. It is therefore necessary that hysteresis can
be described as a set of structures that functions, both despite and through its
disequilibrium. In short, it is essential to describe the social embeddedness of the
body and of the world, allowing for an accurate level of description and thus
for an insightful representation of the home.
This home will then be the object of a certain attachment, but of an
attachment devoid of ambiguities. If the social construction of the body is
based on the ability to overcome the problem of disappropriation, this is
because, as we have seen above, the arbitrary remains attached to its beginning.
In this sense, home is a space of incompressible violence. For Bourdieu, it nevertheless
gives rise to an indisputable fascination. For we are certainly dealing with a
home, in the strong sense of the word, as something that effectively absorbs the
86 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

strangeness of the pre-body, resisting the alienating processes of disappropriation caused

by a social world that excludes subjects from participating in the construction
of a proper structural order. In this world, which is based on the capitalist
mode of production, the discrepancy between the two aforementioned levels
is unbearable for the oppressed class. Given its pervasive power, capitalism
makes salvation less and less achievable.
This, I think, is where the greatest difficulty concerning Bourdieu’s
structuralism of practice lies (and concerning the very idea that there is such
a thing as a structuralism of practice). The above reflections confirm the view
that it makes sense to distinguish between two forms of society: on the one hand,
societies of the proper, of producers, of practical subjects adjusted to the world
which belongs to them; and, on the other hand, societies in which the proper is not
achieved in practice itself by the same producers. To be clear, a distinction is to be
drawn between archaic and modern – and, hence, between pre-capitalist and
capitalist – societies; and we have to nourish our fascination about the former
in order to maintain a critical stance on the latter. Bourdieu’s structuralism
of practice, then, requires two types of society: those in which belonging –
the not-being-strange – is experienced; and those in which belonging is no
longer experienced – and in which it is no longer worthy of being practically
experienced – by the producers. Of course, producers are subjects involved in
life, that is, they are not freed from life and its necessities as in the case of the
people of the scholé – these strangers of practice who, from now on, tend to be the
only ones not to be strange anymore to a world in which practice essentially
means alienation.

IV. Concluding Remarks

This strong constraint, which leads Bourdieu to reconsider a grand historical
division, has two major consequences that allow us to make sense of the
sociological project in relation to other disciplines, such as history and ethnology:

(a) History, as a history of production, can be regarded as a history of

practical expropriation, of its denial and its inferiorisation, and hence of a
situation which essentially involves the suspension of one’s capacity to exercise
one’s own adjustments necessary for being integrated into a social world
considered to be one’s home. The particular character of archaic societies,
as studied by Bourdieu, hinges on the discrepancy between two structural levels:
the level of dispositions and the level of situations. To put this more clearly: it is
because history does not alter its self-initiated adjustments that it continues
to have a cyclic regularity in archaic societies. From this, however, we must
not conclude that nature fixes and determines temporality. As emphasised by
From Marx to Bourdieu 87

Marx, history is the product of socially appropriated and configured processes,

and thus of an external world in which people establish social relations. This
reflection is expressed in the famous aphorism that appears in the Grundrisse:
‘the earth is the great laboratory, the arsenal which provides both the means
and the materials of labour, and also the location, the basis of the community’
(Marx, 1969 [1857–1858]: 437). What we need to add to this insight is the fact
that laboratory and arsenal are what they are due to their inscription in bodies
capable of acting and moving in the world. Social relations are produced and
reproduced by bodies which are adjusted to the particular place they occupy in
the social space – namely, to the position which is theirs and which they aim
to maintain.
We are confronted with an opposition between societies: on the one hand, societies
which have a history – that is, societies in which the history of embodiment and
the history of production go hand in hand; and, on the other hand, societies
in which history distends all habitation of the world through productive bodies, because
the body is transformed according to a non-reproductive temporality, which
is inappropriate for the memorisation of the habituated body. History, located
within this horizon of separation, becomes alienation for the people of practice,
whose life conditions are determined by the necessity of production, and
specifically by the reproduction of themselves, tied to the act of production.
History can conceal its class-divided nature and, therefore, the relations of
domination that result from the expropriation of the producers, understood as
the expropriation of practice, which is the territory on which the socialisation
of the body takes place.
(b) What is also at stake here is the relation between sociology and ethnology.
Sociology, stretched as far as in Bourdieu’s case, cannot conceal its dependence
on the analysis of archaic societies. What kind of ethnology are we talking
about? Without any doubt, it is not the kind of ethnology criticised above.
If the aim consists in shedding light on the logic of practice, one cannot
avoid making reference to the concept of pre-capitalist society. This concept
is necessary because living in practical terms continues to have meaning in
this crucial sense of the belonging of the body to a world in which it is sustained and
maintained. In other words, it is necessary that there be non-strangers, and the
theoretically decisive idea can be conceptually grasped and empirically proven
by ethnology, rather than sociology. Of course, it contributes to its existence
because sociology is successful insofar as it offers good terms for good questions –
this it can do only by rejecting the ideology of ethnology in its dominant
version (that is, according to Bourdieu, in its Lévi-Straussian version). Thus,
another conception of the indigenous – a conception which differs from the
cartographer’s perspective – becomes acceptable: it is not about the projection
of the strangeness of the observer, but about taking the subject of practice for what
88 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

it is, that is, about considering it as a thinking and acting state of practice,
produced inside societies in which hysteresis is packed, where the question of
the delay finds answers in the world and in the temporality of the world.
To be sure, this world, approached by the new ethnologist and haunted by
the problem of the structures of practice, is not the good world. That is, it is
not a world that is intrinsically good. Rather, it is a world in which the cultural
arbitrary plays a pivotal role. To the extent that this framework works, it is all
the better for the subjects not to see it. It is a world in which, in practice, nobody can
be a stranger to the world – and this is precisely where, according to Bourdieu, its
value lies. This means that, as is made explicit in certain pages of Outline of a
Theory of Practice,5 it is better to live in a world in which practice is concerned
with its own disappropriation – with the deconstruction of the body and its
capacities to belong to something and to belong to itself. At least this applies
to those who do not hide away in the sphere of non-production – that is, in an
existence based on the suspension of need to adjust to the world within and
through the act of production.
Does this archaic world exist? I really do not know the answer to this
question, and I think neither did Bourdieu. What this shows, however, is that
one has to understand it from the beginning of its disintegration, expressed in
the opposition to the abstract and disempowering structures of capitalism. De facto,
what applies to this world also applies to the pre-body. One can point in its
direction, but one cannot touch it or comprehend it in its proper positivity. We
know it in its postcolonial state, just as we know peasant societies in the context
of the rise of rural exodus and the urbanisation of the countryside.
It is worth emphasising the heuristic significance of colonisation for
Bourdieu’s structuralism of practice. It is on the basis of an exogenously triggered
maladjustment, an external aggression, and an imposed disembodiment
that practical adjustment manifests itself in its resistance to arbitrary power,
embodied in the strange perspective of both the ethnologist and the coloniser.
Following Bourdieu, it would be fair to say that there is a somewhat natural
complicity between the theoretical disposition of a strange interpretation and the practical
disposition of real exploitation – both having as a vehicle the disentanglement of the
practical relation to the world, with its adjustment-caused effects, and hence
the removal of the home. Practice, with the complicity of the ethnological
interpreter, loses its status of habitation-habituation, for becoming the sign of
new strangers, in relation to both themselves and their world.
In relation to the ethnology of the Kabyle people, Bourdieu does not cease
to denounce this complicity, notably by stigmatising the studies carried out at
the beginning of the nineteenth century by civil administrators and the military
(see Hanoteau and Letourneux (1872–1873), upon which Durkheim drew in
his theory of segmentation). It is remarkable that, in this field, the studies
From Marx to Bourdieu 89

undertaken by contemporary ethnologists, whilst providing painstakingly

detailed accounts of the most destructive aspects of the colonial period, have
gone back to the initial works, across ethnological studies of the sixties –
obsessed with anti-colonialist critique to such an extent that they turned their
backs on certain essential dimensions of facts (see Mahé, 2001).
More importantly, however, and this is why Bourdieu’s principal
epistemological enemy is the ethnological attitude in the Lévi-Straussian
sense, one has to remember the inverted story which one finds in the opening
pages of Tristes tropiques (Lévi-Strauss, 1955: 42–44), ten years before the
publication of Outline of a Theory of Practice. It seems that, in this oeuvre, Lévi-
Strauss starts from an analogous assumption: the tropics are sad, because the
object of the ethnologist is involved in a process of death, which turns out to
be irresistible. Furthermore, this process has begun by the same power that
underlies the ethnological perspective: by the civilisation that has actually
colonised other civilisations. Nonetheless, in this book, Lévi-Strauss draws a
completely different conclusion from his observation when implying that a
way out of this dilemma is to be found in theory – that is, in theoretical forms
of interpretation detached from practice.
It is not the case that the death of the subject can be prevented, but it
is the case that social science – elevated to a reflection upon structures that
depend on the human spirit, rather than on the body – has the resources to
take an alternative perspective on temporality, and thereby develop a politics and an
ethics. Undoubtedly, this perspective is opposed to Bourdieu’s view, because
it presupposes and exploits the resources of the strangeness in practice,
not only in relation to the indigenous, but also – and this is a point that
Bourdieu does not take into account – in relation to the ethnologist’s own
world. Social science, as it is conceived here, is not primarily concerned
with studying the condition of belonging, the identification of and with
the group, or the integration into a realm that it shapes from the inside in
the sense of a home. Such a conception of social science prevents it from
getting caught up in an illusion and allows it to move uphill by mobilising
the power of its critique.

Notes
1 Original Title: ‘De Marx à Bourdieu: Les limites du structuralisme de la pratique’.
A draft version of this piece was presented in the seminar series of the Groupe de
Sociologie Politique et Morale (GSPM) at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences
Sociales (EHESS) in Paris, France, on 30th April 2007. The original (French) version of
this paper will appear in a forthcoming issue of Raisons pratiques.
2 I would like to thank Bryan S. Turner for his detailed comments on this translation. I am
also grateful to the author, Bruno Karsenti, for making some useful suggestions.
90 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

3 An example of the denunciation of sociology as a ‘conservative science’ can be found in

Rancière (1995).
4 See, for instance, Lefebvre (1958).
5 See Bourdieu (1972: 357–360). This point is particularly relevant to the rural ethos of
an ‘enchanted’ relation to the nature of soil – an idiosyncratic relation that cannot be
grasped by the capitalist form of productive labour.

References
Boltanski, Luc (2004) La condition fœtale : une sociologie de l’engendrement et de l’avortement, Paris:
Gallimard.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1972) Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle,
Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) La distinction : Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980) Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) Réponses. Pour une anthropologie réflexive, Paris:
Seuil.
Goldstein, Kurt (1934) Der Aufbau des Organismus. Einführung in die Biologie unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Erfahrungen am kranken Menschen, Den Haag: Nijhoff.
Guillaume, Paul (1937) La psychologie de la forme, Paris: Flammarion.
Hanoteau, Adolphe and Aristide Letourneux (1872–1873) La Kabylie et les coutumes kabyles,
Paris: Impr. nationale.
Lefebvre, Henri (1958) Critique de la vie quotidienne, Paris: L’Arche.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1955) Tristes tropiques, Paris: Plon.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1968 [1949]) Les structures élémentaires de la parenté, nouv. éd. revue,
Paris: Mouton.
Mahé, Alain (2001) Histoire de la Grande Kabylie, Paris: Bouchène.
Marx, Karl (1969 [1857–1858]) Fondements de la critique de l’économie politique, trad. par Roger
Dangeville, Paris: Anthropos.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (1968 [1846]) L’idéologie allemande, trad. par Henri Auger,
Gilbert Badia, Jean Baudrillard et Renée Cartelle, Paris: Ed. Sociales.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels (2000/1977 [1846]) ‘The German Ideology’, in David
McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 175–208.
Mauss, Marcel (1966 [1935]) ‘Les techniques du corps’, in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et
anthropologie, 3. éd. augm., Paris: PUF, pp. 363–386.
Mauss, Marcel (1969 [1921]) ‘L’expression obligatoire des sentiments (Rituels oraux
funéraires australiens)’, in Marcel Mauss, Œuvres III, Paris: Minuit, pp. 269–278.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1942) La structure du comportement, Paris: PUF.
Rancière, Jacques (1995) La mésentente : politique et philosophie, Paris: Galilée.
CHAPTER FOUR
Durkheim and Bourdieu: The Common
Plinth and its Cracks*

Loïc Wacquant
Translated by Tarik Wareh

For lack of being able to offer here a systematic comparison between Bourdieu’s
sociology and the thought of Durkheim – which would require an historical-
analytic monograph capable of reconstituting the double chain, social and
intellectual, of the ramifying causations that link them to each other and to
their respective milieu – I would like, by way of selective soundings, to bring
out four of the pillars that support their common base: namely, (1) the fierce
attachment to rationalism, (2) the refusal of pure theory and the stubborn
defence of the undividedness of social science, (3) the relation to the historical
dimension and to the discipline of history, and (4) the recourse to ethnology as
a privileged device for ‘indirect experimentation’.
I am quite conscious of the fact that such an exercise can all too easily
take a scholastic turn and fall into two equally reductive deviations, the one
consisting in mechanically deducing Bourdieu from Durkheim so as to reduce
him to the rank of an avatar, the other in projecting back the theses dear to
Bourdieu into Durkheim’s work so as to attest to their intellectual nobility.
Its aim is to bring out some of the distinctive features of that French School
of sociology, which endures and enriches itself at the cost of sometimes-
unexpected metamorphoses.
Far from seeking to reduce Bourdieu’s sociology to a mere variation of
the Durkheimian score,1 I would like to suggest that, while he leans firmly
on them, Bourdieu imprints each of its pillar-principles with a particular
twist, which allows them, ultimately, to support a scientific edifice endowed
with an original architecture, at once closely akin to and sharply different
from that of the Durkheimian mother-house. This is another way of saying
that Pierre Bourdieu is an inheritor who – contrary to Marcel Mauss, for
92 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

example – could and did, in the manner of an intellectual judoka, use the
weight of the scientific capital accumulated by Durkheim to better project
himself beyond his august predecessor.

(1) Passio Sciendi, or the Rationalist Faith in Action

Bourdieu shares with Durkheim, first of all, a rationalist philosophy
of knowledge as the methodical application of reason and empirical
observation to the social realm – an application that demands: on the one
hand, perpetual mistrust towards ordinary thought, and towards the illusions,
which it continuously generates; and, on the other hand, an endless effort of
analytic (de/re)construction, which alone is capable of extracting from the
teeming tangle of the real the ‘internal causes and hidden impersonal forces
that move individuals and collectivities’ (Durkheim, 1964: 373). One could
go so far as to say that our two authors harbour the same scientific passion – in
the sense of an irrepressible love for and faith in science, its social value and
mission – and the more vigorous their expression of it, the more strongly
they are contested.
One recalls that Durkheim’s avowed goal, from the inception of his work,
was ‘to extend to human behaviour the scientific rationalism’ that had proven
itself in the exploration of the natural world. ‘What has been called our
positivism’, he hammers away in the long reply to his critics that opens the
second edition of The Rules of Sociological Method, ‘is but a consequence of this
rationalism’ (Durkheim, 1981 [1895]: ix; see also Durkheim, 1982 [1895]: 33).
Likewise, Bourdieu forcefully asserts the unity of the scientific method and the
membership of sociology in the great family of the sciences:

Like every science, sociology accepts the principle of determinism, understood

as a form of the principle of sufficient reason. Science, which must rendre raison,
supply explanations for what is, postulates thereby that nothing is without
a raison d’être. The sociologist adds social: without a specifically social raison
d’être. (Bourdieu, 1984: 44; see also Bourdieu, 1993 [1984])

The ‘absolute conviction’, which he attributes to Flaubert in the task of the

writer, Bourdieu himself possesses in the task of the sociologist. Contrary to
a number of his contemporaries who have packed up and gone over to the
‘postmodern’ camp and revel in the abandonment (indeed, the derision) of
reason, and whose international vogue has recently given new life to that
typically French specialty, the export of designer-label concepts, Bourdieu has
remained faithful to the ‘party of science, which is now more than ever that of
the Aufklärung, of demystification’ (Bourdieu, 1982: 32).2
Durkheim and Bourdieu 93

Durkheim and Bourdieu hold this rationalist faith, besides the

national predilection for ‘distinct ideas’ inherited from Descartes, from
their mentors in philosophy, and from their early immersion in the neo-
Kantian atmosphere that pervaded their intellectual youth. It was through
his personal association with Émile Boutroux – who introduced him to
Comte, with Charles Renouvier, whom he regarded as the ‘greatest
rationalist of our time’, and with his colleague at Bordeaux imbued with
epistemology, Octave Hamelin (whom he describes nicely as an ‘austere
lover of right reason’) – that Durkheim was led to inscribe his thought
in the Kantian lineage. As for Bourdieu, his rationalism is rooted in his
assiduous relations with that ‘philosophy of the concept’ (associated
with the names of Georges Canguilhem and Gaston Bachelard, whose
student he was) that offered a refuge and recourse against the ‘philosophy
of the subject’ that reigned over the French intellectual field during the
years of his intellectual apprenticeship, but also with the German tradition
of the philosophy of ‘symbolic forms’ personified by Ernst Cassirer
(whose main works he had translated by Éditions de Minuit, and whose
affinities with Durkheimian theory he perceived very early).3 And if the
two are, at a distance of almost a century, deeply marked by Kantianism,
it is because, as Durkheim noted on his return from a sojourn of studies
across the Rhine, ‘of all the philosophies which Germany has produced,
[it is] this one that, properly interpreted, can still best be reconciled with
the demands of science’ (Durkheim, 1887: 330).4
For the uncompromising ‘empirical rationalism’ that gives impetus to
the sociologies of Durkheim and Bourdieu is deployed and bolstered in
scientific practice more than by professions of epistemological faith – even if
both perpetrated, in their youth, manifestos of a methodological character.
It is in the ‘acts of research in the social sciences’, to take up the title, which
is not innocent, of the journal founded by Bourdieu in 1975 [Actes de la
recherche en sciences sociales], that its postulates are affirmed and tested. Such
is the case with the notion of the ‘non-transparency’ of the social world
and with the priority given to the problematisation of the ordinary sense
of the social world: ‘Rigorous science presupposes decisive breaks with
first-order perceptions’ and should therefore not be afraid of ‘offending
common sense’.5
But, whereas Durkheim is content to make a clean sweep of the
praenotiones vulgares that obstruct sociology, Bourdieu intends to repatriate
them in an enlarged conception of objectivity that accords to the practical
categories and competencies of agents a critical mediating role between ‘the
system of objective regularities’ and the space ‘of observable behaviours’.
‘The moment of methodical objectivism – an inevitable but still abstract
94 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

moment – demands its own transcendence’6, without which, sociology is

doomed to run aground on the reefs of the realism of the structure, or to
get stuck in mechanistic explanations unfit to grasp the practical logic that
governs conduct. And it is against the neo-Kantian tradition and its vision of
the transcendental thinking subject that Bourdieu (re)introduces the concept
of habitus in order to restore to the socialised body its function as active
operator of the construction of the real.

(2) Impersonal Science, Undivided and Im-Pertinent

Social science is, for Bourdieu as for Durkheim, an eminently serious matter,
grave even, because it is the bearer of a great historical ‘burden’. Practicing it
implies an austere scientific ethic, which is defined by a triple refusal.
Refusal of worldly seductions, first of all, to which Bourdieu attaches, more
firmly yet than Durkheim had, the condemnation of the pliancies of
intellectual and political prophetism. According to the theorist of anomie,
sociology must imperatively ‘renounce worldly success’ and ‘assume the
esoteric character that is appropriate to all science’. Bourdieu goes further:
the particular difficulty that the science of society encounters in grounding its
authority derives from the fact that it is a fundamentally esoteric discipline that
presents all appearances of being exoteric, in continuity with ‘the vulgar’.7
This makes of the sociology of the fields of cultural production and of the
diffusion of their products, not one chapter among others, but an indispensable
tool of sociological epistemology – and of sociological morality. Bourdieu
maintains, in addition, that the analysis of the historical process whereby
the scientific universe wrenched itself, however imperfectly, from the pull of
history, furnishes the means for reinforcing the social bases of the rationalist
commitment, which entry into this universe presupposes and produces at the
same time (Bourdieu, 1991).
If sociology owes itself to avoid all compromising with the world, it should
not, for that, withdraw from it. Bourdieu makes entirely his Durkheim’s
formula according to which sociological researches would be worth ‘not
one hour of trouble if they were to have only a speculative interest’ and to
remain ‘an expert knowledge reserved for experts’.8 To be socially pertinent,
and in touch with the sociopolitical reality of its time, social science has a
duty to be im-pertinent, in the double sense of irreverence to and distance
from established powers and established ways of thinking. It must practice
that ‘ruthless criticism of everything existing’ for which the young Marx
called in a famous article in the Rheinische Zeitung, and first of all a criticism
of itself, of its illusions and limitations. Bourdieu departs here from the
Durkheimian framework to defend the idea that scientific autonomy and
Durkheim and Bourdieu 95

political engagement can grow more intense in concert and give each other
mutual support, whenever intellectuals apply themselves to instituting
collective forms of organisation and intervention liable to put the authority
of scientific reason in the service of the ‘corporatism of the universal’,
which, whether they want it or not, is their legacy and for which they are
accountable (Bourdieu, 1989a; and Bourdieu, 1987b).
This refusal of confinement within the scholarly microcosm is made possible by
the reciprocal checks, of which, the scientific community is the support and
locus. For Durkheim, science, ‘because it is objective, is something essentially
impersonal’ – which implies that it ‘cannot progress except by a collective
labour’ (Durkheim, 1896–1897: 36). Bourdieu extends this idea by arguing
that the true subject of the scientific enterprise, if there is one, is not the
individual-sociologist but the scientific field in toto – that is, the ensemble of
the relations of collision-collusion that obtain between the protagonists who
struggle in this ‘world apart’ wherein those strange historical animals called
historical truths are born.
It is also within this collective practice embracing a multiplicity of objects,
epochs, and analytic techniques that the refusal of disciplinary fragmentation and of
theoreticism, as well as of the conceptual mummification fostered by the ‘forced
division’ of scientific labour, is declared. Durkheim and Bourdieu exhibit
the same disdain for the scholastic posture that leads those who adopt it – or
who are adopted by it – to that cult of the ‘concept for concept’s sake’ which
periodically comes back into fashion on one or the other side of the Atlantic
according to a pendulum-swing hardly disturbed by the acceleration of the
international circulation of ideas.
The ‘lack of taste’ that Durkheim affected ‘for that prolix and formal
dialectic’, which propels the sociologist into orbit in the pure heaven of ideas,
has not always been realised. The unequivocal condemnation of it that he
proffers in the course of a review is worth citing in extenso:

Here again is one of those books of philosophical generalities about the nature
of society, and of generalities through which it is difficult to sense a very intimate
and practical intercourse with social reality. Nowhere does the author give the
impression that he has entered into direct contact with the facts about which he
speaks […]. However great the dialectical and literary talent of the authors, one
could not go too far in denouncing the scandal of a method that so offends all our
scientific habits and yet is still quite widely used. We no longer nowadays admit
that one speculates about the nature of life without being first initiated into the
techniques of biology. By what privilege could we permit the philosopher to
speculate about society, without entering into commerce with the details of social
facts? (Durkheim, 1905–1906: 565)
96 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

This is a formulation that would not be denied by Pierre Bourdieu, who has
stated time and again his disapproval of that ‘theoreticist theory’, severed from
all research activity and unduly reified as an academic specialty, which serves
so often as a G-string to cover up scientific nakedness. Theory, as Bourdieu
conceives it, is praxis and not logos; it is incarnated and actualised by the
controlled implementation of the epistemic principles of construction of
the object. Consequently, it feeds ‘less on purely theoretical confrontation
with other theories than on confrontation with ever-new empirical objects’
(Bourdieu, 1992: 251; and Bourdieu, 1985: esp. 11–12).
The key concepts that make up the hard core of Bourdieu’s sociology –
habitus, capital, field, social space, symbolic violence – are so many
programs of organised questioning of the real that serve to signpost the terrain of
researches that must be all the more detailed and meticulous as one hopes
to generalise their results via comparison. Accomplished theory, for the
author of Distinction, takes after the chameleon more than the peacock:
far from seeking to attract the eye to itself, it blends in with its empirical
habitat; it borrows the colours, shades, and shapes of the concrete object,
located in time and place, onto which it seems merely to hang but which
it in fact produces.

(3) History as a Sociological Still [Alambic]

Durkheim and Bourdieu have in common the fact that they are commonly
read as fundamentally ahistorical, if not anti-historical, authors. The
‘functionalism’ of the former, engrossed with theorising the ‘Hobbesian
problem’ of social order (if one believes Talcott Parsons’s canonical exegesis),
is alleged to be congenitally incapable of incorporating social change and
the irruption of the event. The ‘reproduction theory’ commonly attributed
to the latter is depicted as an infernal machine for abolishing history, and the
notion of habitus a conceptual strait-jacket aimed at locking the individual
in the eternal repetition of a present frozen in an order of domination at
once undivided and inescapable. In brief, Bourdieu and Durkheim are
supposed to leave us culpably disarmed in the face of historicity. Nothing,
on closer look, could be further removed from both the intent and content
of their thought.9
Émile Durkheim is an eminently historical sociologist, first, in that all of
his investigations partake of a project of current relevance (actualité), which is to
contribute, by way of scientific analysis, to resolving the crisis, diagnosed as
‘moral’, which is shaking the societies of Europe to their core right before his
eyes. The theoretical issue that obsesses him is not to elaborate a conception of
social order in abstracto but to identify the changing conditions and mechanisms
Durkheim and Bourdieu 97

of solidarity in the era of industrial modernity, and thereby to facilitate the

maturation of a morality fit for the new social relations. Durkheimian sociology
is also historical in the sense that it purports to catch hold of institutions in the
movement of their becoming and that its harmonious development requires
an active and reflective collaboration with historiography.
For Durkheim, history can and must play ‘in the order of social realities
a role analogous to that of the microscope in the order of physical realities’
(Durkheim, 1970 [1909]: 154). It captures in its nets the particular expressions
of the social laws and types which sociology discerns. And only the ‘genetic
method’, which compares the diverse incarnations of a given institution, allows
one ‘to follow its integral development through all social species’, to distinguish
the efficient causes that have brought it about from the social functions that it
performs on the synchronic level, and, consequently, to establish its normal
(or pathological) character. ‘To my knowledge, there is no sociology worthy of
the name which does not assume a historical character’, Durkheim proclaims
during a debate with Charles Seignobos. And he insists he is ‘convinced’ that
sociology and history ‘are destined to become ever more intimately related,
and that a day will come when the historical spirit and the sociological spirit
will differ only in nuances’.10
If Durkheim’s sociology, judiciously interpreted, must be held to be
historical by virtue of its make and its method, that of Bourdieu deserves
the qualifier historicist.11 It is no exaggeration to consider that, for Bourdieu,
the social is nothing other than history – already made, in the making, or to be
made. So much so that one could describe his intellectual project, which some
might against his will call philosophical, but after all the label matters little,
as a historicisation of the transcendental project of philosophy (seen from this angle,
Bourdieu would be a sort of anti-Heidegger, since, as we know, Heidegger’s
ambition was to ontologise history).12
Here, again, Bourdieu leans on Durkheimian positions in order better
to go beyond them, especially by bringing the historical dimension onto the
territory of social ontology and social epistemology. He impugns first of all
the distinction, on which the director of the Année sociologique sought to found
the possibility of a ‘true historical science’, between ‘historical events’ and
‘permanent social functions’ (Durkheim, 1968 [1908]: 212–213), and the
artificial antinomies which undergird it, between nomothetic and ideographic
approaches, conjuncture and longue durée, the unique and the universal. And
he calls for working towards a truly unified science of humans, ‘where history
would be a historical sociology of the past and sociology a social history of
the present’ (Bourdieu, 1995: 111), starting from the postulate that social
action, social structure, and social knowledge are all equally the product of
the work of history.
98 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Such a science must, to fulfil its mission, effect a triple historicisation.

Historicisation of the agent, to begin with, by dismantling the socially constituted
system of embodied schemata of judgement and action (habitus) that govern
her conduct and representations and orients her strategies. Historicisation of
the various social worlds (fields) in which socialised individuals invest their desires
and energies and abandon themselves to that endless race for recognition
that is social existence. For, according to Bourdieu, practice no more results
from the agent’s subjective intentions alone than they flow directly from the
objective constraints of the structure. It emerges, rather, in the turbulences
of their confluence, from ‘the more or less “successful” encounter between
positions and dispositions’; it is born from the obscure relation of ‘ontological
proximity’ that weaves itself between these ‘two modes of existence of the
social’ that are the habitus and field, ‘history objectified in things’ and ‘history
incarnate in bodies’ (Bourdieu, 1981: 313; Bourdieu, 1989b: 59; and Bourdieu,
1982: 38; respectively).
Once the subterranean connections between embodied history and
reified history have been elucidated, it remains finally to carry out the
historicisation of the knowing subject and of the instruments of knowledge, by
means of which they construct their own object, as well as of the universe
in which the knowledge under consideration is produced and circulates
(in this, Bourdieu is infinitely closer to Foucault than to Lévi-Strauss). To
summarise:

If one is convinced that being is history, which has no beyond, and that one
must thus ask biological history (with the theory of evolution) and sociological
history (with the analysis of the collective and individual sociogenesis of forms
of thought) for the truth of a reason that is historical through and through and
yet irreducible to history, then one must admit also that it is by historicisation
(and not by the decisive dehistoricisation of a sort of theoretical ‘escapism’)
that one may try to wrench reason more completely from historicity. (Bourdieu,
1992: 427–428)

Such a sociology, simultaneously and inseparably structural and genetic, can

envisage explaining (and not only describing) the unforeseen advent of crisis,
the sudden breakthrough of ‘genius’, the transformational unfolding of
action that make for the great social and symbolic revolutions whereby history
abruptly redraws its course. Thus, ‘it is by historicizing him completely that
one can understand completely how [Flaubert] wrests himself away from
the strict historicity of less heroic destinies’, the originality of his enterprise
emerging in full view only as ‘one reinserts it in the historically constituted
space within which it was constructed’ (Bourdieu, 1992: 145).
Durkheim and Bourdieu 99

This historicising sociology can also purport to bring to light, and thus better
to curb, the historical determinisms to which, as in every historical practice, it
is necessarily submitted. Durkheim asks history to nourish sociology; Bourdieu
expects it to liberate sociology from the historical subconscious, scientific as
well as social, of past generations that weighs with all its dead weight on the
brain of the researcher. What is instituted by history can be ‘restituted’ only
by history; historical sociology alone, therefore, offers to the sociologist, as
historical agent and scholarly producer, ‘the instruments of a true awakening
of consciousness or, better, of a true self-mastery’ (Bourdieu, 1980b: 14). Free
thinking, Bourdieu holds, comes at this price: it can ‘be conquered [only] by
a historical anamnesis capable of unveiling everything that, in thought, is the
forgotten product of the work of history’ (Bourdieu, 1992: 429).

(4) The ‘Indirect Experimentations’ of Ethnology

Another methodological procedure equally prized by Durkheim and Bourdieu
is one in which ethnology is typically entrusted with the lead role: the quest for
the experimentum crucis, the test-phenomenon or the key-puzzle that will allow
one, either to reformulate (and thus to resolve) the great questions bequeathed
by philosophy in historical and empirical terms, or to effect a demonstratio a
fortiori, bearing on the case presumed to be the least favourable, so as to win
over the approval of even readers most restive to the model or to mode of
reasoning put forth.
Thus it is that, after having – in his dissertation thesis – climbed the
rock of morality said to be impregnable by positive study, Durkheim chooses
suicide as the object of a ‘study in sociology’. This tragic march along the
edge of one’s interior abyss at the end of which the individual, through
an intimate path inaccessible to the gaze ‘from outside’, comes to deprive
herself of that most precious good which is her life, ‘would seem to concern
psychology alone’. To demonstrate that such an ‘individual act which affects
only the individual himself ’ – and which poses in concrete, measurable,
terms two of philosophy’s perennial enigmas, that of death and that of the
will – is the resultant of social forces ‘of great generality’ is to demonstrate
at the same time that there is no behaviour which is not ‘the extension of a
social state’, and that sociological explanation can without harm leave aside
‘the individual as individual, his motives and his ideas’ (Durkheim, 1930
[1897]: 8, 33, and 148).
Bourdieu’s ‘suicide’ is the aesthetic disposition, the ‘love of art’ which
experiences itself as ‘freed from conditions and conditionings’, and which
properly defines bourgeois culture, or, more generally, taste, that other, but
more common, name for habitus.13 Here again, what is more personal,
100 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

more ineffable, more in-determinate (and thus seemingly undetermined)

than that capacity for discernment which, to borrow the idiom of Kant,
claims ‘universal validity’, although it arises out of that private reaction to
the objects of the world, which is the pleasure of the senses and seems,
by nature, to exclude all ‘decision by means of proof ’? Distinction draws a
vast ethnological tableau of the lifestyles and cultural propensities of social
classes in order to establish the structural homology that links, through the
mediation of the space of dispositions, the space of positions and the space
of position-takings in such varied domains as food and music, cosmetics and
politics, furniture, and conjugal love. Whence it turns out that, far from being
the inimitable signature of a free individual, taste is the form par excellence of
submission to social destiny. Now, if things at first glance as insignificant as
the manner of drinking one’s coffee and wiping one’s mouth at the table,
the reading of a newspaper and one’s favourite sport function as so many
marks of distinction, exterior signs of (interior) wealth, (cultural) capitals,
what practice can claim to escape this struggle over classifications that is the
hidden face of the class struggle?
As Durkheim before him, Bourdieu is fond of supporting his theoretical
schemas by means of binary comparisons between so-called ‘traditional’ or
‘precapitalist’ societies and ‘highly differentiated’ social formations (a furiously
Durkheimian designation), wherein recourse to ethnology serves as a technique of
sociological quasi-experimentation.14 It is well known that Durkheim chose the
Australian totemic system as the empirical basis for his quest for the collective
foundations of religious belief and, beyond, the social origin of the frameworks
of human understanding, because he saw in it ‘the most primitive and simple
religion that exists’ – thus, the one most apt to ‘reveal to us an essential and
permanent aspect of humanity’. The ‘very lack of refinement’ of the so-called
inferior religions, according to him, made of them ‘convenient experiments,
where the facts and their relations are easier to make out’ (Durkheim, 1960
[1912]: 2 and 11).
The Kabyle society, which Bourdieu, as an ethnosociologist, studied at
the height of the Algerian war of national liberation, and, to a lesser degree
(or less visibly, owing to a modesty that one suspects is both professional and
personal), the Béarn villages of his childhood, are, for him, what the totemic
clans of inner Australia were for Durkheim: a sort of ‘strategic research
site’ (as Robert Merton would say), capable of bringing to light in their
‘purified’ state, as if passed through a filter, mechanisms that it would be
too difficult – or too painful – to bring into focus in a more familiar social
environment. For Bourdieu, scrutinising the practices and symbolic relations
of weakly differentiated societies is the means for effecting a radicalisation of
the socioanalytical intention – i.e., for exposing the social unconscious nestled in
Durkheim and Bourdieu 101

the infolds of the body, cognitive categories, and institutions that seem most
innocent and anecdotic.
This radicalising function of ethnology is nowhere more noticeable than
in the analysis to which Bourdieu submits ‘masculine domination’ in the
course of a pivotal text that implicitly contains the core of his theory of
symbolic violence, as well as a paradigmatic illustration of the distinctive use
to which he turns the comparative method (Bourdieu, 1990).15 The mythico-
ritual practices of the Kabyle are distant enough that deciphering them
allows for a rigorous objectivation; yet they are near enough to facilitate that
‘participant objectivation’, which alone can trigger the return of the repressed
for which, as gendered beings, we are all depositories. Proof is found in those
homologies that one could not make up between the purest categories of the
purest philosophical and psychoanalytical thought (those of Kant, Sartre,
and Lacan), and the paired oppositions that organise the ritual acts, myths,
and oral tradition of the Berber-speaking mountain dwellers. ‘Ethnology
promotes astonishment before what passes most completely unnoticed – i.e.,
what is most profound and most profoundly unconscious in our ordinary
experience’ (Bourdieu, 1994b: 94).16 In that, it is, not an auxiliary, but an
indispensable ingredient of the sociological method. Bourdieu’s ethnological
detour is not, properly speaking, a detour, but a bypass liable to clear for us
an access to the social unthought that forms the invisible plinth of our ways
of doing and being.

Appendix: Bourdieu’s ‘Suicide’†

I have entitled my remarks ‘Bourdieu’s “Suicide”’ because Distinction is to
Pierre Bourdieu what Suicide was to Émile Durkheim: what Bacon calls an
experimentum crucis, a ‘critical experiment’ designed to demonstrate, first,
the generic potency of the sociological method – against the claims of
philosophy – and, second, the fecundity of a distinctive theoretical schema –
the theory of practice anchored by the conceptual triad of habitus, capital,
and field.
When Bourdieu undertakes his ‘critique of judgement’ (the subtitle of
Distinction, in reference to Immanuel Kant’s famous ‘Critique of Judgement’),
the notion of taste enjoys at best a marginal status in the social sciences. Apart
from Max Weber’s brief considerations on the ‘stylisation’ of life, Thorstein
Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption, and Norbert Elias’s (then-little
known) study of the ‘civilising process’, the notion has been abandoned to
philosophers of mind and aesthetics, on the one side, and to biologists, on the
other. It is deemed either too high or too lowly an object for the sociologist to
bother with.
102 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

In Distinction, and in related studies of cultural practices upon which it

builds (notably Photography: A Middle-Brow Art (1990 [1965]) and The Love
of Art: European Museums and their Public (1991 [1969])), Bourdieu effects a
Copernican revolution in the study of taste. He abolishes the sacred frontier
that makes legitimate culture a separate realm and repatriates aesthetic
consumption into everyday consumptions. He demonstrates that aesthetic
judgement is a social ability by virtue of both its genesis and its functioning.
In so doing, Bourdieu offers not only a radical ‘social critique of the
judgement’. He also delivers a graphic account of the workings of culture
and power in contemporary society. And he elaborates a theory of class that
fuses the Marxian insistence on economic determination with the Weberian
recognition of the distinctiveness of the cultural order and the Durkheimian
concern for classification.

(1) A Theory of Perception and Judgement

First, Bourdieu shows that, far from expressing some unique inner
sensibility of the individual, aesthetic judgement is an eminently social
faculty, resulting from class upbringing and education. To appreciate a
painting, a poem, or a symphony presupposes mastery of the specialised
symbolic code of which it is a materialisation, which, in turn, requires
possession of the proper kind of cultural capital. Mastery of this code can
be acquired by osmosis in one’s milieu of origin or by explicit teaching.
When it comes through native familiarity (as with the children of cultured
upper-class families), this trained capacity is experienced as an individual
gift, an innate inclination testifying to spiritual worth. The Kantian theory
of ‘pure aesthetic’, which philosophy presents as universal, is but a stylised –
and mystifying – account of this particular experience of the ‘love of art’
that the bourgeoisie owes to its privileged social position and condition
(this point is revisited in historical fashion in The Rules of Art, in which
Bourdieu retraces the historical genesis of the artistic field, which is the
‘objective’ counterpart to the emergence of the ‘pure’ aesthetic disposition
among privileged classes).

(2) Social Judgement as a Relational System of Oppositions

and Complementarities
A second major argument of Distinction is that the aesthetic sense exhibited
by different classes and class fractions, and the lifestyles associated with them,
define themselves in opposition to one another: taste is first and foremost the distaste
Durkheim and Bourdieu 103

of the tastes of others. (‘In matters of taste, more than in anywhere else, any
determination is negation: tastes are no doubt first and foremost distastes,
disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance (‘sick-making’) of the taste
of others’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 56). This is because any cultural practice –
wearing tweed or jeans, playing golf or soccer, going to museums or to auto
shows, listening to jazz or watching sitcoms, etc. – takes its social meaning,
and its ability to signify social difference and distance, not from some intrinsic
property it has but from its location in a system of like objects and practices.
To uncover the social logic of consumption thus requires establishing, not a
direct link between a given practice and a particular class category (e.g., horse
riding and the gentry), but the structural correspondences that obtain between
two constellations of relations, the space of lifestyles and the space of social
positions occupied by the different groups.

(3) A Theory of Social Space

Bourdieu reveals that this space of social positions is organised by two
crosscutting principles of differentiation – economic capital and cultural capital – whose
distribution defines the two oppositions that undergird major lines of cleavage
and conflict in advanced society. (We must note here that while Bourdieu’s
demonstration is carried out with French materials, his theoretical claims
apply to all differentiated societies. For pointers on how to extract general
propositions from Bourdieu’s specific findings on France and to adapt his
models to other countries and epochs, see ‘A Japanese Reading of Distinction’,
Bourdieu, 1995).
The first, vertical, division pits agents holding large volumes of either capital
(the dominant class), against those deprived of both (the dominated class).
The second, horizontal, opposition arises among the dominant, between those
who possess much economic capital but few cultural assets (business owners
and managers, who form the dominant fraction of the dominant class),
and those whose capital is pre-eminently cultural (intellectuals and artists,
who anchor the dominated fraction of the dominant class). Individuals and
families continually strive to maintain or improve their position in social space
by pursuing strategies of reconversion whereby they transmute or exchange
one species of capital into another. The conversion rate between the various
species of capital, set by such institutional mechanisms as the school system,
the labour market, and inheritance laws, turns out to be one of the central
stakes of social struggles, as each class or class fraction seeks to impose the
hierarchy of capital most favourable to its own endowment. (This is explored
further in Bourdieu, 1996 [1989].)
104 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

(4) Distinction, Necessity, and Cultural Goodwill:

Three Kinds of Class Taste
Having mapped out the structure of social space, Bourdieu demonstrates that
the hierarchy of lifestyles is the misrecognised retranslation of the hierarchy of classes.
To each major social position – bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, and popular –
corresponds a class habitus undergirding three broad kinds of tastes.
The ‘sense of distinction’ of the bourgeoisie is the manifestation, in the
symbolic order, of the latter’s distance from material necessity and long-
standing monopoly over scarce cultural goods. It accords primacy to form
over function, manner over matter, and celebrates the ‘pure pleasure’ of the
mind over the ‘coarse pleasure’ of the senses. More importantly, bourgeois
taste defines itself by negating the ‘taste of necessity’ of the working classes.
The latter may indeed be described as an inversion of the Kantian aesthetic:
it subordinates form to function and refuses to autonomise judgement
from practical concerns, art from everyday life (for instance, workers use
photography to solemnise the high points of collective life and prefer pictures
that are faithful renditions of reality over photos that pursue visual effects for
their own sake).
Caught in the intermediate zones of social space, the petty bourgeoisie
displays a taste characterised by ‘cultural goodwill’: they know what the
legitimate symbolic goods are but they do not know how to consume them
in the proper manner – with the ease and insouciance that comes from
familial habituation. They bow before the sanctity of bourgeois culture
but, because they do not master its code, they are perpetually at risk of
revealing their middling position in the very movement whereby they strive
to hide it by aping the practices of those above them in the economic and
cultural order.

(5) Cultural Consumption, the Hidden Dimension

of Class Struggle
But Bourdieu does not stop at drawing a map of social positions, tastes, and
their relationships. He shows that the contention between groups in the space of
lifestyles is a hidden, yet fundamental, dimension of class struggles. For to impose one’s
art of living is to impose at the same time principles of vision of the world that
legitimise inequality by making the divisions of social space appear rooted
in the inclinations of individuals rather than the underlying distribution
of capital. Against Marxist theory, which defines classes exclusively in the
economic sphere, by their position in the relations of production, Bourdieu
argues that classes arise in the conjunction of shared position in social space
Durkheim and Bourdieu 105

and shared dispositions actualised in the sphere of consumption: ‘The

representations that individuals and groups inevitably engage in their practices is
part and parcel of their social reality. A class is defined as much by its perceived
being as by its being’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 564). Insofar as they enter into
the very constitution of class, social classifications are instruments of symbolic
domination and constitute a central stake in the struggle between classes (and
class fractions), as each tries to gain control over the classificatory schemata
that command the power to conserve or change reality by preserving or
altering the representation of reality.
To conclude: Distinction provides a sociological answer (that is, a historical
and empirical answer) to one of the grand questions of philosophy – the
question of the origins and operations of judgement. It shows that, just as
suicide varies according to social factors, taste, far from being the ultimate
repository of spontaneous individuality, is a transfigured expression of
social necessity. By revealing taste as simultaneously weapon and stake in
the classification struggles whereby groups seek to maintain or improve
their position in society by imposing their lifestyle as the sole legitimate
art de vivre, Bourdieu brings homo aestheticus back into the world of the
mundane, the common and the contested – i.e. back in the heartland of
social science.
In the course of this demonstration, Distinction puts forth and illustrates
a historicist theory of knowledge (encapsulated by the idea of practical sense,
which is the original title of The Logic of Practice, the companion volume
to Distinction), a dispositional theory of action (anchored by the notion of
habitus) and a relational and agonistic conception of social space (summed
up by the concept of field). And it unties the vexed nexus of culture, power,
and identity in modern society. All in all, not a bad recipe for attaining
classical status.

Summary
This chapter highlights some distinctive features of the French School of
sociology by uncovering four principles that support the works of Émile
Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu: (1) the fierce attachment to rationalism,
(2) the refusal of pure theory and the defence of the undividedness of
social science, (3) the relation to historicity and historiography, and (4) the
recourse to ethnology as a privileged device for ‘indirect experimentation’.
It is argued that Bourdieu both relies on and twists those pillar-principles
to support a scientific edifice endowed with an original architecture, at
once closely akin to and sharply different from that of the Durkheimian
mother-house.
106 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Notes
* Published in Bridget Fowler (ed.) (2000) Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture, Oxford:
Blackwell/Sociological Review, pp. 105–119.
1 Bourdieu warned against that ‘classificatory functioning of academic thought’
(Bourdieu, 1987: 38), which inclined one to wield theoretical labels as so many weapons
of intellectual terrorism (‘X is a Durkheimian’ can be taken to mean ‘X is only a vulgar
Durkheimian’ or again ‘X is already entirely contained in Durkheim’). The same
caveat would apply to Bourdieu’s relations to Marx, Weber, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, or
Wittgenstein.
2 On this point, see also Bourdieu (1994a) and Bourdieu (1998 [1994]) (esp. chapters 3
and 7), and the conference entitled ‘La cause de la science’, with which Bourdieu opens
the issue of the Actes de la recherches en sciences sociales devoted to ‘The Social History of
the Social Sciences’ (106–107, March 1995, pp. 3–10).
3 Cf. Bourdieu (1977: 405–411) [Bourdieu (1992 [1977])]; Bourdieu (1987a: 13–15 and
53–54); Bourdieu and Passeron (1968: 162–212).
4 For an interpretation of Durkheimism as ‘sociologised Kantianism’, see LaCapra
(1972); for a Kantian reading of Bourdieu, see Harrison (1993).
5 The first citation is from Bourdieu (1982: 29), the second from Durkheim (1930
[1897]: 349).
6 Bourdieu, Boltanski, Castel and Chamboredon (1965: 22) [= Bourdieu, Boltanski,
Castel and Chamboredon (1990 [1965])]; also on this point, Bourdieu (1973: 53–80),
and Bourdieu (1980a) [= Bourdieu (1990 [1980])], Book I.
7 Durkheim (1981 [1895]: 144) [= Durkheim (1982 [1895])], and Bourdieu
(1982: 25).
8 The first part of the citation is drawn from Durkheim (1930 [1893]: xxxix) [= Durkheim
(1984 [1893]): xxvi], the second from Bourdieu (1984: 7).
9 An excellent discussion of Durkheim’s relationship to history and historiography
can be found in Bellah (1958). For a partial inventory of Bourdieu’s views on
history, change, and time, see Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992: 79–81, 89–94,
101, and 132–140); Bourdieu (1990 [1980]: chapter 6); Bourdieu (1987a: 56–61);
Bourdieu (1994a: 76–80 and 169–174); Bourdieu, Chartier and Darnton (1985);
and Bourdieu (1995).
10 Durkheim (1896–1897: 139); Durkheim (1981 [1895]: 137–138) [= Durkheim
(1982 [1895]: 157)]; Durkheim (1968 [1908]: 199); and Filloux (1970 [1909]: 157),
respectively.
11 As Philip Abrams has rightly suggested in his book Historical Sociology (1982).
12 Bourdieu (1988) [= Bourdieu (1991 [1988])]; as well as Bourdieu (1983); and Bourdieu
(1994a), passim.
13 Bourdieu (1984 [1979]), and Bourdieu, Darbel and Schnapper (1969). (See the analysis
of Distinction as ‘Bourdieu’s Suicide’ in the appendix).
14 Bourdieu says that he conceived his comparative investigations of the matrimonial
customs of the peasants of Kabylia and of the Béarn as ‘a sort of epistemological
experimentation’ (Bourdieu, 1987a: 75). See also, for example, Bourdieu (1963) and
Bourdieu (1962). On the Durkheimian uses of ethnology, see Karady (1981).
15 One may read in the same vein the superb, if little read, article, ‘Reproduction interdite.
La dimension symbolique de la domination économique’, Études rurales 113–114
(1989c): 15–36.
Durkheim and Bourdieu 107

16 The methodical ‘ethnologisation’ of the familiar world can exercise a similar effect, cf.
the ‘Preface’ to the English edition of Homo academicus (Bourdieu, 1988 [1984]) and the
conclusion to La misère du monde (Bourdieu, 1993) [= Bourdieu (1999 [1993])].
† This appendix was originally prepared for the Panel on Classics of the Twentieth
Century, World Congress, International Sociological Association, Montréal, Canada,
28 July, 1999.

References
Abrams, Philip (1982) Historical Sociology, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Bellah, Robert N. (1958) ‘Durkheim and History’, American Sociological Review 24(4):
447–461.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1962) ‘Les relations entre les sexes dans la société paysanne’’ Les Temps
modernes 195: 307–331.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1963) ‘La société traditionelle. Attitude à l’égard du temps et conduite
économique’, Sociologie du travail 5(1): 24–44.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1973) ‘The Three Forms of Theoretical Knowledge’, Social Science
Information 12(1): 53–80.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) ‘Sur le pouvoir symbolique’, Annales ESC 32(3): 405–411.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980a) Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980b) ‘Le mort saisit le vif. Les relations entre l’histoire incorporée et
l’histoire réifiée’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 32–33: 3–14.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1981) ‘Men and Machines’, in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Victor
Cicourel (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and
Macro-Sociologies, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 304–317.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1982) Leçon sur la leçon, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1983) ‘Les sciences sociales et la philosophie’, Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales 47–48: 45–52.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984) Questions de sociologie, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1985) ‘The Genesis of the Concepts of “Habitus” and “Field”’,
Sociocriticism 2(2): 11–24.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987a) Choses dites, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987b) ‘Für eine Realpolitik der Vernunft’, in Sebastian Müller-Rolli (ed.)
Das Bildungswesen der Zukunft, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, pp. 229–234.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988) L’ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity
Press in association with Basil Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989a) ‘The Corporatism of the Universal: The Role of Intellectuals in
the Modern World’, Telos 81: 99–110.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989b) La noblesse d’État. Grandes Écoles et esprit de corps, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989c) ‘Reproduction interdite. La dimension symbolique de la
domination économique’, Études rurales 113–114: 15–36.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) ‘La domination masculine’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 84:
2–31.
108 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1987]) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) ‘The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason’, Sociological Forum 5(2):
3–26.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991 [1988]) The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger, trans. Peter Collier,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) Les règles de l’art, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992 [1977]) ‘On Symbolic Power’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Language and
Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B. Thompson, translated by Gino
Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 163–170.
Bourdieu, Pierre (ed.) (1993) La misère du monde, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1984]) Sociology in Question, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994a) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994b) ‘Division du travail, rapports sociaux de sexe et de pouvoir’,
Cahiers du GEDISST 11: 91–104.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1995) ‘Sur les rapports entre la sociologie et l’histoire en Allemagne et en
France’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106–107: 108–122.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1989]) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans.
Loretta Clough, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1992]) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans.
Susan Emanuel, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1994]) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Luc Boltanski, Robert Castel and Jean-Claude Chamboredon (1965)
Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Luc Boltanski, Robert Castel and Jean-Claude Chamboredon (1990 [1965])
Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, trans. Shaun Whiteside, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Roger Chartier and Robert Darnton (1985) ‘Dialogue à propos de
l’histoire culturelle’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 59: 86–93.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Darbel and Dominique Schnapper (1969) L’amour de l’art. Les musées
d’art européens et leur public, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Darbel and Dominique Schnapper (1991 [1969]) The Love of Art:
European Art Museums and Their Public, trans. Caroline Beattie and Nick Merriman,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1968) ‘Sociology and Philosophy in France
Since 1945: Death and Resurrection of a Philosophy Without Subject’, Social Research
34(1): 162–212.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Durkheim, Émile (1887) ‘L’enseignement de la philosophie dans les universités allemandes’,
Revue internationale de l’enseignement 13: 313–338, 423–440.
Durkheim, Émile (1896–1897) ‘Préface’, Année sociologique, reprinted in Journal sociologique,
Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1969.
Durkheim, Émile (1905–1906) Année sociologique, reprinted in Journal sociologique.
Durkheim and Bourdieu 109

Durkheim, Émile (1930 [1893]) De la division du travail social, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Durkheim, Émile (1930 [1897]) Le suicide. Étude de sociologie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Durkheim, Émile (1960 [1912]) Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Durkheim, Émile (1964) ‘Sociology’, in Kurt H. Wolff (ed.) Émile Durkheim: Essays on Sociology
and Philosophy, New York: Harper.
Durkheim, Émile (1966/1951 [1897]) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, trans. John A. Spaulding
and George Simpson, New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Émile (1968 [1908]) ‘Débat sur l’explication en histoire et en sociologie’, in
Viktor Karády (ed.) Textes (Vol. 1), Paris: Minuit.
Durkheim, Émile (1970 [1909]) ‘Sociologie et sciences sociales’, in J. C. Filloux (ed.)
La science sociale et l’action, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Durkheim, Émile (1981 [1895]) Les règles de la méthode sociologique, Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Durkheim, Émile (1982 [1895]) The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. W. D. Halls, First
American Edition, New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Émile (1984 [1893]) The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Halls, 2nd
Edition, New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Émile (2008 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. Carol Cosman,
edited by Mark S. Cladis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Filloux, J. C. (ed.) (1970 [1909]) La science sociale et l’action, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Harrison, Paul Raymond (1993) ‘Bourdieu and the Possibility of a Postmodern Sociology’,
Thesis Eleven 35: 36–50.
Karady, Victor (1981) ‘French Ethnology and the Durkheimian Breakthrough’, Journal of
the Anthropological Society of Oxford 12(3): 166–176.
LaCapra, Dominick (1972) Émile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
Wacquant, Loïc (1995) ‘Durkheim et Bourdieu : le socle commun et ses fissures’, Critique 51:
646–660, translation by Tarik Wareh (Chapter 4 in this volume).
CHAPTER FIVE
With Weber Against Weber:
In Conversation With Pierre Bourdieu1

Pierre Bourdieu, Franz Schultheis, and Andreas Pfeuffer

Translated by Simon Susen2

Question: When did you start to familiarise yourself with the work of Max
Weber? If I understand you correctly, this happened during your time in
Algeria. What sort of texts were you reading at that time?

Pierre Bourdieu: I began with Die protestantische Ethik. During that time, I was
working on a book which was intended to summarise my research on Algeria.
In Die protestantische Ethik there was an abundance of things on the traditional,
pre-capitalist ‘spirit’, and on economic behaviour – wonderful descriptions
which were very useful and indeed quite impressive. I drew on Weber’s work
in order to understand the M’zab, a stretch of land in the Arabic desert,
inhabited mainly by Kharijites, who are Muslims with a very ascetic – and
almost ‘Puritan’ – lifestyle and whom we might want to call ‘the Protestants of
Islam’, a religious current. This was really mind-boggling; this austerity with
regard to sexual morals and self-discipline. At the same time, these are really
prosperous and forward-looking traders; in fact, a lot of the small businesses
in North Africa belong to them. I was astounded by the typically Weberian
connection between religious asceticism and this very smooth adjustment to
new conditions. By the way, similar to the Calvinist Puritans, these people are
highly educated: they read a lot, they read the Qur’an, almost all of the children
go to school, and most of them are bilingual in Arabic and French. Then, in
Travail et travailleurs en Algérie, I described the typical Algerian merchant; the
Moabites were the role model.

Question: Where did you get hold of a copy of Die protestantische Ethik?
I mean, at that time, translations of Weber’s work did not exist in France.
112 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Pierre Bourdieu: There were no translations at all. You could not even
find the German editions in the libraries. A friend of mine sent me the book,
and I started reading it very thoroughly; I learned German and translated
entire sections. I did not find the French translations, which were published
later, particularly helpful; it seemed to me that the German text was much
richer, more precise; the first available translations, especially the one of
Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, conveyed a rather distorted view of
Weber’s work.

Question: How did you come across Weber’s work?

Pierre Bourdieu: That was through Merleau-Ponty’s Les aventures de la

dialectique, which I found really impressive. This book had a strong impact
on me in my youth, and I remember there being a brief chapter in which he
talked about Weber. I think this was the first time I had heard about Weber.

Question: And then, what happened after Algeria? You became an assistant
to Raymond Aron, who made Weber famous in France, in his own way…

Pierre Bourdieu: First, I went to Lille, where I gave this strange kind of
course on the history of sociological thought: Marx, Durkheim, Weber,
Pareto – outrageous, an insane job! Then I met Aron; that’s correct. And
this appreciation of Weber’s work was something we had in common, until
I realised that the Weber with whom I was concerned was very different from
the Weber in whom Aron was interested. I then began to deal with Weber’s
writings on science at the Sorbonne.

Question: Was this Weber’s Politik als Beruf or his Wissenschaftslehre?

Pierre Bourdieu: It was his Wissenschaftslehre. This was him, Aron’s

‘neo-Kantian’ Weber, preoccupied with the conditions of possibility of
‘understanding’, and all that kind of stuff. Aron’s entire oeuvre goes into
this aspect in great detail; but, in those days, this was quite natural, given the
omnipresence of the rationalist tradition in French philosophy and given that
Aron was one of Brunschvicg’s students; this was his Weber. He hardly knew
Weber’s Religionssoziologie or his Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen. I had already
studied, and partly translated, these writings during my time at Lille: the
introduction to Die protestantische Ethik, some sections of the Wissenschaftslehre,
and also a few sections from Weber’s Religionssoziologie. In any case, it soon
became clear to me that Aron and I had very different ways of looking at
things: my Weber was opposed to Aron’s Weber. It is staggering that Aron was
hardly familiar at all with Weber’s Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
With Weber Against Weber 113

Question: As a foreign observer, one sometimes gets the impression that

there were two ‘Webers’, two logics of reception: one conservative Weber,
who had already been introduced by Aron; perhaps this is a bit exaggerated,
but a Weber ‘against’ Durkheim. Anyhow, Weber seems to have made more of
an impression than Durkheim. How was it possible that Durkheim had been
so easily eclipsed by this interpretation of Weber?

Pierre Bourdieu: It is not easy to explain this, at least not if one forgets the
struggles that were taking place in the French intellectual field at the time.
With regard to Durkheim, I am under the impression that behind Weber
one senses the full weight of German philosophy: Kant and others. Weber,
in this respect, appears to be much more ‘aristocratic’ than Durkheim,
who has always been stigmatised as a ‘positivist’. Weber was much more
attractive. In Weber there is ‘charisma’, there is a ‘difference’; Durkheim
is about ‘ethnology’, ‘the primitive’. Weber wrote about ‘world religions’,
‘advanced civilisations’, ‘charisma’, and ‘manna’ – a contrast which may have
contributed to the fact that Weber is the more inspiring thinker. Weber is less
‘schoolmasterly’, less ‘prosaic’.
And then we must not forget that, after the Second World War, existentialism
and phenomenology began to develop a tremendous power: Sartre, and
everything that came after him; a return to ‘authenticity’, which was opposed
to – rationalistically inspired – scholastic philosophy and which at the same
time brought, with Sartre, a model of the intellectual into play which has
had, and continues to have, an effect until the present day; a certain radical
chic that coincided with the rediscovery of Hegel and Marx and, hence, with a
spectacular expansion of Marxism.
If Weber used to be stigmatised as a ‘conservative’, then in the sense
of a thinker whose work was referred to by the orthodoxy at the time: the
‘methodological individualist’, the ‘bourgeois philosophy’. Their complete
ignorance of his oeuvre never prevented French intellectuals from condemning
Weber. In support of Marx, one saw in Weber – who says somewhere that
whenever he deals with the primacy of ‘the economic’ he considers himself
a Marxist – the advocate of a spiritualist philosophy of history. Of course, this
interpretation was based on a simplistic reading of Die protestantische Ethik. If
the orthodoxy referred exclusively to his Wissenschaftslehre, then what was left
of Weber?
For the philosophers of ‘existence’, he was ‘only’ a sociologist. It was
clear that amongst Marxists, and many believed to be Marxist at the time,
Weber was completely impossible. I remember having conversations – in the
early and mid 1960s – in which I often said that it would be barely possible
to do sociology without any knowledge of Weber; although this would
then be recognised on every occasion – ‘yes, sure; Weber is tremendously
114 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

important’ –, when one would try to discuss Weber in a more serious manner,
it would soon become apparent that people hardly knew anything about
his work. Even Althusser confirmed this when acknowledging that Weber
was not taken seriously by Marxists and when confessing that he himself
had not read Weber’s work. Weber was perceived as ‘right-wing’. Obviously,
because it was Aron who had made him famous in France, not because
of the things that Weber had said himself. That made me mad, given that
it had been precisely his marvellous observations that had enchanted me.
I said to myself: ‘I am not right-wing; Weber is simply good!’

Question: Time and again, the struggles that took place in the intellectual
field during that period – between the academic, the traditionally rationalist
orthodoxy, on the one hand, and the ‘existentialist’, intellectual avant-garde,
on the other – sought to provoke people into political confessions.

Pierre Bourdieu: And yet, these were utterly artificial oppositions.

I believe it is possible to think with a thinker and to think, at the same
time, against him or her. This means that, in a radical way, we have to
challenge the classificatory, and hence political, logic in which – almost
everywhere – relations with the thoughts of the past are established. ‘For
Marx’, as Althusser wanted it to be, or ‘against Marx’. I am convinced that
it is possible to think with Marx against Marx, or with Durkheim against
Durkheim; and surely also with Marx and Durkheim against Weber, and
vice versa. It is not because I have a proclivity for the paradoxical that
I want to suggest that Weber accomplished Marxist purposes where Marx
was unable to redeem them. This is particularly true with regard to the
sociology of religion, which is certainly not one of Marx’s strengths. Weber,
in this respect, develops a genuine ‘Political Economy of Religion’, an
astonishingly materialist view of the phenomenon, but without wanting to
deprive it of its curious symbolic nature. When he says, for instance, that
the Church presents itself as the ‘monopoly’ of legitimate distribution of
‘sacred goods’, he provides us with extraordinarily valuable insights which
go far beyond a reductive economistic imaginary.

Question: And the ‘right-wing’ orthodoxy…?

Pierre Bourdieu: When I wrote my first article on Weber’s sociology of

religion for the Archives européennes de sociologie, I encountered a few difficulties. It
was closely related to the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, and there
was a sort of fetishism about the ‘great’ thinker Weber. The editorial board
consisted of eminent people like Aron, Crozier, and Dahrendorf, but I was not
With Weber Against Weber 115

a member. It was quite a conservative journal. And I had my article; Aron,

however, said to me: ‘There is no way you can publish it like this. I really do
not agree with it.’ In fact, he said I would convert Weber into a ‘lefty’. I replied
that when I talk about ‘the theodicy of privilege’ it is not me but Weber who
is talking and that everything which appears in inverted commas is Weber’s,
rather than my, voice. All I had done was to call things, which people refused
to take into account, by their real names! Eventually, Aron let the article pass;
and some time after its publication I received a long and enthusiastic letter
from Randall Collins, in which he wrote that I had wrenched Weber from
the conservatives, that I had presented a much more genuine Weber, and that
this was extremely important for sociology. By the way, Aron allowed me to
teach – primarily – Durkheim, but never Weber, when I would have preferred
to give lectures on Weber…!

Question: …subsuming Weber under the title ‘sociology of domination’, in

the broadest sense…

Pierre Bourdieu: …yes, that’s exactly right…

Question: …you identify with this notion.

Pierre Bourdieu: Yes, of course. Why shouldn’t I? Back then, in Lille, I gave
this course on ‘From Marx to Durkheim, Pareto, and Weber’; again and again
in relation to Marx. Without wanting to overemphasise this point here, it seems
to me that the foundational call for all these thinkers came from Marx.

Question: If we take Durkheim and Weber, who deliberately ignored one

another: there is no doubt that there are a lot of commonalities between them;
in both cases, for example, religion was a primary concern. How do you see this
key role which the sociology of religion plays with regard to the birth of sociology
in general? The social sciences come into existence when the ‘disenchantment’
of the world becomes evident…

Pierre Bourdieu: There are a lot of connections here, but let me reiterate
this point; there is something which, at least in Weber, one can see very
clearly – and this is what has impressed me the most: the reference to Marx.
Weber seeks to close one of the gaps in Marxism. In Die protestantische Ethik
he asserts, roughly speaking, that he does not claim that his work explains
everything, but that it is only aimed at rectifying a picture which Marxism had
painted in a somewhat reductive fashion. In essence, Weber is concerned with
retrieving the symbolic dimension of social life – not as the primary and ultimate
116 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

dimension, but as a dimension which deserves its legitimate place in history.

Not least because of this, religion plays such a pivotal role: religion as ‘the
symbolic’ par excellence. Weber explores ‘the symbolic’; in fact, he has a try at a
materialist theory of ‘the symbolic’.

Question: It seems to me that we have now reached a point where you can
maybe explain a bit further what lies at the heart of your own works in the
sociology of religion. Obviously, Weber is of huge importance in this respect;
and the article that you wrote for the Archives européennes de sociologie focused on
Weber’s sociology of religion. In your second work on religion you used the
concept of ‘field’, in some detail, for the first time. Was Weber some kind of
‘stepping stone’ for this project?

Pierre Bourdieu: I got to know Weber’s work in Algeria. I found many

things in Die protestantische Ethik which helped me to understand such traditional
societies. When I returned from Algeria, Weber was somebody who had
already caught my attention; and then I started to teach Weber’s sociology
of religion based on his Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. I remember that, during the
course, everything just fell into place when covering and comparing different
religious ‘occupations’: the priest, the prophet, the sorcerer, and the laity.
I then drew a diagram on the blackboard and tried to capture the relations
between them. What does the priest do with the sorcerer and with the prophet?
He excommunicates them. What does the prophet do with the priest? He
threatens him with the power of ‘extraordinariness’. Quickly this became a
model of interactions, which seemed very plausible: it was the relations between
them which defined the respective ‘types’.
In a way, Weber had certainly been the main source of inspiration for this
whole scheme. Previously, I had run a seminar at the École Normale, which
focused on the literary field. At that time, I had already used the concept
of ‘field’, which allowed me to get a grip on some of the difficulties. What
came out of this seminar was my article Champ littéraire et projet créateur, which
was published in Temps modernes in a number on structuralism, although –
ultimately – this article had not really been ‘structuralist’ at all. It was not until
later that, during my course on Weber’s sociology of religion, the scales fell
from my eyes: we cannot make sense of this in interactionist terms, because
we are dealing with objective relations – that is, objective structures – which form
the base line for the ‘typical’ behaviour of the participants. After this, when
I read Weber’s Das antike Judentum, everything became more obvious. During
that period, I developed my first work on the sociology of religion; it was a
certain rupture, an improvement compared to the first attempt, which I had
made in Champ littéraire.
With Weber Against Weber 117

Question: Did the concept of ‘habitus’ play a decisive role in this process?

Pierre Bourdieu: Not really; the concept already exists in the works of
all the great sociologists: in Durkheim, in Mauss…fair enough, in Weber,
the concept is not particularly well developed, but on the other hand in his
work you can find immensely powerful descriptions, especially with regard
to traditional economic attitudes. For my study of Algeria, this was a real
treasure chest.

Question: But was Weber your source of inspiration for the development of
the concept of ‘field’?

Pierre Bourdieu: Not quite. Starting from Weber, the concept of ‘field’ had
to be turned against – and indeed go beyond – Weber, in order to cope with
the difficulty of explaining ‘typical’ – mutually related – forms of behaviour,
which can consolidate themselves without real ‘interactions’. In Weber, this
concept does not really exist; what does exist in his work, however, are these
insightful ‘personality and life order studies’; and at the end of every section
in his Religionssoziologie you can find an outline of the relations between
‘occupations’, not in a ‘structuralist’ way, but…

Question: …an inspiration…

Pierre Bourdieu: …without any doubt. I have always found Weber inspiring
and important. Yet, my work has, from the start, dealt with all sorts of different
‘sources’. When I am asked about the development of my work, I cannot
overemphasise this point. It is very common to reduce ‘Bourdieusian thought’
to a few key terms, and usually even just a few book titles, and this then leads
to a kind of closure: ‘reproduction’, ‘distinction’, ‘capital’, and ‘habitus’ – all
of these terms are often used in misleading ways, without really understanding
what they stand for, and hence they become slogans. In reality, however, these
concepts – these frameworks – are only principles for scientific work, which is
usually of mere practical nature; they are synthetic or synoptic notions, which
serve to provide research programmes with scientific orientations.
At the end of the day, the important thing is the research itself, that is, the
research on the subject matter itself. To be sure, one does have to treat these
things carefully; but, when dealing with these concepts, one cannot make any
progress without a respectful sense of freedom. I constantly try to improve my work.
Often, this is perceived as a form of endless repetition; for me, by contrast,
these are often tremendously important changes, no matter how insignificant
they may appear at first sight.
118 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

As far as the ‘sources’ are concerned, people may be surprised by

this, but I really proceed eclectically in this regard: I am engaged in reflexive
eclecticism. For me, it is not necessarily a contradiction to ‘borrow’ stuff
from everywhere: from Marx to Durkheim via Weber, as long as all this
leads to a certain theoretical coherence, which nowadays is castigated
as ‘totalitarian’ by the postmodernists. Besides, this ‘eclecticism’ is not
tantamount to randomness. If, for example, we look at Norbert Elias, it
seems to me that he is subject to excessive interpretation by a number
of people, precisely because it is not sufficiently clear how much this
thinker owes to other thinkers, in particular to Weber. In fact, a lot in
Elias is simply a commentary on Weber, and nevertheless this all remains
very stimulating.
There is hardly any study by myself that does not owe something,
in one way or another, to others; but of course this does not mean that,
consequently, nothing has been accomplished. One of the merits for which
I really give myself credit is the attempt to shed light on the extent to which
these theoretical debates, which often lead to a regrettable barrenness in
science, are based on socially ‘constructed’ oppositions. In this regard,
Bachelard used to talk about ‘epistemological pairs’, which cannot exist
independently from one another, but which at the same time impede genuine
scientific progress. The opposition between Marx and Weber, for example,
is usually a rather artificial one, and there is no reason why their respective
contributions should not be subject to cross-fertilisation. The same applies
to Durkheim and Weber. We need this conceptual integration, which every
forward-looking science is capable of producing.

Question: Let’s continue with these three figures: Marx, Durkheim, and
Weber. Where do you see their main contributions that have allowed you to
make progress in your sociology of religion and, based on it, your conception
of ‘the field’?

Pierre Bourdieu: As I have already mentioned, religion is certainly not the

forte of the Marxian oeuvre, and generally of the materialist approach, with
which Weber took issue. In Weber, the line of attack is in another direction.
Here, religion is the realm in which – more than in any other realm – both
the approach and the aspiration of sociology can be illustrated, where what is
seemingly most widely separated can be brought together, ‘the material’ and
‘the symbolic’, the correspondence of social and mental structures, collective
representations – and, eventually, in Weber. In Die protestantische Ethik, Weber is
primarily concerned with salvaging ‘the symbolic’ for a materialist conception
of history; and his Religionssoziologie is an exemplary way of bringing the
With Weber Against Weber 119

concrete forms of ‘religious labour’ together. At some points, they are even
a bit too concrete, but precisely the juxtaposition between these ‘types’
demonstrates very vividly what we are actually dealing with: the stakes in the
struggles over the monopoly of the legitimate power over the sacred goods. To be clear
about this: it is precisely Weber’s concrete, sometimes brutal, materialism –
that is, his break with the illusio – which is so incredibly insightful.

Question: Thus, Durkheim and Weber uncover – each in their own way,
in the realm of ideas, which seems to be so ‘removed’ from the world – the
‘worldly’ conditionality of our thoughts and actions. Does the religious field
lend itself so well to sociology also because it constitutes a realm in which the
leap from ‘the material’ to ‘the symbolic’ – to a ‘theodicy of the conditions of
existence’ – occurs in such a pure, original form?

Pierre Bourdieu: Of course, in this sense it is very useful. What one sees
here is the primitive form of capital accumulation or, if you like, of the
accumulation of symbolic capital. I think this is the way in which capital
begins to accumulate, initially in its symbolic form, and eventually in order to
be converted into other ‘types’ of capital. This is also the start of the conflicts
which then become essential to a given field…

Question: …and which consequently absorb other relations of domination.

If one conceives of ‘the sacred’ and ‘the profane’ in terms of an opposition, it
seems that this ‘classical’ antagonism crops up again and again in your works
on particular fields of cultural production…a continuous semantics…

Pierre Bourdieu: It is true that the religious field provides us with the
heuristic model par excellence to make sense of these relations – as a kind of
realised ‘ideal type’ of the field. I remember that, during my studies on Weber,
I stumbled across a book at some friends’ place. They possessed an old library,
where I saw this book: a ‘guide’ through Paris, composed of texts by famous
French authors, introduced by Hugo. There was a chapter in it by Sainte-
Beuve about the academies; and it said that the academies are like the Church
and the prophets, a metaphor, people spontaneously use these metaphors. It
talked about the ‘incrustation’ of these things, of ‘everydayness’. This contrast
is very powerful, in the struggles of art, politics; and, although it is not always
elaborated, it is omnipresent.

Question: Does this also mean that in religion we are confronted with a
substantive paradigm? To be exact, how do you conceive of the ‘subject
matter’ religion? Where does religion originate? Is there such a thing as a
120 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

religious need, about which Schleiermacher used to talk? Is there such a thing
as a ‘will to faith’, some sort of anthropological predisposition?

Pierre Bourdieu: I wrote something about this in my second contribution

to the religious field. This is obviously not a simple issue, but the question
is whether or not an answer to this problem is actually of any significance.
What came first? The need, or the world which – after all, in its own way and
in its own order – implants this need in us? I am satisfied with the Weberian
definition: religion is a systematic answer to the question of life and death.
Actually, this is a beautiful definition. To be sure, there are ‘existential’
questions that oblige us to reflect upon the ‘transcendental’ – and, hence,
the collective – conditions of the transcendental: questions about life and
death; the death of people whom we love; ‘ultimate’ questions; illness, human
suffering. These are all questions that people never manage to answer on their
own. Religion gives systematic answers to these questions – or rather quasi-
systematic answers, because they are not systematic as, for example, in logic.
Religion gives coherence to the ‘discontinuous’ events of our life; it bestows
abstract contingence with concrete coherence; in this respect, it resembles
philosophy, a ‘total’ explanation of the world…

Question: …which is smashed to pieces under the ‘dull compulsion’ as we

know it today…in this regard, Weber is more radical than Marx…

Pierre Bourdieu: …and he is right! In Algeria this became very clear to

me: people who lived in a religious universe, and who were unexpectedly
confronted with an economic universe; all of a sudden they had to resolve
ineluctably difficult questions, questions to which religion provided ready
answers. ‘Should I wear a tie?’ ‘And, if I wear one, do I subjugate myself to the
colonisers?’ Or the haircut: ‘If I choose the imported haircut, do I then look
like somebody “from yesterday”?’ In this respect, the Turkish haircut was a
solution; since Ataturk, the Turks belonged to the ‘modern people’; and, at the
same time, it was in accordance with Islamic tradition – although, at the end
of the day, in such a historical setting everything causes difficulties, everything
becomes a problem…

Question: …the contact with a foreign culture…

Pierre Bourdieu: …exactly. Everything seems to indicate that the great

philosophical revolutions emerged out of such situations; in the Greek
societies, the big controversies over what is determined by nature or law;
this comes to the surface when people – ultimately, tribes, which have different
With Weber Against Weber 121

laws – encounter one another. If some do certain things in one way, and others
do these things in another way, then you start having doubts: it does not have
to be – that is, it is not necessarily – like this or like that. I have seen societies
in which all of the behavioural patterns were consecrated by the power of
truth; and suddenly others arrive who do it not only differently, but who do
not even have an idea of how ‘true’ this is. Traditional societies have no idea
of other traditions.

Question: Like us…

Pierre Bourdieu: Like us; there are things that hardly change. Yet, when you
suddenly encounter people whose behaviour and ‘self-ordering’ are different,
then the philosophers emerge: there are those who say ‘no, it must remain as
it was’ and others who say ‘no, this is true’. This is the origin of philosophy. In
these situations, religions are very important, because they tell you what needs
to be done and how it needs to be done: a selective practice that permeates
even the smallest things, which then acquire an overriding importance. If you
do not wear a head covering, you run the risk of being beaten to death, and
this is not an anecdote…

Question: …because one facilitates the cultivation of a kind of ‘sociological

awareness’. One drags religious symbols, which have an abstract nature,
into the light of social relations and thereby makes sense of them within a
‘sociological’ framework.

Pierre Bourdieu: Exactly. Maybe this definition is a bit reductive, but I have
described religion as relations of feelings, which have to be experienced, and of
meanings, which do have meaning. In Algeria this was better than living with
the agony of having to be ‘experienced’…

Question: …a theodicy of ‘the negatively privileged’. It is even more astonishing

that this dimension of domination, which is omnipresent in Weber’s work, has
hardly contributed to a ‘left-wing’ – i.e. a critical – reading of Weber.

Pierre Bourdieu: Perhaps this is because, as a ‘foreigner’, I had fewer

reservations. The dance of the autochthons for their great ancestors is
performed with much more doggedness, but I am not an exegete. I did not
want to say what ‘the truth’ is about Weber. This is not my job; I conceive
of myself as a researcher; I search for ‘food for thought’, for research ‘tools’.
Weber may well have said a few stupidities, but what I read of him was rather
insightful. Or, for example, Simmel, who is perhaps not a ‘great’ thinker, but
122 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

there are some thrilling and powerful elements in his work, some reflexive
devices; I gladly accept such propositions…as long as the person was not a
monster. I have been told that Weber was a conservative; this, however, has
not particularly impressed me. What I read by him – for instance, his work on
the East Elbian peasants – had been written in a context which might have
given rise to a ‘conservative’ reading of his work. Yet, against the background
of political history, it seemed rather progressive. I was not very familiar with
these things at the time; this was not my history. Had I been German, this
might have been different: I would have been in a better position to judge
Weber’s role in the academic world and in the political world. But never mind,
this gave me a sense of freedom to which many German sociologists were not
entitled. In addition, when – after a few years – I returned from Algeria, I was
even a bit of a stranger myself in France: the classificatory fervour, with which
the struggles within the intellectual field were fought there, this was – after
everything I had experienced – incomprehensible.
Another aspect which has always impressed me about Weber is the fact
that he granted himself incredible liberties in relation to the scholarly world.
In Wissenschaft als Beruf, Max Weber said some extraordinary things of an
almost brutal sincerity. When I was selected by the CNRS to be honoured
for my work, I quoted a few sentences from Weber in my speech – sentences
which were quite fierce. After this event, some people told me: ‘What you
have just poured out there is unbelievable. You cannot say this sort of thing
in the presence of all the dignitaries, of the ministers, of the director of the
École Normale, of the Collège de France’ – in the presence of all of my colleagues!
Phrases of such ruthless and brutal candour! It is mindboggling that Weber
really said these things at the time. The scholarly world is full of people who
behave like revolutionaries when they deal with things that do not concern them
directly and like conservatives when they have a personal stake in the matter.
In any case, I was fully invested in these lectures, and I delivered them with
passion. In former times, I was not very familiar with the cultural background.
It was not until I started to engage with the work of Heidegger that a lot of
these things became clear to me. It was easier for me to understand what it
actually meant to say these things at the time, and I admire Weber more and
more for that reason, as he was really very courageous.

Question: Weber used to say a lot of things against his own ‘status group’…

Pierre Bourdieu: …tremendously radical. Often one is called ‘right-wing’

when one says the truth about the ‘left’. I have already suggested some time
ago that intellectuals are the dominated stratum amongst the dominant
groups; but this was inconceivable, because intellectuals were regarded as ‘out
With Weber Against Weber 123

of the game’, ‘sublime’, ‘free’, ‘disinterested’, ‘creative’ – anything you want.

Maybe this explains the label of the ‘right-winger’. Weber says things about
intellectuals…but what is ‘conservative’ in his writings?

Question: The ‘context’ played a much less significant role in the reception
of Nietzsche in France; quite the opposite…

Pierre Bourdieu: What applies to Durkheim in relation to Weber also

applies to the perception of the relation between Weber and Nietzsche. The
latter is much more suitable for grandiose philosophical platitudes than the
former. If the epistemological meta-discourse, which has also been forced
upon Weber, has for a long time – maybe up to the present day – obscured
scientific practice (such as Weber’s extraordinary effort to provide an outline
of a historical sociology or sociological history of religion, the economy, and
law), then Weber’s ‘charisma’, this ‘miracle’ of the German University, stands
behind the philosophical autodidact Nietzsche. Nietzsche is engulfed by the
radical chic – by the way, in France even more so than in Germany itself. Weber,
who has been – not only for me – a sort of intellectual shock, has had such a
tremendous impact because what lingers behind his fundamental questions is
a whole universe of worldwide knowledge about all kinds of cultures. Weber is
the incarnation of comparative method, with all its array of social premises. In
any case, Weber refers to reflexive scientific practice – an exercise with which
French post-war philosophy refused to engage. You could draw on Hegel’s
Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts or on Nietzsche’s Genealogie der Moral, but on
Weber? And all this despite the fact that, in more than one respect, Weber goes
far beyond these works…

Question: …maybe this is yet another issue concerning the relationship

between Weber and Nietzsche. Recently, there have been a number of
studies which have presented Weber much more definitely against this
background, against this ‘mood of the time’, which was not least shaped by
Hegel. The impression that Nietzsche made on Weber seems rather essential
in this respect.

Pierre Bourdieu: Weber and Nietzsche share a number of views and

opinions. Of course, there are also some objective connections. What I have
in mind, for instance, is Nietzsche’s philosophy of resentment – which is, by
the way, itself nourished by resentment – but also the way in which Weber
describes the religions of redemption: all those things about ‘the feeling of
dignity’, ‘the way of life’, most likely perhaps the whole vocabulary about
power, of struggle, ‘the heroic’. Yet, one should not allow oneself to be
124 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

deceived by all this, by the commonality of ‘attitude’. In Weber, this is all

much more thought out, more organised, more saturated. In Nietzsche, by
contrast, the concept of power is so shapeless and vague. In Weber’s Wirtschaft
und Gesellschaft there is a section in which, when putting forward his concept
of ‘domination’, he discards the concept of power, which – as he sees it – is of
no use for a sharp sociological concept formation…

Question: …as a ‘spontaneous sociologist’, however, Nietzsche is quite

remarkable…

Pierre Bourdieu: …and yet, this is precisely what has never really impressed
the Nietzscheans – at least not in France. I remember a conversation with
Foucault in which he tried to identify the main sources of his own intellectual
passions – in his search for a way out of the cul-de-sac of traditional
philosophy. For him, the great shock was caused by Nietzsche’s Genealogie der
Moral. In my case, this was not the same: I had different inclinations, which
were derived from Weber and Durkheim. To be sure, it is possible to read
Nietzsche in a ‘positivist’ way, as a moral sociology, but to me this seemed to be
too limited, very intuitive. This sort of thing had much more of an ‘impact’ on
the philosophers; Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger. There were not many
philosophers who remained unimpressed by this. I found Merleau-Ponty more
inspiring; and, in his work, Weber was not presented as an ‘epistemologist’ or
as an ‘interpretive’ sociologist. The whole phenomenological obscurantism;
Sartre and existentialism; the heroic aesthetics in Nietzsche; the salvation of a
philosophy of the subject – I have always found all of this quite dumb. I have
never really been on this trip. For me, Weber is about science, and in the best
sense of the term!

Notes
1 Original Publication: Pierre Bourdieu, ‘Mit Weber gegen Weber: Pierre Bourdieu im
Gespräch’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Das religiöse Feld. Texte zur Ökonomie des Heilsgeschehens
(herausgegeben von Franz Schultheis, Andreas Pfeuffer und Stephan Egger, übersetzt
von Stephan Egger, Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 2000), pp. 111–129. The
interview was conducted by Franz Schultheis and Andreas Pfeuffer and took place in a
café on Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris in the spring of 1999.
2 I am grateful to Bryan S. Turner and Loïc Wacquant for their detailed comments on
this translation. I would also like to thank William Outhwaite for making many useful
suggestions. I am deeply indebted to Stephan Egger for providing me with the original
(French) audio version of this interview.
CHAPTER SIX
Bourdieu and Nietzsche: Taste as a Struggle

Keijo Rahkonen

The sociologist’s privilege, if he has one, is not that of trying to be suspended

above those whom he classifies, but that of knowing that he is classified and
knowing roughly where he stands in the classifications. When people who think
they will win an easy revenge ask me what are my tastes in paintings or music,
I reply, quite seriously: those that correspond to my place in the classification.
(Bourdieu, 1993 [1984]: 44–45)

This chapter makes a comparison, which from a sociological perspective

might appear a little surprising: it is between Pierre Bourdieu’s and Friedrich
Nietzsche’s respective conceptions of ‘power’ and ‘taste’. The aim is to show
that there is an interesting resemblance between the two with regard to these
conceptions in general, and to ‘struggle for power’, ‘ressentiment’ and ‘will to
power’ in particular, and thus to shed light on some key aspects of Bourdieu’s
thinking. The order of the dramatis personae in this analysis is no accident:
Bourdieu and Nietzsche. This alludes to the fact that the discussion that
follows is primarily about what lies behind Bourdieu’s sociological, rather than
Nietzsche’s philosophical, conceptions of taste and power. Thus, Nietzsche is
read, first and foremost, from a sociological perspective.

Pierre Bourdieu’s Taste

There were no sociological disputes about the concept of taste before the
publication of Pierre Bourdieu’s studies on the subject. Thus, one has good
reason to argue that his Distinction (1984 [1979]) and the preliminary studies
from the 1960s (Bourdieu et al., 1990 [1965]; Bourdieu et al., 1991 [1966];
Bourdieu, 1968; and Bourdieu and de Saint Martin, 1976) were the first
attempts to provide a genuinely sociological interpretation. Max Weber’s
remarks about the ‘stylisation of life’, Georg Simmel’s studies on fashion and
126 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

‘Vornehmheit’, or ‘distinction’ as Tom Bottomore and David Frisby translated

it in Simmel’s Philosophy of Money (Simmel, 1990 [1900]), Thorstein Veblen’s
theory of ‘conspicuous consumption’, and Norbert Elias’s interpretation of
the ‘civilisation process’ do touch on the question of taste, but none of these
accounts deal with it in an explicit, let alone systematic fashion (Elias, 1994
[1939]). It has been studied and commented on more in the fields of aesthetics,
philosophy and art history. For example, the entry on taste published in the
International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (Wenzel, 1968) describes it – together
with smell – merely as a physico-chemical phenomenon. It would thus appear
to be justified to characterise – as Loïc Wacquant does – Bourdieu’s Distinction
as a ‘Copernican revolution in the study of taste’ (Wacquant, 1993: 663).
Generally speaking, Bourdieu extends Durkheim’s programme in arguing
that ‘[t]here exists a correspondence between social structure and mental
structures’ (Bourdieu, 1989: 7; Wacquant, 1992: 12–14). In so doing he converts
Immanuel Kant’s Third Critique – in other words the Kritik der Urteilskraft – into
a sociological programme or, to be exact, into a ‘sociology of aesthetics’, as
Hans-Peter Müller calls it (Müller, 1992a: 300).
Bourdieu considered taste to be one of the main battlefields in the cultural
reproduction and legitimation of power. Taste represents the concealed
exercise of power; it is a ‘matter of course’, the ‘natural difference’ that has
grown apart from the social. Attempts at a sociological explanation of these
self-evident relations are usually denounced as pointless by people who have
something to gain in mystifying the relation between taste and education
(or some other social factors).
Bourdieu conceives of everyday life as a constant struggle over the final
word in determining what is ‘good’ taste, taste that claims to be ‘universal’.
This struggle is a cultural game that no one can escape: ‘[…] taste is the basis
of all that one has – people and things – and all that one is for others, whereby
one classifies oneself and is classified by others’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]:
56). He indentifies three different kinds (universes) of taste, which ‘roughly
correspond to educational levels and social classes’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]:
16). At best, these different ‘universes’ or distinctions manifest themselves in
the field of music, which he uses as an illustrative example (see Bourdieu, 1984
[1979]: 13–18).
The first universe refers to the ‘pure’ taste, in other words the taste whose
cultural objects are ‘legitimate’, as expressed in ‘highbrow culture’. It is most
often found in the factions of the dominant class with the greatest educational
capital. The second universe concerns the ‘middle-brow’ taste (le goût ‘moye’),
directed to more common and less valuable objects, and the third manifested
in ‘popular’ or ‘vulgar’ taste, which is represented by objects that lack all
artistic ambition (e.g. ‘pop culture’). This kind of taste is spontaneous like
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 127

‘anti-Kantian aesthetic’; it is ‘barbaric’ in the very sense that Kant gave it (Kant,
1966 [1790]: 99; in English: Kant, 1987 [1790]: 69; § 13; cf. Bourdieu, 1984
[1979]: 41–43). There is another important feature here: the self-exclusion
of this third taste from ‘taste’ itself. It does not (re)present itself as taste at
all – except in the specific case of the artistic aestheticising of kitsch, but then
it moves to the side of good taste or ‘avant-garde’. As the Rolling Stones put it
briefly and pithily: ‘It’s only rock ‘n roll (but I like it)’.
Correspondingly, Bourdieu identifies three general attitudes or ‘dispositions’
towards culture, each connected to a given class position. The dominant class
has a ‘sense of distinction’, the middle class (the ‘new petty bourgeoisie’)
has ‘cultural goodwill’ (‘bonne volonté culturelle’), and the lower classes (‘classes
populaires’) are left with the ‘necessary choice’. The dominant class strives to
distinguish itself from those representing other taste categories: the line of
demarcation runs between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – that is, between ‘sophisticated’
and ‘barbarian’ – taste. Which distinction is most refined at any moment of
time is defined by the avant-garde. At the stage when popular taste finally
comes to embrace what used to be good taste, taste has turned from ‘pure’
to ‘vulgar’. This mechanism thus appears to bear a certain resemblance to
Simmel’s description of fashion (Simmel, 1983 [1895]) although, interestingly,
Bourdieu makes no reference to Simmel in Distinction.

Bourdieu’s Critique of Kant

As the Kant-sounding subtitle of Bourdieu’s La distinction – namely, Critique
sociale du jugement (in the English translation1 the word ‘taste’ is added to the
subtitle: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste) – indicates, the book is a
direct critique – a ‘vulgar critique’, as Bourdieu puts it – of Immanuel Kant’s
aesthetics in general and of Kant’s Critique of Judgement in particular (Kant,
1966 [1790]; in English: Kant, 1987 [1790]). It is a social or sociological
critique of judgement. (Let us ignore the critical remarks of commentators
such as Crowther [1994] and Fowler [1994] about Bourdieu’s critique of
Kant, given that the aim in this chapter is not to evaluate its validity.)
It is worth bearing in mind that Bourdieu’s ‘vulgar’ (in other words
sociological) critique goes beyond Enlightenment philosophy. Indeed, it takes
a stand against it, questioning the very possibility of universal judgement. Yet,
he does not take a stand in favour of ‘vulgar’ taste, which may well lead to a
sociological version of ‘prolet-cult’ or ‘proletarian science’.
In Kantian terms, aesthetic judgement anticipates ‘common sense’ (sensus
communis) – or a kind of aesthetic community (on sensus communis, see also
Lyotard, 1991 [1987]) – judgement shared by everyone (Kant, 1966 [1790];
Kant, 1987 [1790], § 40; cf. also Gronow, 1997 and Müller, 1992b). Bourdieu
128 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

transforms this into a social community, or rather a social field, and Scott Lash
calls it a ‘reflexive community’ (Lash, 1994: 161).
In essence, Bourdieu argues that every aesthetic judgement is socially
determined. He thereby turns Kant’s antinomy concerning the principle of
taste – referring to the idea that taste is both subjective and objective – into
social antinomy: taste that is represented as both subjective and objective in fact
corresponds to one’s relationally defined position in the social universe. This
is precisely what Bourdieu criticises Kant for having neglected. Nevertheless,
Bourdieu’s theory of distinction is not a mere sociology of class. Indeed, as
he emphasises (see Bourdieu, 1989 [1988]: 407–409), it was never meant to
be, although at first sight it appears to be and has even been referred to be as
‘sociological reduction’. It rather resembles ‘reflexive sociology’ (cf. the title
of Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology), the aim of
which is to explore the unconscious of the social in terms of people’s habitus
and practices, and thereby uncover the ‘unthought’ (impensée).
At the end of Distinction, Bourdieu presents a systematic critique of Kant
under the title ‘Postscript: Towards a “Vulgar” Critique of “Pure” Critiques’
(Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 485–500). He also argues passionately against Jacques
Derrida’s ‘pure’ reading of Kant (Derrida, 1987), criticising him for taking a
position both inside and outside of the game (although one could criticise
Bourdieu for the same reason). Bourdieu (1984 [1979]: 499–500) writes:

In short, the philosophical sense of distinction is another form of the visceral

disgust at vulgarity which defines pure taste as an internalised social relationship,
a social relationship made flesh, and a philosophically distinguished reading
of the Critique of Judgement cannot be expected to uncover the social
relationship at the heart of a work that is rightly regarded as the very symbol
of philosophical distinction.

This ‘pure’ and ‘disinterested’ taste is distance-taking: it ‘asserts the absolute

primacy of form over function’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 30 and 56). What is
more, taste – ‘i.e., manifested preferences’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 56) – is
determined by negation, that is, by disgust:

In matters of taste, more than anywhere else, all determination is negation;

and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror
or visceral intolerance (‘sick-making’) of the tastes of others. ‘De gustibus non
est disputandum’: not because ‘tout les goûts sont dans la nature’, but because
each taste feels itself to be natural – and so it almost is, being a habitus – which
amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore vicious. (Bourdieu, 1984
[1979]: 56)
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 129

Bourdieu thus considers Kant’s principle of pure taste ‘nothing other than a
refusal, a disgust – a disgust for objects which impose enjoyment and a disgust
for the crude, vulgar taste which revels in this imposed enjoyment’ (Bourdieu,
1984 [1979]: 488).
It is interesting that Jean Baudrillard, one of the French ‘essayists’ Bourdieu
despised (Bourdieu, 1988 [1984]: xvi-xxvi and 279), stresses disgust à la
Bourdieu, even – à la Baudrillard indeed – extending his thesis further to
herald the end of tastes:

Nowadays, only dislike [dégoût] is determined, tastes do not come into it any more
[…]. The only source of what is beautiful and of renewal in fashion is ugly.
(Baudrillard, 1986: 5–6)2

Taste and Power

On a more general level, then, what lies behind Bourdieu’s own thinking is
his sociology of power in general and his sociology of symbolic power in
particular. Of course, taste is only one, albeit important, element of it (as in
the academic field; cf. Bourdieu, 1988 [1984]). As Loïc Wacquant, one of his
closest colleagues and interpreters (cf. Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; and
Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999 [1998]), puts it:

Classes and other antagonistic social collectives are continually engaged in

a struggle to impose the definition of the world that is most congruent with
their particular interests. The sociology of knowledge or of cultural forms is
eo ipso a political sociology, that is, a sociology of symbolic power. (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 14)

The struggle for (good) taste is a (symbolic) struggle for power, and this is even
true of truth itself: ‘if there is a truth, it is that truth is the stake of struggles
(enjeu des luttes)’ (Bourdieu, 1990: 297).
There is still one concept of Bourdieu that should be mentioned in this
context, and that is his concept of the ‘field’ (champ). He uses the notion ‘field
of power’ to avoid the problematic – arguably ‘substantialist’ – concept of the
‘ruling class’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 76n 16). He offered perhaps the
most explicit definition of this notion in his lecture ‘The Field of Power’, which
he delivered in English at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in April 1989:

The field of power is a field of forces defined by the structure of the existing
balance of forces between forms of power, or between different species of capital
[…]. It is also simultaneously a field of struggle for power among the holders of
130 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

different forms of power. It is a space of play and competition […]. The field
of power is organised as a chiasmatic structure: the distribution according to the
dominant principle of hierarchisation (economic capital) is inversely symmetrical
to the distribution according to the dominated principle of hierarchy (cultural
capital). (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 76n.16)

The concept of ‘field’ permeates Bourdieusian thought: it is a ‘system of

objective forces’, similar to a magnetic field. At the same time, however,
Bourdieu emphasises that sociology is not reducible to ‘social physics’
(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 17 and 100n 52). Bourdieu’s analogy
of a field game (champ-jeu) goes back to the work of Maurice Merleau-
Ponty. Merleau-Ponty’s concept of ‘field’ does not have major theoretical
significance, however, but simply denotes the field of sports (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 22n 39). Bourdieu points out that there is a major difference
between ‘a game’ and ‘a field’:

We can indeed, with caution, compare a field to a game ( jeu) although, unlike
the latter, a field is not the product of a deliberate act of creation, and it follows
rules or, better, regularities, that are not explicit and codified. (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 98)

The game itself is tantamount to a form of (social) poker rather than

roulette: although both demand a certain amount of (social, economic, and
cultural) capital, poker demands accumulation and strategies plus a ‘poker
face’ (habitus?).
Lash’s interpretation of Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and of the field as
a ‘reflexive community’ is referred to above. According to Lash, Bourdieu’s
sociology could be described as the sociology of the unconscious – the
unconsciousness not only of taste but also of habits and practices – and, as a
consequence, as the examination of taken-for-granted and unproblematised
categories and presuppositions (Lash, 1994: 153). This sociology of the
unconscious has had an influence on so-called reflexive anthropology, which
denounces objectivism, the realism of Lévi-Strauss and functionalism. It
means learning and knowing through habitus (which has the same root as
the French verb ‘habiter’). Moreover truth is neither conceptual nor mimetic;
it manifests itself in shared practices. Lash claims that Bourdieu operated ‘in
a fully different terrain than [...] aesthetic (Adorno, Nietzsche) reflexivity’
(Lash, 1994: 156).
As Lash put it, Bourdieu’s ‘fields’ are not filled with structures, agents,
discourses, subjects, or objects, but rather comprise habits, unconscious
and bodily practices, and ‘categories of the unthought’. The implication is
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 131

that classes and class fractions are involved in a struggle over background
assumptions, concerning habits and tastes, for example (which Lash – not
Bourdieu – calls ‘the ontological foundations of ideology’). In Bourdieu’s
view – following Lash’s argumentation – it is not class as a collective actor
that is involved in the struggle, but class as a collective habitus and a ‘form of
life’. Conceived of in this sense, class is not an organised actor with conscious
aspirations. It is rather a question of the ‘logic of practices’, which operates
not through institutional organisations but through shared meanings and
habits. Such meanings and habits do not constitute structures in any way
(Lash, 1994: 166).

Power and Ressentiment

Thus, there is something a rather paradoxical in Bourdieu’s thinking: on the
one hand he dismisses the idea of Kant’s ‘pure aesthetics’ on the basis of his
‘vulgar’ sociological critique, and on the other he develops his own ‘reflexive
sociology’ – similar to a ‘Münchhausian trick’ – making a case for disinterest.
He writes:

I believe that sociology, when it is reflexive, enables us to track down and to

destroy the last germs of ressentiment. [...] Sociology frees you from this kind
of sickly strategy of symbolic inversion because it compels you to ask: Do I not
write because […]. Isn’t the root of my revolt, my irony, my sarcasm, of the
rhetorical vibration of my adjectives when I describe Giscard d’Estaing playing
tennis [Bourdieu refers to his Distinction] the fact that, deep down, I envy what
he is? Ressentiment is for me the form par excellence of human misery; it is
the worst thing that the dominant impose on the dominated (perhaps the major
privilege of the dominant, in any social universe, is to be structurally freed from
ressentiment). Thus, for me, sociology is an instrument of liberation and therefore
of generosity. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 212)

As to Bourdieu’s Münchhausian trick – significantly, one of his ‘intellectual

heroes’ is Karl Kraus (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 212) – it is apparent in
the citation above that he is presenting his own version of disinterested and
‘pure’ sociology. Reflexive sociology – understood as the sociology of knowledge
and power – implies that nothing, including aesthetics, is disinterested except
sociology. As a sociologist Bourdieu did not think that he stood above all
classifications (cf. the motto of this chapter), but his sociology does not take
a stand in favour of any class. Free from ressentiment he could afford to look
at things disinterestedly – in other words scientifically and reflexively – from
the viewpoint of truth. This is realised in concreto in his gigantic project on ‘the
132 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

misery of the world’ (La misère du monde; Bourdieu et al., 1999 [1993]). He thus
appears to be a ‘positivist’ in two senses of the term: first, he gives his reflexive
sociology the status of a queen among sciences, and secondly he presents his
own extensive research programme for empirical sociology.
In an interview on his book Homo Academicus, Bourdieu formulated perhaps
his most explicit standpoint concerning the sociological truths that underlie
objectively existing situations in the social world. It is also his most explicit
anti-autobiographic statement (cf. Bourdieu, 1986):

[T]he most intimate truth about what we are, the most unthinkable unthought
[impensée], is inscribed in the objectivity, and in the history, of the social
positions that we held in the past and that we presently occupy. (Bourdieu,
1989 [1988]: 25)

Yet, it is unclear how sociology in the Bourdieusian sense could avoid this
reduction back to social positions, or stand outside this objectivity, even as
a ‘free-floating’ sociology. In any case, Bourdieu appears to believe in the
possibility of a disinterested sociology, situated neither beyond good and evil
nor beyond truth and untruth (Bourdieu’s personal communication to the
author, 22 June 1993).

Nietzsche’s Taste
Philosophical taste neither replaces creation nor restrains it. On the contrary,
the creation of concepts calls for a taste that modulates it. The free creation of
determined concepts needs a taste for undermined concept. Taste is this power,
this being-potential of the concept […] Nietzsche sensed this relationship of the
creation of concepts with a specifically philosophical taste […]. (Deleuze and
Guattari, 1994: 78–79)

Despite the fact that there is an interesting ‘family resemblance’ – although

not in the strictly Wittgensteinian sense – between Bourdieu and Nietzsche
with regard to the concepts of power, taste and knowledge, it would be
erroneous to assume that everything in Bourdieu goes back to Nietzsche. He
refers to Nietzsche’s writings on several occasions, but none of his remarks – in
Distinction, for example – is relevant to the question of taste. In this sense one
cannot say that Bourdieu is Nietzschean. One could suggest, however, that in
Bourdieu’s thinking are some interesting elements that resemble to Nietzsche’s
conceptions of taste and power. It is not an entirely novel idea to claim that
Nietzsche had a significant influence on the history of sociology. In fact,
he had a strong impact particularly on the classic German scholars Tönnies
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 133

(who later became one of his critics), Simmel (see e.g. Lichtblau, 1984) and
Weber (Stauth and Turner, 1988; and Turner, 1992). As the saying goes: they
were all ‘sociologists after Nietzsche’.
On the other hand, traditionally Nietzsche has not been included
in the classics of sociology. In this sense it is interesting that – perhaps
for the first time in its 100-year history – the American Journal of Sociology
published an article (Antonio, 1995) dealing with the absence of Nietzsche
from sociological theory, especially in the United States. His influence is
widely recognised in Germany and France, as Louis Pinto’s analysis of the
reception of Nietzsche in France shows, for example (Pinto, 1995; see also
Goldman, 1993), even though Pinto has nothing to say about Bourdieu’s
relation to Nietzsche.
However, it is quite difficult to promote the idea of a specifically
Nietzschean conception of taste, although Deleuze and Guattari claim
that it was ‘philosophical’. For one thing, Nietzsche’s style is anything but
systematic, it is fragmented and aphoristic (cf. Deleuze, 1965; and Nehemas,
1985). Secondly, to this writer’s knowledge no study has been undertaken on
Nietzsche’s ‘philosophy of taste’.3
Nietzsche occasionally refers to taste in his books: in Beyond Good and Evil
(Nietzsche, 1990 [1886]), The Gay Science (Nietzsche, 1974 [1882]), On the
Genealogy of Morals (Nietzsche, 1967 [1887]), Nietzsche Contra Wagner (Nietzsche,
1968 [1895]), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Nietzsche, 1961 [1883–1885]) and the
so-called The Will to Power – i.e. his Nachlaß of the 1880s – as well as in his
aphoristic way of speaking. Nevertheless, there is much more material about
power than about taste in his literary production.
The key quotation from Nietzsche – which could serve as a motto for
Bourdieu’s Distinction – is to be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (‘Of the
Sublime Men’):

And do you tell me, friends, that there is no dispute over taste and tasting? But all
life is dispute over taste and tasting!
Taste: that is at the same time weight and scales and weigher; and woe to
all living creatures that want to live without dispute over weight and scales and
weigher! (Nietzsche, 1961 [1883–1885]: 140)

It is clear from the above quotation that Nietzsche conceived of ‘all life’
as a dispute about taste, and that one should not contest but rather accept
and admit that this is an incontrovertible fact. One could say that Bourdieu
agrees with Nietzsche to a large extent in considering taste to be a perpetual
struggle in modern society. For both of them it is ‘eternal’ and everlasting,
and there can be no reconciliation. This view is not far from Max Weber’s
134 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

conception of struggle, which expressed as follows in his speech ‘Science

as Vocation’ (1919):

And, since Nietzsche, we realise that something can be beautiful, not only in
spite of the aspect in which it is not good, but rather in that very aspect. [...] It is
commonplace to observe that something may be true although it is not beautiful
and not holy and not good. Indeed it may be true in precisely those aspects. But
all these are only the most elementary cases of the struggle [Kampf ] that the gods
of the various orders and values are engaged in. I do not know how one might
wish to decide ‘scientifically’ the value of French and German culture; for here,
too, different gods struggle [streiten] with one another, now and for all times. [...]
Many old gods ascend from their graves; they are disenchanted and hence take
the form of impersonal forces. They strive to gain power over our lives and again
they resume their eternal struggle [ewigen Kampf] with one another. (Weber, 1970
[1919]): 139–149; Weber, 1992 [1919]): 99–101)

Nietzsche and Bourdieu

There is little doubt that Nietzsche, like Bourdieu, could be regarded as an
anti-Kantian thinker. He attacks Kant’s aesthetic conception in his Genealogy of
Morals, especially the ‘predicates of beauty’: non-personality and universality.
Like Schopenhauer, he dismissed Kant’s definition of ‘beautiful’ as something
that pleased audiences in a disinterested fashion (ohne Interesse) (Nietzsche, 1967
[1887]: 844).
According to Nietzsche, one cannot watch ‘without interest’ because every
perception of the world is necessarily perspective-laden. Kant’s fundamental
mistake was thus to consider aesthetics from the viewpoint of the spectator, and
to include the spectator in the concept of ‘the beautiful’. Nietzsche confronts
Kant with the ‘experience of the artist (the creator)’. This is the view of a
real ‘spectator’ and artist, and Nietzsche preferred Stendhal’s definition of
beautiful as ‘une promesse de bonheur’ to Kant’s disinterestedness. Interestingly,
Bourdieu – in his Logic of Practice – quotes exclusively and sympathetically from
this section of Nietzsche’s critique of Kant (see Bourdieu, 1990 [1980]: 58).
Nietzsche deals with the change in common taste in the Gay Science (First
book, chapter 39; Nietzsche, 1963 [1882], 64f). He considers it more important
than change in opinion, which is only a symptom of changed tastes. How
then, does taste change? According to Nietzsche, it happens when influential
people project their own opinions and carry them through. Thus, when they
say that something is ridiculous and absurd, they are following the dictates
of their own taste and disgust. They subordinate people under power that
gradually takes in increasingly large numbers and finally becomes indispensible
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 135

(Nietzsche, 1963 [1882]: 64f). This interpretation of changing tastes is rather

unsubtle, but there are similar elements here and in Bourdieu’s analysis, such as
the implementation of ‘legitimate taste’ by the dominant faction, and especially
the manifestation of taste judgements through negation and disgust.
Nietzsche writes: ‘[T]heir hoc est ridiculum, hoc est absurdum […]. They [i.e.
powerful and influential persons] thereby lay a constraint upon many people,
out of which there gradually grows a habituation for still more, and finally a
necessity for all’ (Nietzsche, 1963 [1882]): 64). A sociological interpretation of
‘constraint’ (Zwang) as an abstract social pressure brings Nietzsche’s conception
close to Bourdieu’s thinking. The same applies to Nietzsche’s conceptions of
‘habituation’ (Gewöhnung) and ‘necessity’ (Bedürfnis), which are somewhat similar
to Bourdieu’s conceptions of ‘habitus’ and ‘practice’. Furthermore, Nietzsche
recognises that individuals sense and taste things differently because they are
embedded in different ways of life, and because they have different bodies
(physis).4 Correspondingly, Bourdieu conceives of social class in terms of a
collective habitus and lifestyle, which is articulated bodily ( fait corps) (Bourdieu
and Wacquant, 1992: 149), and even physionomically (cf. Simmel: Nasenfrage).
According to Nietzsche, aesthetic and moral judgements are the ‘finest tunes’
of the body. Bourdieu refers to Nietzsche (his so-called ‘will to power’) in his
Distinction, and to the ‘body language’ of class habitus (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]:
177). In another connection he borrows from Marcel Mauss in stating that
‘[l]anguage is a technique of the body’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 149).
Despite the substantial differences between respective viewpoints, it
is remarkable that Bourdieu’s and Nietzsche’s conceptions of the social
determination of taste are surprisingly similar. Of course, from a sociological
perspective, Bourdieu’s interpretation is more sophisticated.
The two also share similar views on ressentiment. In fact, Bourdieu refers
directly to Nietzsche when he explains the notion of a ‘reflexive sociology’ in
relation to the concept of ressentiment:

Ressentiment is not, as with Scheler [Bourdieu refers to Max Scheler’s book

Ressentiment] (who wrote truly awful things about ressentiment), synonymous
with the hatred of the dominant experienced by the dominated. It is rather, as
Nietzsche, who coined the term, suggested, the sentiment of the person who
transforms a sociologically mutilated being – I am poor, I am black, I am a woman,
I am powerless – into a model of human excellence, an elective accomplishment
of freedom and a devoir-être, an ought-to-be, a fatum, built upon an unconscious
fascination with the dominant. (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 212)

It was this very freedom from ressentiment nurtured Bourdieu’s disinterested

sociology.
136 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Where does this leave Nietzsche’s ‘will to power’ (Wille zur Macht), which
has led so many misunderstandings? At first glance there seems to be no
connection with Bourdieu. By way of contrast, Nietzsche ridicules the ‘bad
taste’ of philosophy, its ‘will to truth’ (Nietzsche, 1967 [1885]: 9; see also
Nietzsche, 1967 [1886]: 567 and 1967 [1887]: 886–887).
Nietzsche makes an interesting distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’
forces and ‘times’ in his posthumous Will to Power of the 1880s.5 ‘Strong’ here
does not necessarily refer to those in power, and ‘the will to power’ does not
denote the idea of ‘greed for power’, as Gilles Deleuze (1965: 70–77) points
out. ‘Strong people’ act and create, ‘weak people’ react according to their
ressentiments. According to Bourdieu in Distinction, the lower classes and the
‘new petty bourgeoisie’ supposedly similarly go along with the distinctions
made by the dominant faction.
Is it sheer coincidence that Der Wille zur Macht is translated into French
as La volonté de puissance (Deleuze, 1965: 89)? It had an obvious influence on
Michel Foucault’s history of sexuality in La volonté de savoir (Foucault, 1976;
Foucault, 1990), and perhaps on Bourdieu’s concept of ‘good cultural will’
(bonne volonté culturelle)?
The viewpoint of the creative artist (cf. Nietzsche’s critique of Kant above)
also coincides with Nietzsche’s personal artistic programme. Does this also
apply to Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology, or is there at this point a genuine
difference between the two? Nietzsche’s mission was to act as an individual
avant-garde, to create taste and new values, among other things, and not to
judge them (this is something he calls ‘women’s aesthetics’; see Nietzsche,
1966: 717). On the other hand, Bourdieu gives the artist a special status in his
discussion with Hans Haacke: above all, an artist has a specific competence,
namely to cause a sensation and to express something that scientific research
is not able to say (Bourdieu and Haacke, 1995 [1994]: 36).
Since, as Nietzsche claims (1966: 489 and 484), Kant and his criticism
have deprived us of our right to interpretation, the will to power must
essentially interpret, outline and define grades and power differences.
Although both Nietzsche and Bourdieu are very critical of Kant, Nietzsche
describes the will to power as an affirmative and positive force, allowing
us – as Michel Maffesoli (1993) remarks – to say ‘yes to life’. Bourdieu,
however, sees it as something negative. It is nevertheless productive sense,
but neither in the Nietzschean sense of ‘producing values’ nor in the
Foucauldian sense of ‘producing knowledge’. Furthermore, ‘good cultural
will’, which is typical of the ‘new petty bourgeoisie’, is a more descriptive
term in Bourdieu’s writing.
Nietzschean thought is not only anti-Kantian but also anti-sociological
(Lichtblau, 1984: 236–238). Nietzsche claimed that nineteenth-century
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 137

sociology in France and England (especially ‘Herr Herbert Spencer’)

represented the spirit of decadence and general mediocrity (Nietzsche, 1967
[1889]: 981). What lay behind this decadence and mediocrity was the process
of Western rationalisation, together with the emergence of the ‘social question’
and the growth of the socialist movement – all of which could supposedly be
considered ‘decadent’ phenomena.
Nietzsche’s anti-sociology was a moral and cultural critique. It was a kind
of ‘positive counter-sociology’, and his radical thought had a strong impact
on German sociology, particularly on Simmel (Lichtblau, 1984: 238) and
Weber (Stauth and Turner, 1988: 120–121). This counter-sociology was an
aristocratic and affirmative ‘pathos of distance’. Nietzsche’s description of this
phenomenon in Beyond Good and Evil in the chapter ‘What is noble?’ is, as such,
not so far from Bourdieu’s analysis:

Without the pathos of distance such as develops from the incarnate differences
of classes, from the ruling caste’s constant looking out and looking down on
subjects and instruments and from its equally constant exercise of obedience
and command, its holding down and holding at a distance, that other, more
mysterious pathos could have developed either, that longing for an ever-increasing
widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer,
more remote, tenser, more comprehensive states, in short precisely the elevation
of the type ‘man’ [...]. (Nietzsche, 1990: 192; Nietzsche, 1967 [1886]: 604)

Nietzsche’s and Bourdieu’s conclusions are clearly substantially different,

however. It would be reasonable to assume that Bourdieu would not be
prepared to accept the characterisation of his sociology as aristocratic.
Furthermore, in contrast with Nietzsche’s positive tone, he makes a rather
critical remark about distancing, in other words the primacy of form over
content, which is a central feature of aristocracy in his analysis (Bourdieu,
1984 [1979]: 56). Nonetheless, his sociology is aristocratic in that it is noble
and generous (cf. the above-mentioned ‘sociological generosity’), and it
allows a certain distance-taking as disinterested attitude. If the question for
Nietzsche, on the one hand, concerned the artist-philosopher’s productive
capacity or power to create new values, for Bourdieu, on the other, it is about
a producer-sociologist’s capacity – a matter of poiesis. Yet, Nietzsche placed
the emphasis on form over content in his artist programme and, for him,
philosophy was primarily a matter of style.
In Will to Power (Nietzsche, 1966: 560) Nietzsche makes the claim
that sociology should be replaced by the ‘study of power configurations’
(Herrschaftsgebilden) and society by the ‘cultural complex’. Although this remark
is open to interpretation, it does not sound entirely unfamiliar and could be
138 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

applied to Bourdieu’s sociology of symbolic power (although it might be closer

to Weber’s sociology of domination).
Moreover, it seems that, for Bourdieu, symbolic struggle is a more or less
continuous and endless process. There is no harmonious state or stage to be
attained – quite the opposite. Nietzsche promoted the idea of the ‘eternal
recurrence of the same’ (ewige Widerkunft), which was – as he saw it – ‘the
highest formula of affirmation’ (Nietzsche, 1979: 99; Nietzsche, 1967 [1888]:
1155). This does not imply a simple cycle of the ‘same’, nor does it mean
the repetition or recurrence of historical events or suchlike. It is ‘selective’.
Moreover, it is doubly selective, like thinking (cf. Deleuze, 1965: 37). It meant
‘will’ freed from all morality: whatever I want, I have to want so much, as if
I also want the eternal recurrence of it (cf. Kant’s categorical imperative).
Simmel considers Nietzsche’s theory of ‘eternal recurrence’ the highest form
of ‘individual law’ in the ethics of responsibly: we should live as if we will live
for ever, in other words as if there were eternal recurrence (Lichtblau, 1984:
261). This kind of positive will to power is not evident in Bourdieu’s thought,
although perhaps in the case of Bourdieu one could refer to the sociologist’s
ethics of responsibility.

Conclusion
What, then, was the world to Nietzsche? The Will to Power gives us a clear
answer:

And do you know what the world is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror?
[…] This world is the will to power – and nothing besides. And you yourselves are also
this will to power – and nothing besides! (Nietzsche, 1966: 916–917; Nietzsche’s
italics; quoted in English in Nehemas, 1985: 75)

Bourdieu would probably agree with this statement (cf. Rahkonen, 2006). In
claiming that ‘there is no way out of the game of culture’ he portrays society as
a battlefield of symbolic power, a struggle from which one cannot disengage.
He quotes Horace’s aphoristic statement ‘De te fabula narratur’ – the same
phrase Marx used in his preface to Das Kapital (Bourdieu1984 [1979]: 12;
Marx, 1867: ix).
To paraphrase Nietzsche, Bourdieu might say that ‘society is the will to
power’ – and you yourselves are also this will to power. Nevertheless, there is
for his6 will to truth, which, pace Bourdieu, is in my opinion ‘positive’ – if not
‘positivist’ – in the very sense in which Comte implied (cf. his capacité positive). In
the end, Bourdieu has not been able to overcome this dilemma, and has ended
up with his own version of the Saint-Simonian programme: ‘La sociologie est
un sport de combat’ (Bourdieu, 2007).7
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 139

Acknowledgements
This article is a revised and enlarged version of my article ‘Le goût vu comme
une lutte: Bourdieu et Nietzsche’, published in Sociétés 53 (1996): 283–297.
Many thanks are due to Joan Nordlund, the University of Helsinki
Language Centre, and Simon Susen for discerning language revision.

Notes
1 There is another interesting difference between the French and English cover illustrations
of Bourdieu’s Distinction. Bourdieu chose the picture for the cover of the French edition
(Bourdieu, 1979) after having seen it in Budapest (Bourdieu’s personal communication to
the author, 16 March 1994). It is an old painting by Godfried Schalken, Le gourmet, which
hangs in the National Gallery of Prague, and portrays a fat man, a gourmand, taking
great pleasure in stuffing his mouth.
The picture on the cover of the English edition, about which Bourdieu had no say
(in fact he did not like it; Bourdieu’s personal communication to the author, 16
March 1994), is a detail from the well-known painting, Sunday Afternoon on the Island of
La Grande Jatte by Georges Seurat (cf. Rahkonen, 1989: 272–74; Bloch, 1986 [1959]):
953). It portrays (with irony?) a bourgeois Sunday, but a boring one without any joie
de vivre whatsoever.
Perhaps these differences in the cover pictures manifest the cultural differences between
the French and British societies. Does the picture on the cover of the English editions just
reflect the stereotypical British image of France? One interpretation would be that there
are genuine social and cultural differences between British and French societies. Britain
could be considered more straightforward or rough, whereas in France there may be
more sophisticated, ‘hidden’ class distinctions.
There is another astonishing feature in the original cover picture, and that is the old-
fashioned gourmand himself. This, of course, goes back to the genealogy of taste
(cf. Falk, 1994: 13–15; Gronow, 1997). However Bourdieu’s conclusions suggest rather
that the biggest differences in taste are in music. In this sense a more suitable picture on
the cover might have reflected this fact.
2 Gerhard Schulze has brought an interesting new viewpoint to this discussion. In
his ingenious book Die Erlebnisgesellschaft (1992), he discusses Erlebnis, which could
be translated as subjective experience, as opposed to Erfahrung, objective experience
(cf. Lash, 1994: 163). He points out that Erlebnis is directed at beauty in particular. He
argues that beauty (no longer used in the Kantian sense of the word as a judgement)
is a uniting concept for valued experience (in German ‘schön’; in English e.g., ‘nice’).
‘Beautiful’ may just as well refer to washing one’s car, or Rilke’s sonnets, or both of them
might be equally banal. In another context (Schulze, 1993: 15–16) Schulze maintains
that there has been a change in ways of speaking and discussing. The new form of talk
about arts and culture is laconic. Speech is limited more and more to ‘how I feel’, and to
expressions such as ‘great’, ‘fine’, ‘super’, ‘hype’ and ‘cool’ (cf. above the Rolling Stones:
‘[…] (but I like it)’). The same vocabulary characterises one’s holiday, a friend’s new
girl- or boyfriend or a cocktail party.
Responses to questions concerning the judgement or valuation of culture or the arts
sound the same as answers to the question: ‘How are you?’ When we are asked how
we value a piece of art – in fact the very question has a colloquial ring to it: did we like
140 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

or fancy it –, we say how we feel about it. Basically, we do not really talk about art, we
talk about ourselves; it is not about the piece of art, but about its effect on us. We do
not discuss the quality of art in the objective sense, it is just a question of like or dislike.
The subjectivity becomes clear in differences of opinion: I like that film, you do not. It
is enough that we know and state this – there is no need for an aesthetic or theoretical
dispute about the subject. The subjectivity of opinions is approved as such; thoroughly
subjective aesthetics has won. Something appeals to one person, but not to another.
There is clearly no longer any dispute about taste! (See also Müller, 1992b)
Bourdieu might accept Schulze’s analysis of everyday anti- or a-aesthetics, but he
would perhaps like to add that sociological subjectivity goes back to objective social
and basically hierarchical positioning. The difference between Bourdieu and Schulze is
that, for Schulze, consumption creates classes, ‘milieus’ and ‘scenes’ (Szenen), whereas for
Bourdieu it is vice versa.
3 To my knowledge the only scholar who has dealt thoroughly with Nietzsche and taste
(in connection with a theory of consumption) is the Danish historian of ideas Lars-
Henrik Schmidt (see Schmidt, 1989: 85–111 and Schmidt, 1990).
4 ‘Das diese einzelnen aber anders empfinden und “schmecken”, das hat gewöhnlich
seinen Grund in einer Absonderlichkeit ihrer Lebensweise [...], kurz in der Physis.’ –
Schrift (1990, 38–40), referring to Heidegger’s interpretation, calls Nietzsche’s aesthetic
theory a ‘physiology of art’ resting on ‘biological values’ (for ‘bios’ read life).
5 According to Heidegger, after Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1961; 1967 [1883–1885]) ‘Nietzsche
never did publish what he really thought’ (Heidegger, 1968 [1954]: 73; cf. Schrift, 1990).
What he really thought is to be found in his Nachlaß, although only in the form of
‘unthought’:
‘What is un-thought in a thinker’s thought is not a lack inherent in his thought. What is
un-thought is there in each case only as the un-thought. The more original the thinking,
the richer will be what is unthought in it’ (Heidegger, 1968 [1954]: 76).
Note that Bourdieu uses the same term ‘unthought’ (impensée) above, but he gives it
quite another connotation.
6 Bourdieu’s personal communication to the author, 22 June 1993. – In a conversation we
once had in Paris Bourdieu suggested to me that I could do the same to Nietzsche as he
had done to Heidegger (cf. Bourdieu (1991 [1988]). (Bourdieu’s personal communication
to the author, 5 October 1995.)
7 In English: ‘Sociology is a Martial Art’: ‘Je dis souvent que la sociologie c’est un sport de
combat, c’est un instrument de self defense. On s’en sert pour se défendre, essentiellement,
et l’on n’a pas le droit de s’en servir pour faire des mauvais coups.’ (Bourdieu, 2007.)

References
Baudrillard, Jean (1986) ‘La puissance du dégoût’, Traverses 37: 5–13.
Bloch, Ernst (1986 [1959]) The Principle of Hope, Vol. 3, trans. Neville Plaice, Stephen Plaice
and Paul Knight, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘L’illusion biographique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 62/63:
69–72.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 141

Bourdieu, Pierre (1989 [1988]) ‘Antworten auf einige Einwände’, in Klaus Eder (ed.)
Klassenlage, Lebensstil und kulturelle Praxis. Theoretische und empirische Auseinandersetzung mit P.
Bourdieu’s Klassentheorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 395–410.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989) ‘For a Socio-Analysis of Intellectuals: On Homo Academicus: An
Interview with Pierre Bourdieu’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology XXIV: 1–29.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) ‘Animadversiones in Mertonem’, in Jon Clark, Celia Modgil
and Sohan Modgil (eds.) R. K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy, London, New York &
Philadelphia: Falmer Press, pp. 297–301.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991 [1988]) The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger, trans. Peter Collier,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1984]) Sociology in Question, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (ed.) (1993) La misère du monde, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2007) La sociologie est un sport de combat. Un film de Pierre Carles sur Pierre
Bourdieu, en partenariat avec Le Monde diplomatique, 150 min/DVD, Montpellier: C-P
Productions et VF Films.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Monique de Saint Martin (1976) ‘Anatomie du goût’, Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales 5: 2–112.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Luc Boltanski, Robert Castel, and Jean-Claude Chamboredon (1990
[1965]) Photography: A Middle-brow Art, trans. Shaun Whiteside, Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Darbel, and Daniel Schnapper (1991 [1966]) The Love of Art:
European Art Museums and Their Public, trans. Caroline Beattie and Nick Merriman,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1999 [1998]) ‘On the Cunning of Imperialist
Reason’, Theory, Culture & Society 16(4): 1–58.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Hans Haacke (1995 [1994]) Free Exchange, trans. Randal Johnson and
Hans Haacke, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crowther, Paul (1994) ‘Sociological Imperialism and the Field of Cultural Production: The
Case of Bourdieu’, Theory, Culture & Society 11: 155–169.
Deleuze, Gilles (1965) Nietzsche, Paris: PUF.
Deleuze, Gilles and Pierre-Félix Guattari (1994) What is Philosophy? London & New York:
Verso.
Derrida, Jacques (1987) The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elias, Norbert (1994 [1939]) The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1–2, trans. Edward Jephcott, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Falk, Pasi (1994) The Consuming Body, London: Sage.
Foucault, Michel (1990 [1976]) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert
Hurley, New York: Vintage Books.
Fowler, Bridget (1994) ‘The Hegemonic Work of Art in the Age of Electronic Reproduction:
An Assessment of Pierre Bourdieu’, Theory, Culture & Society 11(1): 129–154.
Goldman, Harvey (1993) ‘Knowledge Production among Contemporary French
Intellectuals, with an Eye toward the Appropriation of Nietzsche’, paper presented at
142 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the Centenary Congress of the Institut Internationale de Sociologie, Paris, July 1993
(unpublished paper).
Gronow, Jukka (1997) The Sociology of Taste, London & New York: Routledge.
Heidegger, Martin (1968 [1954]) What is Called Thinking? Transl. J. Glenn Gray, New York:
Harper & Row.
Kant, Immanuel (1966 [1790]) Kritik der Urteilskraft, Stuttgart: Reclam.
Kant, Immanuel (1987 [1790]) Critique of Judgement, trans. Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis:
Hackett.
Lash, Scott (1994) ‘Reflexivity and its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, Community’, in
Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash, Reflexive Modernisation: Politics, Tradition
and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 110–173.
Lichtblau, Klaus (1984) ‘Das “Pathos der Distanz”: Präliminarien zur Nietzsche-Rezeption
bei Georg Simmel’, in Heinz-Jürgen Dahme and Otto Rammstedt (eds.) Georg Simmel und
die Moderne: Neue Interpretation und Materialen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 231–281.
Lyotard, Jean-François (1991 [1987]) ‘Sensus Communis: The Subject in statu nascendi’, in
Eduardo Cavada, Peter Connor and Jean-Luc Nancy (eds.) Who comes After the Subject?
New York & London: Routledge, pp. 217–235.
Maffesoli, Michel (1993) ‘Body and Postmodernity’, paper presented at the International
Conference on the Sociology of Consumption, Helsinki, 14–19 June (unpublished).
Marx, Karl (1867) Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Bd. 1. Hamburg: Otto Meissner
Verlag.
Müller, Hans-Peter (1992a) Sozialstruktur und Lebenstile: Der neuere theoretische Diskurs über soziale
Ungleichgeit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Müller, Hans-Peter (1992b) ‘De gustibus non est disputandum? Bemerkungen zur
Diskussion um Gesmack, Distinktion und Lebensstil’, in Reinhard Eisendle and Elfie
Miklautz (eds.) Produktkulturen: Dynamik und Bedeutungswandel des Konsums. Frankfurt am
Main & New York: Campus, pp. 117–34.
Nehemas, Alexander (1985) Nietzsche: Life as Literature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1961 [1883–1885]) Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and
No One, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1963 [1882]) ‘Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (La gaya scienza)’, in his
Werke in sechs Banden; dritter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl
Hanser Verlag, pp. 7–274.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1966) ‘Aus dem Nachlaß der Achtzigerjahre’, in his Werke in sechs
Banden; sechster Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser Verlag,
pp. 471–925.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1883–1885]) ‘Also sprach Zarathustra’, in his Werke in sechs
Banden; dritter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser Verlag,
pp. 277–456.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1885]) ‘Vorrede zur zweinten Ausgabe (Die fröhliche
Wissenschaft)’, in his Werke in sechs Banden; dritter Band, herausgegeben von Karl
Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser Verlag, pp. 7–274.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1886]) ‘Jenseits von Gut und Böse’, in his Werke in sechs Banden;
vierter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser Verlag,
pp. 563–759.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1887]) ‘Zur Genealogie der Moral’, in his Werke in sechs Banden;
vierter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser Verlag,
pp. 761–900.
Bourdieu and Nietzsche 143

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1888]) ‘Ecce homo: Wie man wird, was man ist’, in his Werke
in sechs Banden; vierter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München: Carl Hanser
Verlag, pp. 1063–1159.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967 [1889]). ‘Götzen-Dämmerung: Streifzüge eines Unzeitgemäßen’,
in his Werke in sechs Banden; vierter Band, herausgegeben von Karl Schlechta, München:
Carl Hanser Verlag, pp. 939–1033.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1968 [1895]) ‘Nietzsche Contra Wagner’, trans. Walter Kaufmann, in
Walter Kaufmann (ed.) The Portable Nietzsche, New York: Viking Press, pp. 661–683.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974 [1882]) The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufmann, New York:
Vintage Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1979 [1888]) Ecce homo: How One Becomes What One Is, trans.
R. J. Hollingdale, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1990 [1886]) Beyond Good and Evil, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, London:
Penguin.
Pinto, Louis (1995) Les neveux de Zarathoustra: Le réception de Nietzsche en France, Paris: Seuil.
Rahkonen, Keijo (1989) ‘Utopia (on utopia)/A Utopia (is a utopia)’, in Timo Valjakka (ed.)
Synnyt – nykytaiteen lähteitä/Sources of Contemporary Art, Helsinki: Museum of Contemporary
Art, pp. 266–286.
Rahkonen, Keijo (1996) ‘Le goût vu comme une lutte: Bourdieu et Nietzsche’, Sociétés
53: 283–297.
Rahkonen, Keijo (2006) ‘Pierre Bourdieu – l’homo academicus : Étude de la pensée de
Bourdieu dans une perspective bourdieusienne’, in Fred Dervin & Elina Suomela-
Salmi (éds.) Communication et éducation interculturelles : Perspectives, Bern: Peter Lang,
pp. 207–226.
Schmidt, Lars-Henrik (1989) Der Wille zur Ordnung, Aarhus: Aarhus universitets forlag.
Schmidt, Lars-Henrik (1990) ‘Smagens analytik’, in Kurt Ove Eliassen and Tore
Eriksen (eds.) Smag, sansning, civilisation: En antologi, Aarhus: Aarhus universitets forlag,
pp. 118–155.
Schrift, Alan D. (1990) Nietzsche and the Question of Interpretation: Between Hermeneutics and
Deconstruction, New York & London: Routledge.
Schulze, Gerhard (1992) Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart, Frankfurt &
New York: Campus.
Schulze, Gerhard (1993) Auf der Suche nach dem schönen Leben. Glücksmodelle, Kunst und Publikum
der Gegenwart, Bamberg (unpublished manuscript).
Simmel, Georg (1983 [1895]) ‘Die Mode’, pp. 26–51 in his Philosophische Kultur. Über das
Abenteuer, die Geschlechter und die Krise der Moderne, Gesammelte Essais, Berlin: Wagenbach.
Simmel, Georg (1990 [1900]) The Philosophy of Money, London: Routledge.
Stauth, Georg and Bryan S. Turner (1988) Nietzsche’s Dance: Resentment, Reciprocity and
Resistance in Social Life, Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, Bryan S. (1992) Max Weber: From History to Modernity, London & New York:
Routledge.
Weber, Max (1970 [1919]) ‘Science as Vocation’, in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills
(eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge, pp. 129–156.
Weber, Max (1992 [1919]) ‚Wissenschaft als Beruf ’, in his Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 17/1.
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 71–111.
Wacquant, Loïc (1993) ‘Taste’, in William Outhwaite and Tom Bottomore (eds.) The
Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 662–664.
Wenzel, Bernice M. (1968) ‘Taste and Smell’, in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences,
Vol. 15, New York: Macmillan & Free Press, pp. 514–516.
144 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Other Sources
Bourdieu’s personal communication (letter) to the author, 22 June 1993.
Bourdieu’s personal communication to the author, 16 March 1994.
Bourdieu’s personal communication to the author, 5 October 1995.
CHAPTER SEVEN
Elias and Bourdieu

Bowen Paulle, Bart van Heerikhuizen,

and Mustafa Emirbayer

The deeper one penetrates the universes of Norbert Elias and Pierre
Bourdieu, the clearer it becomes: the similarities between their visions of
society are striking. While the two sociologists always showed great sympathy
for one another,1 there are no indications that they were fully aware of how
fundamental the subterranean intellectual affinities were.2 And even though
many social scientists combine a high regard for some of Elias’s works with
great admiration for several works by Bourdieu, thereby showing an instinctive
sense of the affinities between these authors, until now it seems that no one has
noticed the degree to which Bourdieu and Elias are intellectual siblings. The
contributions of each has been highlighted in convincing work – in the case of
Elias, for example, by Goudsblom (1987), and, in the case of Bourdieu, by the
likes of Wacquant (2006). Even in such careful and judicious accounts, however,
important connections between the two authors have remained either hidden
or implicit. Engaging in some degree of excavation, this chapter brings to light
why Bourdieu and Elias can be viewed as contributors to a single theoretical
approach. The most important finding here is that both relied heavily on the
same triad of core concepts, and both deployed those concepts in relentlessly
relational and processual fashion. Our first goal, therefore, is to uncover these
deep-seated conceptual affinities.
Our second goal is to demonstrate that, when taken together, the two
authors’ perspectives yield a vision more far-reaching and powerful than either
considered separately. More concretely, we hope to show that researchers
drawing simultaneously upon Elias and Bourdieu can systematically overcome
decades of misguided dichotomies in social thought, dichotomies such as
those between individual and society, subject and object, the internal and the
external, reason and emotion, the soul and the flesh.
146 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

One can easily imagine why the deep-seated affinities and compatibilities
between Elias and Bourdieu might have been overlooked.3 To begin with, Elias’s
seminal works were written in German in the years leading up to the Second
World War. Bourdieu started producing his most important contributions in
French roughly a quarter-century after the War. Their at times poorly (and
belatedly) translated works appear quite different from one another and
seem to refer to very different networks of conceptual resources, or to what
Elias (1978 [1970]: 111–113) later in life would term ‘means of speaking and
thinking’. More importantly, Elias was associated primarily with the study of
grand historical developments spanning several centuries. Bourdieu is most
famous for his work on socio-cultural reproduction during the 1970s. Elias felt
that our stocks of sociological knowledge are still too primitive to be of much
practical use in political matters (cf. Elias, 1956 and 1987). Although a staunch
defender of a genuinely reflexive sociological field, Bourdieu did engage openly
in political debates during various episodes of his life.4 No wonder, then, that
most (if not all) of the profound similarities between these authors continue
to escape so many standard textbook accounts (e.g. Ritzer and Goodman,
2004) and remain implicit even in more thorough and discerning studies (Van
Krieken, 1998; Kilminster, 2007; Shusterman, 1999).
Yet, the affinities between the two social thinkers should come as
no surprise. To a significant extent, Elias and Bourdieu were exposed to
the same intellectual currents during their formative years. They studied
the works of Marx and Weber, felt the influence of philosophers such as
Husserl, Cassirer, and Heidegger, and – perhaps most crucially – evinced
a deep understanding of Durkheimian thought. In their biographies, one
can also detect similarities. Both men felt in certain periods of their lives the
sting of being outsiders. Both showed a tremendous energy in fighting their
way into the castles of academic excellence. Both experienced, body and
soul, how processes of inclusion and exclusion can restrict one’s freedom
of movement in various social fields. And, when the time came to collect
the highest rewards the academic community has to offer, both discovered
that such accolades do not alleviate the pain of scars for which there is no
healing process. These parallels along biographical, social, and intellectual
dimensions all help to explain the affinities between them.
What immediately follows is an introduction to the three core concepts
re-crafted and deployed by both authors: habitus, field, and power. While this
is not the place to investigate the formation of these concepts in a systematic
fashion, we think it is useful to begin with a brief discussion tracing their
intellectual roots. In the main body of this chapter, we examine how each of our
two authors deployed his three main conceptual devices to interrogate a range
of empirical phenomena. We do not offer here a thorough exposition of these
Elias and Bourdieu 147

authors’ theories or an exhaustive overview of their empirical engagements.

We do, however, direct attention to various convergences that until now have
been left largely out of account, showing how themes developed by Bourdieu
and Elias are actually expressions of one common way of depicting the social
world. After drawing attention to this common perspective, we move to a
direct example of both the two authors’ complementarity and their important
differences of emphasis. Specifically, we reflect on their respective approaches
to the rather anti-intellectual and body-centred world of sport. We conclude by
discussing how the basically harmonious outlook demonstrated in this article
might have a bearing on relational and processual theorising in the future.

Identifying (the Roots of ) the Triad5

[T]he pretension to be what one is not [leads to] insecurity of taste and
conduct, ‘vulgarity’. […] The attempt does not succeed [...]. [T]he attempt to
achieve the poise of the upper class leads in most cases to a particular falseness
and incongruity of behavior which nevertheless conceals a genuine distress, a
despair to escape the pressure from above and the sense of inferiority. (Elias,
1994 [1939]: 508)

Despite some confusion on this topic, which will be cleared up below, it

remains the case that Elias was working extensively with a concept of habitus
long before Bourdieu had ever heard of the term. The idea was crucial to both
thinkers. Throughout most of their major writings, both used the term habitus
or some similar notion – such as ‘second nature’ (or, in Bourdieu’s case, a ‘feel
for the game’) – frequently and in prominent fashion (e.g. Elias 1994 [1939]:
447 and 1983 [1969]: 241, Bourdieu 1990 [1980]: 66 and 2000 [1997]: 211.
As terms like ‘second nature’ make plain, Elias and Bourdieu sought to
emphasise the importance of taken-for-granted ways of perceiving, thinking,
and acting on the part of (more or less) competent actors immersed in their
everyday practices. Both focused on practical action and knowledge because
they understood that, in real time and space, human conduct tends to be
orchestrated from ‘within’ by dispositions functioning primarily beneath the
level of discursive consciousness. Understanding habitus as a system of acquired
dispositions allowed them to act upon their belief that, at bottom, our responses
and practices are based on prediscursive familiarity with the social worlds we
inhabit. It helped both authors systematically to address how incorporated
dispositions can be triggered – and to some degree reconstituted (especially
early in life) – by networks of unfolding solicitations and sanctions.6
The concept of habitus allowed both Elias and Bourdieu to escape the
subject-object dichotomy and to get beyond the myth of the self-contained
148 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

knowing subject. It enabled them to explore the social constitution as well as the
largely unconscious here-and-now functioning of ‘self steering apparatus(es)’,
to use one of Elias’s (1994 [1939]: 456) alternative terms for habitus, of agents
absorbed into, and to varying degrees remade by, influences emanating from
the ‘outside’ world. Crucially, both authors saw that the responses generated
from ‘within’ by the habitus tend not to be the responses of thinking (let alone
calculating) subjects standing apart from explicitly conceptualised objects. Both
rejected the view that real-time actions of living agents require the mediation
of self-contained and explicit mental representations. For Elias as well as for
Bourdieu, the practical appraisals of the habitus-in-action tended to be those
of the ‘open’ or ‘exposed’ person who has gradually come to feel so at home
in (or at least prediscursively absorbed by) an objective situation that time- and
energy-consuming explicit mental representations might only get in the way.
Aspects of this kind of thinking are reminiscent of any number of
philosophical streams, such as American pragmatism (Emirbayer and
Schneiderhan, forthcoming). Above all, however, we find evidence here of
massive influence from someone who, along with Elias, was studying with
Husserl in Freiburg during the 1920s: Martin Heidegger.7 Even in the case of
Bourdieu, who was much more forthcoming about his intellectual inheritance
than Elias, there is no mystery about the fundamental influence of Heidegger
and of the ‘philosopher of the flesh’: Merleau-Ponty.8 Thinkers like Heidegger
and Merleau-Ponty not only broke with Cartesian thinking about self-contained
agents existing somehow outside social structures, but they did this in terms
that anticipated the sociological language that Elias and Bourdieu would later
come to speak fluently. Armed with sociologically grounded versions of what –
in these predecessors – had been phenomenological and ontological concepts,
Elias and Bourdieu got past the problematic division of ‘inner’ (and somehow
static) selves, on the one hand, and bounded flows of moods, meanings, and
mechanisms operating in various social contexts, on the other.
Of course, much of the thinking that we might associate with beings-in-
the-social-world preceded even Heidegger. In his treatise on The Rules of the
Sociological Method, published originally in 1895, Durkheim warned against the
tendency to reduce ‘les faits sociaux’ to the level of individual consciousness.
The realm of the social, he argued, has a dynamic all of its own vis-à-vis that
of psychological facts. The social dimension constitutes ‘une réalité sui generis’.
Durkheim (1966 [1895]: 103) was outspoken in claiming that ‘[s]ociety is not
a mere sum of individuals. Rather, the system formed by their association
represents a specific reality which has its own characteristics.’9 In his later
masterpiece, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1995 [1912]), he maintained
not only that society was the driving force behind religion but also that, through
their (effervescent) religious practices, people actually worshiped society. Look
into the heart of the individual, he contended, and you will find the social.
Elias and Bourdieu 149

In part because Elias and Bourdieu knew their Durkheim so well, they saw
the need for reasonably identifiable social worlds ‘apart’ and characterised by
their own internal logics. Both grasped, as Mead had also done before them,
that ‘human nature’ is social through and through. Nevertheless, ‘society’ was,
for both our students of Durkheim, far too blunt an instrument.
Enter Max Weber, the theorist of life orders. Whether they opted for field
or figuration, Elias and Bourdieu were empirically and theoretically at their
best when they put Weber’s concept of life orders to work by meticulously
examining specific bundles of shifting social relations among interdependent
people, positions, and institutions within a broader society. As our discussions
below will document, particular social microcosms (court society, the field of
cultural production, the world of sport) embedded in larger social universes
(e.g. France) served as our authors’ most useful units of analysis.
Using Weber’s (as well as Durkheim’s) notions of relatively autonomous
social contexts, Elias and Bourdieu systematically investigated how specific
social configurations, conceptualised both on micro and on macro levels,
serve as the sources of second natures and as the dynamic contexts in which
habitus (plural) function. Both stressed that the social forces generated in
relatively autonomous relational contexts tend to be more compelling than
the second natures of even the most powerful individuals constituting
them. They also demonstrated, however, that it ultimately makes no sense
to analyse in isolation either figurational dynamics or the functioning and
formation of habitus.
Introducing the dialectic of second natures and social structures, we have
already hinted at the two authors’ concepts of power, or, as Bourdieu called it,
capital. (Their shared inclination to focus on objective distributions of power
brings to mind, of course, the materialist sociology of Karl Marx.) Elias
and Bourdieu understood that individuals and groups accumulate different
amounts and types of (non-economic) power resources; both stressed that
these power resources always emerge out of, function within, and restructure
unfolding social configurations. Albeit in diverging contexts, both documented
how second natures well suited to specific settings often serve as indispensable
assets. No matter what terms they used (power ratios, species of capital), it
was impossible for either author to conceptualise social structural dynamics
(or the formation and workings of habitus) outside objective distributions of
power resources.

The Triad as Deployed by Bourdieu

Such notions as habitus, field, and capital can be defined, but only within the
theoretical system they constitute, not in isolation. (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 96)
150 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu’s analytic approach is based on a triad of interdependent core

concepts. As he (like Elias) never tired of reminding us, this theoretical system
arose gradually out of ongoing ‘confrontations’ with diverse empirical realities.
These confrontations began in the late 1950s and early 60s both in Algeria
(during the war of independence) and in his native Béarn (during a period
when protourbanisation was forcing even the more intelligent, handsome, and
landed men of his rural village into celibacy). Then, after the early 1960s,
Bourdieu (with Passeron) shifted to other questions such as why the children of
secondary school teachers tend to do better in the French educational system
than the offspring of bankers. Dealing first and foremost with empirical
questions related to structural change and reproduction, he felt impelled to
start thinking about relations to ‘legitimate’ culture as themselves a vitally
important source of power. Early studies of cultural capital and education
would lead, of course, to Bourdieu’s attack – in Distinction (1984 [1979]) – on
Kantian notions of context-free discriminations and relations to culture. More
convincingly (or at least more provocatively) than any sociological study up
to that moment, his investigation in that latter work of a specific field – class
relations in France during the 1970s – would link aesthetic dispositions to
ongoing forms of ‘naturalised’ class-based oppression.
Unfortunately, some of his early works – such as Reproduction in Education,
Society, and Culture (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977 [1970]) – and some of his mid-
career works – such as Distinction – are frequently misinterpreted as arguing (at
least implicitly) that social reproduction works in the form of a closed loop,
with objectively unequal social structural positions generating more or less
‘legitimate’ cultural skills and dispositions that, in turn, regenerate the same
basic socioeconomic inequalities. The label used to characterise Bourdieu
on these grounds was ‘reproduction theorist’. Truth be told, Bourdieu was
a sociologist of shifting configurations of power. Bourdieusian fields are
‘spaces’ of ongoing historical contestation temporarily objectified in the form
of hierarchical positions (occupied, for example, by agents or institutions).10
To interrogate the sets of dispositions operating largely beneath the surface
of discursive consciousness among the people making up these social fields,
Bourdieu relied on his reworked notion of ‘history turned flesh’: habitus. As
terms like ‘second nature’ and ‘feel for the game’ imply, habitus was basically
the effect of previous conditionings associated with specific (class) positionings
and understood as ‘social injunctions addressed not to the intellect but to the
body’ (Bourdieu, 2000: 141). Because people socialised into specific classes (or,
better yet, into specific regions of the larger social space) tended to be exposed
to similar conditions and conditionings, this approach made it possible to
bring macro-level realities (e.g. the class structure of France) into analyses of
micro-level dynamics (e.g. taken-for-granted feelings about what is appropriate
Elias and Bourdieu 151

for ‘our kind’ in specific educational, residential, or economic contexts). Our

‘primary’ and ‘specific’ second natures were the embodied effects of our social
trajectories though specific (positions within specific) fields. Once crystallised,
these durable systems of dispositions would govern our responses to unfolding
situations in the here-and-now as well as our (preconscious) orientations to the
future.11 Here again, the guiding principle was not that of habitus formation
necessarily leading to social reproduction but, rather, that of more and less
empowering habitus formation processes leading to better or worse ‘fits’ within
emerging social realities.
Crucially, then, Bourdieu argued that second natures can operate as forms
of capital (specifically, cultural capital in the embodied form). Yet, capital –
whether in its embodied form or in any other form – can exist only within
specific fields and during specific intervals. Power resources are scarce and
therefore distinctive, not because of possessing any timeless or essential
attributes, but because they are the temporary effects of symbolic struggles
(that is, struggles over valuations of various species and amounts of capital)
that took place in the past. Shifting and largely unconscious or habituated
valuations can create, temporarily maintain, and destroy capitals. They can
set up, preserve, and redefine the boundaries and principles of division of a
Bourdieusian field.
After Distinction, Bourdieu deployed his triad of core concepts in
investigations of empirical objects as diverse as sport, French housing markets,
and shifting modes of masculine domination. He also continued to deal with
culture, for example, in The Rules of Art (1996 [1992]) and The Field of Cultural
Production (1993). Upon closer examination of these important works, what is
most striking is the unwaveringly relational and processual deployment of all
three of his main concepts.
Bourdieu’s studies of power dynamics and culture all rest on a certain
understanding of social space. The latter was, for this son of a sharecropper-
turned-post-office worker from south-western France, a universe of ongoing
struggle. Privileging economic and cultural capital, Bourdieu postulated atop
the social space a more delimited ‘field of power’ – that is, an arena within
which ‘dominant dominants’ were engaged in continual struggles with
‘dominated dominants’. Those most advantaged in these struggles were people,
organisations, and fields (e.g. the field of corporate law firms and the field of
high finance) associated with relatively greater amounts of economic capital
and relatively lesser amounts of cultural capital. Those least advantaged were
people more or less like ourselves, the readers of this paper (social scientists,
although Bourdieu also mentioned artists), organisations like the ones we
belong to (universities, but also various other cultural institutions), and fields
such as our own (sociology, but more broadly the field of cultural production).
152 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

The nature of the power struggle and ongoing dynamics of this field of
power, as of all Bourdieusian fields, are clear from the moment this picture is
sketched. Social life is inherently processual, even if the current state of affairs
is mapped out two-dimensionally and even if it is pointed out that, ultimately,
the ministry of culture carries less weight than the ministry of finance. The
question is always who (or what) is anchored into which more or less dominant
positions because of which species and amounts of capital. This, in turn, is
always related to the questions of how habitually (‘naturally’) recognised
valuations of various forms of capital emerge, how they are reproduced, and
how they are (or might be) altered.12
Immediately we see, then, that the big picture has to do with (symbolic)
struggle, ongoing oppression, (potential) resistance, and perpetual change.
The next step in the study of fields of cultural production is perhaps the most
theoretically inspired. Examining fields of practice within this overall dynamic
structure, we find, yet again, spaces of ‘play’. Even if Bourdieu at times gave
the impression that his objects of study were reified structures at rest, he in fact
saw fields as sites of ongoing contestation on the part of differently positioned
and empowered actors. To get a better sense of this, let us focus here on the
French literary field so carefully examined in The Rules of Art.
Highlighting the space of possible moves presented to and (to some degree)
created by Flaubert, Bourdieu theorised and documented the genesis and
increasing autonomy of the French literary field in the nineteenth century.
Within what eventually emerged as the modern literary field, he drew our
attention to the ongoing struggle between avant-garde and established artists
(i.e. the people and organisations occupying the two main poles of the field,
poles organised around different types of assets and capitals). For Bourdieu,
there was no possibility of understanding what goes on at one or the other of
these two poles in abstraction from what goes on in the rest of the relational
context (understood as itself a referential totality). For example, because
of their positions within the overall field as well as their unique relation to
forces outside it, the established tended to favour more conservative symbolic
strategies and position-takings – especially those associated with ‘bourgeois’
literature (but also, at times, those identified with ‘social art’). In the ‘economic
world inverted’ that he was helping to create even as it created him, Flaubert
lambasted these artists who tried to make their aesthetic intentions clear to
potential audiences and congratulated those who remained inaccessible. ‘I do
not know if there exists in French a more beautiful page of prose’, he declared
to a lesser-known revolutionary (quoted in Bourdieu, 1996 [1992]: 79). ‘It is
splendid and I am sure that the bourgeois don’t understand a word of it. So
much the better.’ Members of the avant-garde – sensing the relative positions
of all involved, as well as where their field as a whole stood in relation to
the broader espace social – gravitated towards position-takings that challenged
Elias and Bourdieu 153

the authority of established writers, institutions, styles, and conventions

(e.g. political and aesthetic detachment). Hence, we see the ongoing dynamic.
As a result of becoming too commercial according to a pre-existing yardstick
for judging such matters, or perhaps due to a fall from grace precipitated by
the introduction of new valuations, or possibly even because of death, the
once-established would either leave the field or lose their grip on superior
positions. Some members of the (more or less marginal) avant-garde would
then ease into those more established positions, where the temptation to ‘sell
out’ would become harder to resist. This, in turn, would open up space for still
more newcomers to the avant-garde.
Flaubert offers a perfect example of how early socialisation (in his case, the
formation of an aristocratic primary habitus) could trigger an initial belief in
the game – the faith or ‘illusio’ that entering the field is worth the trouble – and
serve as itself a crucial power resource. Disgusted by bourgeois styles no less
than by literature ‘for the people’, Flaubert was predisposed towards risks that
others would never have dreamed of taking. The logic of the field he so heavily
influenced (i.e. the expectations, valuations, desires related to different positions
and distributions of power) seeped into all the subjectivities of those who paid
the price of admission and entered the field for an extended period. Those who
became familiar with the field’s internal dynamics – those who were deeply
and durably shaped by it – tended to acquire an additional specific habitus
that could only result from extended exposure to such a specific set of everyday
conditions and conditionings. Thus is explained the inclination towards art that
is authentically and exclusively for art’s sake, even and perhaps especially when
it is inaccessible to ‘the people’ or ‘the bourgeoisie’ – an inclination that appears
‘irrational’ to those caught up in the logics of other fields.

The Triad as Deployed by Elias

From the interweaving of countless individual interests and intentions […]
something comes into being that was planned and intended by none of these
individuals, yet has emerged nevertheless from their intentions and actions […].
The understanding of a formation of this kind requires a breakthrough to a still
little-known level of reality: to the level of the immanent regularities of social
relationships, the field of relational dynamics. (Elias, 1994 [1939]: 389, italics added)

As these closing sentences of the penultimate empirical chapter of The Civilizing

Process indicate, Elias liked to end his arguments with a bang. Interestingly, the
key term here was not figuration but field.13 What did he mean by this term? The
best way to show how Elias deployed it is to bring it to life.
The paradigmatic illustration of the field of relational dynamics, as Elias
understood it, is found in his repeated discussions of Louis XIV. Even in the
154 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

case of this person who may have believed himself to be the state (‘L’état c’est
moi’), Elias looked not at the single entity but all around it, beneath it, and
beyond it. Feelings, thoughts, and actions were always depicted in relation to
shifting balances of power at the macro-level (the position of nobles vis-à-vis
the bourgeoisie), at various institutional meso-levels (dynamics within court
society, bourgeois families), and in micro-level here-and-now experiences
(ways of interacting during various ceremonies of the court). While the Sun
King managed to remain at the centre of a tension-filled and multisided
balance of power, Elias showed that even this absolute monarch was effectively
pushed and pulled by figurational pressures emanating from all quarters
(e.g. competing factions of rising and declining dominant groups, and pressures
from subdominant groups).
In both The Court Society and The Civilizing Process, Elias detailed the most
important effects of the lengthening ‘chains of interdependence’ creating
and sustaining radical levels of inequality during the Sun King’s reign. One
especially compelling image illustrates this point. Successful (and ascending)
members of the king’s court did not merely resist the impulse to draw their
swords when challenged, as their forefathers had almost automatically done. In
many cases, the adequately socialised members of this new kind of dominant
class resisted the impulse even to raise an eyebrow. Often they took insults
in their stride as they plotted possible future retaliations. Yet, given that they
were – effectively – the networks of relations and intrigue in which they had
been formed, they almost automatically grasped that temporary alliances with
enemies could help them defeat an even more important enemy (or avoid
being undone by a more important challenge) down the road.
In these early yet seminal works, Elias also showed that chains or ‘webs’
of interdependence produced such intense fantasies about the inherent
superiority of the aristocracy – and such intense collective fears about
downward mobility – that all the social dominants found themselves trapped
in tedious postures and ceremonial displays of etiquette. On and beneath
conscious levels, all involved were fundamentally influenced by the courtly
social relations and repeated experiences into which they had been thrust.
Crucially, even the Sun King himself was ultimately powerless to bring about
adaptations in this state of affairs. Here we might cite a passage from Elias’s
The Court Society, one that Bourdieu (1996 [1989]: 129) also found important
enough to quote at length:

In the last analysis this compelling struggle for ever-threatened power and
prestige was the dominant factor that condemned all those involved to enact
these burdensome ceremonies. No single person within the figuration was
able to initiate a reform of the tradition. Every slightest attempt to reform, to
Elias and Bourdieu 155

change the precarious structure of tensions, inevitably entailed an upheaval, a

reduction or even abolition of the rights of certain individuals and families. To
jeopardize such privileges was, to the ruling class of this society, a kind of taboo.
The attempt would be opposed by broad sections of the privileged who feared,
perhaps not without justification, that the whole system of rule that gave them
privilege would be threatened or would collapse if the slightest detail of the
traditional order were altered. So everything remained as it was.

A central point here is that the king and his court were basically held hostage
by the very figurational dynamics they temporarily dominated. Elias’s primary
interest, however, was not in how dominant groups were dominated by their
own positional advantage. His point was that potent figurational pressures
(such as those related to distributions of power, ‘courtly’ behavioural norms,
collective ways of feeling, and worldviews) predated the absolute monarch,
governed the king and his court for a time, and then carried on after the
Sun King and his courtiers were dead. Indeed, Elias showed how the very
sociogenetic (i.e. structural) pressures the Sun King dominated would, in
altered form, ultimately lead some of the king’s own kind to the guillotine.
Even in this case characterised by some of the most extreme power
differentials ever recorded, for Elias the question was never ‘Who is in control?’;
rather, the properly sociological question was how particular responses
(socialisation pressures, feelings, thoughts) temporarily emanate from specific
figurational developments (conceptualised across more macro- and micro-
domains and in terms of longer- or shorter-term processes). The key features
ostensibly ‘of ’ the individuals and groups Elias examined (e.g. natural poise
in elite social gatherings, refined tastes, relatively high degrees of emotional
self-control) did not exist outside the social networks in which the king and his
courtiers found themselves. And none of these open human beings (homines
aperti) could possibly have remained essentially unchanged throughout their
ongoing interrelations.
From this perspective, it makes no sense to think about some ‘true’, deep
down, non-social ‘self ’. For Elias at least, these early studies of ‘courtisation’
put the nail in the coffin of the eternal soul, the transcendental subject, the
utility-maximising individual with a fixed preference schedule. Using the more
or less intentional and meaningful actions of the Sun King and his court as
the limiting case, he argued that nearly all ‘our’ actions and attributes are
actually produced within dynamic chains of interdependence in which we are
temporarily caught. The focus, therefore, must remain on shifting networks of
interdependent actors. Social relations and pressures operative in the kinds of
figurations worthy of our sustained attention are the very stuff of the passions,
worldviews, and levels of emotional self-control ‘of individuals’.
156 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Hence, the notion of figurational dynamics helped Elias to escape the

grip of ‘naïve egocentricity’ – as well as to decontextualise substantialist
categorisations more generally – and therefore to arrive at ways of speaking and
thinking based on the fundamental interdependence of human beings within
continually unfolding social settings just as real as the individuals constituting
them.14 Elias’s notion of penetrating, yet fluid-like, social structures helped him
to grasp how self-restraint and a predisposition towards the use of a good deal
of foresight were associated with ‘civilising’ pressures (as well as ‘decivilising’
surges) that could fruitfully be examined over the course of many centuries.15
Elias’s approach to fields of relational dynamics was based on the
assumption that not even the effects of the enculturation process for which
he is most famous could be decontextualised (i.e. understood outside specific
social configurations) and reduced to some kind of substance that is inherently
advantageous or disadvantageous. As he and Scotson (1994 [1965]: 10) argued,
‘every element in a configuration and all of its properties are what they are only
by virtue of their position and function within a configuration’. Sensing the
utility of his approach to figurations, Elias (1978: 116) never stopped advising
sociologists to ‘work out’ from these shifting relational wholes ‘to the elements
involved in them’. Aware of how difficult it would be to break with modes of
substantialist thinking which had become embedded in the very languages
we speak, he (1978: 98) reiterated that it ‘is a scientific superstition that in
order to investigate them scientifically one must necessarily dissect processes
of interweaving into their component parts’. In his more polemical remarks,
Elias associated substantialist thinking with Zustandreduktion, the reduction
of what are in fact unfolding processes to frozen states (cf. Goudsblom and
Mennell, 1998: 143), and he accused many of his colleagues of ‘retreating into
the present’ (Elias, 1987).
Let us now shift our focus from social configurations to habitus. Elias, like
many other intellectuals in inter-bellum Germany, used this term frequently.
This is often overlooked in part because ‘habitus’ was translated in the English
version of The Civilizing Process as ‘personality structure’ or ‘personality make-
up’.16 There can, however, be no doubt about Elias’s reliance on his notion
of habitus in all his writings, from his early masterpiece, The Civilizing Process,
to The Germans – a book, written towards the end of his life, in which he
attempted to deal with the deeper causes of the ‘breakdown of civilisation’.
As Elias (1996 [1989]: 19) wrote in the introduction to that latter work, which
featured the term ‘habitus’ in its subtitle, ‘[t]he central question is how the
fortunes of a nation over the centuries became sedimented into the habitus of
its individual members’. Instead of slavishly sticking to poor translations and
awkward terms, we need to take a closer look at what the concept of habitus
allowed Elias to accomplish.
Elias and Bourdieu 157

It is true that Elias’s analyses of habitus formation often stretched back

to the ‘dark ages’. And he is most famous for connecting state formation
and other longer-term, macro-level processes to structural transformations
in everyday social relations that exerted more or less ‘civilising’ influences.17
Yet, he was by no means interested exclusively in longer-term socialisation
processes. There is another – less well-known – Elias, who had a sharp eye
for processes related to contemporary child-rearing techniques, adolescent-
socialising practices, and the extended and specialised training now required
for a reasonable chance at success in ‘fields of adult activities’ (Elias, 1991
[1987]: 123; see also Elias, 1996: 268; Elias and Dunning, 1986; Elias and
Scotson, 1994 [1965]).18
Whether he was taking the long view or not, as we mentioned at the
outset, Elias relied on habitus largely because it helped him to arrive at a more
fundamental understanding of how internal steering mechanisms function.
For the most part, second natures operate not only in situ but also beneath
the level of consciousness. Expressing this crucial insight early in his career,
Elias (1994 [1939]: 485–486, italics in original) argued that ‘[c]ivilization […]
is not a process within a separate sphere of “ideas” or “thought”. It does
not involve solely changes of “knowledge”, transformations of “ideologies”,
in short alterations of the content of consciousness, but changes in the whole
human makeup, within which ideas and habits of thought are only a single
sector […]. [E]very investigation that considers only the consciousness of
men, their “reason” or “ideas”, while disregarding the structure of drives, the
direction and form of human affects and passions, can be from the outset of
only limited value.’
Elias saw that, in specific cases and during certain periods, habitus
development could lag behind social structural transformations. Here we
might return to the gradual ‘courtisation’ of the warrior class in late medieval
Europe. For the first warriors undergoing transitions into new types of social
spheres – contexts in which outbursts of violence (or otherwise ‘giving free
play to the emotions’) put one at a distinct disadvantage – courtly manners
were far from automatic. Elias argued that the ways of being required by the
new situation were far from second nature to these newly ‘civilised’ warriors.
Only if one took a longer view on courtisation could one grasp that habitus
formation and social structural transformations are interdependent aspects of
the same underlying development.19
So even if the concept of figuration can be treated as the first among equals,
in Elias’s scheme, there is another interpretation that is no less compelling.
Thinking in terms of a unified process encompassing both structural dynamics
and habitus formation processes, it would be senseless to say that either the
first or the second is the prime motor of social development. Indeed, we find
158 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Elias using habitus-in-figurations – just as Bourdieu did – to reject the very

dichotomy between internal and external worlds.20
Although Bourdieu certainly elaborated on Elias’s ideas about power, both
authors can also be treated essentially as sociologists of shifting configurations
of power. Elias never assumed that people would be able adequately to
appraise, let alone put into words, the ways in which power relations emerge
and operate within the figurations they comprise. Much like Bourdieu, he
regarded a staunchly realist (objectivising) delineation of changing power
imbalances to be the primary task of the sociologist. For him, it often
went without saying that social configurations are always configurations
of power and that the second natures operating in them (and to varying
degrees produced by them) are by definition more or less empowering. After
all, shifting ‘power ratios’ (or ever-changing ‘balances’ or ‘distributions’ of
‘power chances’) were, for Elias, the very stuff of human interdependence.
From his perspective, people do not just need other people (for everything
from physical and emotional contact to cognitive orientations); they need
others – and are naturally oriented towards others – who are objectively more
or less powerful than themselves. There are no feelings or thoughts about
group formation (e.g. I or we are ‘Irish’) outside of power relations (e.g. with
‘the English’). It would be absurd, Elias believed, to consider the habitus of
a person or group as somehow separate from the (longer- or shorter-term)
effects of specific experiences within specifically structured configurations
of power. And to thematise a person’s (or a group’s) habitus was always
already to discuss what is at least potentially a scarce power resource.
One of the clearest treatments of power resources in Elias came in his work
with Scotson (1994 [1965]), The Established and the Outsiders. In this book, which
now includes an introduction entitled ‘A Theoretical Essay on Established
and Outsider Relations’ (added in 1976), Elias showed how newcomers to a
working-class neighbourhood in ‘Winston Parva’ (a pseudonym for a city in
the British midlands) were effectively forced into feeling inferior, as a group,
to the more ‘established’ residents of the same neighbourhood. The key here
was that emotionally charged group-formation processes took place despite the
fact that the newer and older sets of residents had the same socioeconomic,
ethnic, and religious backgrounds. True to form, Elias documented how
feelings of ‘group disgrace’ no less than fantasies of ‘group charisma’ could
not possibly be understood unless the overall field of relational dynamics
served as the point of departure and the basic unit of analysis. Power was
more explicitly thematised here than in other works because none of the
usual suspects (income level, education, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual
orientation) could help one to get a grip on the basic social divisions structuring
the field of relational dynamics under interrogation.
Elias and Bourdieu 159

Although this theoretical introduction showed how established

and outsider figurations could be analysed by reference to long-term
developments, The Established and the Outsiders itself was not based on the
longue durée. After relating current visions and divisions to slightly longer-
term developments (the newcomers had ‘only’ been living in Winston
Parva for at most two or three generations), Elias and Scotson focused
on the directly observable present. While the element of time remained
crucial to their overall argument, their detailed analyses were based on
here-and-now manifestations of the time-bound conflict. However, the
conceptual approach taken in this study of unexpected power differentials
was just as processual as those taken in studies based on developments over
the course of several centuries. While delving into here-and-now aspects
of a single community’s (dis)integration issues, Elias based his analyses on
ongoing transactions in a well-defined relational context of action, rather
than on static entities presumed to exist before their interactions with one
another. For Elias, focusing on self-enclosed individuals, the attributes of
a given social group, or some disembedded belief system was never an
option. And, of course, objective differences in position and prestige, too,
had to be approached relationally as well as processually.
So what was the difference that made the difference in this particular
setting? Why would the ‘established’ working-class residents see themselves as
a ‘group’ over and above the ‘group’ of working-class residents who had ‘only’
been living in an adjacent part of the same neighbourhood for two or three
generations? Most importantly, why were the newcomers effectively forced
to measure themselves with a yardstick based on ‘established’ behavioural
norms? The answer is that, relative to ‘outsiders’, the ‘established’ group
displayed relatively high degrees of social cohesion and integration. A higher
degree of social control and a more tightly-knit network allowed members of
the established group to maintain myths about their intrinsic superiority as
well as about the inherent, and therefore all the more shameful, inferiority of
the newcomers.
Crucially, then, Elias and Scotson found that ‘outsiders’ were effectively
unable to make up their own minds. They were forced by the compelling logic
of the overall figuration and by virtue of the power wielded by the established
residents to accept a stigmatising view of their ‘kind’ and themselves. Yet,
because of their positions vis-à-vis the less powerful outsiders, the established
in Winston Parva were also led into collective fantasies about their own
superiority and about the need to maintain a certain distance from members
of the inferior group. They were led by the structure and logic of figurational
dynamics to adopt ideas and practices that seem to us no less absurd than the
powdered wigs of eighteenth century France.21
160 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

The Established and the Outsiders contains still more theorising about how
different types of power worked in this conflicted community. For instance,
Elias and Scotson (1994: 155) explained why the mud that ‘established’ residents
were successfully slinging would sooner or later stop sticking to the wall:
‘Without their power’, they wrote, ‘the claim to a higher status and a specific
charisma would soon decay and sound hollow whatever the distinctiveness of
their behaviour’. In other words, neither utterances nor modes of behaviour
(i.e. visible interactions) really drove the dynamics of stigmatisation. Less visible
yet objective power differentials prestructured the dynamics of stigmatisation
and the overall pattern of community relations.
Elias’s empirical investigation of Winston Parva seems to have deeply
influenced his thinking about the properties of figurations more generally.
As the 1976 introduction indicates, he stressed that, whether or not extreme
power inequalities were obviously present, figurations were marked by more
established (dominant) and less established (dominated) poles. Indeed, he
(1994: xxvi) claimed to see evidence of the selfsame ‘pattern of stigmatisation
used by high power groups in relation to their outsider groups […] all over
the world in spite of […] cultural differences […] [and even in settings where
such dynamics] may at first be a little unexpected’. Drawing from an array
of historical examples in that introduction, he argued that different kinds
of power inequalities generate basically similar types of fantasies about the
innate inferiority of groups characterised by less positional power. He held
that, despite what one might see at first glace, the most fundamental power
inequalities are never really based on such dimensions as race, caste, or
ethnicity. If one goes back far enough, one finds that underlying forms of
interdependence marked by objective power imbalances are precisely what
prestructures social constructions of racial, caste, or ethnic groupness and
otherness. These underlying, objective power inequities are what ensure that
stigmatising attributions and classifications will be effective – in the minds of
both the established and the outsiders. In setting after setting, it is ‘the very
condition of their outsider position and the humiliation and oppression that go
with it’ (Elias, 1994: xxvi) that enable and reproduce myths about (biological)
attributes related to so-called racial, caste, or ethnic groups.22
In The Established and the Outsiders we arrive at something very close to
Bourdieu’s notions of social and symbolic capital. And similarities in terms of
their thinking about power do not end here. In An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology,
Bourdieu claimed that Elias was insufficiently sensitive to the properly
symbolic power of the state and that the older master ‘always fail[ed] to ask
who benefits and suffers’ from a state’s monopoly over the use of legitimate
violence (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 92–93). Yet, Elias’s depiction of
state formation in The Civilizing Process was explicitly and repeatedly linked
Elias and Bourdieu 161

to emerging class structures, most importantly in what would eventually

become France. One of the main ideas here was that, to survive during the
late Middle Ages, socially dominant groups had to monopolise the legitimate
use of physical violence over ever-larger populations and tracks of land. Elias
showed in detail that some stood to gain, while others were killed or forced to
suffer as this process unfolded.
Elias and Bourdieu can, therefore, be treated as sociologists of power. And,
on closer examination one finds profound similarities even in the ways they
expressed their notions of (non-economic) power resources. The concept of the
state monopoly over the ‘means of violence’ in the work of Elias was intended
to counteract the economic determinism in Marx’s theory, the notion that
the bourgeoisie monopolised the ‘means of production’. (Although Weber’s
definition of the state centred on the ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of
violence’, he did use the term ‘means’ in this context.) Bourdieu tried to escape
from a similar kind of Marxist ‘economism’ by adding to the classical concept
of economic capital other types of capital: cultural, social, and symbolic
types of assets being the most noteworthy. Thinking with and against Marx,
both Elias and Bourdieu based their analyses on objective power differentials
yet steered away from an approach that exaggerated the pervasiveness of
economic forces in social life. Furthermore, their understanding of context-
specific forms of power – in Elias’s case, continua between poles analogous to
those in Bourdieu’s field-based approach to power struggles – should be seen
as one of their primary analytic insights, right alongside those of figuration
and habitus.
As this discussion of power vis-à-vis habitus and field has documented, in
Elias’s hands these three main concepts merged into one extremely fruitful
point of view. Therefore, just as with Bourdieu, when considering Elias’s work
we ought rather to speak of a triune than of a triadic approach to the study
of social life.

Sport: Twists and Turns Towards a Hand-in-Hand Approach

Elias and Bourdieu were the only major sociologists of the twentieth century
to take sport seriously. This is not the place to go into any great detail regarding
this matter, but even a brief sketch of their overlapping approaches to the
topic – combined with some summary reflections on what an Elias- and
Bourdieu-inspired approach to sport might look like – can offer examples of
uncanny and far-reaching complementarity.
In his ‘Essay on Sport and Violence’, Elias’s theoretical sensitivities led
him to investigate the ‘“sportization” of pastimes’ in England as a particularly
noteworthy example of a ‘civilizing spurt’ (1986: 22).23 Starting in times when
162 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

life and leisure seemed especially nasty and brutish – and then citing examples
of the increasing pacification of the dominant classes in England during
the eighteenth century (Whigs and Tories engaging in nonviolent political
contests, peaceful transfers of power, and the institutionalisation of opposition
as part and parcel of a functioning government) – Elias concluded that the
‘“parliamentarization” of the landed classes of England had its counterpart
in the sportization of its pastimes’ (Elias, 1986: 34). Fear and violence were
once again central to Elias’s simultaneously macro-, meso-, and micro-level
analysis. And yet again, Elias’s structuralist as well as constructivist approach
highlighted the emerging positions and generative tastes of the dominant class
(i.e. the established strata symbolically powerful enough to serve as a model
for the more or less marginalised masses of outsiders). Here we see, again,
in a nutshell, his triadic approach to sociological inquiry and his openness to
longer-term historical perspectives.
Explicitly citing Elias’s essay, Bourdieu stated that Elias was ‘more sensitive
than I am to continuity’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 93). To some degree,
he was convinced by Elias’s arguments about broad structural transformations
and corresponding shifts in habitus formation going back to the late Middle
Ages. At the same time, he warned that longer-term analyses – such as those
of Elias on sport – ‘carry the danger of masking’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 93) crucial historical breaks. Bourdieu seemed to think that longer-term
analyses carry the risk of hiding as much as they reveal. He pointed out, for
example, that from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries, terms like athlete
(or artist, dancer, etc.) took on ever-changing meanings. Because new fields
(sport, literature) emerged and were fundamentally transformed – the world
of sport became increasingly commercial and autonomous, and ‘California
sports’ were introduced – such terms could be extremely misleading when
used in more far-reaching historical analyses. He therefore questioned the
validity of Elias’s longer-term perspective on trends in leisure activities and
sport. ‘There is nothing in common’, he (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 93,
italics in original) argued, ‘between ritual games such as medieval soule and
American football’.
This was not Bourdieu, however, at his most convincing. His own analyses
in Masculine Domination (2001) spanned both sides of the Mediterranean and
reached back to antiquity. It is certainly true that longer-term perspectives can
blind even the greatest of researchers to important aspects of the developments
they address. For example, by treating them like any other institutional
restraints, Elias seems to have downplayed the potentially ‘civilising’ effects
of the church (Kempers, 1992; Turner, 2003). Bourdieu’s own work and
comments on Elias indicate, however, that he recognised the potential utility
of longer-term analyses.
Elias and Bourdieu 163

Furthermore, whether one finds this line of reasoning convincing or not,

what Bourdieu left out of his comments on Elias’s work on sport is as revealing
as what he mentioned. It is Elias’s eye for longer-term processes as well as
his systematic thematisation of steadily increasing levels of emotional self-
control (and feelings of shame with regard to physical violence) that make
Elias’s approach to sport potentially such a useful companion to the one
devised by Bourdieu. Elias saw that, in sports as well as in many other fields,
emotional-bodily self-control tends to operate as the most fundamental power
resource and as a prerequisite to the sedimentation of all kinds of abilities
and forms of knowledge. From this perspective, it makes perfect sense to
ask how longer-term structural transformations made the development of
increasingly regulated regimes of sport possible in the first place. It also makes
sense to question how increasingly regulated regimes of sport might engender
empowering levels of emotional stability and productive increases in self-
discipline (cf. Wacquant, 2004). By contrast, when Bourdieu thematised bodily
regulation through rituals of sport (and other disciplining rituals), it usually
led him to discussions about the generation of docility – in the dual sense of
becoming disposed to learning and becoming passive and easily manipulated
(cf. Bourdieu, 1990a: 166–167). In terms of both the longer-term processes
related to what are indeed increasingly regulated regimes of sports and the
ways in which ‘civilising’ pressures emanating from rituals of sport can turn
into empowering emotional self-constraints incarnate, Bourdieu seems to have
missed out on a promising opportunity to score.
At the same time, Bourdieu’s application of field theory to sport is an
indispensable extension of Elias’s work. Bourdieu showed much greater
appreciation not only for important historical cleavages (think of ‘professional
football’ in the early and late twentieth century) but also for how more or
less convertible and distinctive forms of capital related to sport can operate
in broader social (and especially class-based) conflicts. Another aspect of
Bourdieusian thought that deserves special attention here is his sensitivity to
body-based learning, knowledge, skills, and practical action. This – largely
Merleau-Pontian – vision of the situated and lived body as the fundamental
source of perceptions and preinterpretive ‘strategies’ is especially noteworthy
because it makes advances on even Elias’s vividly incarnated theorising about
habitus formation and sport.
We can now pull these thoughts together and demonstrate how a combined
approach to sport is more productive than one that relies exclusively on either
Elias or Bourdieu. Let us take tennis as an example. From an Elias- and
Bourdieu-inspired perspective, we can see that tennis is a prime example of
an originally upper (middle) class sport that requires relatively high degrees
of precision and, above all, socialised self-restraint. Even the occasional
164 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

smash requires a modicum of restraint. And every successful serve-and-volley

requires an (almost) automatically well-tempered touch. Using the original
(sexist) language of the game, we can say that the stiff stances of the ‘linesmen’
during serves and the rigidly synchronised movements of the ‘ballboys’
between points are meticulously orchestrated and perpetually monitored. And
no matter how large the crowd, there is silence before a serve even during the
tensest of moments. Civility goes far beyond the fact that the players almost
never fight. If a ball is hit hard and directly towards an opponent, or even
if one unwittingly profits from the ball hitting the net, apologies are often
offered by means of a rather subtle hand gesture. And no matter what is at
stake, the ritual always closes down with handshakes over the net and with
the appropriately elevated umpire symbolising legitimate authority. (‘He is on
high because he needs to see!’) This final nod to the ultimate authority of
the elevated is often accentuated by bows to any royalty that may be looking
down from one of the appropriate boxes. After the fleeting and more or less
intense emotional release, the timeless moral order is restored. Even if they
do occasionally smash one of their many rackets or scream at an umpire,
advanced tennis players never really let it rip; and one must wonder if they
would be able to do so even if they tried.
From our combined theoretical approach, tennis appears to be an
extremely restrained sport devised by, and played in front of, established
groups. As surely as strength or speed, emotional self-restraint and social
distinction seem the name of the game. Questions about how longer-term
sociogenetic transformations – e.g. state formation, pacification, and shifting
distributions of economic power – relate to the evolution of tastes and
abilities in such a regulated pastime seem just as appropriate as questions
about who has benefited, more recently, from enculturation processes
centred on the old (and young) boys (and girls) network known in many
contexts simply as ‘the club’. More specifically, one might ask which types
of people have been able to convert economic, cultural, and social capital
(money for membership, knowledge of the ‘right’ sport and the ‘appropriate’
clubs, and connections with people who can help attain access to the club)
into empowering socialisation processes for their children. On the outcome
side, one might also think here of the development of middle- and upper-
class ways of speaking, moving, feeling, and thinking as well as the building
of social capital (business networks and opportunities) for adults and
eventually their offspring. How does repeatedly moving together in time, in
a bounded and in many cases elite microcosm, engender carnal connections
and passionate group solidarities? Might these seemingly meaningless
mutual reconstitutions among people with a good first serve be central to
the formation of fantasies about self-made men, natural distinction, and the
Elias and Bourdieu 165

inherent inferiority of those who engage in less ‘refined’ sports like football,
wrestling, darts, and auto racing? Drawing simultaneously from Elias and
from Bourdieu also helps us to focus more closely on lived bodily coping in
the here-and-now. Micro-situational pressures and a practical sense of the
‘space of possible moves’ infiltrate the whole being of (good) tennis players.
For example, if a ball flies towards you while your opponent on the other side
of the net is deep in her own territory, you are drawn – especially if you are an
authentically competent player – immediately to the right comportment. Were
it not for its disembodying connotations, ‘feelings first, second thoughts’ might
be a good motto for what actually happens here. The main point is that your
response is initiated quickly enough because it is not mediated by any time-
consuming explicit mental representations. Certainly, you were already on the
alert because you are playing tennis; now that this ball is screaming towards
you, you cannot be accused of any conscious strategising as you react to this
specific aspect of the flowing mix of injunctions. The new stance called forth
by this emerging configuration of sanctions and invitations (e.g. the way you
bend your knees before you lurch forward or the way you start to shift your grip
on the racket) itself also influences your next feeling, movement, or ‘position-
taking’. Conscious thinking, if any finally occurs, should be considered the
tip of the iceberg. In the heat of the moment, you almost certainly are not
thinking consciously about what the lines on the court mean, why you care
about winning, why you have invested time in such a sport, how you should
move in the next instant, and so forth. At the very moment the ball charges
towards you, your emerging responses are infused with projections based on
countless previous experiences.
Zooming in allows us to see what social being in real time is actually like.
It allows us to interrogate the workings, in Bourdieusian and Eliasian terms,
of one’s feel for an exceptionally distinctive and civilised game. That game is
in you because you have been in the game. Along with others, you have been
formed by the ongoing patterning we call tennis. It would be pointless to draw
any sharp demarcations between internal and external, the mind and the
body, reasonable projections into the likely future and emotional dispositions
moulded in the past, the subjective sense of the player and the objective
regularities of the game. We are in the flow now; what to play next?

Conclusion
We have specified some underlying similarities in the theoretical perspectives
of Elias and Bourdieu. These similarities – or subterranean affinities, as
we have also described them – centre around these thinkers’ common
deployment of three important concepts: habitus, field, and power. Despite
166 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

outward differences in terminology (at times due to the vagaries of translation) –

such as Elias’s idea of habitus being rendered as ‘personality structure’ or
as ‘make-up’, his notion of field as ‘figuration’, or Bourdieu’s concept of
power as ‘capital’ – the two thinkers effectively converged at least on the basic
meanings of these concepts. They also thought in similar terms about the
interrelation of these key ideas, as we have illustrated in our final substantive
section on their respective analyses of sport. More importantly still, Elias and
Bourdieu shared an emphasis on relational and processual thinking. Both
reacted strongly against the substantialist tendencies pervasive in sociological
theorising and research, and in place of these tendencies they elaborated an
approach concerned primarily with situating their objects of study in ever-
shifting and evolving webs or configurations of relations – in Harrison White’s
(1997: 60) felicitous phrase, ‘processes-in-relations’. A century and a half ago,
Marx opened the way for sociologists to think in relational and processual
terms by analysing capital as a dynamic system not of ‘things’ but of social
relations. In the early twentieth century, classical sociologists such as Simmel,
classical pragmatists such as Dewey and Mead, and phenomenologists such as
Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty further developed this theoretical perspective.
In the mid to late twentieth century, it was arguably Elias and Bourdieu who
most effectively served as the torch-bearers of this way of thinking.
It is important today that we recognise the deep commonalities and affinities
in their approaches to sociological inquiry not merely as an intellectual
or scholastic exercise but because it potentially serves as a stimulus to new
advances in relational and processual analysis (see Emirbayer, 1997; Paulle,
2005). As we mentioned, Elias criticised long ago the tendency of sociologists
(in this respect, he observed, they are like lay persons) to think in static and
reified terms, that is, to engage in ‘process-reduction’. This struggle against
substantialism could never conclusively be won. Indeed, tendencies towards
entity-based analysis are not uncommon in sociology even today, whether in the
area of stratification research, where, as Bourdieu (1991: 381) pointed out, an
‘alliance’ reigns between quantitative methodology and ‘modernized versions
of methodological individualism, that is, the theory of rational action’, or in
areas of qualitative inquiry where, for example, racial and ethnic categories are
sometimes still conceptualised as insular, bounded groups. (Brubaker, [2004]
called the latter way of thinking ‘groupism’.) Elias and Bourdieu provide, with
their field-theoretic, power-centred, and habitus-based approaches, a valuable
corrective to such tendencies, a way of doing sociology that serves us well as
we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century.
To be sure, the shared theoretical orientation of Elias and Bourdieu needs
to be generatively extended into a wide range of substantive fields of inquiry in
the social sciences if it is to retain its relevance. We have seen the contributions
Elias and Bourdieu 167

their ideas can make to a sociology of sport – an enterprise that, however,

still does not feature many of those ideas in its market-leading textbooks
and anthologies. What might an Elias- or Bourdieu-inspired approach to
comparative and historical sociology look like? Elias is widely regarded as an
important contributor to that field, but his deeper theoretical insights have
hardly been plumbed, not to mention Bourdieu’s own ideas, especially since
the latter are widely depicted as reproduction theory. What might an Elias-
or Bourdieu-inspired organisational sociology look like? What impact might
their ideas regarding habitus have in the present-day field of social psychology,
where research agendas such as attribution theory, expectation states theory,
and the like, often make it into the indexes of leading textbooks while ‘Elias’,
‘Bourdieu’, and ‘habitus’ merit nary a mention?24 To date, whenever the
strikingly unified and coherent systems of ideas of these two thinkers have been
appropriated, it has been in piecemeal fashion, one concept at a time. How
many thousands of studies have cited Bourdieu on ‘cultural capital’ without
ever coming to terms with the larger framework of thought within which that
concept does its work? A thorough engagement is surely necessary with the
different subfields and research agendas currently dominant in sociology if the
promise in Elias’s and Bourdieu’s sociologies is to be fully realised.
It is important in this regard that the academic divide between qualitative
and quantitative inquiry be superseded, and, in particular, that formalised
approaches be developed that ‘think relationally’ – as Bourdieu once said
of correspondence analysis – and, indeed, also processually. Social network
analysts on the spatial side and sequence analysts on the temporal side have
sought to elaborate new ways of furthering this goal on the quantitative and
mathematical end of the standard divide. Elias never really attempted to
move in such a direction himself. Bourdieu, by contrast, did – and his life’s
work manifested a long-term fascination with French-style data analysis in
the tradition of Benzecri, a mode of analysis serving as the empirical basis of
much of his analyses in Distinction and The State Nobility, among other major
writings. Whether correspondence analysis as Bourdieu practised it is truly the
best way to proceed is an open question, but sociology can surely benefit from
other formal approaches that allow the field-, habitus- and power-oriented
ideas of Elias and Bourdieu to be generalised. With his openness to formal
modelling, Bourdieu certainly had the right intuition, even if the mathematical
and statistical means of realising that vision were not yet fully available in his
day (and might not be still in ours).
Largely unbeknownst to one another, and in implicit fashion primarily, Elias
and Bourdieu complemented each other and pointed sociological inquiry in
similar directions. They take their place as crucial figures in an ever-unfolding
tradition of thought that needs generatively and creatively to be renewed with
168 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

each passing decade if it is to remain living and vital. Much as these social
thinkers each selectively appropriated from his predecessors in seeking to move
sociology forward, so too must we take stock of their important theoretical
contributions and then do something genuinely new upon that basis. Only
then will this look back at the writings of Elias and Bourdieu have positive
significance for theorisation and research in future sociology.

Notes
1 Indeed in 1991, the author of State Nobility expressed his indebtedness to the elder
master at a memorial service in Amsterdam honouring the originality of Elias’s
contributions. An expanded version of this tribute would later be published under
the title ‘Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field’
(Bourdieu, 1994).
2 We thank the Elias Foundation, and in particular Stephen Mennell, for allowing us
access to Elias’s and Bourdieu’s personal correspondence.
3 Among others, Quilley and Loyal (2005: 812) and (Heinich, 2002) have also taken
serious looks at the (dis)similarities between Elias and Bourdieu.
4 Another noteworthy difference between Elias and Bourdieu is that the former
thematised (control over) ecological processes. This inspired Johan Goudsblom’s (1992)
Fire and Civilisation as well as his later work on the ‘expanding anthroposphere’ (De Vries
and Goudsblom, 2002; see also Quilley, 2004).
5 The term triad might readily be associated with the most relational of all classical
sociologists: Simmel. Among those acquainted with Elias’s work, this term will also
conjure up the ‘triad of basic controls’ in What is Sociology (1978 [1970]: 156–157). All
earlier usages of the term are unrelated, however, to the way we are using ‘triad’ here.
6 Elias and Bourdieu foreshadowed the current interest in the lived body, the emotional
brain, and neuroplasticity. This is not the place, however, to bring in how developments
in neurobiology and cognitive science – e.g. those popularised by Damasio (2003:
55–56) – have effectively reinforced the (at times) overlapping arguments made by
these two scholars long before the breakthroughs enabled by new generations of
brain scans.
7 While Heidegger’s role in Nazi Germany may make many Elias followers uncomfortable,
and while Elias was notoriously uncomfortable about admitting where he got even his
most profound ideas, Kilminster (2007: 19) is dead on when he notes that ‘the attack
on Cartesian rationalism, Kantianism, and conventional historiography in the work
of Heidegger […] was highly significant for Elias’s development’. Furthermore, as
Kilminster (2007: 20) notes, ‘[h]aving been on friendly terms […] with [the likes of
Hannah] Arendt (a pupil of Heidegger) […] Elias must have had direct experience
(and even insider knowledge) of the two dominant philosophical currents of the time in
Freiburg – phenomenology and fundamental ontology.’
8 In Wacquant’s dense yet tidy formulation, Bourdieu ‘builds in particular on Maurice
Merleau-Ponty’s idea of the intrinsic corporeality of the preobjective contact between subject and
world in order to restore the body as the source of practical intentionality, as the fount
of intersubjective meaning grounded in the preobjective level of experience’ (Bourdieu
and Wacquant, 1992: 20, italics in original).
Elias and Bourdieu 169

9 Or, as Durkhiem (1895: 127) originally phrased it: ‘la société n’est pas une simple
somme d’individus, mais le système formé par leur association représente une réalité
spécifique qui a ses caractères propres.’
10 A field, for Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 97), can be defined as ‘a network,
or a configuration, of objective relations between positions. These positions are
objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their
occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation (situs) in the
structure of distribution of species of power (or capital) whose possession commands
access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their objective
relation to other positions (domination, subordination, homology, etc.).’
11 Wacquant (in Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 18, italics in original) calls our attention
to how Bourdieu described habitus as ‘a structuring mechanism that operates from within
agents, though it is neither strictly individual, nor in itself fully determinative of
conduct […]. As the result of the internalization of external structures, habitus reacts
to the solicitations of the field in a roughly coherent and systematic manner’.
12 This notion that the social space should be conceptualised primarily as a site of ongoing
struggle becomes utterly clear in Bourdieu’s various writings on the state. There
he shows how the left hand of the state is associated primarily with the dominated
dominants (academia and the arts, agencies pushing for better education and health
care, and social workers), while the right hand of the state is associated primarily with
the dominant dominants (the military and the monetary, agencies pushing for fiscal
discipline at least for the poor, and the police). These weaker and stronger ‘hands’
correspond respectively to the upper-left quadrant (lower economic capital and greater
cultural capital) and the upper-right quadrant (greater economic and lower cultural
capital) of social space, as Bourdieu’s diagrams often made clear.
13 In the original version, the final words were ‘ins Feld der Beziehungsdynamik’ (1997
[1939]: 230).
14 As Elias put it, in one of his many memorable passages from The Civilizing Process (1994
[1939]: 213–214), ‘[s]uch interdependencies are the nexus of what is here called the
figuration, a structure of mutually oriented and dependent people. Since people are
more or less dependent on each other first by nature and then through social learning,
through education, socialization, and socially generated reciprocal needs, they exist,
one might venture to say, only as pluralities, only in figurations’.
15 We wish to reiterate that this approach to social structures did not generate insights
into processes associated with ‘(de)civilizaiton’ alone. Elias (1994 [1939]: 482) exhibited
the same type of thinking when, for example, he discussed the schoolchild who is
assumed to possess ‘creative intelligence’ and to be a ‘very special individual “natural
talent”’. The very way of being that is singled out here, he argued, ‘is only possible at
all within a particular structure of power balances; its precondition is a quite specific
social structure. And it depends further on access which the individual has, within a
society so structured, to the kind of schooling [experiences] […] which alone permit
[…] capacity for independent individual thought to develop.’
16 Cf. original text (Elias, 1997 [1939] I: 76, 78, 82, 351; II: 49, 326, 330–331, 344).
17 In the following passage, Elias (1994 [1939]: 448) summed up his findings on The
Civilizing Process: ‘In general […] societies without a stable monopoly of force are
always societies in which the division of functions is relatively slight and the chains of
action binding individuals together are comparatively short. […] The moderation of
spontaneous emotions, the tempering of affects, the extension of mental space beyond
170 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the moment into the past and future, the habit of connecting events in terms of chains
of cause and effect – all of these are aspects of the same transformation of conduct
which necessarily takes place with the monopolization of physical violence, and the
lengthening of chains of social action and interdependence. It is a “civilizing” change
of behavior.’
18 In essays originally penned in the 1940s and 50s, although they were published much
later, Elias (1991: 115–116 and 122–123) developed ideas quite similar to Bourdieu’s
notions of ‘specialised’ or ‘secondary’ habitus (e.g. the pugilistic habitus that Wacquant
[2004] acquired in a boxing gym as an adult).
19 From this vantage point, as Elias (1989: 336) wrote, one cannot ‘clearly recognize the
connections between – whatever it is – “society” and “culture”, “state” and “individual”,
“external” and “internal” steering mechanisms, unless ones conceptualizes them as
something in movement, as aspects of social processes that are themselves processes,
indeed as functionally interdependent processes involving varying degrees of harmony
and conflict.’
20 It would be incorrect, however, to deduce from this that Elias was out to destroy ‘the
agent’ or, as the expression goes, that he left too little ‘room for agency’. Elias stressed
time and again that individuals acquire ‘dispositions’ of their own. Exploring this idea
before the Second World War, he (in Mennell and Goudsblom, 1998: 73) pointed out:
‘Of course, the dispositions which slowly evolve in the new-born child are never simply
a copy of what is done to him by others. They are entirely his. They are his response
to the way in which his drives and emotions, which are by nature oriented towards
other people, are responded to and satisfied by the others’. To this, Elias (in Mennell
and Goudsblom, 1998: 73) added elsewhere: ‘However certain it may be that each
person is a complete entity in himself, it is no less certain that the whole structure of his
self-control, both conscious and unconscious, is a product of interweaving formed in a
continuous interplay of relationships to other people.’
21 Here again, Elias exhibited a sharp eye for the short-term socialisation pressures
exerted on adolescents. Because of countless everyday injunctions, youth growing up
‘on the wrong side of the tracks’ could not help but experience themselves as members
of a group deemed ‘inferior by “nature” to the established group’ (Elias and Scotson,
1994: 159). More specifically, greater social cohesion and control (mediated in many
cases through gossip) ensured that established working-class residents could typically
induce outsider youth to accept an image of themselves modelled on the ‘minority of
the worst’ and an image of themselves modelled on a ‘minority of the best’.
22 Trying to express his ideas about power more clearly, Elias repeatedly returned, in his
more theoretical remarks (e.g. a chapter entitled ‘Game Models’ in What is Sociology?),
to the shifting power differentials in various kinds of games. Sticking to reflections
on a football match, he (1978: 131) asserted that ‘the concept of power has [to be]
transformed from a concept of substance to a concept of relationship’: ‘At the core of
changing figurations’, he wrote, ‘[…] – indeed at the very hub of the figuration process –
is a fluctuating, tensile equilibrium, a balance of power moving to and fro, inclining
first to one side and then to another. This kind of fluctuating balance of power is a
structural characteristic of the flow of every figuration.’
23 This essay was first published (in French) in 1976, in the journal founded a year earlier
by Bourdieu, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales. It was later reprinted in shorter form
in Elias and Dunning’s (1986: 150–174) Quest for Excitement.
24 Anyone wishing to verify this statement might peruse, for example, the index of
Michener et al.’s Fifth Edition of Social Psychology (2004).
Elias and Bourdieu 171

References
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in John G. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of
Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenword Press, pp. 241–258.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990a) In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans. Matthew
Adamson, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) ‘Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology’, in
Pierre Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds.) Social Theory for a Changing Society, Boulder:
Westview, pp. 373–378.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) ‘Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic
Field’, Sociological Theory 12(1): 1–18.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1992]) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans.
Susan Emanuel, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time, trans. Richard
Nice, New York: New Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001 [1998]) Masculine Domination, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1977 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society,
and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourgois, Philippe (1995) In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers (2004) Ethnicity Without Groups, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Damasio, Antonio (2003) Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain, New York:
Harcourt.
Durkheim, Émile (1895) Les Règles de la méthode sociologique, Paris: Felix Alcan.
Durkheim, Émile (1966 [1895]) The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. W. D. Halls,
New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Émile (1995 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. Karen E. Fields,
New York: Free Press.
Elias, Norbert (1956) ‘Problems of Involvement and Detachment’, British Journal of Sociology
7(3): 226–252.
Elias, Norbert (1978 [1970]) What is Sociology?, trans. Stephen Mennell and Grace Morrissey,
New York: Columbia University Press.
Elias, Norbert (1983 [1969]) The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Elias, Norbert (1987 [1983]) Involvement and Detachment, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Elias, Norbert (1987) ‘The Retreat of Sociologists into the Present’, Theory, Culture & Society
4(2–3): 223–249.
172 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Elias, Norbert (1994 [1939]) The Civilizing Process: The History of Manners and State Formation
and Civilization, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Oxford: Blackwell.
Elias, Norbert (1996) The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries, trans. Eric Dunning and Stephen Mennell, New York: Columbia
University Press.
Elias, Norbert (1997 [1939]) Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation. Bazel: Haus Zum Falken.
Elias, Norbert and Eric Dunning (1986) Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing
Process, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Elias, Norbert and John Scotson (1994 [1965]) The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological
Enquiry into Community Problems, London: Sage.
Emirbayer, Mustafa (1997) ‘Manifesto for a Relational Sociology’, American Journal of
Sociology 103(2): 281–317.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Erik Schneiderhan (forthcoming) ‘Dewey and Bourdieu on
Democracy’, in Philip S. Gorski (ed.) Bourdieuian Theory and Historical Analysis, Durham:
Duke University Press.
Goudsblom, Johan (1987) De sociologie van Norbert Elias, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Goudsblom, Johan and Stephen Mennell (1998) The Norbert Elias Reader: A Biographical
Selection, Oxford: Blackwell.
Heinich, Nathalie (1997) La sociologie de Norbert Elias, Paris: La Decouverte.
Kempers, Bram (1992) Painting, Power and Patronage: The Rise of the Professional Artist in
Renaissance Italy, New York: Allen Lane.
Kilminster, Richard (2007) Norbert Elias: Post-philosophical Sociology, London: Routledge.
Krieken, Robert van (1998) Norbert Elias, London: Routledge.
Lukes, Steven (1973) Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mennell, Stephen and Johan Goudsblom (eds.) (1998) Norbert Elias: On Civilization, Power and
Knowledge, London: University of Chicago Press.
Michener, H. Andrew, John D. DeLamater, and Daniel J. Myers (2004) Social Psychology,
Fifth Edition, Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Paulle, Bowen. (under contract) Toxic Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Quilley, Stephen (2004) ‘Ecology, “human nature, ” and civilizing processes: Biology and
Sociology in the Work of Norbert Elias’, in Steven Loyal and Stephan Quilley (eds.)
The Sociology of Norbert Elias, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quilley, Stephen and Steven Loyal (2005) ‘Eliasian Sociology as a “Central Theory” for the
Human Sciences’, Current Sociology 53; 807–828.
Ritzer, George and Douglas J. Goodman (2004) Sociological Theory, Fifth Edition, Boston:
McGraw Hill.
Shusterman, Richard (ed.) (1999) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Turner, Bryan (2003) ‘Warrior Charisma and the Spiritualization of Violence’, Body and
Society 9(4): 93–10.
Vries, Bert de and Johan Goudsblom (eds.) (2002). Mappae Mundi - Humans and their Habitats
in a Socio-Ecological Perspective: Myths, Maps, Methods and Models, Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
White, Harrison C. (1997) ‘Can Mathematics Be Social? Flexible Representations for
Interaction Process and its Sociocultural Constructions’, Sociological Forum 12(1): 53–71.
Wacquant, Loïc (2004) Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wacquant, Loïc (2006) ‘Pierre Bourdieu’ in Rob Stones (ed.) Key Contemporary Thinkers,
Second Edition, London and New York: Macmillan.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Bourdieu and Adorno on the Transformation
of Culture in Modern Society: Towards a
Critical Theory of Cultural Production

Simon Susen

Introduction
This chapter examines the transformation of culture in modern society by
drawing upon the works of Pierre Bourdieu and Theodor W. Adorno. Far from
intending to embrace the entire complexity of Bourdieusian and Adornian
thought, the analysis focuses on some key dimensions that are particularly
relevant to understanding the relationship between modern culture and
modern society. This study seeks to show that comprehending the
transformation of culture in the modern world requires taking into account
the transformation of society as a whole. In order to demonstrate this, the
chapter is structured as follows.
The first section briefly elucidates the concept of culture. Given the central
importance of the concept of culture for the analysis of this chapter, it seems
sensible to clarify its different meanings. If the concept of culture can be used
and defined in several ways, it is necessary to specify with which of its various
meanings the present study is mainly concerned.
The second section centres upon Bourdieu’s analysis of culture. More
specifically, the Bourdieusian approach to culture allows us to understand
the transformation of culture in modern society in terms of three significant
tendencies: (i) the differentiation of culture, (ii) the commodification of
culture, and (iii) the classification of culture. Taken together, these three social
processes are indicative of the complexification of culture in the modern
world, which manifests itself in the emergence of an increasingly powerful
‘cultural economy’.
The third section gives an overview of some of the key elements of Adorno’s
analysis of culture. Similarly to the methodology of the previous section, the
174 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Adornian approach to culture is scrutinised by differentiating three tendencies

that are symptomatic of the transformation of culture in modern society:
(i) the heteronomisation of culture, (ii) the commodification of culture, and
(iii) the standardisation of culture. In essence, these three social developments
are due to the colonisation of culture by industrial capitalism, leading to the
rise of the ‘culture industry’.
The fourth section offers a brief comparison between the Bourdieusian
and the Adornian accounts of the transformation of culture in modern
society. Instead of opposing Bourdieusian and Adornian strains of thought
to one another, this section suggests that the similarities between the two
approaches permit us not only to compare them, but also to integrate them
and thereby to enrich our understanding of the transformation of culture
in modern society.

I. Preliminary Reflections on Culture

The concept of culture is far from unambiguous, for it can be used and defined
in different ways. Despite the variety of its meanings, we can distinguish three
main conceptions of culture: culture as a sociological category, culture as a
philosophical category, and culture as an aesthetic category.
First, as a sociological category, the concept of culture refers to a
specific form of life produced and reproduced by a given group of people.
From this perspective, ‘culture is a description of a particular way of
life, which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art and
learning but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour’ (Williams,
1994: 48). In this sense, culture can be regarded as a sociological, and
indeed an anthropological, category which describes a particular – that
is, a spatiotemporally specific – way in which a given form of human
coexistence is organised.1
Second, as a philosophical category, the concept of culture can be
conceived of as a human ideal, that is, as a distinctively human quality
to which all mature subjects should aspire. According to this conception,
the formation of humanity depends on the creation of culture. Thus,
the notion of culture describes ‘a state or process of human perfection,
in terms of certain absolute or universal values’ (Williams, 1994: 48).
This view is situated in the German tradition of idealist thought, which
suggests that culture can be identified with the realm of ‘the mind’ or ‘the
spirit’. From this perspective, the existence of the transcendental realm of
culture manifests itself in the existence of the material realm of society:
‘the cultural spirit’ of humankind is embodied in the consolidation of ever
Bourdieu and Adorno 175

more sophisticated social institutions, constituting evolutionary expressions

of the transcendental quality of culture. In this sense, culture can be seen as
a philosophical category which captures the species-constitutive properties
of human civilisation. In other words, the project of society is driven by the
anthropological quest for the development of humanity through the creation
of culture: the Bildung der Gesellschaft (the formation of society) depends on
the Bildung der Menschen (the education of the people).2
Third, as an aesthetic category, the concept of culture denotes a distinctively
human expression of artistic creativity. Hence, ‘culture is the body of intellectual
and imaginative work, in which, in a detailed way, human thought and
experience are variously recorded’ (Williams, 1994: 48). From this point of
view, culture constitutes a vehicle for creativity and imagination, capable
of challenging and developing both the rational and the emotional potentials
of human existence. Human subjects are capable of elevating themselves
above their own existence through the existence of culture: it is by virtue of
culture that the distinctively human exercise of artistic transcendence can
be realised. In this sense, culture can be considered as an aesthetic category
which refers to the human capacity to attribute meaning to the world through
the expressive power of artistic production.
It is this third – that is, the aesthetic – perspective that is particularly important
for the analysis of culture developed in the present chapter. This does not mean
that the sociological and philosophical approaches to culture are irrelevant or
that they can be ignored. On the contrary, all three interpretations have to be
taken into account: the sociological, philosophical, and aesthetic meanings of
culture are closely interrelated and should not be regarded as mutually exclusive.
Every human form of life is permeated by ideals and allows for artistic creativity;
human ideals are influenced by particular forms of life and can be articulated
through artistic creativity; and artistic creativity is situated in specific forms of
life and often inspired by human ideals. In short, the sociological, philosophical, and
aesthetic potentials of culture are symptomatic of the normative, purposive, and
creative nature of human life.
Whatever theoretical approach to culture one may wish to defend, the
transformation of culture in the modern world cannot be fully understood
without accounting for the transformation of society in modern history: the
rise of mass culture is inextricably linked to the emergence of bourgeois
society. To suggest that cultural criticism is necessarily a form of social criticism
is to recognise that culture is embedded in society. As remains to be shown,
Bourdieu and Adorno articulate two diverging but complementary accounts
of the relationship between culture and society. In the following sections, the
transformation of culture in modern society shall be explored by looking at
the theoretical approaches developed by these two thinkers.
176 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

II. Bourdieusian Reflections on Culture:

The Cultural Economy
Bourdieu’s sociological theory can also be regarded as a cultural theory
in that it presupposes that the comprehensive study of society must be
committed to the critical examination of culture.3 Put differently, there is
no general theory of society without a general theory of culture. In order
to understand the transformation of culture in the modern world from
a Bourdieusian perspective, we need to examine three social processes:
(i) the differentiation of culture, (ii) the commodification of culture, and (iii) the
classification of culture.

i) The Differentiation of Culture

Inasmuch as Bourdieu’s general sociology of society is a general theory of the
economics of material practice, ‘his general sociology of culture is a general
theory of the economics of symbolic practice’ (Lash, 1993: 193). A critical
sociology of human practices must strive to understand both the economy of
material practices and the economy of symbolic practices, for the former and
the latter are intimately interrelated. If we acknowledge that cultural relations
are necessarily embedded in material relations just as material relations are
unavoidably situated in cultural relations, then we also need to recognise that
every society produces its own cultural economy.
The power of social stratification depends on society’s capacity to reproduce
itself through an economy of cultural differentiation. The reproduction of class
relations cannot be dissociated from the reproduction of cultural relations: in
order to comprehend how social hierarchies are consolidated and sustained
we need to account for the ways in which they are symbolically mediated
and legitimated. To be more precise, economic and cultural relations are both
interdependent and interpenetrative power relations: as interdependent power
relations, they function in relation to one another to ensure their efficiency;
as interpenetrative power relations, they colonise one another to guarantee their
ubiquity.4 This is not to suggest that class relations can be derived from, or
even reduced to, cultural relations; rather, this is to accept that the material
power of class relations is inconceivable without the symbolic power of
cultural relations.
The rise of capitalism led to the ‘autonomization of intellectual and
artistic production’ (Bourdieu, 1993 [1971/1985]: 112). For one consequence
of capitalist modernisation is the emergence of relatively independent fields
of cultural production. The modern world is characterised by the appearance of
two main cultural fields: ‘the field of restricted production’ and ‘the field of large-scale
Bourdieu and Adorno 177

cultural production’ (ibid.: 115, italics in original). Both constitute social arenas
which are aimed at the production of cultural goods. Yet, whereas the cultural
creations of the former are ‘objectively destined for a public of producers
of cultural goods’ (ibid.), the cultural creations of the latter are ‘destined for
non-producers of cultural goods, “the public at large”’ (ibid.).
Hence, the transformation of the cultural sphere in modern society
manifests itself in the binary differentiation between the ‘restricted production’
and the ‘large-scale production’ of cultural goods. The more the former
succeeds in separating itself from the latter, the more profound ‘the dialectic
of cultural distinction’ (ibid.) turns out to be. To the extent that the restricted
fields of cultural production can claim relative autonomy from the universally
accessible fields of cultural production, the heterodoxy and idiosyncrasy of
the former must be distinguished from the orthodoxy and conventionality
of the latter. In this sense, the autonomisation of the cultural sphere in the
modern world constitutes a particular characteristic of ‘the field of restricted
production’, since it is capable of functioning independently of the imperatives
that govern the mass-oriented nature of ‘large-scale production’. A relatively
autonomous field is a relationally constructed social realm able to assert its
existence by virtue of its own logic of functioning. Therefore, ‘the autonomy of
a field of restricted production can be measured by its power to define its own
criteria for the production and evaluation of its products’ (ibid.). Autonomous
culture can only be created by its own creators, judged by its own judges, and
appreciated by its own appreciators.
The autonomy of every field is based on its capacity to create and maintain
its own codes of legitimacy, through which it distinguishes itself from the
imperatives that govern the logic of other fields of social reality. ‘Thus,
the more cultural producers form a closed field of competition for cultural
legitimacy, the more the internal demarcations appear irreducible to any
external factors of economic, political or social differentiation’ (ibid.). It is
the gradual liberation from the constraints of economic reproduction which
allows the cultural field to generate conditions of social refraction.
If the ‘degree of autonomy of a field has as a main indicator its power of
refraction, of retranslation’ (Bourdieu, 1997a: 16)5, the degree of heteronomy
of a field has as a main indicator its power of assimilation, of absorption. The
relative autonomy of the field of restricted cultural production is inconceivable
without the relative heteronomy of the field of large-scale cultural production.
Contrary to the former, the latter ‘principally obeys the imperatives of
competition for conquest of the market’ (Bourdieu, 1993 [1971/1985]: 125).
Thus, it is not only largely dependent upon the logic of the market, but it is in
fact driven by it. The autonomisation of cultural production in the privileged
sphere of the société distinguée goes hand in hand with the heteronomisation of
178 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

cultural production in the popularised sphere of the société massifiée. Whereas

the former is granted the power to bypass the imperatives of the market, the
latter is largely governed by them. The conquest of artistic autonomy can
challenge the ubiquity of economic instrumentality; the surrender to artistic
heteronomy confirms the absorbability of culture by economic functionality.
To be sure, all cultural fields – that is, both the field of restricted cultural
production and the field of large-scale cultural production – are irreducible to
other social fields (see Susen, 2007: 289). Even the ubiquitous power of the
economic field cannot eliminate the potentiality of culture towards autonomous
reproduction. It would be naïve to assume that the fields of artistic production
are completely independent from the economic organisation of society, but it
would also be misleading to suggest that the fields of artistic production depend
entirely on the economic constitution of society. By definition, the relation
between fields of artistic production and fields of economic production is
characterised by both relative autonomy and relative heteronomy: the former
are relatively autonomous insofar as they can never be totally determined by
the latter; at the same time, the former are relatively heteronomous insofar
as they cannot exist independently of the latter. Nevertheless, whereas the
field of large-scale cultural production depends directly on the imperatives
of the market, the field of restricted cultural production derives its relative
autonomy from its capacity to circumvent the logic of economic functioning
that prevails in modern capitalist societies. The autonomisation of culture,
then, is both a reality and a potentiality: as a reality, it is always already existent,
challenging the hegemonic universality of large-scale cultural production;
as a potentiality, it is always still to be realised, affirming the self-sufficient
particularity of restricted cultural production.
The binary differentiation of culture is symptomatic of the historical shift
from traditional to modern society. In traditional societies, artistic production
is largely controlled and regulated ‘by a small number of very powerful
legitimising forces or agents’ ( Jenkins, 1992: 135). In advanced capitalist
societies, by contrast, artistic production is increasingly divided between the
realm of large-scale cultural production, which is driven by the imperatives
of the economy, and the realm of small-scale cultural production, which is
shaped by the quest for symbolic autonomy.

ii) The Commodification of Culture

Cultural production under capitalism leads to the creation of symbolic goods,
a term standing for ‘a two-faced reality, a commodity and a symbolic object’
(Bourdieu, 1993 [1971/1985]: 113). Symbolic goods can be described as
the ambivalent carriers of both cultural and economic values that are only
Bourdieu and Adorno 179

relatively independent from each other, since the cultural sanction may come
to reinforce their economic consecration, just as ‘the economic sanction may
come to reinforce their cultural consecration’ (ibid.). The potential autonomy
of these goods is reflected in their symbolic nature; their potential heteronomy,
on the other hand, manifests itself in their commodity character. In other
words, under capitalism the cultural use value of symbolic goods is gradually
colonised by their economic exchange value. The commodification of culture
represents a central feature of late capitalist society, illustrating the ineluctable
entanglement of use value and exchange value which permeates every market-
driven ‘economy of cultural goods’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 1).
The economy of cultural goods can be regarded as an integral component
of late capitalist reproduction. Inasmuch as commodities are increasingly
culturalised, culture is increasingly commodified in late capitalism. The
ambivalence of symbolic goods consists in the simultaneous articulation of
their autonomy, rooted in the power of cultural creativity, and of their heteronomy,
regulated by the logic of economic functionality. As symbolic objects, they
reaffirm the undeniable strength of cultural forces; as material objects, they
illustrate the inescapable presence of economic forces. To the extent that
symbolic objects cannot break away from the parameters of the material
world, economic objects cannot escape from the parameters of the cultural
world. In capitalist society, symbolic goods are unavoidably absorbed by the
imperatives of market forces. The particularity of symbolic goods stems from
their cultural idiosyncrasy, just as the universality of symbolic goods derives
from their systemic commodifiability.
Both the production and the consumption of culture require that subjects
are equipped with a subjectively internalised system of collectively constructed
schemes of perception, appreciation, and action: the habitus.6 To be more precise,
the habitus constitutes ‘an acquired system of generative schemes objectively
adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted’ (Bourdieu, 1977
[1972]: 95). Hence, the habitus forms a dynamic conglomerate of generative
classificatory structures subjectively internalised and intersubjectively developed:
the habitus exists inside subjects’ subjectivities, but it ‘only exists in, through and
because of the practices of actors and their interaction with each other and with
the rest of their environment’ (Jenkins, 1992: 75). As a sens pratique – literally,
a ‘practical sense’ (see Bourdieu, 1976 and 1980) – the habitus represents
‘a structured and structuring structure’7 by virtue of which actors shape their
environment whilst at the same time being shaped by it. To the extent that
society is driven by the functional imperatives of the cultural economy, human
agency is permeated by the power of symbolic determinacy. A market of
symbolic goods cannot be divorced from a market of symbolic capacities; a
market of cultural fields cannot dispense with a market of a cultural habitus.
180 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

To be sure, the commodification of culture is not limited to the creation but

extends to the consumption of culture. For not only the production but also the
perception and reception of culture become increasingly commodified in capitalist
societies. The power of culture is only conceivable as ‘symbolic power’
(Bourdieu, 1992 [1977])8, that is, as a form of power which determines how
we make sense, or how we fail to make sense, of reality by virtue of cultural
codes. The more commodified the symbolic world in capitalist societies, the
more our capacity to participate in the cultural world becomes subject to the
force of exchange value. The more the market succeeds in imposing itself as
the ultimate source of social legitimacy, the more it manages to transform our
habitus into a subjective appendage of systemic commodifiability.
The commodification of culture reinforces ‘the affirmation of the primacy
of form over function, of the mode of representation over the object of
representation, [...] of the saying over the thing said’ (Bourdieu, 1993
[1971/1985]: 117), of the signifiers over the signified, in short, of appearance
over substance. Cultural struggles are always struggles over the parameters
of social legitimacy. In advanced industrial societies, a commodified culture
is quasi-naturally legitimated by the systemic hegemony of the capitalist
mode of production. The degree of commodification of culture indicates
the degree of colonisation of society by the market. In order for a cultural
product to succeed in a market-driven society, it needs to prioritise its external
form and representational transcendence over its internal content and social
immanence. A cultural commodity draws its symbolic power not from its
material substance but from its social significance. When we buy into the
symbolic power of cultural commodities we are subject to both the powerful
nature of the symbolic and the symbolic nature of power: we seek to acquire
the value the commodity represents, and we aim to obtain the authority the
commodity contains. To feel both represented and empowered by a cultural
commodity means to identify with and subscribe to it. The commodifiability
of culture confirms the ubiquity of the market.

iii) The Classification of Culture

‘If modernization entails the differentiation of an autonomous aesthetic
field, then the appreciation of (modern) art that this brings about entails
the inculcation of a “differentiated” habitus’ (Lash, 1993: 197). The
complexification of cultural fields manifests itself in the emergence
of increasingly differentiated forms of cultural habitus. In order for a
relatively autonomous aesthetic field to be created and appreciated by the
‘distinguished’ parts of society, its members need to develop and share a
‘distinguished’ form of collective habitus, allowing them to articulate their
Bourdieu and Adorno 181

cultural idiosyncrasy by virtue of their codified legitimacy. The legitimacy

of every social field depends on the legitimacy of its actors. Without
necessarily being aware of their field-specific determinacy, human actors
have a tendency to reproduce the legitimacy of the specific social fields in
which they find themselves immersed.
In order to convert themselves into effective carriers of legitimacy, social
actors need to be capable of translating the schemes of classification and
distinction which are imposed upon them by the world into parameters of
differentiation and stratification which are projected by them upon the world.
There are no reliable forms of social reproduction without effective patterns
of social identification: identifying with particular codes of legitimacy, we
situate ourselves in the world as reproductive participants of society. Powerful
forms of legitimation require efficient types of classification. Hence, to the
extent that the social world is divided by different fields with multiple codes
of legitimacy, social actors are divided by different forms of habitus with
various types of capital. In order to participate in a cultural field, we need
to acquire cultural capital. In order to play a part in the economic field, we
need to attain economic capital. In order to be involved in society, we need
to dispose of social capital. Our habitus is composed of different forms of
capital, which enable us to position ourselves in different fields of society. In
short, a legitimately situated actor is a legitimately classified and classifying actor.
The struggle for and against classification is dialectical in that
‘economic and cultural capital are both the objects and the weapons of
a competitive struggle between classes’ (Jenkins, 1992: 142, italics in
original). The functionalisation of cultural capital by economic capital
and the functionalisation of economic capital by cultural capital constitute
two complementary social processes which lie at the heart of the cultural
economy. Inasmuch as the differentiation of economic capital contributes
to the reproduction of social stratification, the differentiation of cultural
capital reinforces the classificatory power of symbolic domination.
The economic and cultural reproduction strategies of society stem from a
‘competitive struggle’ (ibid.) over power and resources, that is, from a struggle
which defines the separation between the dominated and the dominant classes.
This ‘[c]ompetitive struggle is the form of class struggle which the dominated
classes allow to be imposed on them when they accept the stakes offered by
the dominant classes. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue of the initial
handicaps, a reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase, in which
they are beaten before they start [...], implicitly recognize the legitimacy of
the goals pursued by those whom they pursue, by the mere fact of taking
part’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 165). Hence, class struggle is a struggle over the
legitimacy of a given form of social reproduction.
182 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

‘Productive interests in the artistic field [...] find “homologies” with

class interests in the social field’ (Lash, 1993: 197)9. Essentially, cultural
classification systems reflect the socio-economic division of the class system
(cf. Fowler, 1997: 48–49). The division of labour manifests itself in the
division of culture: economic forms of social segregation go hand in hand
with cultural forms of social classification. The instrumentalisation of
culture as both a target and a vehicle of legitimacy is due to the fact that ‘art
and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or
not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences’ (Bourdieu,
1984 [1979]: 7). Since cultural forms do not constitute invariant and natural
categories, they can be efficiently integrated into the social construction of
structural differences between human subjects. In other words, inasmuch as
cultural forms are socially constructed, their contingency can be efficiently
functionalised by the contingency of the class system of a given society.
The spatiotemporally determined contingency of social domination is
symptomatic of the relative arbitrariness of social classification.
The consumption of culture depends on subjects’ capacity to absorb
and interpret culture. Yet, our capacity to make sense of the cultural world
reflects a socially acquired, rather than naturally given, competence: our
perception of the world is shaped by our social engagement with the world.
Just as the internalisation of our external world cannot be separated from
the externalisation of our inner world, the externalisation of our inner world
cannot be divorced from the internalisation of our external world.
Our perceptive faculty (Wahrnehmungsvermögen) is both a capacity (Vermögen
in the sense of Fähigkeit) and a property (Vermögen in the sense of Besitz): as a
capacity, it ensures that we are able to absorb and interpret the world; as a
property, it determines how we absorb and interpret the world. Put differently,
our perceptive faculty is based both on our ability to comprehend the world
and on our mastery of the field-specific tools that determine the ways in which
we comprehend the world. Thus, the consumption of culture through our
perceptive apparatus is never a neutral but always an interested act, that is, it
constitutes a social performance that is permeated by relationally determined
schemes of legitimacy.
Authoritative ‘talents of perception’ emanate from powerful ‘programmes
for perception’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 2). Culture and art can be systematically
transformed into instruments of social distinction (cf. Robbins, 1991: 121). Even
the seemingly most personal taste and even the ostensibly most individual form
of aesthetic judgement contain implicit references to socially pre-established
patterns of appreciation and perception. The perceived is never simply
‘out there’ but it is always also ‘in here’: that is, in the eye of the perceiver.
By definition, every perception of reality is composed of both a perceived
Bourdieu and Adorno 183

object and a perceiving subject. The perceived object allows for the fact that
something is to be perceived; the perceiving subject determines how it is to be
perceived. Certainly, perception is not a solitary affair. Even the most personal
perceptions are shaped by collectively constructed patterns of classification
assimilated by socialised individuals. The perceiver exists never simply ‘in
himself ’ or ‘in herself ’, but always ‘in relation to other selves’. Legitimacy is a
product not of individual determinacy but of social acceptability. We become
who we are in relation to what surrounds us. Our perception of the world is not
absolved from our determination by the world. Only if the act of perception is
understood in terms of its social and historical contingency can we succeed in
comprehending the nature of culture in terms of its collective determinacy.
Patterns of consumption need to create corresponding patterns of
perception in order to generate successful patterns of legitimation. The
omnipresence of socially constructed codes of legitimacy, which induce
us to make sense of the world in accordance with pre-established modes
of appreciation, destroys any illusions about the possibility of a ‘natural
empathy’ between the perceiver and the perceived, of a ‘disinterested
relationship’ between the consumer and the consumed, or of a ‘horizontal
exchange’ between subject and object. Our capacity to consume culture is
always dependent on our ability to be consumed by it. There is no cultural
empathy without social legitimacy. The empathy with a cultural object is
inconceivable without the sympathy of a cultural subject, for the legitimacy
of cultural objects depends on their acceptability by cultural subjects.
Every act of consumption presupposes an act of acceptance; every act
of cultural integration is accompanied by an act of cultural classification. In
order to consume, we need to be able to classify. As consumers, we classify
what we like and what we dislike, what we appreciate and what we deprecate,
what we accept and what we reject. ‘Consumption is [...] a stage in a process of
communication, that is, an act of deciphering, decoding, which presupposes
practical or explicit mastery of a cipher or code’ (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 2).
All cultural struggles constitute classificatory struggles over historically
contingent forms of perception. Put differently, all cultural struggles are
concerned with both the construction and the destruction of legitimate and
illegitimate forms of classification.
As shown above, the differentiation, commodification, and classification of culture
constitute pivotal features of the transformation of culture in modern society.
They represent overlapping and complementary processes which illustrate that
the structural conditions of the production and consumption of culture have
been profoundly transformed under late capitalism. (i) The differentiation of
culture implies the gradual separation between the field of restricted cultural
production and the field of large-scale cultural production: ‘culture as a source
184 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of human creation’ competes with ‘culture as a source of social distinction’.

(ii) The commodification of culture has created a situation in which the
use value of symbolic goods is colonised by their economic exchange
value: ‘culture for the sake of the created’ is confiscated by ‘culture for
the sake of the market’. (iii) The classification of culture is based on the
imposition of different codes of legitimacy which reveal the historical
contingency of different schemes of appreciation and perception: ‘culture
motivated by individual creativity’ exists in relation to ‘culture programmed
by collective legitimacy’. Hence, in modern society cultural struggles are
struggles over the differentiation, commodification, and classification of
culture.

III. Adornian Reflections on Culture:

The Culture Industry
Adorno’s analysis of culture is highly complex and, as stated in the introduction,
this chapter does not intend to offer an exhaustive account of the Adornian
approach. Rather, it centres on three social processes which, from an Adornian
perspective, are indicative of the changing nature of culture under late
capitalism: (i) the heteronomisation of culture, (ii) the commodification of culture,
and (iii) the standardisation of culture.

i) The Heteronomisation of Culture

The term ‘mass culture’ should not be conceived of as synonymous with
the term ‘culture industry’. The former may evoke positive connotations,
depicting ‘the mass’ or ‘the people’ as legitimate creators and responsible
carriers of an autonomous culture. The latter, on the other hand, brings
to mind negative connotations, portraying ‘the mass’ or ‘the people’ as
manipulated buyers and alienated reproducers of a heteronomous culture.
Mass culture – if it is not imposed ‘from above’ but emerges ‘from below’ –
has at least the potential of producing autonomous individuals able to
construct their lives as creative subjects. The culture industry, by contrast, is
based on the necessity of producing heteronomous individuals condemned
to degenerate into instrumentalised objects. In short, whereas mass culture
is not necessarily antithetical to the empowerment of subjects, the culture
industry is only possible through their disempowerment.10
One of the great paradoxes of modern society consists in the fact that
‘culture is taken over by the very powers it had criticized. Consumer culture
is the degradation of culture’ (Bernstein, 1991: 15). In other words, the
Bourdieu and Adorno 185

term ‘culture industry’ contains a dialectical irony: on the one hand, the
notion of ‘culture’ can, in principle, be associated with human autonomy,
social emancipation, and improvisational creativity; on the other hand, the
notion of ‘industry’ cannot be dissociated from human heteronomy, social
domination, and instrumental rationality. The culture industry robs culture
of its ontological foundation, namely its raison d’être sans raison d’être. For,
under capitalism, ‘culture has come to function as a mode of ideological
domination, rather than humanization or emancipation’ (Kellner, 1989: 131).
The emergence of the culture industry has led to the gradual abolition of
radical criticism, since it is precisely radical criticism which could jeopardise
its existence. From an Adornian perspective, however, culture needs criticism
as an integral component of its very existence, since culture ‘is only true when
implicitly critical’ (Adorno, 1967 [1955]: 22).
The culture industry is the epitome of non-criticality, for its existence
depends on the uncritical reproduction of its own imperatives. ‘The power
of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced
consciousness’ (Adorno, 1991 [1975]: 90). Society’s conflicts are allowed to be
solved in appearance, in a world of surface only, since the solution of people’s
substantial problems in their real lives would inevitably imply the dissolution
of the culture industry as such. It is precisely because the culture industry
manages to appear to have the capacity to solve people’s real problems that its
social reproduction can be guaranteed. The domination of the dominated
through the culture industry is nourished by the illusion that the dominated
are the dominators of their own fate. As long as the ideological substance of
this creed can be sustained, the material substance of the culture industry
will hardly be dissolved. People’s structural heteronomy, imposed by late
capitalist society, is maintained through the belief in individual autonomy,
allegedly granted by the culture industry. In the culture industry, appearance
is everything whereas substance is nothing, just as heteronomy is everything
whilst autonomy is nothing. As long as the appearance of autonomy is
controlled by the essence of heteronomy, the culture industry does not have to
fear the dissolution of its own solutions.
According to Adornian parameters, the only true social function of art
is its functionlessness: ‘the necessity of art […] is its nonnecessity’ (Adorno,
1997 [1970]: 251). Since art is precisely defined by its capacity to transcend
from the mundane materiality of social life, it is the very quality of standing
above the functionality of reality which characterises the functionlessness of
art. To go beyond reality through art, however, does not mean to escape from
reality. The illusory escape from reality forms part of the false promises of the
culture industry. In the culture industry, art is not ‘functionless’ (funktionslos)
but ‘functionfull’ (funktionsvoll), since its existence is degraded to the functional
186 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

reproduction of the social system in place. Conversely, the functionlessness

of truly autonomous art is rooted in its structural independence from the
systemic reproduction of society based on the liquidation of autonomy. This
is not to assert that art can be deployed and interpreted independently of
the material conditions of society, as an idealistic perspective may suggest.
Rather, this is to acknowledge that truly free and emancipated art is only a
viable possibility if it is not completely absorbed and colonised by the material
conditions of society. The potential social functionlessness of art consists in
its capacity to transcend the mundane reality of material life while at the
same time standing within this reality. It is the transcendent immanence
and immanent transcendence of art which enable art to autonomise itself
through its very functionlessness from the heteronomy of the functionality
of social reality. Removed from the functionality imposed by society, art
stands in the centre of its own reality.
‘If art were to free itself from the once perceived illusion of duration, were
to internalize its own transience in sympathy with the ephemeral life, it would
approximate an idea of truth conceived not as something abstractly enduring
but in consciousness of its temporal essence’ (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 28–29).
Heteronomous art believes, and makes one believe, in its ahistorical and
detached, or at least detachable, existence. The culture industry reinforces this
systemic illusion by detaching itself ideologically from its material attachment
to the foundation of capitalist society: class antagonism.
The ‘relative’ autonomy of art is always an autonomy which exists in
‘relation’ to its material existence. Heteronomous art and heteronomous
culture, as produced and celebrated by the culture industry, can pretend to escape
the material determinacy of society; yet, the more art and culture pretend
to be autonomous by ideologically detaching themselves from their material
determinacy, the more slavish and erroneous they turn out to be. Real artistic
transcendence faces up to its own societal immanence. We can only transcend
our societal immanence by accepting it, since going beyond the givenness of
reality presupposes being situated within it. The preponderance of the object
can be challenged but never overcome by the subject. A subject that is critical
of its own functions, a funktionskritisches Subjekt, is a subject that is critical of
its historical situatedness, a geschichtskritisches Subjekt. The culture industry is
uncritical both of its own function as a systemic conglomerate capable of
instrumentalising culture and of its own history as a systemic missionary capable
of maintaining capitalism. The real falseness of the culture industry emanates
from its false realness: even the quest for ‘functionlessness’ (Funktionslosigkeit)
fulfils a function and even the quest for ‘historylessness’ (Geschichtslosigkeit) has
a history. To the extent that the function of the culture industry needs to be
historicised in order to relativise the appearance of its functionlessness, the
Bourdieu and Adorno 187

history of the culture industry needs to be functionalised in order to uncover

the essence of its functionladenness.
Inasmuch as any ‘artwork that supposes it is in possession of its content
is plainly naïve in its rationalism’ (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 27), any culture
that makes the human subjects believe they are in possession of their
identity is caught up in a dangerous game of existential self-sufficiency. The
culture industry does not undermine but reinforces the illusion of worldly
completeness by virtue of systemic effectiveness: by autonomising the industry
and heteronomising culture it invites us to industrialise our autonomy and
cultivate our heteronomy. In the universe of the culture industry, Aufklärung
(enlightenment) asks not for an Erklärung (explanation) but for a Verklärung
(transfiguration) of reality: under the unwritten law of the culture industry,
the idea that everything can be sold is sold to us as the order of things. The
order of the market is converted into the order of things.
‘Art, even as something tolerated in the administered world, embodies what
does not allow itself to be managed and what total management suppresses’
(Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 234). The structural integration of art into the totally
administered world (die total verwaltete Welt) destroys any illusions about the
innocence of culture: there is no culture beyond society, just as there is no
society beyond culture. By definition, culture is situated in society and society
is situated in culture. Our – tacit or overt – complicity with the givenness of
reality always precedes our – possible but by no means unavoidable – break
with the reality of the given.
Even the most subversive work of art cannot escape its immersion in
society. Nonetheless, true art always refuses to be the tolerated appendage
of the tolerating totality. What suppresses art is what invigorates the culture
industry, and what suppresses the culture industry is what invigorates art.
The administration of art is just as contradictory as the improvisation of
administration: both are ultimately impossible. ‘Modern art is questionable
not when it goes too far – as the cliché runs – but when it does not go far
enough’ (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 34). Administration is questionable when it
goes too far,11 but it is not questionable when it does not go far enough, when
it does not aim at its proper abolition. The questionableness of the culture
industry derives from its ontological non-self-questioning. It ought to be the
task of art, as a form of critical culture, to challenge the self-ontologisation of
the culture industry, a form of uncritical Unkultur.
‘Neutralization is the social price of aesthetic autonomy. [...] In the
administered world neutralization is universal’ (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 228–
229). The neutralisation of the culture industry consists in the simultaneous
heteronomisation of culture and autonomisation of the industry. The
neutralisation is universal, but this universalisation is not neutral: it attacks the
188 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

heart of artistic autonomy. ‘The categories of artistic objectivity are unitary

with social emancipation when the object, on the basis of its own impulse,
liberates itself from social convention and controls’ (Adorno, 1997 [1970]:
231). The only convention of autonomous art is its non-conventionalism; the
only control over itself is its non-control; its identity is its non-identity with
social reality; its breaking through society is achieved through its breaking
free from the chains of reality; in short, its immanence in-itself rests on its
transcendence beyond-itself.12

ii) The Commodification of Culture

‘The principle of idealistic aesthetics – purposefulness without a purpose –
reverses the scheme of things to which bourgeois art conforms socially:
purposelessness for the purposes declared by the market’ (Adorno and
Horkheimer, 1997 [1944/1969]: 158). The heteronomisation of culture
is not limited to its administration but intensified by its commodification.
The functionlessness of art is functionalised for the functionality of the
imperatives of the market. As the purposefulness without a purpose has been
transformed into purposelessness for purposes, the artistic character of art
and the cultural character of culture have been overridden by the commodity
character of society. To acknowledge that art and culture become gradually
commodified means to recognise that even the most autonomous spheres
of society can be heteronomised by the market. It is not the autonomy of
the market that has been heteronomised by culture, but, on the contrary,
the autonomy of culture that has been heteronomised by the market. Since the
most inner quality of art, autonomy, has been confiscated by the market,
the potentialities of culture have been degraded to a state of impotence, of
apparent powerlessness. The omnipresence of the market in every single
social sphere seems to reveal its omnipotence.
‘Culture is a paradoxical commodity. So completely is it subject to the
law of exchange that it is no longer exchanged; it is so blindly consumed in
use that it can no longer be used’ (Adorno, 1997 [1944/1969]: 161). In the
culture industry, culture is systemically – by capitalism – and systematically –
by its administration – transformed into a centralised commodity. The
culture industry has made culture lose its integrity and sovereignty, its
autonomy and spontaneity. This is why it is the notion of Kulturindustrie, not
the notion of Industriekultur, which characterises the commodification of
culture in late capitalism: whereas the former implies that it is the industry,
the market, which dominates culture, the latter could misleadingly suggest
that it is culture which predominates over the industry, the market. In the
concept Kulturindustrie, however, Kultur, the ‘ideological prefix’ of society,
Bourdieu and Adorno 189

unambiguously depends on Industrie, the ‘material suffix’ of society. For

symbolic relations are always embedded in the economic realm of society.
Hence, it is not so much culture that penetrates the market, but, on the
contrary, the market that penetrates culture.
It is worth pointing out that the notion of Kulturindustrie stems from a
Marxist interpretation of society: although culture, as part of the ideological
superstructure of society, must not be reduced to a mere reflection of the
market, as the economic base of society, the former cannot be fully understood
without taking into account the latter. Culture should not be conceived of
as a completely independent realm existing merely ‘in-itself ’, as an idealistic
perspective might suggest; nor should it be reduced to an epiphenomenon of
an omnipresent material base, as an economistic perspective might assume.
The conceptual dichotomisation of society does not allow for its ontological
binarisation. The holistic concept of Kulturindustrie indicates that social reality
constitutes a unity of – directly and indirectly – interconnected particularities.
In this sense, culture is a social particularity that cannot be divorced from
the social whole. To the extent that the relationally constructed conglomerate
of society is increasingly commodified by the market, culture – as a relatively
autonomous social sphere – cannot escape its penetration by the economy.
The most autonomous social microcosm can be colonised by the macrocosmic
force of the market.
A central problem of art under late capitalism consists in its incapacity to
overcome the power of commodity fetishism as long as the predominance of
the market is not ideologically challenged and materially undermined. Given
its ineluctable situatedness in society, art cannot avoid this contradiction unless
the contradiction itself is resolved. It is part of the nature of art to be part
of the nature of society. ‘If art cedes its autonomy, it delivers itself over the
machinations of the status quo; if art remains strictly for-itself, it nonetheless
submits to integration as one harmless domain among others. The social
totality appears in this aporia, swallowing whole whatever occurs’ (Adorno,
1997 [1970]: 237). Regardless of whether art is consciously opportunistic
or deliberately self-sufficient, it cannot escape its absorption by the market
machinery. Even the most anti-integrationist art is only food for the chronic
integrationism of the culture industry. All artistic ‘ways out’ end up in ‘ways
in’, all artistic circumvention remains trapped in social convention, all artistic
solutions can be disarmed by social convolution, and all artistic euphoria can
be converted into social aporia.
The commodity fetishism of late capitalist societies describes ‘a situation
in which things only have substance and value insofar as they can be
exchanged with something else’ (Jarvis, 1998: 117). It turns society upside
down in such a way that the objects created by the human subjects become
190 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

subjects that transform the human subjects into objects. The objectification
of human relations goes hand in hand with the subjectivisation of economic
relations. The gradual disempowerment of society emanates from the
increasing empowerment of the economy. ‘The source of art’s power of
resistance is that a realized materialism would at the same time be the
abolition of materialism, the abolition of the domination of material
interests. In its powerlessness, art anticipates a spirit that would only
then step forth. [...] A liberated society would be beyond the irrationality
of its faux frais and beyond the ends-means-rationality of utility. This is
enciphered in art and is the source of art’s social explosiveness’ (Adorno,
1997 [1970]: 29 and 227).
Materialism cannot be transcended without realising it, nor can it be
realised without transcending it. As long as the categorical imperative of
society is the market imperative of material interests, art in particular and
culture in general will remain unable to slip out of the omnipresent reification
of society. A realised capitalism necessarily involves the thingification
of society (Verdinglichung der Gesellschaft); a realised materialism inevitably
requires the socialisation of things (Vergesellschaftlichung der Dinge). Art carries
the negation of exchange value inside its humanised and humanising
subjectivity. Its repudiation of fetishised social relations is a core element of
the sociability intrinsic to art. The splendour of the market is the mutilation
of art. The splendour of art is the mutilation of the market. To realise
materialism means to abolish it.

iii) The Standardisation of Culture

The consolidation of the totally administered world is expressed in the
rationalisation, centralisation, and homogenisation of society, that is, in
its gradual standardisation. The triumph of standard is the defeat of the
individual. The regress of autonomous art is complementary to the progress
of industrialised mass culture. The heteronomisation and commodification of
culture is perfected through its standardisation. ‘[W]hile critical philosophy
is inadequate without aesthetic experience, this experience needs critical
philosophy’ (Jay, 1984: 158); while the culture industry is adequate without
critical aesthetic experience, this experience does not need the culture industry,
for the pervasiveness of aesthetic autonomy is antithetical to the preponderance
of social heteronomy. Genuine art, as the epitome of cultural transcendence,
needs individuality and spontaneity; the culture industry, as the embodiment
of systemic immanence, needs conformity and standard.
‘Culture is the condition that excludes the attempt to measure it’ (Adorno,
1967: 91).13 The only control of art is its non-control. Authentic art cannot be
Bourdieu and Adorno 191

controlled by any external systemic force; it cannot even be controlled by itself.

Controlled art could hardly overcome a state of compulsory improvisation, of
monopolised plurality, of standardised individuality.14 The culture industry is
based on the economic necessity to measure culture, since it is its exchange
value that is most relevant to the market-driven standardisation of society.
The culture industry forces culture to wear the standardised corset of the
standardising market. Only by destroying the corset of systemic standardisation,
however, can culture become truly free and emancipatory. The standard of
the culture industry is norm, its general feature is its generalisability, and its
particularity is its universality. The standard of true art is its non-standard, its
general feature is its non-generalisability, and its universality is its particularity.
The market does not know any limits in imposing its own limits. Art does not
know any limits in transcending its own limits.
Art is about the possibility of expressing the disunity of our internal
world with the unity of our external world. Art allows us to articulate the
non-identity of our subjective world with the identity of our objective world.
A creative subject does not necessarily intend to rebel against society, but it
seeks to assert its individuality by acting upon and shaping the world. The
creative subject will never leave the world as it is, but will always strive to
explore what the world could – or even should – be. Our distinctively human
capacity to reverse the universe is inextricably linked to our distinctively
subjective ability to unify ourselves with ourselves through our disunity with
the world. Human beings do not only have a deep-seated need to create their
own creations; they also have a deep-rooted tendency to abandon their own
creations. We are at peace with ourselves as long as we know that we can
abandon ourselves. We affirm our unity with ourselves most poignantly
when we insist upon our disunity with the world. The world is ours only
insofar as we are of the world. We are of the world only insofar as we create
our own world. We feel at home in the house of being as long as we remain
the architects of the house of being. The space of humanity is a place of
reconstructability. We are what we become.
Our unity with ourselves depends on our potential disunity with our
existence. ‘The question is not whether culture has lost its unity, but whether
the possibility of expressing disunity may have been lost’ (Rose, 1978: 116).
Standardised culture unifies art to such an extent that art is robbed of its
ontological cornerstone, disunity. To unify art with the market means to divide
art from art. ‘Illusory universality is the universality of the art of the culture
industry, it is the universality of the homogeneous same, an art which even
no longer promises happiness but only provides easy amusement as relief
from labour’ (Bernstein, 1991: 6). The more standardised this domination, the
more dominated culture becomes. Ideology, including standardised culture, is
192 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

a business, for ‘[a]musement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work’

(Adorno and Horkheimer, 1997 [1944/1969]: 137). Culture is transformed
into mere entertainment. Entertainment ossifies into boredom, guaranteeing
that its perception by the masses does not require excessive creative or
intellectual efforts.
Art becomes artificial, as the unadorned Adornian critique reveals:
‘[m]ass culture is unadorned make-up’ (Adorno, 1991 [1981]: 67–68). By
virtue of its monopolistic artificiality, it aims at the constant monopolisation
of society. As ‘consummated conflictlessness’ (ibid.: 67), art conceals the
basic antagonisms of society. Art itself is translated into a decisive moment
of the material reproduction of society. As a consequence, it has lost its
capacity to transcend the systemic immanence of social reality, because
in the empire of the culture industry it is not culture that has transcended
the market but, on the contrary, the market that has transcended culture.
Culture appears as the standardised and standardising appendage of the
administered world. The forcing-into-line of society (die Gleichschaltung
der Gesellschaft) leads to the total synchronisation of culture, equalling the
factual liquidation of its normative potentiality. Standardisation is pseudo-
individualisation, since it allows difference to exist only as long as it fits
into the overall picture. The standardisation of culture is realised through
the systemic and systematic ‘promotion and [...] exploitation of the ego-
weakness to which the powerless members of contemporary society, with
its concentration of power, are condemned’ (Adorno, 1991 [1975]: 91).
The subtle totalitarianism of a standardised society degrades culture to a
reliable vehicle of standardised domination.
As shown above, the heteronomisation, commodification, and standardisation of
culture can be regarded as complex manifestations of the transformation
of culture in the modern world. (i) The heteronomisation of culture reflects
a colonising process which attacks the autonomy of culture: ‘culture as a
source of artistic creativity’ is replaced with ‘culture as a vehicle of systemic
functionality’. (ii) The commodification of culture constitutes a colonising
process which degrades culture to a functionalised appendage of the
imperatives of the market: ‘culture as an expression of purposefulness
without a purpose’ is converted into ‘culture as purposelessness for the purposes
of the market’. (iii) The standardisation of culture stands for a colonising
process which subjugates culture to a steering medium of an increasingly
synchronised and synchronising society: ‘culture as a realm of transformative
individuality’ becomes more and more of a fiction in the face of ‘culture
as a machine of reproductive sociality’. Thus, in the modern world cultural
struggles are struggles over the heteronomisation, commodification, and
standardisation of culture.
Bourdieu and Adorno 193

IV. Comparative Reflections on Culture:

Between Bourdieu and Adorno
The above analysis has sought to demonstrate that the transformation of
culture in the modern world needs to be understood in the context of the
transformation of society as a whole. Despite the existence of substantial
differences between Bourdieusian and Adornian thought, the two
approaches share some fundamental assumptions (cf. Karakayali, 2004).
This is not to suggest that the two perspectives can be considered congruent;
rather, this is to acknowledge that they possess some striking affinities.
It is the purpose of this section to elucidate these points of convergence
and thereby to put forward a critical theory of cultural production which
sheds light on the relationship between (i) culture and economy, (ii) culture and
domination, (iii) culture and legitimacy, (iv) culture and history, and (v) culture and
emancipation.

i) Culture and Economy: The Commodification of Culture

Culture cannot be divorced from the material reality in which it is embedded.
One central feature of modern society is the commodification of culture,
constituting a powerful social process which is driven by the market economy.
Both Bourdieu’s concept of cultural economy and Adorno’s concept of culture industry
imply that culture becomes gradually commodified in late capitalist societies.
To be sure, both concepts are indicative of a theoretical shift from the
classical Marxist insistence on the material nature of reality to the neo-
Marxist emphasis on the interpenetration of the material and the cultural
realms of society. In advanced capitalist societies, the material economy is
intimately entangled with the cultural economy. Metaphorically speaking,
base and superstructure do not collapse but they are more and more
intertwined, indicating how the material and the cultural dimensions of social
life become almost indistinguishably interwoven. Due to its socially contingent
and historically variable character, culture fits into the logic of an economic
system whose existence depends on the production of socially contingent and
historically variable commodities:

By an effect of circular causality, the structural gap between supply and demand
contributes to the artists’ determination to steep themselves in the search for
‘originality’ [...], ensuring the incommensurability of the specifically cultural
value and economic value of a work. (Bourdieu, 1993 [1971/1985]: 120)
The abstractness of the new is bound up with the commodity character of
art [...], artworks distinguish themselves from the ever-same inventory in
194 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

obedience to the need for the exploitation of capital. [...] The new is the aesthetic
seal of expanded reproduction, with its promise of undiminished plenitude.
(Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 21, translation modified)

Given their potential for ‘originality’ and ‘incommensurability’, as well as

for ‘distinctiveness’ and ‘newness’, cultural products meet the capitalist need
for novelty and exploitability embodied in the commodity. The resourceful
contingency of culture can be smoothly absorbed by the purposeful contingency
of the market. Artistic creativity is thereby degraded to a cultural commodity.
In capitalism, the symbolic value of culture is subdued by the exchange value
of the market.

ii) Culture and Domination: The Functionalisation of Culture

Every form of culture can be transformed into a constitutive component
of social domination. One pivotal characteristic of modern society is the
functionalisation of culture by the established social system. Both Bourdieu’s
concept of competitive struggle and Adorno’s concept of social struggle are based
on the assumption that culture and domination are closely interrelated in late
capitalist societies.
Again, both notions are symptomatic of a theoretical shift from the
classical Marxist concern with class domination and class struggle to the
neo-Marxist preoccupation with cultural domination and cultural struggle.
Just as different forms of economic domination are entangled with different
forms of cultural domination, different forms of class struggle are intertwined
with different forms of cultural struggle. There are no efficient modes of
material domination without effective modes of symbolic domination.
In late capitalism, economic domination is increasingly mediated by,
although not replaced with, cultural domination. Base and superstructure
are not dissolved, but economic and cultural mechanisms of domination
superimpose themselves upon one another; their functional reciprocity
reveals their ontological unity. The social functionality of culture matches
the systemic elasticity of the capitalist economy:

Competitive struggle is the form of class struggle which the dominated classes
allow to be imposed on them when they accept the stakes offered by the dominant
classes. It is an integrative struggle and, by virtue of the initial handicaps, a
reproductive struggle, since those who enter this chase, in which they are beaten
before they start [...], implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the goals pursued
by those whom they pursue, by the mere fact of taking part. (Bourdieu, 1984
[1979]: 165, already referred to above)
Bourdieu and Adorno 195

Social struggles and the relations of classes are imprinted in the structure
of artworks […]. (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 232.) But the secret doctrine […] is
the message of capital. It must be secret because total domination likes to keep
itself invisible: ‘No shepherd and a herd’. Nonetheless it is directed at everyone.
(Adorno, 1991 [1981]: 81)

Domination in late capitalism is mediated by culture. In advanced

capitalist societies, culture constitutes both a vehicle and a motor of class
domination. As a vehicle of class domination, culture is an instrument
of power; as a motor of class domination, culture is a source of power.
Domination through culture is subtle but total, since it penetrates every
single sphere of society far more efficiently and reliably than the most
perfected totalitarian political regime ever could. The systemic mechanisms
of cultural domination in late capitalism do not abolish the economic
division of society; they only conceal this division.

iii) Culture and Legitimacy: The Classification of Culture

The power of every form of culture depends on its degree of legitimacy.
One important element of modern society is the classification of culture for
the maintenance of social order. Both Bourdieu’s concept of affirmation and
Adorno’s concept of justification allow us to understand how the legitimacy of
culture can contribute to the legitimacy of society:

Any act of cultural production implies an affirmation of its claims to cultural

legitimacy […]. (Bourdieu, 1993 [1971/1985]: 116.) [T]he field of production
and diffusion can only be fully understood if one treats it as a field of competition
for the monopoly of the legitimate exercise of symbolic violence. (Ibid.: 121.)
[A]rt and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or
not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences. (Bourdieu, 1984
[1979]: 7)
No ideology even needs to be injected […], art becomes a form of justification
[…]. (Adorno, 1991 [1981]: 57.) Mass culture allows precisely this reserve army
of outsiders to participate: mass culture is an organized mania for connecting
everything with everything else, a totality of public secrets. (Ibid.: 72)

The stability of any social system depends largely on the degree of legitimacy
it is able to obtain. The most legitimate legitimacy is a form of legitimacy that
is not forced to be legitimated because it is based not only on tacit consent and
implicit approval but also on integrative opportunism and doxic complicity.
The legitimacy of symbolic violence is nourished by the outsiders’ participation
196 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

in the cultural legitimisation of their own domination. Classified culture

classifies classified people, just as much as classified people classify classified
culture. The consecration of culture in modern society is a manifestation of
the classificatory division of society as a whole.

iv) Culture and History: The Contextualisation of Culture

Every form of culture is historically situated. One crucial facet of modern
society is the resignification of culture according to the imperatives of the
market. Both Bourdieu’s concept of reference and Adorno’s concept of immanence
point towards the fact that the power of culture is always contingent upon the
horizon of meaning in which it finds itself historically situated:

Science can attempt to bring representations and instruments of thought […]

back to the social conditions of their production and of their use, in other words,
back to the historical structure of the field in which they are engendered and
within which they operate. […] [O]ne is led to historicize these cultural products,
all of which claim universality. But historicizing them means not only […]
relativizing them by recalling that they have meaning solely through reference
to a determined state of the field of struggle […]; it also means restoring to
them necessity by removing them from indeterminacy (which stems from a
false eternalization) in order to bring them back to the social conditions of their
genesis, a truly generative definition. (Bourdieu, 1993 [1987]: 263–264)
The immanence of society in the artwork is the essential social relation of art,
not the immanence of art in society. (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 232)

To contextualise culture means to accept its contingency by facing up to its

intrinsic historicity. The constitution of culture in the modern world cannot
be understood without taking into account the constitution of society as
a whole. The situatedness of culture within society destroys any illusions
about the possible indeterminacy of culture beyond society. The creative
transcendence of culture is possible because of, rather than despite, its
societal immanence, for what seeks to write its own history needs to face up
to its own determinacy.

v) Culture and Emancipation: The Liberation of Culture

Culture contains an emancipatory potential. One significant aspect of modern
society is that it challenges us to exploit the emancipatory core of culture in
order to abolish the emancipation of exploitation. Both Bourdieu’s concept of
open work and Adorno’s concept of the unspeakable seem to suggest that the quest
Bourdieu and Adorno 197

for the autonomy of human culture cannot be separated from the quest for the
autonomy of human existence:

The production of an ‘open work’ [...] [is] the final stage in the conquest of
artistic autonomy [...]. To assert the autonomy of production is to give primacy
to that of which the artist is master [...]. (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]: 3)
[T]here is no art without individuation, [...] art must be and wants to be
utopia, and the more utopia is blocked by the real functional order, the more
this is true; [...] only by virtue of the absolute negativity of collapse does art
enunciate the unspeakable: utopia. (Adorno, 1997 [1970]: 32.) The categories
of artistic objectivity are unitary with social emancipation when the object, on
the basis of its own impulse, liberates itself from social convention and controls.
(Ibid.: 231)

The individuation of artistic openness is the opening of artistic individuation.

Art liberates the subject just as much as the subject liberates art by speaking
the unspeakable. The categories of liberating art are uncategorical for the
categorical imperative of liberation is the abolition of categories, just as
much as the realisation of materialism is the abolition of materialism. The
impulse that drives the conquest of artistic autonomy can only be fully
realised through the realisation of the quest for human sovereignty, which is
always already existent in social objectivity. There is no realised individuation
without a realised society, just as there is no realised society without realised
individuation. As long as art can go beyond society, society will be able to go
beyond itself.

Conclusion
Drawing upon the works of Bourdieu and Adorno, this chapter has explored
the transformation of culture in modern society. Rather than seeking to
embrace the entire complexity of Bourdieusian and Adornian thought, the
chapter has deliberately focused on some key dimensions that are particularly
relevant to the critical analysis of the relationship between modern culture
and modern society. As demonstrated above, the transformation of culture
in the modern world cannot be understood without taking into account the
transformation of society as a whole.
The ‘cultural economy’ constitutes a market of symbolic goods driven by
economic and cultural struggles. In essence, it is shaped by three simultaneous
social processes: the differentiation, commodification, and classification of
culture. (i) The differentiation of culture is embedded in a binary separation
between the field of restricted cultural production and the field of large-scale
198 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

cultural production: in modern society, culture oscillates between its symbolic

independence from and its material dependence upon the ubiquitous power
of the market economy. (ii) The commodification of culture cannot be dissociated
from the culturalisation of commodities: inasmuch as culture is increasingly
commodified, commodities are increasingly culturalised in modern society.
(iii) The classification of culture is an expression of the stratification of society:
cultural struggles are basically struggles ‘about’ social classification ‘through’
representational classification, reflecting the deep material and symbolic
divisions of modern society.
The ‘culture industry’ represents both the product and the vehicle of an
increasingly synchronised and synchronising society. Its powerful influence
upon the constitution of modern society manifests itself in three simultaneous
social processes: the heteronomisation, commodification, and standardisation
of culture. (i) The heteronomisation of culture stems from the subjugation of
artistic creativity to systemic functionality: the culture industry feeds the
empowerment of the economy and contributes to the disempowerment of
humanity by autonomising the industry and heteronomising culture. (ii) The
commodification of culture is symptomatic of the omnipresent power of the
capitalist economy, in which the symbolic value of culture is subdued to
the exchange value of the market: the culture industry liquidates the
autonomous core of culture by commodifying it. (iii) The standardisation of
culture illustrates the homogenising power of totally administered societies:
to standardise culture means to deculturalise culture; it means to unify the
ontological disunity of art; in short, it means to divide culture from culture and
art from art. The subtle totalitarianism of late capitalist society is equipped
with the unwritten recipe of standardised domination.
Despite the substantial differences between Bourdieusian and Adornian
social theory, the two approaches offer complementary, rather than antithetical,
perspectives on the transformation of culture in modern society. As shown
above, the two accounts converge on five levels, allowing us to make a case
for a critical theory of cultural production. (i) Both approaches are concerned
with the relationship between culture and economy in that they explore the social
implications of the commodification of culture. The search for originality and
novelty, which is essential to the creation of artwork, matches the need for
invention and reinvention, which is fundamental to the reproduction of the
‘cultural economy’ and the ‘culture industry’. (ii) Both approaches highlight the
relationship between culture and domination in that they study the social implications
of the systemic functionalisation of culture. Social antagonisms seem to disappear
behind the make-up of the unadorned adornment of systemic domination.
(iii) Both approaches shed light on the relationship between culture and legitimacy
in that they draw our attention to the social implications of the classification
Bourdieu and Adorno 199

of culture. Cultural authority is one of the most powerful vehicles of social

legitimacy. (iv) Both approaches emphasise the relationship between culture and
history in that they study the social implications of the contextualisation of culture.
Just as we need to recognise the historicity of society, we need to face up to
the contingency of culture. (v) Both approaches insist on the relationship between
culture and emancipation in that they reflect on the social implications of the
possible liberation of culture. Emancipatory forms of society cannot dispense
with emancipatory forms of culture. To reappropriate society would mean to
reappropriate culture.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Bryan S. Turner and Elena Knox for their helpful comments
on an earlier version of this chapter.

Notes
1 On the concept of culture as a socio-ontological foundation of the human condition,
see, for example, Susen (2007: 287–292).
2 The German term Bildung has several meanings. In the most general sense, it refers to
the ‘formation’ or ‘shaping’ of something. In a more specific sense, it can also signify
‘education’, that is, literally the ‘formation’ or ‘shaping’ of a person.
3 See, for example, Bourdieu (1984 [1979]), Bourdieu (1993), Bourdieu and Passeron
(1990 [1970]), and Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992a: esp. 87–89). See also Bohman
(1999), Fowler (1997), Lash (1993), LiPuma (1993), Swartz (1997), and Wacquant (2002).
4 On the polycentric nature of social power, see, for example, Susen (2008a) and Susen
(2008b).
5 On the autonomy of the field, see also Susen (2007: 176–177).
6 See, for example: Bourdieu (1977 [1972]: 83), Bourdieu (1980: 28, 90, and 122),
Bourdieu (1982: 16), Bourdieu (1982: 84), Bourdieu (1997: 44, 166, 205, and 222),
Bourdieu (1998: 102), Bourdieu (2001: 129), Bourdieu, and Chamboredon and Passeron
(1968: 46). See also Susen (2007: 188, 255, 296, and 299).
7 On the notion of the habitus as ‘a structured and structuring structure’, see, for
example: Bourdieu (1976: 43), Bourdieu (1980: 87–88 and 159), Bourdieu (1997b: 118,
172, and 219), and Bourdieu (2001: 154). In the secondary literature, see, for example:
Bonnewitz (1998: 62), Dortier (2002: 5), Jenkins (1992: 141), Knoblauch (2003: 189),
Lewandowski (2000: 50), Liénard and Servais (2000 [1979]: 87), Vandenberghe (1999:
48), and Wacquant (2002: 33).
8 See also Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992b. In the secondary literature, see, for example,
Lash (1993: 196) and Susen (2007: 142–145).
9 Cf. LiPuma (1993: 16): ‘[…] an “almost perfect homology” between the structures of
culture and those of social organization’.
10 See Adorno (1991 [1975]: 85). Adorno writes: ‘In our drafts we spoke of “mass culture”.
We replaced that expression with “culture industry” in order to exclude from the outset
the interpretation agreeable to its advocates: that it is a matter of something like a
200 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

culture that arises spontaneously from the masses themselves, the contemporary form of
popular art.’ On the concepts of empowerment and disempowerment in contemporary
critical theory, see, for example, Susen (2009a: 84–105) and Susen (2009b: 104–105).
11 In Adorno’s writings, Auschwitz epitomises the dark side of a totally administered
world.
12 On Adorno’s insistence upon the emancipatory nature of art, see, for example, Susen
(2007: 107–111).
13 Cf. Jay (1984: 118 and 181n.22).
14 Adorno’s arguments against the artistic legitimacy of Jazz are particularly relevant to
his notion of compulsory improvisation. See Jay (1973: 186–187). Cf. Adorno 1991
[1981: 76]. See also Kodat (2003: 114).

References
Adorno, Theodor W. (1967) ‘Thesen zur Kunstsoziologie’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie 19(1): 87–93.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1967 [1955]) Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierry Weber, London:
Spearman.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1991 [1975]) ‘Culture Industry Reconsidered’, in Theodor
W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, trans. Anson G. Rabinbach,
edited and introduced by J. M. Bernstein, London: Routledge, pp. 85–92.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1991 [1981]) ‘The Schema of Mass Culture’, in Theodor W. Adorno,
The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, trans. Nicholas Walker, edited and
introduced by J. M. Bernstein, London: Routledge, pp. 53–84.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1997 [1970]) Aesthetic Theory, trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor, London:
Athlone Press.
Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer (1997 [1944/1969]) ‘The Culture Industry:
Enlightenment as Mass Deception’, in Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer,
The Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming, London: Verso, pp. 120–167.
Bernstein, J. M. (1991) ‘Introduction’ in Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays
on Mass Culture, edited and introduced by J. M. Bernstein, London: Routledge, pp. 1–25.
Bohman, James (1999) ‘Practical Reason and Cultural Constraint: Agency in Bourdieu’s
Theory of Practice’, in Richard Shusterman (ed.) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 129–152.
Bonnewitz, Patrice (1998) La sociologie de P. Bourdieu, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1976) ‘Le sens pratique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 7 [1]: 43–86.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980) Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1982a) ‘L’économie des échanges linguistiques’, in Pierre Bourdieu,
Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Fayard, pp. 11–21.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1982b) ‘La formation des prix et l’anticipation des profits’, in Pierre
Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Fayard, pp. 59–95.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992 [1977]) ‘On Symbolic Power’, in Pierre Bourdieu, Language and
Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B. Thompson, translated by Gino
Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 163–170.
Bourdieu and Adorno 201

Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, edited and
introduced by Randal Johnson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1971/1985]) ‘The Market of Symbolic Goods’, in Pierre Bourdieu,
The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, trans. Rupert Swyer, edited and
introduced by Randal Johnson, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 112–145.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1987]) ‘The Historical Genesis of a Pure Aesthetic’, in Pierre
Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, trans. Charles Newman,
edited and introduced by Randal Johnson, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 253–266.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1997a) Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ
scientifique, Paris: INRA.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1997b) Méditations pascaliennes, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) La domination masculine, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001) Science de la science et réflexivité, Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Jean-Claude Passeron (1968) Le métier
de sociologue. Préalables épistémologiques, Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales/Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990 [1970]) Reproduction in Education, Society
and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992a) ‘The Unique and the Invariant’, in Pierre
Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press,
pp. 75–94.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992b) ‘Language, Gender, and Symbolic Violence’,
in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press, pp. 140–174.
Dortier, Jean-François (2002) ‘Les idées pures n’existent pas’, Sciences Humaines, Numéro
Spécial: L’œuvre de Pierre Bourdieu: 3–8.
Fowler, Bridget (1997) Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations, London: Sage.
Jarvis, Simon (1998) Adorno: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jay, Martin (1973) The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of
Social Research, 1923–1950, London: Heinemann.
Jay, Martin (1984) Adorno, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jenkins, Richard (1992) Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.
Karakayali, Nedim (2004) ‘Reading Bourdieu with Adorno: The Limits of Critical Theory
and Reflexive Sociology’, Sociology 38(2): 351–368.
Kellner, Douglas (1989) Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Knoblauch, Hubert (2003) ‘Habitus und Habitualisierung. Zur Komplementarität von
Bourdieu mit dem Sozialkonstruktivismus’, in Boike Rehbein, Gernot Saalmann and
Hermann Schwengel (eds.) Pierre Bourdieus Theorie des Sozialen: Probleme und Perspektiven,
Konstanz: UVK, pp. 187–201.
Kodat, Catherine Gunther (2003) ‘Conversing with Ourselves: Canon, Freedom, Jazz’,
American Quarterly 55(1): 1–28.
Lash, Scott (1993) ‘Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural Economy and Social Change’, in Craig
Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 193–211.
Lewandowski, Joseph D. (2000) ‘Thematizing Embeddedness: Reflexive Sociology as
Interpretation’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30(1): 49–66.
Liénard, Georges and Émile Servais (2000 [1979]) ‘Practical Sense’, in Derek Robbins (ed.)
Pierre Bourdieu. Volume I, London: Sage, pp. 83–92.
202 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

LiPuma, Edward (1993) ‘Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice’, in
Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 14–34.
Robbins, Derek (1991) The Work of Pierre Bourdieu: Recognizing Society, Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Rose, Gillian (1978) The Melancholy Science: An Introduction to the Thought of Theodor W. Adorno,
London: Macmillan.
Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology,
Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Susen, Simon (2008a) ‘Poder y anti-poder (I-III)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural
10(1): 49–90.
Susen, Simon (2008b) ‘Poder y anti-poder (IV-V)’, Erasmus: Revista para el diálogo intercultural
10(2): 133–180.
Susen, Simon (2009a) ‘Between Emancipation and Domination: Habermasian Reflections
on the Empowerment and Disempowerment of the Human Subject’, Pli: The Warwick
Journal of Philosophy 20: 80–110.
Susen, Simon (2009b) ‘The Philosophical Significance of Binary Categories in Habermas’s
Discourse Ethics’, Sociological Analysis 3(2): 97–125.
Swartz, David (1997) Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Vandenberghe, Frédéric (1999) ‘“The Real is Relational”: An Epistemological Analysis of
Pierre Bourdieu’s Generative Structuralism’, Sociological Theory 17(1): 32–67.
Wacquant, Loïc (2002) ‘De l’idéologie à la violence symbolique : culture, classe et
conscience chez Marx et Bourdieu’, in Jean Lojkine (ed.) Les sociologues critiques du
capitalisme : en hommage à Pierre Bourdieu, Paris: Collection Actuel Marx Confrontation,
Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 25–40.
Williams, Raymond (1994) ‘The Analysis of Culture’, in John Storey (ed.) Cultural Theory
and Popular Culture: A Reader, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 48–56.
CHAPTER NINE
The Grammar of an Ambivalence:
On the Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu in
the Critical Theory of Axel Honneth

Mauro Basaure*

In the mid-1980s, Axel Honneth – successor to Jürgen Habermas, and

now considered the most prominent representative of the Frankfurt
School’s third generation – made an important contribution to the socio-
philosophical reading of Pierre Bourdieu’s work that fundamentally shaped
its German reception (see Behr, 2001). This contribution is marked by a clear
ambivalence. On the one hand, it is obvious that it was in no way gratuitous.
Honneth knew from the beginning that Bourdieu’s work was to play a key
role in his own project to renew the tradition of critical theory (Honneth,
Basaure, Reemtsma and Willig, 2009). At the centre of this project was a
reappropriation and revitalisation of the Hegelian concept of the ‘struggle
for recognition’ (Honneth, 1995 [1992]; 2000; 2003; 2007 [2000]). On the
other hand, Honneth’s early texts, which contribute to the German reception
of Bourdieu, are eminently critical of Bourdieu’s work. In a monographic
article presented in the early 1980s, Honneth (1984) advances the critique that
Bourdieu’s social theory tends to ignore the normative structuring of social
life and instead takes up a utilitarian, strategic understanding of social action.
This charge similarly dominates the interview Honneth and his colleagues
conducted with Bourdieu, which was published two years later (Bourdieu,
Honneth, Kocyba and Schwibs, 1986). I want to argue that this ambivalence
cuts across Honneth’s entire relationship with Bourdieu’s work. Whilst
Honneth rejects what he considers to be the socio-ontological foundations
of Bourdieu’s sociological theory, he draws upon the Bourdieusian approach
and considers it as an expression of an exemplary sociology.
As shall be illustrated below, this ambivalence can only be understood in
light of the structure of Honneth’s theory of the struggle for recognition.
204 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

The first section demonstrates that this ambivalence does not constitute
a contradiction because Honneth’s assessments of Bourdieu’s sociology –
one negative and one positive – correspond to two key argumentative axes
within this theory, which are very different from one another and unequally
developed. The second section uses this analysis to explain why the existing
body of literature has taken up Honneth’s negative assessment of Bourdieu’s
sociology, while largely ignoring the former’s affirmative critique of the latter.
Intervening in this discourse, the third section engages in more substantive
reconstruction by exploring the impact of Bourdieu’s legacy on Honneth’s
work. Finally, the fourth section provides a systematic account of the various
ways and contexts in which Honneth turns to Bourdieu, suggesting that the
basic requirements of the former’s theory of the struggle for recognition
cannot be dissociated from the latter’s theoretical framework. Such an analysis
permits us to identify the fundamental elements that constitute the grammar
underlying the ambivalent relationship between Honneth’s critical theory and
Bourdieu’s critical sociology.

1. Bourdieu’s Sociology Between the Key Axes of Honneth’s

Theory of the Struggle for Recognition
Theories that are concerned with the nature of social struggles tend to
ignore one – arguably fundamental – analytical distinction: the distinction
between sociological research devoted to explaining the motives for
contestatory action and sociological research devoted to studying the
preconditions of contestatory action. In fact, if we apply this distinction to
Honneth’s theory of the struggle for recognition (1995 [1981]; 1984; 1995
[1992]; 2000; 2003; 2007 [2000]), we can make sense of his ambivalent
assessment of Bourdieu’s sociology.
A brief but methodical reconstruction of Honneth’s theory allows us to
identify two intimately related argumentative axes: a moral-sociological axis and a
historico-philosophical axis. The first axis represents the conceptual effort to provide
an explanation for the moral motives of subjective action that lie at the heart
of social struggles and conflicts. Drawing on a reinterpretation of Hegel and
Mead, Honneth employs a non-utilitarian moral-sociological explanation of
social conflicts which suggests that the motives for engaging in social struggle
can be traced back to experiences of a lack of recognition which cause negative
moral feelings. Their objective and cognitive nature resides in their expression
of the breakdown of the system of reciprocal expectations of behaviour based
on values anchored in intersubjective structures of mutual recognition that
underlie individual identity development. Honneth’s theory of recognition is
concerned with the construction of an intersubjective concept of subjectivity
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 205

that is not only sensitive to forms of moral damage but also capable of reacting
to this damage with negative moral feelings. These feelings could provide the
motivational basis for social struggles. Such a moral-sociological perspective,
which is based on the link between conflict and normativity, is captured in the
subtitle of Honneth’s (1995 [1992]) book The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral
Grammar of Social Conflicts.
The historico-philosophical axis proposes a context of historical
interpretation for a process of moral construction within which the struggles
for recognition can be inscribed as part of a historical process of normative
development and learning. In this way, struggles lose their contingent nature
and cease to be separate episodes. They are instead understood in the context
of a historical deployment and broadening of the moral structures of reciprocal
recognition (Honneth, 1995 [1992]). It is important to note that both axes
assume a moral perspective and that, as stated above, they are intimately
related to one another. Since morally motivated social struggles develop and
broaden the normative structures of reciprocal recognition, these struggles
possess historical significance, implying ever-greater levels of inclusion as well
as moral demands.
Although it is not self-evident, it is possible to identify a third axis in the
conceptual architecture of Honneth’s theory. This third axis, which I will refer
to as the political-sociological axis, exists within the conceptual space constituted
by the two main axes mentioned above and is concerned with the phenomenon
of social struggle as such. In other words, it represents the concept of
struggle as the process of constructing antagonistic collectives. The political-
sociological axis, therefore, does not directly address the moral-sociological
explanation of the motives of social struggles or their inscription within a
philosophical historical context of moral development. To put it another
way, it does not address the motivational causes of the social struggle or their
consequences for the deployment of moral learning. Rather, it focuses on the
way in which collectives are antagonistically constructed and on their ability
to shape political public spaces and transform the order, values and practices
that regulate social recognition and the rights of individuals. Conceived in this
way, the political-sociological axis is inserted between the moral-sociological
axis and the historico-philosophical axis.
As shall be demonstrated below, the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu
plays a key role in Honneth’s development of the political-sociological axis.
It is worth mentioning this at this point because, along with the previous
reconstruction, it allows us to understand the fundamental ambivalence
that characterises Honneth’s assessment of Bourdieu’s work. My argument
is that, with respect to the moral-sociological axis, Honneth (1995 [1984])
rejects the nucleus of economic and utilitarian theory, which – as he sees
206 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

it – is essential to Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic struggles. Referring to

the motivations for contestatory action, Honneth asserts that a moral
normative logic undergirds contestatory action and argues against all
exclusively utilitarian strategic explanations for such motivations (Honneth,
1995 [1984]; 1995 [1992]), which – correctly or not – he sees reflected
in Bourdieu’s work. To put it another way, Honneth rejects Bourdieu’s
sociology as incomplete because the phenomenon of the moral does not
play a significant role in its sociological explicative frame. To illustrate this,
I will establish Honneth’s position by condensing into a single quotation
the four central pages of his argument:

Bourdieu is guided by utilitarian motifs in overcoming structuralism […] the

concept of «habitus» is its [critique of anthropological structuralism] logical
extension. The concept of habitus provides the means by which we can move
from the view of a profit motive permeating social life in its entirety to the
level of actual social practices and orientation of action. For to avoid having
to assume, as a consequence of an underlying utilitarian theory of action, that
acting subjects possess the actual intention of utility maximization, Bourdieu
proceeds from the idea that the contingently located utility calculus of social
groups are manifest in their collective perceptual and evaluative schemata on an
unconscious level. Bourdieu called these group-specific dispositions and modes
of action orientations which project beyond the individual’s horizon of meaning
forms of habitus. One of the presuppositions of this concept […] is that Bourdieu
could now claim that even if they subjectively orient their actions in other
ways, social subjects act from the economic viewpoint of utility which had been
deposited in the modes of orientation, classificatory schemes and dispositions
binding to their group. The subjectively conscious plan of action therefore
does not have to coincide with the habitually intended aim of action, which is
in principle determined by utility maximization […]. The utilitarian concept
of social action then is at the basis of Bourdieu’s social theory and analysis of
culture. […] social groups incessantly strive to better or at least hold on their
social position. (Honneth, 1995 [1984]: 186–190)

In contrast to this critical reading, and in accordance with what we may

characterise as the political-sociological axis of his work, Honneth (1995
[1992]; 2003) turns to Bourdieu’s political sociology in a largely affirmative way.
While he rejects it with respect to the moral explanation of the motivations of
belligerent action, he takes up Bourdieu’s political sociology when discussing
the preconditions of collective action and considers it to be exemplary.
Given my previous assertions, it is important to note that the ambivalence in
Honneth’s assessment of Bourdieu does not constitute a contradiction: indeed,
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 207

the two values of ambivalence – the positive and the negative – correspond to
the two axes of the Honnethian theory of the struggle for recognition which
are independent of one another.

2. The Asymmetrical Assessment of Bourdieu’s Sociology

In modern social theory, there is some confusion about the nature of social
struggles, that is, there is a failure to differentiate between conceptual proposals
geared towards explaining the subject’s willingness to enter into conflict –
that is, the moral-sociological axis, if we are to use Honneth’s theory as an
example – and proposals oriented towards explaining these struggles as such,
that is, as an integral component of social life (the political-sociological axis).
In Honneth’s theory of the struggle for recognition, this fundamental
confusion manifests itself in the unequal development of the aforementioned
axes which causes this approach to suffer from a lack of balance. In fact,
when Honneth talks about the struggle for recognition, he does so almost
exclusively in reference to the motivations behind it and, thus, to the ‘why’
rather than the ‘how’ of this struggle. To elaborate, the former dimension – the
‘why’ – concerns the moral-sociological axis, while the latter dimension – the
‘how’ – refers to the political-sociological axis. Although Honneth mainly
works to explain the normative logic underlying the motivational forces that
lead people to engage in struggles for recognition, he does not aim to develop
a theory of social struggles as such. What is problematic, however, is that the
political-sociological axis remains underdeveloped in Honneth’s writings.
If – as suggested above – Honneth’s negative assessment of Bourdieu
corresponds to the painstakingly developed moral-sociological axis, while
his positive critique addresses the deficiently developed political-sociological
axis of his theory, it is no mystery that Honneth makes more of an effort
to flesh out his negative critique of Bourdieu through a monographic article
(Honneth, 1995 [1984]), whereas his positive assessment of Bourdieu is not
reflected in an equal manner in any part of his work, but is instead evident in
scattered remarks throughout his writings.
This further explains why Honneth’s negative assessment of Bourdieu’s
sociology has been taken up so often in the literature on Bourdieu’s work. There
is a direct relationship between what is recognised and thematised in Honneth’s
negative assessment of Bourdieu and the central, predominant nature of the
moral-sociological axis in Honneth’s work as well as between the unexplored
nature of the affirmative aspect of Honneth’s critique of Bourdieu and the
underdeveloped nature of the political-sociological axis in Honneth’s work.
For those familiar with the secondary literature on Bourdieu’s sociology,
there is a well-established intellectual relationship between Honneth and
208 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu. Working from a moral-sociological perspective, Honneth is the

theorist from the Frankfurt School who, like others, has criticised the presence
of a strategic economic perspective of action and a utilitarian nucleus in
Bourdieu’s work (Wacquant, 1992; Swartz, 1997), despite his interest in
and open admiration for the critical theory of society and the exemplary
conjunction between it and the empirical social research Bourdieu developed
(Honneth and Schiller, 1994; Bourdieu, Honneth, Kocyba and Schwibs, 1986;
Honneth, 2007).
According to this understanding, Honneth forms part of a group of authors
( Jenkins, 1982; Joppke, 1986; Caillé, 1992; Miller and Branson, 1987; Miller,
1989; Gartman, 1991) who, in one way or another, denounce the presence of
a utilitarian strategic perspective in the concepts of habitus, capital and field.
It is these writers who, in defence of Bourdieu, respond to this critique, citing
the profoundly flawed nature of Honneth’s interpretations of Bourdieu’s work
(Wacquant, 1992). In this context, he is directly linked to the anti-utilitarian
undertakings of Alain Caillé (1981; 1992; 1994; 2000).
As is clear in the secondary literature, this discussion about the more
or less utilitarian strategic perspective present in Bourdieu’s works centres
on the interpretation of the Bourdieusian concept of interest (Honneth,
1995 [1984]; 1995 [1992]; Bourdieu, 1993; Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992; Calhoun, 1993; Swartz, 1997). While Honneth recognises Bourdieu’s
attempt to revive the concept of the subject of action without abandoning
a structuralist perspective, he feels too high a price is paid when the subject
is assumed to be not only over-socialised but also as a mere carrier of
the unconscious interests associated with class positions. In other words,
Honneth asserts it is too costly to reintroduce or reappropriate – even
in revised terms – a utilitarian perspective based on the idea of utility
maximisation. Thus, for Honneth, the notion of unconscious strategy
represents not an alternative to utilitarianism (1995 [1984]; 1995 [1992]) but
rather an innovative conceptual variation within it. Due to this key difference
at the socio-ontological level, Honneth, according to his own reconstruction,
cannot take up Bourdieu’s concept of the symbolic struggles for recognition
or the model of social conflict that informs it. Those who defend Bourdieu
(Wacquant, 1992) – including Bourdieu himself (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992) – continue to argue that the concept of interest and alternative
concepts such as illusio, libido, commitment (Bourdieu, 1998 [1994]) do
not necessitate an intentionalist or utilitarian perspective. The fact that this
defence sees in that critique an understanding of the concept of interest and
strategy in intentionalist terms – that is, conscious strategies – leaves no room
for doubt that there is a lack of understanding, conceptual precision and
clarity in this debate which raged during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 209

While the scope and objectives of this chapter make it unfeasible to

reconstruct this lengthy discussion or adjudicate on Honneth’s critique
of Bourdieu, I wish to demonstrate it is not coincidental that the literature
on this subject has largely ignored Honneth’s assessment of Bourdieu’s
sociology as exemplary. This is because the argumentative axis on which
Bourdieu constitutes a fundamental contribution is not fully developed in
the conceptual architecture of Honneth’s theory. On that axis Bourdieu’s
sociology is Honneth’s only resource. As such, the affirmative references to it
match exactly with what has thus far been the embryonic development of the
political-sociological axis of Honneth’s theory of recognition. This affirmative
and exclusive relationship with Bourdieu in the context of that axis implies
that when Honneth’s affirmative recourse to Bourdieu is researched, one is
also researching the political-sociological axis of Honneth’s theory of the
struggle for recognition. The following section examines the dual nature of
such an endeavour.

3. Political Recognition and the Bourdieusian Space within a

Moral-Sociological Theory of the Struggle for Recognition
The political-sociological axis is not only less developed than, but also
housed or located within, the moral-sociological axis in Honneth’s work. To
put it differently, the development of this axis is not just highly diminished
but also relatively invisible. As a result, in order to identify it, one must
extract political-sociological arguments from the broad moral-sociological
field that houses this axis.
Perhaps the most appropriate context in which to initiate such an analysis
is Honneth’s discussion of social struggles for recognition as social esteem
(soziale Wertschätzung) (Honneth, 1995 [1992]; 2003). I will reconstruct this
context in part by employing my own analytical categories. According to
Honneth’s analysis of the structure of social relationships of recognition,
external negative situations in the sphere of recognition as social esteem –
that is, situations which entail a lack of recognition and therefore cause moral
suffering – are those that result in an unjust or inadequate social appraisal
of the contributions people make to society through their activities or their
individual capacities and characteristics.1
According to this moral-sociological model of social conflict, the
struggle for recognition as a struggle over social esteem goes back to moral
experiences characterised by the feeling of social disrespect (soziale Mißachtung).
Honneth defends the relevance of this moral-sociological explicative model,
recommending that it not only be acknowledged for its distinctiveness with
respect to other explicative models based on the notion of interest, but also
210 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

that it be placed alongside or even in a condition of superiority over these other

models because of its explicative potential (Honneth, 1995 [1992]).
These assertions are evident in Honneth’s debate with Fraser, during which
he gives attention and credence to the social struggle to make female labour
visible (Honneth, 2003). Honneth argues that the underestimation of the value
of women’s activities is not due to the content of the work itself, but due to
the fact that when an activity is carried out mainly by women it automatically
loses value in the social hierarchy. To put it another way, the social value of
an activity is not an objective, technical issue related to its content but rather
a matter dependent on the cultural significance of the gender of those who
perform it. Honneth thus explains that domestic work and childcare are not
even considered to be labour. This negative external situation unleashes a
feeling of injustice which results from seeing the real contribution one makes
to society unjustly undervalued. At the same time, this feeling can become the
motivational basis for structuring one’s subjectivity around a commitment to
social struggle.
At least in this context, Honneth is not interested in the strictly political-
sociological issue of how these individual and subjective experiences come to
be articulated as collective experiences that constitute the basis for shared social
struggles. He does, however, productively examine the goals and objectives
which can be identified in these struggles. One such objective is the calling
into question of dominant forms of social esteem in order to change them,
thereby transforming the social recognition of women’s work and leading to
the establishment of more equitable material (Honneth, 2003). Used here as
an example, the feminist movement clearly established this link between a
specific type of unjust experience and a goal such as the transformation of
the standards by which society accords social esteem, as seen in the systemic,
objective and structural nature of the negative exterior situations which
provoke unequal treatment.
As explained above, Honneth’s argument addresses the identification of
a negative external situation that raises negative experiences or feelings of
injustice which potentially constitute the motivational basis of social struggles,
whose goals are oriented towards transforming the dominant symbolic systems
of social esteem. For Honneth, identifying the moral nature of these objectives
is important because it is the only way he can theoretically anticipate the moral
justifiability of the demands for recognition. This is because, to the degree that
these demands are based on the socially accepted value of equality of merits,
they must be publically justifiable. It is doubtful, however, whether or not the
justifiability (or non-justifiability) of a demand for recognition can be based
solely on this pre-political aspect. Rather, justifiability also occurs in the strictly
political sphere, that is, in the sphere linked to the political-sociological axis,
where practices of justification and public validation take place.
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 211

Notably, Honneth does not explain the causal nexus between these
experiences and goals. That is, he does not focus on which complex social
technology comes into play so that these collective goals can be constituted on
the basis of experiences that are initially singular and unarticulated. Instead,
Honneth reconstructs this nexus starting from a paradigmatic example of the
feminist struggles in which these goals are already explicit.
It is precisely in relation to that ‘practical habitus’ – which takes place
between singular negative experiences and the formulation of collective
goals that are discursively articulated and sustained through stable collective
work – that a fundamentally political-sociological argument develops.
Through this process, individual or singular forms of social suffering can be
articulated, cognitively and politically represented, and expressed through
adequate language, such as that of the construction of goals. I want to argue
that this is the phenomenal field to which the political-sociological axis refers
in general – an axis that, as I have stated, is underdeveloped and barely
perceptible in Honneth’s work.
As I have shown, Honneth’s argument with respect to the struggle
for recognition as social esteem emphasises the moral-sociological issue
regarding the goals that a collective borne of systematic experiences of
injustice sets for itself. These goals include transforming dominant forms of
social esteem considered to be symbolic sources of the social disrespect in
question. In so doing, Honneth refers, though superficially, to the prerequisites
for achieving such a goal (recognition as social esteem). Honneth briefly
frames these prerequisites in Bourdieusian vocabulary. From early on, he
has been interested in Bourdieu’s assertion that the symbolic dimension of
social life acquires relevance without implying a denial of the significance
of the material nature of class situations and the mechanisms by which
these situations are reproduced. In fact, Honneth borrows the concept of
symbolic struggles from Bourdieu to describe the political means by which
social groups try to force a reinterpretation of the dominant system of social
classifications in order to elevate their own positions in the system of prestige
and social power.

[S]ince the content of such interpretations depends in turn on which social

groups succeed in publicly interpreting their own accomplishments [Leistungen]
and forms of life in a way that shows them to be especially valuable, this secondary
interpretive practice cannot be understood to be anything other than an ongoing
cultural conflict. In modern societies, relations of social esteem are subject to a
permanent struggle, in which different groups attempt, by means of symbolic
force [mit den Mitteln symbolischer Gewalt] and with reference to general goals, to
raise the value of the abilities associated with their way of life. (Honneth, 1995
[1992]: 126–127, the German words in italics are mine)
212 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Honneth clearly posits this issue in terms of means and ends. The end is to
achieve a reinterpretation of the dominant forms by which social esteem
is accorded which, at the same time, is a means for achieving greater social
recognition, but the means to this end is the symbolic violence that a group likely
accumulates as it constitutes an effective instance of cognitive and political
representation. These means can be understood in terms of the political
recognition of a group and the demands that it can manifest in the political
public space. It is further necessary to differentiate between social recognition,
understood here as an objective and possible result of a social struggle, and
the political recognition of that struggle, which is a prerequisite for social
recognition to be demanded, sought and potentially reached. This difference
is implicit when Honneth notes that

[t]he more successful social movements are at drawing the public sphere’s
attention to the neglected significance of the traits and abilities they collectively
represent, the better their chances of raising the social worth or, indeed, the
standing of their members. (Honneth, 1995 [1992]: 127)

What I identify here using the term political recognition corresponds to

the political-sociological axis, as identified above. When Honneth talks of
recognition, he is clearly not talking about political recognition but rather the
lack of recognition – that subjects, who are morally sensitive, develop feelings
of resentment and then react by expressing these feelings. Honneth further
refers to social recognition as a moral political objective of struggles that
can be traced back to these moral feelings. And, if these moral feelings lead
individuals to band together and form common goals which are eventually
met, they can provide their subjects with the ability to enjoy change at the level
of social structures.
Political recognition or the lack thereof is part of the political-sociological
axis because the sociological question does not refer directly to the explanation
of the motivational sources at the root of social struggles or to the goals
that the organised and networked actors propose in order to overcome
unjust situations. It refers instead to the potential development of complex
interpretative processes of intersubjective articulation through which
the actors, by their own practices, manage to objectify an intersubjective
movement that allows a simple, uncoordinated and diverse collection of
subjects and subjective experiences – a simple collectio personarum plurium, to
use Bourdieu’s words (Bourdieu, 1992) – to come into being as a collective,
a social agent able to represent interests and demands in an antagonistic
manner in the political public space. Bourdieusian concepts (Bourdieu,
1992) such as representation, delegation, substitution and ministerium
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 213

revolve around the political-sociological axis in that they refer to the social
technologies that make political recognition possible.
Honneth is able to turn to Bourdieu precisely because the political-
sociological axis is independent of the moral-sociological axis and because
there is no necessary continuity between them. To put it another way, in
the context of the political-sociological axis, it is not decisive whether the
motivations for social struggle correspond to a utilitarian strategic model of
social action – such as the one Honneth argues Bourdieu supports – or to a
moral-sociological model. The independence of the political-sociological axis
is based on the fact that it can, in principle, correspond to either model. As
I see it, this independence explains how Honneth can selectively inherit the
Bourdieusian theory of the symbolic struggles for recognition, taking only that
which fits with his own moral-sociological theory. Even as Honneth criticises
Bourdieu’s sociology for relying on an economic theory of action model to
explain social actors’ motivations for committing to social struggles, he can
still take up Bourdieu’s political-sociological conception. Bourdieu’s political
sociology can be removed from its original utilitarian strategic framework
and relocated within a moral-sociological model. The supposition is that
this kind of grafting does not pose an obstacle to or contradict the general
framework of an elementally moral-sociological theory such as Honneth’s.
It is far from clear, however, if such an operation can be realised without
generating conceptual problems of compatibility, that is, without generating a
certain degree of ambivalence. Yet, rather than evaluating the consequences
of such an operation, I will instead proceed with identifying the limited space
in which certain key aspects of Bourdieu’s political sociology find traction
within Honneth’s critical theory.

4. Bourdieu in Honneth’s Political Sociology of Recognition

Once I have identified the argumentative field to which the political-
sociological axis in Honneth’s work specifically refers, I can touch upon
some of the general characteristics of the Bourdieusian political-sociological
representation to which Honneth turns in his discussions of social theory.
Honneth (1995 [1992]) states that it is not only the availability of symbolic
violence to social groups but also their ability to influence the political public
space – hegemonised by other groups and by those forms of social esteem
that cause systemic experiences of a lack of recognition – that will decide
the group’s chances of achieving greater social recognition. Here the term
‘greater’ refers to the negative meaning of repairing damage rather than to
the purely positive meaning of maximising status (model of conflict based on
the notion of interest). In the context of this argument, which rests directly
214 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

on Bourdieu’s vocabulary, there are two fundamental argumentative vectors

which I see as being intimately related and as structuring the phenomenal
space of the political-sociological axis of Honneth’s theory: the vector of the
continuum and the vector of conceptual sensibility.
The vector of the continuum refers to Honneth’s understanding of
the notion of social struggles in terms of the different levels of collective
association and cognitive and political representation that actors can achieve
through their own practices. Influenced by Bourdieu, Honneth has a complex
understanding of struggle. It is broad in the sense that it covers the different
states of representation and organisation of social struggles. It covers the
phenomenal space ranging from those forms of social suffering that are
not thematised as such, that are minor, or that are comprised of individual
struggles, initially invisible and not linked with one other, to collectively
articulated political struggles, like the social movements that act discursively
in the political public sphere, demanding reparation for suffering conceived
of as a collective experience. Honneth conceives social struggle as a dynamic
phenomenon in the sense that singular and plural experiences can always
be represented and articulated collectively and that processes of collective
articulation and cognitive representation can be developed and generalised by
passing through the discursive filter of the dominant public thematisation.
Both characteristics of this political-sociological representation can be
said to exist on a continuum between different ‘states’ of the objectification
of social struggles according to the levels of generalisation, collective
association and organisational and discursive density that are reached.
Based on this notion of a continuum, the vector of conceptual sensibility
refers to Honneth’s argument that critical theory should not reduce the
breadth of its gaze to social struggles which, having reached a relatively
high level of articulation and cognitive and political representation, reside
over the threshold of thematisation and public visibility. His argument is that
theoretical analysis should instead focus on – or at least not lose sight of –
experiences of suffering and forms of struggle whose existence, whether real
or theoretically postulated, reside below the threshold given their low level
of association, generalisation and cognitive and political representation.
The interconnection of these two vectors provides a system of reference in
which it is possible to situate most, if not all, of Honneth’s limited arguments
involving the political-sociological axis. He concentrates on the section of
the continuum of articulation and public visibility with respect to subjective
expressions of criticism and social struggles that reside below the threshold of
thematisation and public visibility. He demands that critical theory not forget
the phenomenal field in which experiences of social suffering, and subjective
reactions to them, have not acquired a level of association to the degree that
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 215

they can be politically represented in the political public sphere, as they are
often not even represented cognitively. In addressing this demand, Honneth
finds that Bourdieu’s sociology is exemplary as a critical sociology.
There is a certain parallelism in the logic that underlies both the moral-
sociological axis and the political-sociological axis in Honneth’s work.
The first axis assumes a perspective relative to the negativity of the social
world in the sense that it starts from negative moral experiences of a lack
of recognition or social rejection. Honneth requires that theory and social
research do the same with respect to the political-sociological axis – i.e.
not to concentrate only on the social struggles that already enjoy political
recognition, but on those that are not yet politically recognised. To put
it another way, the concern with the lack of social recognition in the
moral-sociological axis corresponds to a concern over the lack of political
recognition in the political-sociological axis.
This appraisal is especially evident when Honneth perceives that there is
a tendency to detract from the phenomenal field in other developments of
critical theory. To support this argument, I will refer to two metatheoretical
critiques Honneth offers in this regard. The first one appears very early on
against Habermas (Honneth, 1995 [1981]), and the other one, more recently,
against Fraser (Honneth, 2003).
Honneth (2000) has criticised the fact that Habermas’s theory of
communicative action abstracts the phenomenal field of negative moral
experiences. Early on, Honneth rejected the abstracting of all forms of
negative experiences, social suffering and social struggles, which – given their
lack of discursive and political organisation and thus their lack of cognitive
and political representation – are not represented in the democratic public
sphere where the collective will is formed. These two critiques are related but
different, and I am interested in the latter rather than in the former.
By the early 1980s, Honneth (1995 [1981]) was using Bourdieu’s sociology to
criticise the effects of theoretical insensitivity that the Habermasian perspective
produced. Rather than refute the assertion that a moral practical interest
capable of promoting historical moral learning accumulates in culturally
advanced and economically privileged groups – a thesis that, according to
Honneth, Habermas would defend – Honneth tried to demonstrate that this
kind of theoretical representation provoked a strong cognitive insensitivity
within critical theory. In a certain sense, this critique challenged the Arendtian
separation between political equality and economic inequality which, despite
great differences, Honneth (2007 [1999]) seems to identify, at least residually,
in Habermas. To conceive, as Habermas would have done, that the potential
for rationality and the moral development of modern societies is concentrated
only in critiques of the consequences of instrumental rationality carried out
216 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

by certain socio-cultural vanguards – the privileged, cultural and socially

advanced groups that issue their demands directly in the political public
space – would imply for Honneth that we must ignore the moral-sociological
explicative concern regarding the moral practical interest expressed by those
groups who develop such an interest precisely because of their systematic
experiences of deprivation and economic dependence. Viewing this situation
from a political-sociological perspective, it becomes clear that these struggles,
unlike those faced by the aforementioned socio-cultural vanguards, take place
in political and social invisibility. In other words, they are deployed below the
threshold of public thematisation because they are experiences of suffering
that are not collectively or discursively expressed through an adequate moral
vocabulary or politically represented through a collective in struggle (Honneth,
1995 [1980]; 1995 [1981]; Iser, 2008).
At the same time, assuming what I have called the continuum vector,
Honneth (1995 [1981]) uses Bourdieu to assert that Habermas’s perspective
is blind to the fact that the public expression of feelings of social injustice
by dispossessed and economically dependent classes is hindered or impeded
by the ideological effectiveness of social control in the context of symbolic
domination. In a certain sense, this coincides with the fact that Honneth
reaffirms that the tradition of critical theory has always imposed an extra task
upon itself. That is, in addition to offering a critique of unjust or pathological
social conditions, it thematises certain states of consciousness and practices
of social suffering and structurally determined forms of conflict even when
the actors themselves do not describe their practices and experiences in these
terms (Honneth, 2007 [1994]). The practical moral expressions of these classes
would be invisible in any theory focused on the discourses that hegemonically
occupy the political public space and do not thematise the effects of symbolic
domination or prerequisites of cultural and symbolic power necessary for
participation in that sphere. Honneth tends to assume, with Bourdieu, that
differences at the level of symbolic cultural capital are intimately related to
differences in the power to intervene in the political public space, to the extent
that the focus of Habermas’s theory on culturally advanced groups would
necessarily imply a focus on a conceptual field that exists over the threshold of
visibility and perceptibility.
Although he does so with different objectives and in ways that depart
from those seen in the context of Habermas’s critique, Honneth – in the
framework of a discussion entitled ‘Redistribution and/or Recognition?’
(Fraser and Honneth, 2003) – criticises Nancy Fraser’s theory as being
insensitive not only to experiences of social suffering that are not politically
represented but also to the everyday struggles carried out by actors in
reaction to their experiences. Even more clearly than in his critique of
Habermas, Honneth makes use of the concept of the political-sociological
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 217

axis in order to advance an argument in which Bourdieu’s sociology is

valued as exemplary. The aspect of Fraser’s critique that is most relevant
here relates back to the characteristics of broadness and dynamism which
figure prominently in the Bourdieusian socio-political representation with
which Honneth operates.
Consistent with what I call the breadth of his concept of politics, Honneth
criticises the fact that Fraser’s theory tends to limit its attention to those negative
experiences and social struggles that are expressed and operate only in the
political public sphere. This is because they already enjoy political recognition
as such or, as Honneth puts it, they have already crossed the threshold of
perceptibility (Honneth, 2003). In this regard, Honneth claims that one of
the biggest problems with Fraser’s critical theory is that she is satisfied with
reducing its cognitive abilities to demands that have already been expressed by
social movements. In so doing, it loses the autonomy necessary to cognitively
represent that which is not yet represented cognitively or politically but is
nonetheless important from the standpoint of critical theory (Honneth, 2003),
given that it refers to experiences of suffering as well as to practically and
morally significant reactions to it.
Honneth uses his analysis of the dynamic character of social struggle to
advance a critique against Fraser, charging her with taking a static or objectified
view of social struggles. Whether she wants to or not, Honneth argues, by
fixing her theoretical perspective on the realm of social movements that are
hegemonically operative in the political public space, Fraser focuses on the mere
result of struggles for social recognition. In other words, she concentrates on
the most elevated space of objectification in the context of a dynamic process
of association and representation that, if thought of as a continuum, embeds
its roots far below the threshold of public visibility. Honneth also speaks of
Fraser’s fascination with social movements. This fascination prevents her from
adopting the perspective of continuum, which would allow her to see that
what is politically represented at a given moment is established by a complex
process of association that involves great effort on the part of many actors, the
majority of whom are below the level of public recognition.
During the 1980s, Honneth turns mainly to Bourdieu’s Distinction (1984
[1979]) to inform his critique of Habermas while, at the beginning of this
century, he primarily cites The Weight of Our World (1999 [1993]) in his critique
of Fraser. Nonetheless, Honneth’s affirmative references to Bourdieu are
marked by the same political-sociological cognitive interest – a cognitive
interest of a fundamentally moral-sociological explicative order. No matter
how different they appear or how far apart they are in time, the same demand
can be appreciated in both argumentative contexts. Honneth contends that
critical theory should be sensitive to the phenomenal field that exists below the
perceptual threshold of the political public sphere (Honneth, 2003; Cooke,
218 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

2009). This demand clearly has a moral-sociological explicative aspect: not to

lose sight of the moral practical expressions that are not directly within reach
as empirical objects because they are not found in the space of visibility and
public thematisation. I want to argue that this demand also has a political-
sociological aspect in that it refers to a specific representation of the complex
phenomenon of social struggles as such and of the experiences of political
recognition that take place in the field.
As shown above, this demand becomes a critique of other expressions of
critical theory (those of Habermas and Fraser). Above all, however, it refers to
the person who asserts the demand. This is surely linked to a specific concept
of critical theory and social research and, as such, should be found in one way
or another in Honneth’s research projects at the Frankfurt Institute for Social
Research, which he has directed since 2001. Clearly, an evaluation of the degree
to which Honneth’s intellectual project also aims to meet this Bourdieusian
demand is beyond the scope of this chapter. The arguments presented here
are simply meant to be a first step – one that is less substantively theoretical
but more analytical and pertinent to conceptual architecture, thereby leading
us to a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between two
important modern social theories of social struggles and an exploration of the
fields of analysis in which this relationship may be evaluated. Having taken
this first step, we unfurl an extensive array of questions which should continue
to be explored.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Nora Sieverding and Luc Boltanski for their generous
comments on my ideas. In addition, I would like to thank Katherine
Goldman, Simon Susen, and Jonathan Trejo-Mathys for their support in the
development of this text.

Notes
* Instituto de Humanidades, Universidad Diego Portales – Santiago de Chile. Also
Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale, École des Hautes Études en Sciences
Sociales, Paris.
1 With Hegel’s help, Honneth (1995 [1992]) describes the structure of the social
relationships of recognition within modern societies as a differentiated structure in
three modes of recognition: emotional attention, respect, and social esteem. Each one
of those forms of recognition refers to a dimension of the personality: the nature of
needs and affectivity, moral responsibility, and a person’s specific skills and qualities,
respectively. There are also three forms of recognition that are implied there: those that
take place in primary relationships such as love and friendship; legal relations among
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 219

individuals, expressed specifically in individual rights; and community values, which

constitute relationships of solidarity. While positive experiences in each of these spheres
generate self-confidence, self-respect and self-esteem, respectively, each is also related to
a specific form of negative moral experience. These are mistreatment and violation, the
dispossession of rights and exclusion and indignity and injury. In each of these spheres
exists a component of the personality that is threatened where such negative moral
experiences effectively take place: physical integrity, social integrity and, lastly, honor
and personal dignity.

References
Behr, Hartmut (2001) ‘Die politische Theorie des Relationismus: Pierre Bourdieu’, in
André Brodocz and Gary Schaal (eds.) Politische Theorien der Gegenwart II. Eine Einführung,
Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 378–397.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John
B. Thompson, translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) ‘Concluding Remarks: For a Sociogenetic Understanding of
Intellectual Works’, trans. Nicole Kaplan, Craig Calhoun and Leah Florence, in Craig
Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 263–275.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1994]) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Axel Honneth, Hermann Kocyba and Bernd Schwibs (1986) ‘Der Kampf
um die symbolische Ordnung’, Ästhetik und Kommunikation 16(61/62): 142–164.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Calhoun, Craig (1993) ‘Habitus, Field, and Capital: The Question of Historical Specificity’,
in Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical
Perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–88.
Caillé, Alain (1981) ‘La sociologie de l’intérêt est-elle intéressante?’ Sociologie du travail 23(3):
257–274.
Caillé, Alain (1992) ‘Esquisse d’une critique de l’économie générale de la pratique’, Cahiers
du LASA 12/13: 109–219.
Caillé, Alain (1994) Don, intérêt et désintéressement. Bourdieu, Mauss, Platon et quelques autres, Paris:
La Découverte.
Caillé, Alain (2000) Anthropologie du don. Le tiers paradigme, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
Cooke, Maeve (2009) ‘Wertepluralismus und Selbstverwirklichung. Überlegungen zu einer
postuniversalistischen Politik der Anerkennung’, in Rainer Forst, Martin Hartmann,
Rahel Jaeggi and Martin Saar (eds.) Sozialphilosophie und Kritik. Axel Honneth zum 60.
Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 17–39.
Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical
Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso.
220 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Gartman, David (1991) ‘Culture as Class Symbolization or Mass Reification: A Critique of

Bourdieu’s Distinction’, American Journal of Sociology 97(2): 421–447.
Honneth, Axel (1984) ‘Moralischer Konsens und Unrechtsempfindung. Zu Barrington
Moores Untersuchung über Ungerechtigkeit. Die sozialen Ursachen von Unterordnung und
Widerstand’, in Suhrkamp Wissenschaft. Weißes Programm im Frühjahr 1984. Ein Almanach,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 108–114.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1980]) ‘Work and Instrumental Action: On the Normative Basis of
Critical Theory’, trans. Mitchell G. Ash and Charles W. Wright, in his The Fragmented
World of the Social, edited by Charles W. Wright, Albany: State University of New York
Press, pp. 15–49.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1981]) ‘Moral Consciousness and Class Domination: Some Problems
in the Analysis of Hidden Morality’, trans. Mitchell G. Ash, in his The Fragmented World
of the Social, edited by Charles W. Wright, Albany: State University of New York Press,
pp. 205–219.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1984]) ‘The Fragmented World of Symbolic Forms: Reflections on
Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture’, trans. T. Talbot, in his The Fragmented World of
the Social, edited by Charles W. Wright, Albany: State University of New York Press,
pp. 184–201.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1990]) The Fragmented World of the Social. Essays in Social and Political
Philosophy, edited by Charles W. Wright, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Honneth, Axel (1995 [1992]) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts,
trans. Joel Anderson, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Honneth, Axel (2000) ‘Anerkennungsbeziehungen und Moral. Eine Diskussionsbemerkung
zur anthropologischen Erweiterung der Diskursethik’, in Reinhard Brunner and Peter
Kelbel (eds.) Anthropologie, Ethik und Gesellschaft. Für Helmut Fahrenbach, Frankfurt am Main,
New York: Campus, pp. 101–111.
Honneth, Axel (2003) ‘Redistribution as Recognition: A Response to Nancy Fraser’, in
Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical
Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram and Christiane Wilke, London: Verso,
pp. 110–197.
Honneth, Axel (2007 [1994]) ‘Pathologies of the Social: The Past and Present of Social
Philosophy’, trans. Joseph Ganahl, in his Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical
Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 3–48.
Honneth, Axel (2007 [1999]) ‘Democracy as Reflexive Cooperation: John Dewey and
the Theory of Democracy today’, trans. John Farrell, in his Disrespect: The Normative
Foundations of Critical Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 218–239.
Honneth, Axel (2007 [2000]) Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Honneth, Axel (2007) Pathologien der Vernunft. Geschichte und Gegenwart der Kritischen Theorie,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Honneth, Axel and Hans-Ernst Schiller (1994) ‘Aktualität des Adornoschen Denkens:
Ein Gespräch mit Axel Honneth und Hans-Ernst Schiller’, Links 7/8: 27–31.
Honneth, Axel, Mauro Basaure, Jan-Philipp Reemtsma and Rasmus Willig (2009)
Erneuerung der Kritik. Axel Honneth im Gespräch, Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.
Iser, Mattias (2008) Empörung und Fortschritt. Grundlagen einer kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft,
Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus.
Jenkins, Richard (1982) ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the Reproduction of Determinism’, Sociology
16(2): 270–281.
The Grammar of an Ambivalence 221

Joppke, Christian (1986) ‘The Cultural Dimension of Class Formation and Class Struggle:
On the Social Theory of Pierre Bourdieu’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology 31: 53–78.
Miller, Max (1989) ‘Die kulturelle Dressur des Leviathans und ihre epistemologischen
Reflexe’, Soziologische Revue 12(1): 19–24.
Miller, Don and Jan Branson (1987) ‘Pierre Bourdieu: Culture and Praxis’, in Diane
Austin-Bross (ed.) Creating Culture: Profiles in the Study of Culture, Sydney: Allen and Unwin,
pp. 210–225.
Swartz, David (1997) Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Wacquant, Loïc (1992) ‘Toward a Social Praxeology: The Structure and Logic of Bourdieu’s
Sociology’, in Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology,
Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1–59.
CHAPTER TEN
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion1

Bryan S. Turner

Introduction: The Secularisation Thesis

Whereas in recent years many of sociologists and philosophers have come to
the conclusion that religion has to be taken seriously in debates about modern
politics and the public sphere, such was not the case with many post-war social
theorists. Louis Althusser, Luc Boltanski, Ralf Dahrendorf, Norbert Elias,
Anthony Giddens, David Harvey, Edward Said and Göran Therborn either
ignored religion or paid little attention to it, rather than treating it as a central
aspect of modern society. Michel Foucault was probably alone in his consistent
interest in religion – for example, in his essays on medieval Christian teaching
on chastity and in his view of the Iranian Revolution as a form of spiritual
politics. On a more personal note, he spoke about ‘spirituality’, that is, the
‘search, practice and experience through which the subject carries out the
necessary transformations on himself in order to have access to the truth’
(Foucault, 2005 [2001]: 15). The majority of public intellectuals on the Left
in the post-war period ignored religion as a spent force in modernity. What
has changed? The obvious answer is that there are various transformations of
social and political life that have placed religion as an institution at the centre
of modern society. Religion now appears to be closely related to identity
politics and has been the ideological driving force behind social movements
such as Solidarity, ‘engaged Buddhism’ and Hindu nationalism.
The earlier post-war generation of social scientists accepted the
secularisation thesis that, with modernisation, religion would inevitably
decline and hence there was little point investing research effort into an
institution that was going to disappear. In Europe, there was the additional
factor of Marxist social and political theory, which was in France and
elsewhere an influential tradition. For these critical theorists, there was no
assumption that religion could continue to exercise significant ideological
influence over secular modernity, especially in the West. As the ‘heart
224 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of a heartless world’ religion might have some lingering influence in the

Third World, but religion was simply a set of false beliefs that comforted
the disinherited and legitimised the rich and powerful. Religious ideologies
would disappear with the spread of secular science, urbanisation, literacy,
working-class struggles and the emancipation of women.
The dramatic collapse of organised communism in the early 1990s and
the decline in Marxist-Leninist ideology allowed religion to flourish once
more in European societies, especially in Eastern European countries such as
Poland, the Ukraine and what used to be Yugoslavia. In Russia, the Orthodox
Church has become closely associated with nationalism. In Vietnam, while
the Communist Party has not disappeared, the modern Renovation Period
has seen a modest return of religion (such as Roman Catholicism) to public
life, and Protestant sects have been successful in missionary work among the
ethnic minorities. Spirit possession cults are also attracting members of an
emerging middle class from the expanding capitalist sector. Globalisation and
the Internet have created new opportunities for evangelism even in societies
where the Party still attempts to regulate or suppress the flow of information
and interaction. In China, Charter 08 calls for, among other things, freedom
of religious assembly and practice. While these dissident movements are
unlikely to shake the control of the Party or its authoritarian responses to
religious revivalism, these developments are likely to see a significant growth in
religious activity across both the existing communist and the post-communist
world. As a result of such social transformations, there is a need to rethink
many aspects of modern secularity (Taylor, 2002 and 2007). Pentecostalism
and charismatic churches have also enjoyed phenomenal growth in South
America and Africa.
One obvious feature of globalisation has been the growth of flexible labour
markets, mass migration and permanent settlement producing the world-wide
emergence of diasporic communities in societies with expanding economies.
These diasporic communities are typically held together by their religious
beliefs and practices in such a way that in modern societies the distinction
between ethnicity and religion begins to become irrelevant. Indeed the
‘Turks’ in Germany have become ‘Muslims’, and around the world Chinese
minorities – for example, in Indonesia and Malaysia – are almost automatically
called ‘Buddhists’. The result is that religion has become a major plank of
public culture and ‘the politics of identity’. Consequently, religion has often
emerged as the principal site of ethnic and cultural contestation, and states have
become involved in the management of religions, thereby inevitably departing
from the traditional separation of state and religion in the liberal framework.
Paradoxically, by intervening to regulate religion in the public domain, the
state automatically makes religion more important and prominent. In societies
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 225

as different as the United States and Singapore, the state intervenes to regulate
Islam in the name of incorporating ‘moderate Muslims’ into mainstream
society (Kamaludeen, Pereira and Turner, 2009). Throughout the modern
world, there is a complex interaction between religion and national identity –
from Hinduism in India to Catholicism in Poland to Shinto in Japan – whereby
religion becomes part of the fabric of public discourse.
Perhaps the critical event of modern religious history was the Iranian
Revolution in 1978–9. The fall of the secular state, which had promoted
a nationalist vision of society as a Persian civilisation over a traditional
Islamic framework, provided a global example of a spiritual revolution. It
offered a singular instance of the mobilisation of the masses in the name
of religious renewal. The message of the Iranian intellectual Ali Shariati
against what he called ‘Westoxification’ was embraced by a wide variety of
religious movements outside the specific Iranian context (Akbarzadeh and
Mansouri, 2007). Islam became at least one conduit of the political idea that
modernisation could take many forms and that the domination of North
American capitalist society could be opposed (Halliday, 2003). Reformed
Islam came to encapsulate the notion that secularism was not the inevitable
shell of modernity. The other defining moment was the 9/11 attack on the
Twin Towers – the very symbol of the financial dominance of the West over
the developing world. This attack has come to be interpreted as a symbolic
as much as a terrorist event (Gole, 1996). In a similar fashion, the cultural
and social ambiguities of veiling stand for the problematical status of women
in modern secular cultures (Lazreg, 2009).
By now there is considerable attention to the limitations and failures of the
conventional secularisation thesis and much has consequently been written
about religious renewal and revival. Whereas in the 1960s sociologists of
religion such as Bryan Wilson (1966 and 1976) described the decline of religion
as a necessary outcome of modernisation, the secularisation thesis is now seen
to be narrow and culturally specific rather than a general account of social
change (Demerath, 2007). Northern Europe, rather than the United States, is
seen to be the principal example of ‘exceptionalism’ in the sense that religious
decline in terms of church membership, attendance and religious belief may
have been characteristic of many European societies in the second half of the
twentieth century but these developments have not been typical – albeit for
very different reasons – of the United States, Africa and much of Asia.
The rekindling of academic interest in religion and modernity has been
sparked off by the (unexpected) attention shown by Jürgen Habermas (2002
[1981, 1991, 1997]) in his Religion and Rationality. For academics working in the
sub-discipline of the sociology of religion, Habermas’s reflections on religion
do not provide any new insights or conclusions that are not already familiar
226 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

to social scientists working in the sociology of religion. He has claimed that

the secularisation thesis rested on the assumption that the ‘disenchanted
world’ rests on a scientific outlook in which all phenomena can be explained
rationally. In addition, there has been a differentiation of society into
specialised functions in which religion becomes increasingly a private matter.
Finally, the transformation of society from an agrarian basis has improved
living standards and has reduced risk, removing the dependence of individuals
on supernatural forces and reducing their need for religious meaning and
psychological support.
Habermas notes, however, that the secularisation debate is based on a
narrow European viewpoint. North America, by contrast, appears to be a
vibrantly religious society, in which religion, prosperity and modernisation
have sat comfortably together for decades. In more global terms, Habermas
draws attention to the spread of fundamentalism, the growth of radical
Islamic groups, and the presence of religious issues in the public sphere. The
privatisation of religion – the cornerstone of the liberal view of tolerance
in the legacy of John Locke – is thought by many observers to be no longer
a viable political strategy in the separation of state and religion (Spinner-
Halevy, 2005). Habermas’s solution to the problems surrounding radical
fundamentalism and radical secularism is to propose a dialogue involving the
inclusion of foreign minority cultures into civil society, on the one hand, and
the opening up of subcultures to the state in order to encourage their members
to participate actively in political life, on the other. Both religious and secular
citizens are called upon to give a public account of their beliefs and to engage
in public debate; secularists can no longer marginalise religious belief, while
religious citizens have an equal obligation to make their beliefs available to
public reasoning (Habermas, 2008 [2005]).
In some respects, Habermas’s debate about the pre-political foundations
of the liberal state with Joseph Ratzinger (subsequently Pope Benedict XV1)
at the Catholic Academy of Bavaria on 19 January 2008 was a revealing
encounter. Both men were in a conciliatory mood (Habermas and Ratzinger,
2006). Habermas recognised that religion had preserved intact values and ideas
that had been lost elsewhere and that the notion of the fundamental equality
of all humans was an important legacy of the Christian faith. Habermas
has also shown himself to be aware of, and possibly sympathetic to, much
of the Jewish quest for otherness in the first generation of critical thinkers in
the Frankfurt School. In retrospect, it is very clear that, for example, Walter
Benjamin’s interpretations of modern secular culture were deeply coloured
by Jewish messianism (Wolin, 1994). This issue raises important questions not
only about the continuities and discontinuities between the early and the late
members of the critical tradition, but also about the notions of secularity,
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 227

Enlightenment rationality, and modernity. Indeed, it poses a problem about

the continuity of Habermas’s own philosophical work, which at the beginning
had relatively little to say about the place of religion in civil society or about
the idiosyncratic nature of religious discourse.
Habermas’s response to Ratzinger can be understood against the German
background of Kulturprotestantismus, in which there is a general respect for
religion and where religion is far more prominent in public life than is the
case in the United Kingdom or Scandinavia. Habermas’s response may have
been generous, but it does rest upon the idea that political institutions, and in
particular the state, cannot really function without a robust civil society and
without a set of shared values. Contrary to much critical theory and contrary
to the secularisation thesis, the main role of religion may consist in supporting
social life as such through the creation of shared meaning. This view of the
public nature of religion was encapsulated in the idea of civil religion from
Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Robert Bellah.
There is therefore discontent with the common emphasis in mainstream
sociology of religion on the decline in belief and church membership in the
conventional approach to secularisation. There is no necessary or simple
connection, for example, between Christian belief and religious practice. In
Britain, Grace Davie (1994 and 2006) pioneered the phrase ‘believing without
belonging’ to capture these discontinuities between belief, church membership
and worship. In retrospect one of the most important sociological interventions
in this debate was José Casanova’s Public Religions in the Modern World (1994), which
provided a general framework for understanding key developments that had
put religion at the centre of political life in many societies. Although there is a
strong temptation to abandon the secularisation thesis in its entirety, Casanova
does not support any premature abandonment of the entire argument about
secularity but instead proposes that we can think of secularisation as simply a
sub-theme of the more general notion of modernisation and that modernity
involved the differentiation of the religious and the secular sphere. He has been
critical of the idea that secularisation means simply the decline of religious
belief and practice. He therefore identified three components of secularisation:
(i) differentiation of various spheres of the social system (such as religion, state
and market), (ii) rationalisation as the decline of religious belief and practice, and
(iii) the marginalisation of religion to the private sphere. Consequently, an adequate
sociology of religion has to evaluate these three components separately and
independently. Following these global developments, sociologists of religion
have been forced to review their assumptions about secularisation with the
eruption of ‘public religions’ in the 1980s. Yet, his critical contribution was
to identify important developments in what he called the ‘deprivatisation’ of
religion. His examples of public religions included the Iranian Revolution, the
228 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

liberation theologies of Latin America, the Solidarity movement in Poland, and

the rise of the Moral Majority and the Christian Right in North America.
There is much discontent among contemporary sociologists of religion with
traditional approaches to religion, and Casanova’s work pushed the debate in
important new directions, but there is still much turmoil in the subfield and
some degree of uncertainty about what might come after the secularisation
debate. As a result, sociologists of religion have started to look towards
the work of Pierre Bourdieu to give them a more adequate framework for
understanding religious practice, ritual and habitus (Furseth, 2009). Although
Bourdieu’s actual production of essays in the sociology of religion was slight,
his influence can be seen in recent work such as Terry Rey’s Bourdieu on Religion
(2007). Other writers have also begun to draw on Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic
capital and field to study religion (Bell, 1990; Braun and McCutcheon, 2000;
Engler, 2003; Schwartz, 1996; Taylor, 1998; Verter, 2003). There has also been
interest in his early work on Algeria, in which one can find some discussion of
religion (Loyal, 2009).
In this chapter I want to ask whether Bourdieu’s work holds out any
significant interest or new conceptual frameworks for the student of religion.
My answer is somewhat paradoxical. What Bourdieu actually says about
religion in his small oeuvre of essays on religion is not very interesting and
most of it appears to depend on Max Weber explicitly and Louis Althusser
implicitly. Having said that, his conceptual framework – capital, field, hexis
and habitus – does provide a powerful perspective; avoiding many of the
pitfalls arising from the exaggerated attention to religious beliefs, rather
than embodied practices, in the work of both sociologists and philosophers
of religion. Although Bourdieu’s contribution to the sociology of practice is
considerable, insights into practice and embodiment are obviously present in
alternative traditions such as pragmatism (Barbalet, 2006).
In this chapter I develop a critical view of Bourdieu’s interpretation and
use of Weber’s sociology of religion. These critical remarks on this aspect of
Bourdieu’s work need to be set within the context of recognising Bourdieu’s
clearly enthusiastic response to Weber’s sociology as a whole; the enthusiasm
was self-evidently present in his interview with Franz Schultheis and Andreas
Pfeuffer (2000). Bourdieu’s interpretation of Weber as salvaging the symbolic in
Marx’s economic sociology provided an important alternative to both Talcott
Parsons and Raymond Aron, who – while themselves occupying different
positions in politics – sought to distance Weber from Marx. Weber’s writings
became useful at various stages in Bourdieu’s development. For example,
Bourdieu notes that reading Weber’s Protestant Ethic gave him a genuine
insight into the economic ethics of the Kharijites in his Algerian research.
Bourdieu also recognised the importance of Weber in his development of the
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 229

concept of ‘field’, allowing him to capture the existence of social struggles

over symbolic capital. Finally, Bourdieu acknowledged the value of Weber’s
work for putting forward the idea of ‘character studies’. I would prefer to
use Weber’s own expression, ‘personality and life orders’, in order to develop
the notion that Weber was constructing a sociology of piety, where we can
see immediately the connections between piety, habitus, disposition and
Aristotle’s notion of virtue or excellence. From Bourdieu’s interview it is clear
that, avoiding the futile debate about whether Weber was on the left or the
right of European politics, he made good use of Weber in his various works
on distinction, symbolic violence, practice and so forth. Having recognised
Bourdieu’s appreciation of Weber, we need to turn to what Bourdieu actually
has to say about religion.

Bourdieu on Religion: A Preliminary Critique

There is no need here to present an account of Bourdieu’s general sociology.
I shall merely select here certain aspects that are germane to a discussion of
religion. According to Rey (2007), Bourdieu produced some ten essays on
religion which were mainly confined to Roman Catholicism in France and to
Islam in Algeria. His early work on the Kabylia in Algeria became the basis
of a critique of the anthropological structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss.
When Islam does appear in his work on Algeria the main influence on
Bourdieu appears to be Weber’s comparative sociology of religion, including
Weber’s commentaries on the sociology of law. Bourdieu’s analysis of the
differences between Shari’a and Kabyle customary law with respect to women
and inheritance was probably influenced by Weber. Bourdieu did not pursue
any subsequent ethnographic research that engaged with religion, with the
possible exception of the study of Catholic bishops with M. de Saint Martin
in 1982, and his ethnographic account of the Kabylia has been subsequently
criticised (Goodman, 2003). Bourdieu undertook an empirical study of his
home town Denguin in France in 1959 and 1960, publishing the work later
as a collection of essays (Bourdieu, 2002). Although this work subsequently
led Bourdieu to think more seriously about the emotional relations between
biography and research, his study of marriage strategies in Denguin did
not involve any significant discussion of the role of religion in peasant life
(Jenkins, 2006).
Rey (2007: 57) has summed up Bourdieu’s legacy in the study of religion
by suggesting that his contribution was based on two firm convictions: ‘that
religion in the modern world is in decline; and that the ultimate function is
to help people make sense of their position in the social order’. These two
notions could be said to be a crude combination of Marx’s view of religion
230 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

as an opium of the people and Weber’s treatment of religion as an aspect

of power struggles between social groups over legitimacy. In this respect, the
dominant influence was Weber, rather than Marx, and unsurprisingly the
attention of most commentators has been focused on ‘Une interprétation de
la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’ (Bourdieu, 1971), a revised version
of which was translated as ‘Legitimation and Structured Interests in Weber’s
Sociology of Religion’ (Bourdieu, 1987 [1971]).
Bourdieu’s sociological reflections on religion have to be seen within the
larger context of French secularism, that is, within the tradition of laïcité and
French republicanism. For the Left, religion has meant in practice Roman
Catholicism, which, for obvious reasons, has represented French conservatism,
both in its political and in its cultural form. This critical view of Catholicism
is associated with the French Revolution, with Rousseau’s expression of
Deism and with the conflicts between the Church and liberalism throughout
the nineteenth century. The fact that France has been more deeply divided
between left and right is reflected in the development of a tradition of
‘religious sociology’, rather than the ‘sociology of religion’. In this French
tradition, religious sociology often served as an arm of the pastoral reach of
the Catholic Church, providing useful sociological data on church attendance,
recruitment, belief and so on. These data were then used, for example, to
make the missionary work of the Church more effective. Given that, in France,
belief and investigation seem to have become hopelessly entwined, there has
been the justifiable suspicion that the sociological study of religion has not
been – and possibly cannot be – a neutral or objective inquiry.
This situation led Bourdieu to the conclusion that a science of
religion was a contradiction in terms and that, as a result, religion was
not a suitable topic for sociology. In a lecture to the French Association
of Religious Sociology, which was later published as ‘Sociologues de la
croyance et croyances de sociologues’, Bourdieu (1987) cast doubt on any
sociological capacity to understand the institutions of religion without the
intervention of the screen of belief. Those sociologists who were Catholic
could by definition not study the Church, while those who had left the
Church might be equally ‘contaminated’ by belief – or more so. Finally,
those sociologists who had never had any connection with the Church
would either not be interested in the topic or would miss important aspects
of the phenomena out of ignorance. It follows that, from this point of
view, religion cannot be studied by sociologists. As Danièle Hervieu-Léger
(2000 [1993]: 14) points out, Bourdieu’s lecture was a clever intervention,
but not a convincing account of the issues involved. The same arguments
might apply, for example, to the study of sexuality. It would mean that gay
sociologists could never study homosexuality or that prisons could never
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 231

be studied by sociologists with a record of incarceration. And, in any case,

Bourdieu himself went on to publish some thirteen articles on religion –
just to disprove his own argument?
One key problem with Bourdieu’s approach to religion – in particular with
regard to his study of the Church – is that he concentrated too much on
formal positions, institutions and organised churches (Dillon, 2001). Bradford
Verter (2003: 151) made a similar criticism when he observed that ‘Bourdieu
perceives religion almost exclusively in organisational terms […]. This leaves
little room for imagining lay people as social actors capable, for example, of
manipulating religious symbols on their own behalf ’. In addition, Bourdieu
had, unlike Weber, relatively little interest in undertaking the comparative
study of religion, and hence his observations on religion were to a large extent
confined to Western Christianity. It might be more appropriate to suggest that
his thinking about religion was confined to French Catholicism. Bourdieu’s
actual interests did not engage with the issues of explaining religious revivalism
globally, the religions of the dispossessed, liberation theology in Latin
America, Solidarity in Poland and so forth. While Bourdieu was influenced
by Marx – writing, for example, an article called ‘La sainte famille’ (Bourdieu,
1982) after Marx and Engels’s The Holy Family – he appeared to have suppressed
Marx’s equally important notion that religion is ‘the sigh of the oppressed
creature’. Religion is as much about protest against inequality and opposition
to oppression as it is about the legitimacy of power. In arguing that a modern
capitalist society is fundamentally secular, he borrowed from Weber in thinking
about struggles over symbolic capital. In fact, he appropriated Weber’s notions
about the struggles between priest, prophets and sorcerers as a general model
of the conflicts over status within the cultural field.
Religion, for Bourdieu, defines people and situates them in the social
order. The idea that religion functions to define and insert people in the social
structure is similar to the arguments put forward by Louis Althusser regarding
the general character of ideology. Although there may be no direct or sustained
intellectual connection between Althusser, structuralist Marxism and Bourdieu,
there is some analytical similarity between Althusser’s theory of ideology and
Bourdieu’s interpretation of religion. In his development of Marx’s theory of
ideology, Althusser constructed the idea of the ‘interpellation’ of the subject.
For Althusser, the functions of ideology are unchanging throughout human
history or, as he famously put it, ‘ideology has no history’ (1971: 150). The
purpose of ideology is simply to constitute a subject and Althusser explained
this process in terms of the notion of hailing a subject or interpellation. For
example, when a teacher shouts out to a pupil ‘Pay attention!’ and the students
turns towards the teacher, then this event of hailing forms a subject. Yet, this
very recognition as a subject is already a ‘misrecognition’ (méconnaissance), since
232 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the individual is always already born as the subject of an ideology. Althusser

illustrated this notion from Christianity by noticing that, in hearing the Voice of
God, an individual receives instruction about his or her place in the world and
what that person must do to become reconciled with Jesus Christ (Althusser,
1971: 166). By becoming subjected to themselves, individuals become subjects.
Althusser, in this respect, conceived of ideology in terms of an imaginary
relationship representing the connections between individuals as their actual
or real conditions of existence (Althusser, 1971: 153). Finally, Althusser refused
to see ideology as merely a collection of ideas, insisting instead that ideology
is embodied in actions and behaviours that are governed by certain dispositions. In
fact, ideas simply disappear, so to speak, in the material practices of persons in
specific material settings. This idea of interpellation appears to coincide with
Bourdieu’s view of how religion functions in relation to the individual.
By interpreting ideology in terms of the dispositions that determine social
actions, Althusser’s theory of ideology appears to anticipate Bourdieu’s
notion of habitus fairly exactly. In short, to understand religion – for
instance, religious orthodoxy – we should not attend to the formal beliefs
(or doctrines) which individuals may or may not hold, but consider the ensemble
of practices by which individuals occupy a position within a religious field.
I see no reason, therefore, to accept David Swartz’s assertion that ‘Bourdieu
is not fundamentally Althusserian’ (Swartz, 1996: 73). The problem with
this relationship to Althusser is that it suggests that Bourdieu has not in fact
resolved the traditional conceptual problems of sociology such as the agency/
structure division. Similar concerns have been expressed about Bourdieu’s
interpretations of literature where it is claimed that he reduces literature to a
power struggle. In relation to Bourdieu’s commentary on Flaubert, Jonathan
Eastwood (2007: 157) complains about Bourdieu’s ‘excessive reductionism’
and claims, reasonably enough, that ‘[l]iterary activity is clearly more than a
battleground for the control of power resources’ (Eastwood 2007: 166). Similar
problems are raised about Bourdieu’s theory of exchange and especially with
respect to the idea of the gift where Bourdieu struggled unsuccessfully to deal
with the possibility of the disinterested character of gift-giving (Silber, 2009).
While Bourdieu borrowed from the legacy of a structuralist Marxism,
he also incorporated much from Weber, especially his analysis of charisma.
The general notion of a religious field, within which different social
groups compete for control and domination, is explicitly derived from
Weber’s general sociology. For Weber, all social relations are relations of
power. Bourdieu, however, was critical of what he believed was Weber’s
psychological treatment of charisma. Allegedly, Weber interprets charisma
as a property that belongs to an individual, rather than undertaking an
examination of the social relations within which charismatic power resides.
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 233

Bourdieu (1987 [1971]: 129) contended that ‘Max Weber never produces
anything other than a psycho-sociological theory of charisma, a theory that
regards it as the lived relation of a public to the charismatic personality’.
Such a model is, for Bourdieu, defective because it ignores the interaction
between prophet and laity. Social change can only take place when prophecy
‘has its own generative and unifying principle a habitus objectively attuned
to that of its addressees’ (Bourdieu, 1987 [1971]: 131). While Bourdieu
accepts the notion that charisma is a source of social transformation, it
can only be so when the charismatic message is completely attuned to
the dispositions or habitus of disciples and followers. Nevertheless, such
an argument appears to rob charisma of its transformative agency by, for
example, making it look more like traditional authority, that is, a form of
authority that is compatible with existing dispositions (customs, values, and
mores). The New Testament account of Jesus shows how he overthrows
traditional authority: ‘It is written but I say unto you.’ We have, of course,
to take into account that the New Testament wants to show how both
Jesus and Paul overturned Jewish institutions in order to create a new
dispensation, namely how the law is replaced by grace.
This interpretation of Weber is in fact completely misplaced and
misleading. To take one crucial feature of the analysis of charisma in The
Sociology of Religion (1966 [1922]), Weber recognised that disciples or followers
of a charismatic figure want demonstrable and tangible proof of charismatic
powers. The authority of charisma tends to get confirmed by the capacity of
the leader to provide health, wealth or political success for his (and rarely her)
followers. Thus, Weber (1966 [1922]: 47) observed that ‘it was only under very
unusual circumstances that a prophet succeeded in establishing his authority
without charismatic authentication, which in practice meant magic. At least
the bearers of a new doctrine practically always needed such validation’.
In other words, in a struggle within the religious field, leaders seek social
vindication from followers typically through magical means. To understand
charisma, we need to appreciate its manifestations in social relationships.
Weber identified an interesting paradox here. The charismatic leader desires
a ‘pure’ commitment from his followers – ‘Follow me because I come with the
authority of God!’ –, but the followers ask for clear evidence of such powers
that are in concrete terms beneficial to them. Hence, in Weber’s view, there is
a constant social pressure for ‘pure’ charisma to become ‘mundane’ or practical
charisma as a consequence of the conflicting interests of leader and followers.
Commentaries on these charismatic demonstrations have noticed that the
accounts of magical activities in the confirmation of Jesus’s authority in the
New Testament account are absent from the Acts of the Apostles, where Paul
concentrates on one single event – Christ is resurrected (Badiou, 2003 [1997]).
234 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

These magical activities serve to show how the reception of charisma can
often transform its contents in response to an audience. Weber was obviously
aware of these pressures.
This tension is intensified by the frequent competition between charismatic
figures for domination. These issues are evident in the New Testament account
of Jesus, whose pure charisma is illustrated by his rejection of the Pharisees’
interpretation of the Law. Nonetheless, Jesus’s pure charisma is demonstrated
by various magical acts: walking on water, the transformation of water into wine
and the feeding of the five thousand. Although the New Testament portrays
John the Baptist as preparing the way for Jesus and thereby subordinating
himself to Jesus’s ministry, we can interpret the relationship between them as an
example of charismatic competition. Weber’s analysis of charisma is parallel to his
understanding of virtuoso and mass religion in which the superior charismatic
status of the virtuoso remains parasitic upon the material gifts of the followers,
in turn for which they can bestow a charismatic blessing. Weber’s analysis of
Buddhist monks in relation to the laity is another illustrative example of the
exchange relationship (both competitive and co-operative) between laity and
specialist (Weber, 1958 [1921]).
Within the competitive field, some charismatic leaders will become
sorcerers, that is, religious agents who provide services to an audience – healing
through magical activity. Over time, other forms of charismatic activity will
be subject to routinisation, being thereby converted into priestly roles. Yet,
some charismatic leaders, although subject to pressure from their followers to
perform magical acts, will transcend the immediate habitus of their followers to
issue a message that is both an act of transgression and an act of innovation.
It is only when the message and the audience are not wholly ‘attuned’ that a
charismatic breakthrough can occur at all. Interpretations of the actions of
Jesus in the New Testament are obviously deeply divided, but one version
would suggest that his followers expected him to take on the messianic role
of a king, in the line of David, who would drive out the occupying Roman
forces. His crucifixion was totally incompatible with those expectations.
It is only when a charismatic leader stands over and against the routine
expectations of an audience that a radical message can emerge and only in
such circumstances can one speak about ‘the Other’ in history. Bourdieu’s
attempt to ‘sociologise’ charisma distorts Weber’s typology of prophet, priest
and sorcerer. Weber had to retain some notion of the difference between
genuine and compromised charisma in order to recognise the difference
between the radical transformation of history by charismatic intervention and
the magical manipulation of charisma for mundane ends. We might reasonably
compare Weber’s notion of ‘charismatic breakthrough’ with Alain Badiou’s
notion of ‘the event’ (2005 [1988]) as that moment that divides history in
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 235

two through the ‘evental’ statement that he explores in the life of Saint Paul
‘Christ is Risen!’ (Badiou, 2003 [1997]). Without some notion of an eventful
charismatic breakthrough, we are left with the rather uninteresting definition
of charisma as an empowering feature of any person who is presumed to
have extraordinary qualities. In brief, Bourdieu transforms Weber’s theory of
charisma into a rather conventional theory of religious institutions.

Bourdieu and the ‘New Paradigm’ in the Sociology of Religion2

In the last couple of decades, a novel set of assumptions, commonly referred
to as the ‘new paradigm’ or the ‘economic interpretation of religion’, has been
heavily promoted in North American sociology. This ‘new paradigm’ – which
has been influenced in many ways by rational choice theories – is associated
with figures such as Rodney Stark, Roger Finke, Laurence Iannaccone and
R. Stephen Warner. This ‘new’ approach is often contrasted disparagingly
with ‘old’ European theories of religion. European sociology, it is alleged, has
been too narrowly focused on the symbolic dimensions which social actors
require to make sense of life; the new paradigm, by contrast, is primarily
concerned with the economic dimensions of religious behaviour, including
both demand for and supply of religious beliefs, practices and objects. On the
whole, the religious markets approach favours supply-side explanations, taking
particular note of how state responses to religious pluralism may or may not
encourage religious competition. This approach to religion and politics has
often produced valuable insights into how states manage religious diversity
(Gill, 2008). The economic approach to religion has also generated important
insights into how the decline of communism has given rise to flourishing
religious markets in, for example, post-communist China (Yang, 2007).
Although Bourdieu interpreted religions and religious groups as existing
within a competitive field, he clearly rejected the economic interpretation of
religion prevalent in North American sociology (Hamilton, 2009). Here again
it is difficult to see how his criticisms of this approach and his attempt to
distance himself from it can be sustained. I shall turn now to a more complete
account of the development of what is variously known as the rational choice
model of religion or the economic approach to religion.
What are the principal theoretical claims of this new paradigm? First,
whereas traditional European social theory emphasised the centrality of
secularisation to modernisation alongside urbanisation, increasing literacy and
democratic politics, the new paradigm takes note of the resilience of religion –
not only in the United States but also globally. In his Contemporary Transformations
of Religion (1976), Wilson argued that religion (that is, Christianity) had survived
in North America at the cost of its orthodox theological content. Wilson
236 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

sought to explain the prominence of Christian belief and practice in North

America by saying that it had simply accommodated belief and practice to
the predominant values and life-styles of a consumer society. In short, the
form of Christianity survived but only at the costs of its contents. Such a
theory of religion implies that modern religious cultures are inauthentic and
make few demands on their followers. One might suggest that religion, in
this secularisation theory, has become merely religiosity. An alternative to
this version of secularisation can be found in Robert Bellah’s account of the
growth of a civil religion in North America in his ‘Civil Religion in America’
(1967). Through a subsequent series of influential publications (Bellah and
Tipton, 2006) Bellah argued that, alongside Christianity, there was a vibrant
national religion drawing upon North American values which treated
North American history as an unfolding of salvation. Christianity remained
influential in public life when refracted through the lens of a civil religion.
Bellah did not imply, however, that ‘civil religion’ was somehow less religious
or less authentic than traditional Christianity. The new paradigm tends to
bypass any discussion of the authenticity of religion, because it concentrates
not on the meaning or importance of religion in the lives of individuals, but
on the institutional framework within which religion is provided. It is therefore
regarded in economic terms as a supply-side, rather than a demand-side,
theory of religious growth and decline.
Second, the new model directs research attention towards the function
of religious or spiritual markets in which there is a competition for ‘brand
loyalty’ from consumers of religious meaning, practices and objects. The
notion of spiritual markets has been explored empirically and systematically
by Wade C. Roof in his Spiritual Marketplace (1999). In any historical
understanding of religion and modern society, it is impossible to understand
religious behaviour without taking into account the impact of the post-war
generation (the ‘baby boomers’) in North American culture, especially on
religious practice and consciousness. Roof made an important contribution
to the study of religion and generational change in his A Generation of Seekers
(Roof, 1993), in which the post-war generations were defined as religious
seekers, but also regarded as eclectic in their religious ‘tastes’. The ‘culture
wars’ of the post-war period reorganised the map of mainstream religion
in North America just as they challenged establishment culture generally.
North American denominational pluralism as a spiritual marketplace in
the absence of an established church continues to encourage organisational
innovation and cultural entrepreneurship. The new paradigm emphasises
the importance of the absence of an established church in American
constitutional history and hence the importance of an open religious market
in which competition is endemic.
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 237

The implication of the theory is that, paradoxically, the more a religion

demands from its adherents, the more they will give to religious organisations.
In terms of a theory of the costs of commitment, the specific contents of
a religious message are less important for success than the demands for
commitment that it places on its members (Kelley, 1977). Ultimately the
costliness of commitment is measured by control over members’ life-
styles, the development of a strong church, and the seriousness of religious
involvement. In his The Resilience of Conservative Religion (2002), Joseph
Tamney provides some support for the strong church thesis. For example,
conservative congregations support a traditional gender division of labour
and conventional gender identities. In a society which is deeply divided over
gender issues, such ideological reassurance can be psychologically attractive.
Furthermore, given the general uncertainties of everyday life in modernity,
the certainties of religious teaching on morality can also be psychologically
supportive and comforting.
Third, the paradigm has several interesting substantive claims, such as
the notion that the religious demand for meaning is more or less constant
across time – that is, the demand for meaning will remain more or less static
(Finke and Stark, 1992; Stark and Finke, 2000). One cannot explain religious
change by reference to the demand for meaning which is seen to be constant.
Hence variations in religious behaviour are influenced by supply, rather than
by demand. Religious pluralism in North America, by offering innumerable
outlets for religious taste, promotes greater involvement. The theory in making
a useful distinction between demand for and supply of religious products,
effectively explains the proliferation of religious groups in the United States,
switching between denominations by customers, the inflationary character
of the market, and the resulting hybridisation and experimentation that is
characteristic of modern religiosity. Unlike popular forms of spirituality,
fundamentalist churches succeed because of their strictness, that is, by the
exacting demands they make on their members. Religions of high-demand,
such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, aim to avoid the free-rider problem – joining
without paying – by monopolising the commitment of their followers
(Iannaccone, 1994).
In summary, the economic model of religious behaviour states that
institutional pluralism – such as in the North American situation – strengthens
and sustains the religious economy and that monopoly – such as an established
church – is inefficient. There are in fact no truly effective monopolies, only
situations where religious markets are regulated. Historical variations in
religious behaviour over time are best explained by institutional variations in
the supply, rather than by changes in individual religious needs for meaning
and other religious services.
238 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

The economic model of religious behaviour has been subject to

considerable theoretical and empirical criticisms and qualifications. These
are too numerous to discuss here (Bruce, 1999; Bryant, 2000; Lechner, 2008).
There are, however, two significant criticisms which are worth mentioning
in this context: one is theoretical, relating to the inability of rational-choice
models to explain the institutional framework within which markets operate
and consumer choices are made, and the other one is empirical, to do with the
historical claims of the new model about European patterns of established
religion. Rodney Stark’s assumption that a society with a state church gives
that church a monopoly position is questionable, and the assumption that
monopoly is an imposition on a society is dubious. If we look at the Catholic
Church in Poland and the Orthodox Church in Russia, we can see that in
the religious field the monopolistic status of established churches is in fact
very variable and dependent on context. Steve Bruce’s criticisms demonstrate
that the empirical claims of the market model of religious institutions,
especially about the relationship between religious activity and competition or
deregulation, are subject to numerous empirical qualifications. Competition in
North America may have been associated with religious vitality, but a situation
closer to monopoly in Poland has been a context for significant religious
survival and vitality.
The idea that competitive religious markets, like secular economic
markets, automatically enhance choice of services, quality of products and
efficiency of services is questionable. The majority of Pentecostal sects work
in an unregulated institutional vacuum where other organised denominations
and established churches are often absent. The religious field of charismatic
movements, fundamentalist groups and Pentecostal sects is a market which is
highly deregulated and in many respects free of competition. These evangelical
or charismatic churches often flourish in economically depressed areas where
other more institutionalised denominations are simply absent. Lack of
competition in these inner-city areas with a clientele from the underclass may
be the context in which these charismatic groups flourish. In brief, there is no
obvious relationship between competition and religious dynamism.
We might, despite these criticisms, concede that the new paradigm has
important, and testable, features (Beckford, 2003; Warner, 2004). It has
produced some interesting insights intro the deregulated Chinese market in
a period of post-communist regulation. But is it a new model? The idea of a
religious supermarket was originally developed by Peter Berger in his analysis
of the crisis of religious plausibility. The crisis of these ‘plausibility structures’
was produced by individuals ‘shopping around’ to satisfy their spiritual
needs. Berger (1969: 137) wrote that ‘the religious tradition which previously
could be authoritatively imposed now has to be marketed. It must be “sold” to
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 239

a clientele that is no longer constrained to “buy”. The pluralistic situation

is, above all, a market’ (italics in original). In other words, the transition from
monopoly to competition seriously undermined authority. This approach
provides creative ways of understanding the relationship between the state and
religion, because the supply side of religion is often dependent on state policies
towards religious competition in civil society. Although the new paradigm
has produced interesting insights into many aspects of religious markets, the
paradigm has also been criticised precisely because of its emphasis on free
markets, individual choice and subjectivity (Bastian, 2006; Robertson, 1992).
Since Bourdieu also concentrated on the competition over symbolic capital
in the religious field, it might be argued that there is a strong parallel between
his notion of a religious field and the rational model of religious markets. The
counterargument would hold that Bourdieu’s theory is somewhat different
because it does not assume the rational social actor of micro-economics
who makes individual consumer choices in a free market. The distinctive
characteristic of Bourdieu’s theory is the idea of ‘structuring structures’
shaping the dispositions of the social actor. Therefore, a sympathetic view
of the contributions of Bourdieu to the sociology of religion draws attention
to the idea of religious interests and the role of institutions in organising the
field. In my view, however, his essays on religion actually serve to pinpoint the
real problem in Bourdieu’s work, namely its failure to overcome the traditional
dichotomies of sociological theory – action and structure, on the one hand,
and materialism and idealism, on the other. We might frame this comment
by asking whether his sociology of religion was shaped more by the economic
sociology of Marx and Weber or more by the cultural sociology of Émile Durkheim,
Mauss and Maurice Merleau-Ponty?
I have already suggested that there is little to distinguish Bourdieu’s notion
of religion as the consecration of economic inequality through the ‘illusio’
of theological dogma and existing Marxist theories of ideology and that for
Bourdieu, as for Althusser, the individual is inserted into a place in the social
field by the interpellations of religion. This legacy of Marxist sociology points
to the deterministic undercurrent of Bourdieu’s work. To quote again and at
some length from the essay on Weber and religious interests, ‘[c]ompetition
for religious power owes its specificity […] to the fact that what is at stake is
the monopoly of the legitimate exercise of the power to modify, in a deep and
lasting fashion, the practice and world-view of lay people, by imposing on and
inculcating in them a particular religious habitus’ (Bourdieu, 1987: 126). This
formulation of religion as ideology suffers from all the problems that have
attended ‘the dominant ideology thesis’ in Marxist sociology (Abercrombie,
Hill and Turner, 1980). It takes the effective functioning of a dominant ideology
for granted; it assumes ideologies are primarily directed at the subordinate
240 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

class; it assumes that the subordinate class cannot effectively understand their
exploitation and subordination; and, finally, it cannot easily explain resistance
and opposition except in a circular functionalist fashion, namely in terms
of some failure of ideology. It neglects the alternative possibility, identified
by Marx, that the dull compulsion of everyday life – such as the need of
embodied agents for sleep and food – is sufficient to limit sustained resistance.
On the one hand, Bourdieu wants to recognise the constraining force of social
structures; on the other hand, he seeks to acknowledge the liberating force of
social agency. He attends to have both determinacy and agency – that is, both
necessity and freedom – through the idea of structuring structures and the
general characterisation of his work as a contribution to reflexive sociology,
but he provides few convincing examples of such an outcome.
In rejecting the social actor of classical economics and developing
his own analysis of hexis, habitus and practice, can we argue that there
is an alternative component in Bourdieu’s theory that is not the legacy of
mechanistic interpretations of religious ideology? Can we argue that, in his
notion of practice and habitus, Bourdieu drew on a tradition that included
Wittgenstein, Durkheim, Mauss and Merleau-Ponty and as a result formulated
a more sophisticated view of religious practice? Can the concept of habitus
lift Bourdieu’s theory out of simple determinism? While Bourdieu gives us,
through his emphasis on embodied action, a much richer and more satisfying
description of the social actor than what one can find in the world of economic
theories of rational action, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus fails to escape
the problem of determinism. Bourdieu allows for the fact that social actors
are reflexive and that they engage in strategies that involve choice, but the
reflexivity of social actors does not allow them to escape from the ultimate logic
of the situation – from the structural determination of the game within which
strategies are played out. He provides no example of how and where social
actors might change the structuring structures within a field of competition.
No charismatic breakthrough can be explained by Bourdieu’s sociology of
religion, and hence it is difficult to see to what extent in his approach to the
sub-discipline of religion the principle of reflexive sociology operates.
To conclude, a persistent problem in the sociology of religion is the status
of conversion and the actor’s reflexivity about such a transformation of the
self. The majority of sociological and historical accounts of such religious
phenomena deny or ignore the actor’s accounts. Conversion is normally seen
as driven by social considerations relating to social status and material gain.
Mass conversions are related, for example, to the role of the state in supporting
different religions in a competitive environment or they are the effect of prior
socialisation. I propose that the sociology of conversion would be a test case of
structuring structures in which case Bourdieu would, one assumes, argue that
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 241

conversion is simply an effect of the nature of competition between groups

with the social field. It is difficult to see what a reflexive sociology of conversion
would look like, because Bourdieu’s sociology is geared not to the analysis of
subjective and intersubjective agency but to the analysis of institutional and
ideological determinacy.

Conclusion: Making Use of Bourdieu

Much of the debate about religion in modern society has been dominated by
philosophers who typically neglect anthropological and sociological research
on religion. Philosophical commentary on religion, as offered by intellectuals
such as Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo, has no feel for the ethnographic
character of modern social scientific accounts of religion. In particular, they
neglect religious practice in favour of the idea that the problem of religion is
a question of belief. Whereas the analysis of religion in Durkheim and the
late Wittgenstein pinpointed the importance of religious practices, the
concentration on belief to the exclusion of religious practice is a major defect
of these philosophical approaches, and vitality resides in practice. Belief can
only survive if it is embedded in practice, and practice can only survive if
it is embodied in the everyday world (Turner, 2008). This argument seems
to me to be the central but unintended conclusion of twentieth-century
anthropology, particularly in the work of Mary Douglas (1970). What emerges
from the development of the sociology of the body is the notion that conscious
embodiment is situated in the taken-for-granted rituals that constitute the
everyday habitus. The conclusion of Douglas’s anthropology of religion is
that the micro-rituals of this everyday world can only be sustained if they are
underpinned by the rituals of a shared (sacred) community. Because Bourdieu
perceives the social as a secular field of endless struggle and contestation, his
understanding of the social somewhat precludes any insight into the religious
roots of the rituals that sustain it. According to Douglas, religion in Western
society is weak because it has become de-ritualised, cut off from a collective
calendar and disconnected from the human life-cycle. Bourdieu did not make a
major contribution to the sociology of religion. Nevertheless, his key conceptual
tools, such as embodiment, habitus, practice and field, offer a fruitful way of
thinking about religion, which avoids many of the shortcomings that one finds
in recent philosophical approaches to religion. Ultimately, however, Bourdieu
failed to resolve some of the central problems that he so skilfully identified in
classical sociological theory, notably the problem of the relationship between
structure and agency, and his actual contribution to the study of religion
was little more than a gloss on Weber’s analysis of charisma and its eventual
rountinisation into ecclesiastical institutions.
242 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Notes
1 A version of this chapter will appear in Bryan S. Turner (forthcoming) Religion and the Modern
World. Secularization, Citizenship and the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2 Some aspects of this argument about rational choice and religious behaviour first
appeared in Bryan S. Turner (2009)’ Goods Not Gods: New Spiritualities, Consumerism
and Religious Markets’ in Ian Rees, Paul Higgs and David J. Ekerdt (eds) Consumption and
Generational Change, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 37–62.

References
Althusser, Louis (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster, London:
New Left Books.
Badiou, Alain (2003 [1997]) Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, trans. Ray Brassier,
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Badiou, Alain (2005 [1988]) Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham, New York: Continuum.
Barbalet, Jack (2000) ‘Pragmatism and Symbolic Interaction’, in Bryan S. Turner (ed.)
The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 199–217.
Bastian, Jean-Pierre (2006) ‘La nouvelle économie religieuse de l’Amérique latine’, Social
Compass 53(1): 65–80.
Beckford, James A. (2003) Social Theory and Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, Catherine (1990) ‘The Ritual Body and the Dynamics of Ritual Power’, Journal of
Ritual Studies 4(2): 299–313.
Bellah, Robert N. (1964) ‘Religious Evolution’, American Sociological Review 29: 358–374.
Bellah, Robert N. (1967) ‘Civil Religion in America’, Daedalus 96 (Winter): 1–21.
Bellah, Robert N. and Steven M. Tipton (eds.) (2006) The Robert Bellah Reader, Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Berlinerblau, Jacques (1999) ‘Ideology, Pierre Bourdieu and the Hebrew Bible’, Semeia
87: 193–214.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1971) ‘Une interprétation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’,
Archives européennes de sociologie 12(1): 3–21.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987) ‘Sociologues de la croyance et croyances de sociologues’, Archives de
sciences sociales des religions 63(1): 155–161.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987 [1971]) ‘Legitimation and Structured Interest in Weber’s Sociology
of Religion’, in Scott Lash and Sam Whimster (eds.) Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity,
trans. Chris Turner, London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 119–136.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) ‘Mit Weber gegen Weber: Pierre Bourdieu im Gespräch’, in Pierre
Bourdieu, Das religiöse Feld. Texte zur Ökonomie des Heilsgeschehens, herausgegeben von
Franz Schultheis, Andreas Pfeuffer und Stephan Egger, übersetzt von Stephan Egger,
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 111–129.
Braun, Willi and Russell T. McCutcheon (eds.) (2000) Guide to the Study of Religion, London:
Cassell.
Bruce, Steve (1999) Choice and Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice Theory, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bryant, Joseph (2000) ‘Cost-Benefit Accounting and the Piety Business. Is Homo Religiosus at
Bottom Homo Economicus?’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 12: 520–548.
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 243

Casanova, José (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Davie, Grace (1994) Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Davie, Grace (2006) ‘Religion in Europe in the 21st Century: The Factors to Take into
Account’, Archives européennes de sociologie XLVII(2): 271–296.
Demerath III, Nicholas Jay (2007) ‘Secularization and Sacralization Deconstructed and
Reconstructed’, in James A. Beckford and Nicholas Jay Demerath III (eds.) The SAGE
Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, London: Sage, pp. 57–80.
Dillon, Michele (2001) ‘Pierre Bourdieu, Religion and Cultural Production’, Cultural Studies
1(4): 411–429.
Douglas, Mary (1970) Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, London: Barrie & Rockliff
Cresset Press.
Eastwood, Jonathan (2007) ‘Bourdieu, Flaubert, and the Sociology of Literature’, Sociological
Theory 25(2): 149–169.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000) ‘The Reconstruction of Religious Arenas in the Framework of
“Multiple Modernities” Millennium’, Journal of International Studies 29(3): 591–611.
Engler, Steven (2003) ‘Modern Times: Religion, Consecration and the State in Bourdieu’,
Cultural Studies 17(3/4): 445–467.
Finke, Roger and Rodney Stark (1992) The Churching of America, 1776–1990: Winners and
Losers in our Religious Economy, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Foucault, Michel (2005 [2001]) The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France,
1981–1982, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Furseth, Inger (2009) ‘Religion in the Works of Habermas, Bourdieu and Foucault’, in
Peter B. Clarke (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 89–115.
Göle, Nilüfer (1996) The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling, Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Goodman, Jane E. (2003) ‘The Proverbial Bourdieu: Habitus and Politics of Representation
in the Ethnography of Kabylia’, American Anthropologist 105(4): 782–793.
Habermas, Jürgen (2002 [1981, 1991, 1997]) Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and
Modernity, trans. Ciaran P. Cronin, Eric Crump, Peter Dews, Peter P. Kenny, Frederick
G. Lawrence and Max Pensky, edited and with an introduction by Eduardo Mendieta,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (2008 [2005]) Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans.
Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen and Joseph Ratzinger (2006 [2005]) Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason
and Religion, trans. Brian McNeil, edited by Florian Schuller, San Francisco: Ignatius
Press.
Halliday, Fred [1995] (2003) Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion and Politics in the Middle
East, New ed Edition, London: I.B. Tauris.
Hamilton, Malcolm (2009) ‘Rational Choice Theory: A Critique’, in Peter B. Clarke
(ed.) The Oxford Companion to the Sociology of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 116–133.
Hervieu-Léger, Danièle (2000 [1993]) Religion as a Chain of Memory, trans. Simon Lee,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Iannaccone, L. R. (1994) ‘Why Strict Churches are Strong’, American Journal of Sociology
99(5): 1180–1211.
244 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Jenkins, Tim (2006) ‘Bourdieu’s Bearmais Ethnography’, Theory, Culture & Society 23(6):
45–72.
Kelley, Dean M. (1972) Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion,
New York: Harper & Row.
Lazreg, Marnia (2009) Questioning the Veil: Open Letters to Muslim Women, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Lechner, Frank J. (2007) ‘Rational Choice and Religious Economics’, in James A. Beckford
and Nicholas Jay Demerath III (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Religion,
London: Sage, pp. 81–97.
Loyal, Steven (2009) ‘The French in Algeria, Algerians in France: Bourdieu, Colonialism
and Migration’, The Sociological Review 57(3): 406–427.
Rey, Terry (2004) ‘Marketing the Goods of Salvation: Bourdieu on Religion’, Religion 34(4):
331–343.
Rey, Terry (2007) Bourdieu on Religion: Imposing Faith and Legitimacy, London: Equinox.
Robertson, Roland (1992) ‘The Economization of Religion? Reflections on the Promise
and Limitations of the Economic Approach’, Social Compass 39(1): 147–157.
Robertson, Roland and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) (1991) Talcott Parsons: Theorist of Modernity,
London: Sage.
Roof, Wade Clark (1993) A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom
Generation, San Francisco: Harper.
Roof, Wade Clark (1999) Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American
Religion, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Silber, Ilana F. (2009) ‘Bourdieu’s Gift to Gift Theory: An Unacknowledged Trajectory’,
Sociological Theory 27(2): 173–190.
Spinner-Halevy, Jeff (2005) ‘Hinduism, Christianity and Liberal Religious Tolerance’,
Political Theory 33(1): 28–57.
Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke (2000) Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Swartz, David (1996) ‘Bridging the Study of Culture and Religion: Pierre Bourdieu’s
Political Economy of Symbolic Power’, Sociology of Religion 57(1): 71–85.
Tamney, Joseph B. (2002) The Resilience of Conservative Religion: The Case of Popular, Conservative
Protestant Congregations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Charles (2002) Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited, Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Taylor, Charles (2007) A Secular Age, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Turner, Bryan S. (ed.) (2008) Religious Diversity and Civil Society: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford:
Bardwell Press.
Verter, Bradford (2003) ‘Spiritual Capital: Theorizing Religion with Bourdieu Against
Bourdieu’, Sociological Theory 21(2): 150–174.
Warner, R. S. (2004) ‘Enlisting Smelser’s Theory of Ambivalence to Maintaining Progress
in Sociology of Religion’s New Paradigm’, in Jeffrey C. Alexander, Gary T. Marx
and Christine L. Williams (eds.) Self, Social Structure and Beliefs: Explorations in Sociology,
Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 103–121.
Weber, Max (1958 [1921]) The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, translated
and edited by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Weber, Max (1966 [1922]) The Sociology of Religion, trans. Ephraim Fischoff, introduction by
Talcott Parsons, London: Methuen.
Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion 245

Wilson, Bryan R. (1966) Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment, London: C.A Watts.
Wilson, Bryan R. (1976) Contemporary Transformations of Religion, London: Oxford University
Press.
Wolin, Richard (1994) Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, Revised Edition, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Yang, Fenggang (2007) ‘Oligopoly Dynamics: Official Religions in China’, in James
A. Beckford and Nicholas Jay Demerath III (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of
Religion, London: Sage, pp. 635–653.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction:
A Phenomenological Reading of Habitus

Bruno Frère1

Between Genetic Structuralism and Phenomenology:

The Complex Constitution of Habitus
For nearly thirty years now, the critical sociology of Pierre Bourdieu has been
used in an increasingly large number of studies in the social sciences. It is
remarkable, however, that it has had a rather weak impact on my own field
of research: the study of new social movements. This chapter argues that
the reason for this anomaly lies with Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (a central
element of Bourdieusian thought) and the particular problems that this theory
poses for researchers of new social movements. As original and powerful as it
can be, the theory of habitus is, first and foremost, a theory of reproduction
and determination. As such, its ability to help us to understand the creativity
and radical innovations of the actors who constitute new social movements is
severely limited. Thus, whilst immersed in my own research, I found that I had
to choose between two options: one option was to abandon the Bourdieusian
approach to the social all together; the other option was to stay within the
Bourdieusian paradigm and, in the light of its substantial shortcomings,
seek to transcend its limitations. Preferring to pursue the latter – somewhat
more optimistic – project, the question to be confronted was whether or not
it is possible to move Bourdieu’s paradigm forward, beyond its conventional
applications, in order to render it operational in other areas, such as my own,
where it is has not contributed a great deal. This chapter aims to demonstrate
that it is possible to do so. Although Bourdieu’s sociological framework in
general and his conceptual tools in particular have often been used in a rather
orthodox fashion, this chapter seeks to show that Bourdieusian social theory
is sufficiently open for us to maintain much of its contribution whilst looking
elsewhere to overcome some of its substantial shortcomings.
248 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Thomas Kuhn’s concept of ‘paradigm’ is often used out-of-hand, but it

can certainly be employed to describe the framework which Bourdieu’s work
gave rise to. If we acknowledge that ‘paradigms consist of scientific discoveries
that are universally recognized and which, for a time, provide a community of
researchers with certain types of problems and solutions’ (Kuhn, 1983 [1962]:
11), then Bourdieu’s ‘constructivist structuralism’ (which is also described as
‘genetic structuralism’) can be considered to be paradigmatic. Indeed, the
Bourdieusian paradigm has opened a space for reflection between the two
poles that dominated twentieth-century sociology for a long time: objectivism
and subjectivism. Given this ambition, Bourdieusian thought has allowed
for a conceptualisation of the relation between individuals and their social
environment in a way that, when it was proposed for the first time, was entirely
new (Kuhn, 1983 [1962]: 11).2 To be sure, with the term ‘structuralism’
Bourdieu refers to the idea that there are objective structures in the social
world which exist independently of the consciousness and the will of actors.
These structures are capable of orienting and restraining social practices in,
and social representations of, the world. When using the term ‘constructivism’,
on the other hand, Bourdieu suggests that actors’ schemes of perception,
thought and action have a social origin. These predispositional schemes
are constitutive of actors’ habitus, and always exist in relation to positional
schemes of external social structures, such as fields, groups and social classes
(Bourdieu, 1987: 147).
The synthesis of structuralist and constructivist traditions can be regarded
as a solution to the question (or, in Kuhnian terms, to the ‘enigma’) which
was at stake during the 1960s and which neither tradition has ever been able
to resolve. Both Luc Boltanski’s ‘pragmatic sociology’ and Bruno Latour’s
‘actor network theory’ are firmly situated in the debate concerning a possible
synthesis of these aforementioned traditions. In particular, this debate obliges
us to reflect upon the ‘place of culture’: the place where the constructions
of culture by its agents, and of agents by their culture, are woven together.
This place corresponds to the notion of habitus, a notion which found a
role in the field of scientific sociological innovation and, indeed, did have
an important impact on the discipline in general for a time (Boltanski, 2003:
159). Yet Boltanski does not align himself with those who make use of the
term habitus in its ‘strong’ sense (for example, the researchers of the Centre
for European Sociology, which Bourdieu used to run: Champagne, Pinto,
Sapiro, and Accardo – to mention only a few of them). For, according to
Boltanski, an orthodox Bourdieusian use of the term habitus remains trapped
in a determinist understanding of the social, which fails to account for the
sociological significance of situational contingency.3 From a Boltanskian
perspective, individuals often find themselves in situations where they are
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 249

compelled to ‘improvise’ or ‘invent’ their behaviour. In this context, Boltanski

poses the following question:

The analyst considers that he has reached the end of his task when he can show
that, when immersed in different situations, the actor responds by actualising
schemata that are written in his habitus, that is to say, predictably – which tends
to mean the question of action itself fades away. But what remains of action
once we have eliminated the uncertainty an actor must be faced with even in
the most apparently routine of situations: that uncertainty that contains the
possibility of something new occurring, that is to say an eventful dimension?
(Boltanski, 2003: 160)

In other words, how can an actor – or, to use the language of genetic
structuralism, an agent – ‘invent’ something? And, daring to push the
question further, how can an actor innovate because, not in spite, of the
weight of their habitus? This is the fundamental question that constructivist
(or genetic) structuralism has left aside and that this chapter aims to address.
This question ought to have been addressed a long time ago, both by those
who see only ‘determinism’ in the notion of habitus (and, instead of seeking
to resolve the problem, dismiss it as a concept that deprives the actor of
freedom) and by those who defend it in an orthodox fashion (and who,
instead of refining it, have until now subsumed an ever-increasing quantity
of material from different domains of research under this analytic category,
in order to prove its validity).
Just as it is necessary to transcend the limits of the notion of habitus,
it is essential to push both theoretical and empirical investigations of this
notion further than Bourdieu did himself. Genetic structuralism has been
considerably reconfigured and strengthened since the publication of
Bourdieu’s Kabyle ethnology (1972) and his Sens pratique (1980; translated
into English as The Logic of Practice, 1990). This is partly due to the work of
two authors who are particularly widely read in the contemporary field of
French social science: Philippe Corcuff and Bernard Lahire. They can be
seen both as the least orthodox representatives of the Bourdieusian paradigm
and as two scholars who have made substantial contributions to its fruitful
development. We should therefore pay tribute to the existence of Corcuff ’s
and Lahire’s respective approaches. It is this type of work, situated at the
edge of the Bourdieusian paradigm, which prevents that paradigm from
becoming rigid and sterile. Their contribution shall therefore be discussed
at some length in the first two sections of this chapter, assuming – with
Boltanski – that their respective contributions can be regarded as firmly
established (Boltanski, 2003: 159–160).
250 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

From the outset, Lahire and Corcuff situate Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism
in an area of overlap between psychology and philosophy. In so doing, they
allow us to see clearly the potential in the notion of habitus, whilst laying the
foundations necessary to resolve the enigma with which we are concerned:
how can something new arise out of habitus? Both authors put forward the
notion of ‘the plural individual’, a concept that does not easily find its place
in Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism. This theory – in associating the habitus
with social fields, groups or classes – seeks to demonstrate the regularity of
behaviour in a given situation. As we will see further in the argument below,
both Lahire’s and Corcuff ’s approaches are largely convincing, although it
must also be said that they diverge in some respects. Nonetheless, their success
comes, in the case of Corcuff, at the price of a partial abandonment of the
notion of habitus and, in the case of Lahire, at the price of embracing an
arguably excessive empiricism.
The methodological usefulness and conceptual forcefulness of the
notion of habitus stem from the fact that habitus allows us to conceive of
human subjectivity in terms of an ensemble of social norms converted into
individual dispositions. To be sure, subjectively internalised norms are not
explicit rules of behaviour but unconsciously assimilated – and thus ‘socially
naturalised’ – tendencies to act in one way rather than another. The concept
allows us to extract the ‘unconscious’ from the psychic straightjacket to which
psychoanalysis had consigned it and by virtue of which the unconscious is
considered a purely mental phenomenon (Frère, 2004: 88). The concept of
the schemata (or dispositions) of habitus, however, does not refer to an existing
representation of mental life of which we are unconscious (and which may
be detached from the mind, and of which we become conscious a posteriori);
rather, it refers to social injunctions that are ‘addressed not to the intellect but
to the body’ (Bourdieu, 1997: 169).4
As a consequence, it seems that we are confronted with a curious paradox:
habitus is unconscious, and yet the concept of habitus does not describe
a merely mental, psychic or psychological state of affairs. This paradox
is fundamental to the analytical value of the concept; at the same time,
however, it has proved to be perceived as somewhat challenging by various
scholars. It is probably this paradox which troubles Lahire, who searches
for a correspondence of dispositions on a psychological level. According to
Lahire, habitus can essentially be regarded as a psychological apparatus that
functions mechanically and whose creative potential is limited. Corcuff on
the other hand, without rejecting the notion of habitus altogether, seeks to
abandon the emphasis on the allegedly ‘unconscious’ nature of habitus. In
so doing, he attempts to develop a notion of a creative habitus. Drawing on
Paul Ricoeur’s concept of ipse-identity, Corcuff has sought to demonstrate
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 251

that the human agent possesses a subjectivity (or, if one prefers, ipse-
identity) that works independently of, and potentially contrary to, exogenous
determinations. In opposition to this view, this chapter aims to show that,
if the agent is capable of both ‘inventing a situation’ and ‘inventing itself
in and through a situation’, this is because of, rather than despite, exogenous
determinations arising from the social world.
The paradigm of genetic structuralism has been enriched by the elaboration
of the notion of habitus via the concept of the ‘plural actor’ (which was first
developed by Lahire and then adopted by Corcuff). Yet, we should not omit
the unconscious dimensions of habitus (as Corcuff does), nor should we seek
to reduce the predispositional schemes of habitus to a matter of the psyche (as
Lahire does). This is why, in the fourth section of this chapter, the notion of
habitus is referred to as a ‘fiction’. Although habitus as such may be conceived
of as immaterial and unlocalisable, it constitutes a tangible and powerful
element of the social world in general and of social agents in particular. It
seems essential to conserve the idea of an ensemble of unconscious social habits
incarnated in each one of us in the form of behavioural dispositions, just as it is
important to conceive of the magma of these dispositions without reducing the
carrier of these dispositions to a purely psychological mechanism. For Lahire,
the adaptation of the actor to a range of fields is made possible through the
field-dependent development and mechanical reproduction of acquired skills.
For Corcuff, this – somewhat determinist – conception of habitus needs to
be revised in the light of the creative potentials of human subjectivity and
the power of ipse-identity, which liberates the agent from the weight of social
habits. In neither case, however, is it ever a question of the agent actually
inhabiting the space: consciously or unconsciously, agents simply ‘adapt’ to the
social spaces by which they find themselves surrounded. Neither Corcuff nor
Lahire resolve the fundamental problem of the inertia of habitus. Even if we
put forward a complex, rather than a monolithic, conception of habitus, and
even if we are prepared to acknowledge that an individual is both plural and
unique, how is it possible to account for the existence of human characteristics
such as creativity or social ingenuity? Can the habitus be something other than
the weight of personal history that conditions the activity of the actor? This
question is frequently raised by sociologists studying aspects of human reality
where the idea of innovation is essential to a proper understanding of social
action; unsurprisingly then, this question is particularly important in the
sociology of culture, the sociology of art, the sociology of knowledge, and the
sociology of social movements.
By way of response, the final section of this chapter attempts to bring some
elements of phenomenology to the paradigm of genetic structuralism in order
to complete the redefinition of habitus introduced by Lahire and Corcuff.
252 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Here then, the concept of habitus is not based on the Husserlian intellectual
stream, which arguably feeds the sociology of Schütz; rather it is founded on a
tradition that is still relatively unexplored in sociology, a tradition that focuses
on the body, rather than on consciousness: the phenomenology of Maurice
Merleau-Ponty5 – in particular his philosophical works on culture – and the
political philosophy of Cornelius Castoriadis. As shall be demonstrated below,
the analytical framework proposed in this chapter conceives of habitus as a
creative capacity, that is, as a competence which allows for the construction
of something new and hitherto non-existent. As a result of this conception,
it is possible to envisage a habitus that is multiply-determined, unconscious
and able to escape the mechanistic logic of social reproduction. The chapter
draws to a close by referring to my empirical research on social movements. It
seems that a collective work on the intellectual legacy of a thinker is the ideal
place to move beyond the theoretical and practical limitations of this legacy;
in addition, it provides an opportunity to consider the continuous relevance
of this legacy to new areas of empirical research. The chapter concludes by
arguing that a phenomenological elaboration of the Bourdieusian paradigm
can help to extend its usefulness in the sociological study of activists engaged
in new forms of social struggle.

Two Paths for a Genetic-Structuralist Sociology

of the Plural Actor
Lahire begins his critical analysis of Bourdieu’s approach by demonstrating
the lack of precision with which certain key notions are used in critical
sociology. He asserts that Bourdieu must have been unaware of the fact that,
in the 1970s and 1980s, the field of psychology provided precise definitions
of terms such as ‘disposition’ and ‘psychological reproduction of social
structures’. This omission on Bourdieu’s part leaves his system – which is
aimed at identifying relationally defined patterns in social behaviour and
categorising them in terms of a particular habitus – relatively powerless.
Indeed, the significance of this omission is reflected in the fact that Bourdieu’s
framework does not allow us to answer a number of fundamental questions
such as the following: how can various individual and social experiences
coexist in the same body, and what is their impact on the individual’s life?
Given that the Bourdieusian framework is not really concerned with the
nature and development of individual dispositions, ‘we have no example
of the social construction of the incorporation or transmission of these
dispositions. We have no indication as to the way they may be constructed
nor the way they behave’ (Lahire, 1999b: 129). Thus, within a Bourdieusian
framework of social analysis, it is difficult – if not, impossible – to understand
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 253

why and how actors are able to incorporate objective structures and, more
importantly, how these structures can be converted into mental and cognitive
structures (Lahire, 1999a). The idea of the inscription of social structures in
the brain, which take the form of mental structures, is problematic unless
we succeed in explaining how cognitive structures and social structures are
homologically interrelated. When we stand back and consider this issue
more carefully, it becomes obvious that different sets of mental structures
vary between different individuals.
The sociological acknowledgement of the existence and importance
of psychological internalisation processes manifests itself in terms such as
matrices, schemata and dispositions. Yet, the usage of these terms in sociology
does not necessarily imply that their underlying ways of functioning have
been adequately understood. In reality, genetic structuralism has reproduced
these concepts in a reified, undigested and uncritical manner for the last
twenty years. These concepts are, however, ‘just a kind of resume of the most
advanced psychological works of the era’ (Lahire, 1998: 105; see also Lahire,
1999b: 124–125). Since the 1980s, researchers who study the incorporation of
objective structures have failed to make sense of this dialectic; that is, they have
not shown themselves capable of capturing the construction of multiple types
of dispositions and schemata through social experience. Had they been able
to do so, they would have confronted the challenge of exploring the diversity
and irreducibility of individuals and, therefore, the diversity and irreducibility
of schemata and dispositions. In order to do so, they would have had to refine
their conceptual and methodological frameworks.
Lahire’s project can be described as a psychological sociology inspired by
the work of Jean Piaget (1999). As such, it makes extensive use of concepts such
as ‘schemata’, ‘dispositions’, and ‘matrices’, that is, of concepts employed by
structural-constructivist sociologists to give meaning to the social organisation
of the actor’s (or agent’s) modes of thought, behaviour and action. These
concepts, then, permit us to capture different modes and instances of
interiorisation and, more importantly, the extent to which actors have the
ability to adapt to different social contexts. Lahire’s reconceptualisation of
habitus allows us to conceive of the individual as a multiply socialised, multiply
determined, and unique entity. As social beings, we are all confronted with an
ensemble of local situations which have different degrees of impact on the
composition of our dispositional baggage.
To be sure, there is nothing inevitable about the conversion of the objective
structures of society into the subjective structures of the individual. Given its
relative inability to take on board the work of psychologists, sociology has
had a tendency to take the existence of schemata and dispositions, and in
particular their relative social determinacy, for granted. This has allowed it to
254 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

construct a typology of individuals’ responses in terms of a generalisation of

arbitrarily chosen schemata.

In fact, the regime of generalised transferral, not discussed and not adequately
tested, prevents us from conceiving (and therefore observing) the existence of
schemata or dispositions that are local (specific to social situations or areas
of particular practices) modes of categorisation, perception, or appreciation
attached to specific objects and areas. It reduces the process of exteriorisation
of complex inner nature to a simple unique function, that of assimilation/
accommodation: assimilation of situations to incorporated schemata, and
accommodation (correction) of previously established schemata to variations
and changes of situation. (Lahire, 1999b: 136)

Thus, according to Lahire, our dispositional baggage is composed of a set of

schemata, some of which can be inhibited or which may become dormant
to leave room for the development or activation of others. They can be
delimited as specific social dispositions, activated only in a precisely defined
area of relevance, with a given individual learning to develop dispositions that
differ in different contexts. Individuals do not simply engage in the constant
transfer of dispositional structures; they carry a plurality of dispositions –
corresponding to a plurality of social contexts – within themselves. Indeed, the
more an individual is exposed to non-homogenous, complex and diverse social
contexts, the more likely he or she is to possess a variegated legacy of adapted
dispositions, habits or abilities that are non-homogenous and not unified. For
the sociologist, working to discover this legacy is tantamount to restoring the
individual’s particularity, diversity and complexity. In fact, it is precisely one of
Piaget’s main achievements to have shown that mental categories are not static
and transcendental but dynamic and situated components of every individual
(Piaget, 1970: 80).
A significant amount of fieldwork which combines qualitative and
quantitative data has broadened the Bourdieusian research programme.
Without, in this case, drawing on the work of Piaget, but supported by several
statistical studies, Lahire sets out a number of strong hypotheses. One example
is his idea of ‘dissonant profiles’, which concerns individuals whose attitudes,
practices and tastes do not necessarily correspond to the characteristics of
their socio-professional or socio-cultural backgrounds (Lahire, 2004: 175–
203). In light of the solid empirical evidence for these hypotheses, there is no
need to make vague and speculative statements about the rise of individualism
or to give in to the – ideologically biased – rejection of the notion of social
class, of which contemporary thinkers such as Marcel Gauchet, Alain Renaut,
Ulrich Beck, Charles Taylor, and Gilles Lipovetsky may be accused. What is
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 255

at stake here concerns another issue: the prospect of a rupture with certain
Durkheimian intellectual habits leads to a fear of the ‘psychologisation of
social relations’ and of the ‘regression to atomism’. According to Lahire, this
kind of fear can be found in contemporary forms of constructivist (or genetic)
structuralism (Lahire, 2004: 696).
Notably, Corcuff is inspired by this area of overlap between psychology
and constructivist structuralism, that is, by the kind of overlap that Lahire’s
psychological sociology attempts to sketch out (Corcuff, 2003: 82–86). Their
position is close to Bridget Fowler’s stance with regard to her concern with the
popularisation of Bourdieu’s work in the field of British cultural studies. In her
work, Fowler emphasises the importance of the formation of plural identities
in advanced societies, which reflects a social process that cannot be reduced
to a mechanical interplay between internal and external structures and to
the notion that the individual is a malleable entity completely determined by
external structures (Fowler, 1997: 132). It is by insisting on this very idea of a
plural singularity (or plurality of identity) that Corcuff tries to construct his
alternative framework to a determinist conception of habitus ‘which a priori
unifies the dispositions and constructs a permanence of the person’ (Corcuff,
2003: 70, emphasis in original).
Where Lahire turns to psychology and Piaget in order to specify which
schemata compose the variable content of habitus, Corcuff turns to Ricoeur.
The concept of ipse-identity (identité-ipséité) developed by Ricoeur refers to
the moment when a person asks the question ‘Who am I?’ This concerns the
subjective element of personal identity, which is opposed to the objective
element responding to the question of what that person is – idem-identity
(identité-mêmeté).
This corresponds to the ‘durable dispositions’ of habitus (Corcuff, 1999: 98,
and 2003: 62). Thus, here we are dealing with what may be described as the
‘objective aspects’ of a subject’s identity. The ipse-identity, however, is closer
to the notion of role distance favoured by Erving Goffman and to the idea
of the sedimentation of a ‘personal reserve’ which is irreducible to the social
roles taken on and internalised by the individual. Most researchers working
within the structural-constructivist paradigm – for which the reflexivity of
the actor is a biographical illusion (Bourdieu, 1994: 81–90) – do not account
for the existence, let alone the significance, of the ‘subjective sense of the
self ’. Some of them may go so far as to consider this sense null and void, or
simply non-existent. It could seem that only a sociologist who is equipped with
concepts such as ‘domination’, ‘field’ and ‘habitus’ is able to shed light on the
real meaning and constitution of an individual’s identity. This sociological
hypothesis, although it is not false, is certainly inadequate. In their study of the
social world, it is crucial for sociologists to explore the symbolic and material
256 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

impacts of social identities, and thus it is essential to study the power of habitus
to make agents behave and act in one way or another.

Corcuff and Lahire on the Dilemmas of Consciousness,

Empiricism and Habitus
The advantage of these two attempts to move beyond the limits of Bourdieu’s
paradigm is that their refusal to conceive of habitus as a set of ‘durable,
transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as
structuring structures’ (Bourdieu, 1980: 88) does not lead them to reject his
genetic-structuralist hypothesis in its entirety – unlike other theorists such as,
for example, Raymond Boudon in France and Jeffrey C. Alexander in the
United States. It is because these schemata and dispositions are more than
simply the ‘incorporation of the same objectivised history in habitus and
[mental] structures’ (Bourdieu, 1980: 97) that they do not always produce
identical behaviour that would be ‘mutually understandable and immediately
adjusted to structures’ (Bourdieu, 1980: 97). In this regard, Bourdieu’s
intuition is accurate, and Corcuff and Lahire are right to take it on board and
to develop it further.
Of all the recent models and approaches that draw on Bourdieu’s genetic
sociology, these two positions belong to the most convincing ones. Yet, one
remark should be made in this regard. Both authors, in aiming to ‘reform’
Bourdieu’s conception of habitus, introduce difficulties that Bourdieu’s
original model had avoided. Corcuff, for example, is right to insist upon his
sociological interest in individual consciousness in general and in individuals’
capacity to reflect upon their various identities and actions in particular. As a
result, however, he partly closes the door that was left open to account for the
richness of our socially constituted unconscious. Thus he implies that, if the
actor is capable of creativity, this innovative competence must be understood
only as peculiar to that ipse-identity, which is constructed as though existing
in parallel to habitus.
Yet, it is Corcuff who leads us to the path of what may be described as the
‘dynamic habitus’. He does so by drawing a distinction between an individual
and a social habitus. According to Bourdieu, we cannot use these terms
interchangeably because

[…] that would mean assuming all representations produced according to

identical schemata are impersonal and interchangeable which [...] reflects
nothing about the particularity of the empirical self. [...] Each individual system
of disposition is a structural variant of the others, in which the singularity of the
position within class and trajectory are expressed. [...] The principle of differences
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 257

between individual habitus lies in the singularity of social trajectories to which a

series of chronologically ordered determinations – which are irreducible to each
other – corresponds: the habitus, which at any given moment achieves a unique
integration, structuring new experiences according to the structures produced
by prior experiences, which affects these structures in the limits defined by their
powers of selection. (Bourdieu, 1980: 101)6

Corcuff is aware of the fact that here is an opportunity to use a conceptual

archaeology in order to demonstrate, once and for all, that the notion of
habitus is not a case of a collectivity acting as a bulldozer against the singular;
rather, it is a term that permits us the irreducible nature of an individual’s
subjectivity. Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism tends to conceive of habitus
primarily in terms of its relation to a social field (that is, in relation to a
social space within which actors acquire particular social characteristics
and dispositional schemes). Given Bourdieu’s emphasis on the field-specific
constitution of habitus, Corcuff concludes that ‘it is not possible to make the
notion of habitus the end point for a sociology of singularity’ (2003: 62).
From a Bourdieusian point of view, this is where Corcuff goes wrong.
Having drawn attention to both the existence and the significance of the
‘singular habitus’, he himself avoids the question and does not pursue it any
further. In fact, although he claims to account for the singularity of every
habitus, he does not do justice to the full complexity of individual aspects
of habitus. Considering the notion of habitus as ‘inert’ or as a ‘receptacle
for determinisms’, corresponding to Ricoeur’s idem-identity, Corcuff refers to
the ipse-identity in order to speak more easily of subjective identity. Such an
approach allows us to recognise actors’ self-reflective and self-critical capacity,
which they mobilise in their daily actions. Equipped with the conceptual tools
that Boltanski forged in his L’amour et la justice comme compétences (1990), and with
Laurent Thévenot in their De la justification (1991), Corcuff asserts that habitus
is merely a ‘facet of singularity’ (2003) which ought not to monopolise the
researcher’s attention at the expense of the actor’s reflexive capacities.
These capacities are testimony to the inalienable creativity of social actors.
In spite of the weight of habitus, social actors are able to create and develop
their identities themselves. The reflexivity of the actor allows ‘identity’ to
emerge in response to the question ‘Who am I?’, and the practical response to
this question can be found in the existence of a fundamentally dynamic and
self-reflexive consciousness, that is, of a type of consciousness that is not merely
unconscious of itself. Within Bourdieu’s framework of genetic structuralism,
habitus and creativity tend to be conceived of as mutually exclusive, rather
than mutually inclusive, features of subjectivity. Ultimately, it seems as though
Corcuff abandoned the question of individual habitus immediately after
258 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

raising it, for he seems to favour another concept, namely Ricoeur’s concept
of ipse-identity.7
Lahire, on the other hand, remains committed to the sociological framework
of structuralist constructivism. According to this framework, actors acquire
certain dispositions through their exposure to and participation in diversified
social fields. These dispositions are nevertheless embedded in the unique
structures of our subjectivity, defining who we are and what kind of identities
we develop throughout life; and these identities always have a deep, indelible
and quasi-genetic imprint. Lahire’s approach permits us to understand why
communication and coordination between differently socialised people is
possible: for instance, a worker and a CEO who play cards together, the son
of an opera singer and the son of a rapper who have a similar passion for
Beethoven’s concertos, and so forth (see Boltanski, 2003). Yet, the notion of
the plural actor does not always allow us to understand how the determinisms
that make up this figure comprise a wealth of unconscious abilities that are
easily mobilised in the ‘invention’ of singular behaviour.
Arguing for a psychological test against ‘Bourdieu’s inclination to decide
theoretical questions based on philosophical quotations’, Lahire concludes
by limiting his research to the discovery of the psychological products of
habitus (Lahire, 1998: 187). He almost reaches the point of asking what the
schemata and dispositions of habitus correspond to materially in the neurones
of an individual brain. In this respect, his approach comes close to an anti-
intellectual empiricism that is no longer capable of posing the question in the
following terms: are we dealing with an empirically existing concept, or are we
dealing with a ‘mystic reality’ and an ‘additional space’ (between structure and
practice) that the sociologist needs in order for the theory to come full circle
(Lahire, 1998: 63)?
In order to move towards an understanding of habitus that, metaphorically
speaking, does not portray subjectivity as a collective bulldozer crushing
all forms of singularity, it is necessary to avoid conceiving of the
relationship between philosophy and empirical psychology in dichotomous
terms. Objectivist approaches to the social have been criticised by early
phenomenological sociologists such as Alfred Schütz, who – along with
Scheler –argues that whatever form it adopts, ‘empirical psychology supposes
the objectifiability of the psychological as such, and includes the unfounded
assumption that the same psychological events can reappear in a multitude
of different subjects and can be reproduced through experimentation’
(Schütz, 1962: 157; see also Scheler, 1993: 166).
This suggests that it is necessary to dissect the schemata and dispositions
that we incorporate in the form of habitus. Yet, if we aim to determine their
psychological location and content, we run the risk of producing simplistic
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 259

categories of social groups (that is, categories according to which individuals

belonging to a specific group can be basically treated as identical). Lahire
puts forward a ‘psychological multi-determinism’, rather than a ‘sociological
determinism’. Such a multi-dimensional approach permits us to understand
why particular individuals may appreciate classical music even though their
working-class habitus does not predestine them to such a choice. In principle,
this applies to all dispositions that make up habitus. Each disposition
corresponds to a field of socialisation, even if these dispositions turn out to be
contradictory, as in the case of the working-class lover of classical music. Yet,
the challenge of subjective singularity still needs to be confronted: how can we
make sense of the notion of an individual habitus?
If the social agent is nothing more than the sum of dispositions, then how
is it possible that social action is more than simply the exteriorised outcome
of previously interiorised dispositions? More specifically, how can we explain
the rise of new forms of behaviour in a given situation and the social ability to
make something ‘new’ happen? If, following Corcuff, we explain processes of
individuation in terms of actors’ reflexive and creative capacities, it is far from
clear how such capacities can be located in habitus. For the concept of habitus
becomes easily dissociated from social acts by which individuals manage to
construct their own identities. According to Corcuff, there are essentially two
types of identity: first, an identity based on an individual habitus; and second,
an identity based on free subjectivity, that is, an ipse-identity based on relative
self-sufficiency.
In contrast to this position, I want to argue that the notion of individual
habitus allows us to combine ipse-identity and idem-identity. If the former and
the latter can be combined, then there is no reason to believe that they have
to be separated from each other and that Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism has
to be completely abandoned. In fact, we may propose to embark on a third
research project, which conceives of habitus neither as a merely empirical
reality nor as a merely conceptual tool. From this perspective, habitus can be
defined as a sociological fiction which may be considered as legitimate within
sociology, similarly to the fiction of Kant’s transcendental ego in philosophy
(Frère, 2005).
If we reduce the concept of habitus to an indecipherable ‘black box’
(Boudon, 1998) or to a set of mental and cognitive structures (Lahire, 1998,
1999a, and 1999b), we end up imposing somewhat problematic – namely,
positivist – parameters upon the sociological study of social action. Habitus,
however, is not a box materially incorporated within the individual or a
mechanically driven set of thoughts and actions. Rather, it is an intellectual
abstraction, a sociological fiction which allows us to understand the
individuation of collective schemata in the form of individually embodied
260 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

dispositions. The use of phenomenology comes into play here as a way of

promoting a more adequate conceptualisation of this ‘sociological fiction’.
The principal goal of this approach to the nature of habitus is to conceive of
habitus as a powerful conceptual and methodological tool for the sociological
study of human reality.

Phenomenology and Sociological Fiction: A Third Genetic-

Structuralist Programme for a Dynamic Habitus
It should be remembered that the term ‘habitus’ appeared for the first time
in the writings of Aristotle, but then also in the work of Edmund Husserl, the
founding father of phenomenology. He described the self ‘as Me subsisting
by durable habitus’ and further articulated an idea of durable habitus as the
foundation of the ‘Me’, or self (1994 [1950]: 114). Indeed, behind Bourdieu’s
use of the notion of habitus (considered as a corollary to the history of individual
social life), Husserl’s idea of retention is sporadically visible. According to this
idea, our life is a succession of moments with other social subjects which,
once they have happened, leave an imprint on us that ‘still remains there’
(1964 [1928]: 44). In his writings, Husserl seeks to understand why and how
the traces of our past experiences can continue to influence our present ones.
Ultimately, however, the notion of habitus is a concept of peripheral status in
Husserl’s writings, referring to a transcendental identity deeply hidden in the
self. Retention, conversely, refers to a process that only concerns conscious
events. For Husserl, it is the task of the phenomenological project to undertake
the ‘transcendental reduction’ (the epoché) enabling us to regress to the level of
‘pre-social subjectivity’, and thus to the level of ‘that which the personal subject
can originally experience’, that is, to their pre-social confrontation with the
world (1982 [1952]: 278–279). Yet, consciousness is largely inoperative within
the Bourdieusian framework of genetic structuralism.8
Similar to Bourdieu’s emphasising the corporeal, rather than the
cognitive, nature of habitus, Merleau-Ponty ‘changed the nature of the
Husserlian enterprise by centring his phenomenology on the body rather
than on the consciousness’ (Wolff, 1978: 499). In his work, the body is what
puts us in contact with the (social) world, independently of our thoughts
and consciousness. In this sense, the body epitomises a kind of original
intentionality, a way of relating to our social environment that is distinct
from reflexive knowledge (1945: 444)9: it is intertwined with the substance
(la ‘chair’) of the world; it sinks into it and merges with it. In the texts contained
in In Praise of Philosophy, Signs, or The Prose of the World, Merleau-Ponty clearly
leads the way for Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism, as he conceives of our
entanglement with the world and our ineluctable situatedness in our bodies
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 261

as ‘cultural’. (By the way, this is the ‘place of culture’ upon which Boltanski
insists in his writings.10) This view is based on the assumption that ‘the unity
of culture extends above the limits of an individual life the same kind of
envelope that captures in advance all the moments in that life, at the instant
of its institution or its birth’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1960a: 111). In this, Husserl
joins others who err in seeking ‘in the mind the guarantee of unity which is
already there when we perceive’ the world and the meaning that one’s culture
(one’s social universe) has deposited as sediment (Merleau-Ponty, 1960a: 111).
Through the action of culture, in a certain sense I inhabit lives that are not
mine, because the significations that the objects in the world take on for me
are the significations that were forged by those who ‘preceded my present’
(Merleau-Ponty, 1960a: 111).11 This present becomes what Merleau-Ponty
calls the ‘social-mine’ (social-mien); that is to say, the raw material of my being-
in-the-world that I will then be able to sculpt (Frère, 2005: 248).
At various points in his work it is possible to see a nod in the direction of
sociology – a discipline he was one of the few philosophers to believe in at
that time.12 He describes, for example, a social fact not as a ‘massive reality’
(clearly directed at Durkheimian objectivism) but as ‘embedded in the deepest
part of the individual’ (1960c: 123–142). Every life has ‘a social atmosphere’
which precedes and conditions the reflexive gaze we can turn on it. Because
the work of Merleau-Ponty was interrupted by his sudden and unexpected
death, this atmosphere, this social-mine (social-mien), ‘has found no name
in any philosophy’, according to Claude Lefort.13 It did, however, emerge
in sociology. In moving from a philosophy that evacuates the substance of
the consciousness to a sociology that does the same (as we can observe in
Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism), the being-in-the-world – the social-mine
(social-mien) – is called habitus.
This interrelation between the individual and their cultural world is
not reflexive. If it were reflexive, it would be similar to Corcuff ’s model,
which applies the ipse-identity of Ricoeur to the notion of habitus.14 The
individual habitus, understood in the light of Merleau-Ponty’s work, allows
us to envisage the idea of a plural actor, that is, of an actor with a potential
for creation and transformation. It thus becomes a fruitful, rather than a
deterministic, concept.
One of our main questions is whether or not there is any legitimate
room for the role of actors’ creative capacity within Bourdieu’s framework
of genetic structuralism. Put differently, the question remains whether or
not, within Bourdieu’s social theory, there is such a thing as a subjective
identity capable of creative activity. We can draw on the works of Corcuff
and Lahire in order to understand how habitus is uniquely and, at the same
time, unconsciously constructed. Yet, Corcuff and Lahire do not allow us
262 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

to understand how habitus therefore enables actors to construct themselves

and the world by which they find themselves surrounded. In their writings,
habitus remains a kind of blank slate, destined to be shaped by the outside
world. Nevertheless, we need to recognise that habitus has a dynamic nature
and creative potential; otherwise we are unable to conceive of individuals as
unique entities with unique identities. Of course, in some parts of Bourdieu’s
writings, it is possible to find references to the idea of a habitus that, although
it is socially constructed, is equipped with the capacity to act upon the social
world. In fact, such a view portrays the relationship between habitus and the
social world as a relationship of mutual and continuous transformation. Yet,
we also need to recognise that in most parts of his writings Bourdieu has, to
a large extent, neglected the existence – and consequently the significance –
of the creative and transformative nature of habitus. Such a deterministic
conception of habitus portrays actors as heteronymous entities condemned
to reproduce the social conditions of their domination. This somewhat
fatalistic perspective is particularly seductive when studying the situation of
the working classes in advanced societies. For, according to this view, these
classes ‘learn’ to like watching television, rather than reading books, and they
‘learn’ to disengage from, rather than to engage with, politics; in short, they
‘learn’ to accept their alienation.
With the phenomenology of the body, it becomes possible to use the
concept of the plural actor, as proposed by Lahire, without discarding the
existence of an individual habitus, which is largely ignored by Corcuff. Thus,
we need to account for the fact that the existence of ‘social determinations’
and the existence of ‘cultural richness’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Socially complex individuals are not necessarily aware of the main elements
of their cultural identities, and may be even less so of their creative capacity
that allows them to ‘invent’ themselves and the world in which they find
themselves situated. In other words, all individuals are plural even if their
personalities are structured by an unconscious habitus. And ‘the presence of a habitus’
does not necessarily imply ‘the absence of competences’: individual actions
are always shaped, but not necessarily determined, by the predispositional
schemes of habitus.

Towards a New Approach of Activism

Merleau-Ponty uses the example of a painter to show how the ‘being-in-the-
world’ is a source of creativity. In L’œil et l’esprit (1964; in English: The Eye and the
Mind ), he states that it is ‘through the act of offering himself (his body) to the
world’ that the painter is through that very process of creation transformed
into a painting of that reality, becoming as it were ‘its echo’ (see Merleau-Ponty,
1964: 16 and 22). Castoriadis follows in the footsteps of the phenomenology
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 263

of the body constructed by Merleau-Ponty, giving it a political application.15

In L’institution imaginaire de la société (1975; in English: The Imaginary Institution of
Society), he argues that

[…] the support of the subject and non-subject in the subject (i.e. what comes to
him or her from his or her social influences) is the body: the point of articulation
between the Self and the Other is the body, that material structure full of
potential meaning. The body is not alienation – that would mean nothing –
but participation in the world. Meaning attachment and mobility constitute the
pre-constitution of a universe of meaning that is prior to any reflexive thought.
(Castoriadis, 1975: 157)

Castoriadis’s description of ‘the subject’ overlaps with both Lahire’s and

Corcuff ’s respective accounts of ‘the social actor’. The subject is not that
abstract moment of a removed form of disembodied subjectivity; rather, it
constitutes an active and embodied entity situated in different spheres of the
social world. In this sense, the subject is not an ‘absolute self ’. Rather, it is an
individual conditioned by social contents; and as such it is the ‘active authority
that constantly reorganises these contents by using them’ (Castoriadis, 1975:
158). Autonomy is thus no longer, as the critical (or genetic) school would
have it, seeking to prevent or control ‘the effects of the oppressive structure
of society on our lives’ (1975: 161). Autonomy is precisely that structure itself,
from the moment actors transform it by ‘acting’.
What Castoriadis calls the radical imagination of the psyche corresponds to
the description of habitus as sociological fiction outlined above. There is no
point in trying to localise the psyche; it can be regarded as a magma of social
determinisms. Castoriadis puts this as follows:

[M]an is deep psyche; man is society. He is only in and by society, his institution
and the socially imagined meanings that make the psyche adapted to life. Beyond
biology [...] man is a psychological and socio-historic being. It is on these two
levels that we will regain the capacity of creation that I have called imaginary
and imagination. There is radical imagination in the psyche. (Castoriadis, 1996
[1978]: 112, emphasis in original)

The psyche is the ability to combine pre-given elements (habits) to create new
forms of activity. Through the body, the psyche receives impressions that it
gives shape to unconsciously in order to bring about discourses and action.
According to Castoriadis, the psyche – that is, as our individual habitus – is
‘the ability to bring to light things that are not real’, but this ability is possible
thanks to elements provided by reality. The magma, of which the components
are unconscious, is our pre-subjective world, ‘a compact mass, blind and
264 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

deaf and which leads to the “flowering of the imaginary”’ (Castoriadis, 1997
[1978]-b: 95).
Castoriadis allows us to move forward considerably. Following Castoriadis,
we can view the agent both as a proper subject and as a social actor with
a psyche. From this perspective, we are no longer trapped in a determinist
understanding according to which actors ‘have no choice’. To be sure, actors
do not really understand their actions because they do not understand the
different social mechanisms by which their habitus is determined, but it would
be erroneous to reduce the habitus to a dispositional apparatus aimed at the
mere reproduction of an established order. Such a view would be equivalent to
considering the habitus as purely passive. Instead, it is the task of a truly critical
sociology to account for both the passive and the active, both the unconscious
and the conscious aspects of the habitus. From this perspective, it becomes
possible to regard the habitus as both an internalised social unconscious
and a cradle of creative imagination that, rather than veiled in ignorance, is
inhabited by a vision of dynamic magma.
Thus society is not simply a conglomerate of structures that restrict our
freedom, but it is also a space of opportunities that facilitates our actions and
thereby turns us into creative and complex beings, who are exposed to various
experiences and who are capable of developing new modes of expression
and action. New ways of being together can emerge without actors, involved
in the construction of these new ways of being, necessarily being aware of
this emergence. New social movements are a tangible illustration of what
can come of such creative processes: largely random forms of habitus that
are close to each other and yet dissonant. If, for instance, we look at the
appearance of the social forums in Porto Alègre, Bombay, Paris and London,
we can observe the emergence of groups of actors who come together
periodically and who have developed a shared militant habitus through which
people from different social and professional backgrounds manage to agree
on particular political aims, such as the aim to ‘combat neo-liberalism’. In
their own way, individually or in small groups, they each innovate and invent
new models of political contestation, new political justifications, or even new
economic models such as cooperatives, mutual companies and so forth. They
‘institute’ propositions for ‘an alternative world’ inspired by the rejection of the
existing one. Of course, each member of the movement has certain militant
dispositions incorporated into their own history and life-course. Everyone is
rich in determinations, and different people are embedded in different life
forms, even if actors are not conscious of the exact extent to which their lives
are shaped by external factors. ‘Why engage in one association rather than in
another one?’, the activist may wonder when questioned by the sociologist.
The question provokes hesitant and diverse responses that illustrate the
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 265

complexity of the various reasons that people may have when deciding to
engage in a particular form of collective action.
Given the complexity of the issue, it would be difficult to come up with a
‘proper’ definition, let alone an exhaustive analysis, of political activism. In
the contemporary world, activists seem to be increasingly reluctant to claim
an affiliation to a trade union or an institutional federation. Instead, they
engage only sporadically in political action, often through several different
associations at once, to conserve their ‘autonomy’ (Ardizzone, 2007). This is
not to suggest, however, that their engagement is ‘weak’. Those present at
the anti-globalisation summits become – as Merleau-Ponty would say – ‘the
body’ of the event. They may identify themselves with different associations
(for instance, Attac, Greenpeace, or No Logo) and sympathise with different
discourses (for example, environmentalist, feminist, or anti-capitalist) at
different moments in time. For some of them, this means that they engage
in political actions and discourses with which they were not, or were hardly,
familiar in the past; more importantly, this means that such collective events
can lead to the creation of political actions and discourses which did not exist
in the past. The fact that these forums exist as new forms of social struggle is
indicative of the creative potential of social action. Yet, neither the traditional
notion of habitus, in the strictly Bourdieusian sense, nor the critical use made
of it by other theorists, such as Corcuff or Lahire, seem to be able to capture
the emancipatory potential of social creativity, embodied, for example, in the
existence of a ‘militant habitus’.
It is highly probable that these forms of dynamic habitus, themselves the
result of socialisation processes, have consequences of which the actors are
not conscious. Whatever the future of the anti-globalisation movement, the
combination of different encounters and processes will lead to new forms
of institutionalisation at the macro-social level, and – both for activists
and sociologists – it will be difficult to predict the exact nature of these
institutionalisation processes.

Conclusion: A Sociology of Contingency

On the basis of the analysis developed above, it would be fair to suggest that
sociological approaches which stand in the tradition of Bourdieu’s genetic
structuralism need to develop conceptual and methodological tools which
allow us to account for the power of social contingency. The assumption that
there is such a thing as a dynamic habitus is largely dependent on the idea
that social innovation is unpredictable. As explained above, it is not possible
to make sense of the existence of a dynamic habitus if we rely exclusively on
Bourdieu’s social theory, as Bourdieu – following Émile Durkheim – conceived
266 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of sociology primarily as a science aimed at uncovering the underlying causal

mechanisms that determine the course of social life. My own fieldwork, by
which this analysis is inspired and which is based on my active participation
in different social movements, suggests that it is intellectually worthwhile to
try to develop genetic structuralism by drawing on issues of everyday life
and the opaqueness of the magma of ordinary social action. Facing up to
the contingencies of everyday life may indeed be necessary to prevent the
Bourdieusian paradigm from falling into the trap of structuralist determinism.
Of course, more work needs to be done to develop the ideas presented in this
chapter further. It seems essential to explore the creative aspects of actors’
‘militant habitus’ if we seek to shed light on the resources mobilised in pursuit
of social and political innovation. Creative imaginaries and creative action
are indispensable components of creative societies. Thus, we may conclude
by asking the following question: what is the radical imaginary, the cultural
magma, the substance which brings actors together and allows for the
possibility of collective action?

Notes
1 I am grateful to Simon Susen and Elena Knox for their detailed comments on this
chapter.
2 In addition to the terms ‘constructivist structuralism’ and ‘genetic structuralism’, the
term ‘critical structuralism’ is used in the Bourdieusian literature. Bourdieu’s preference
for the term ‘constructivist structuralism’ is symptomatic of the fact that he sought to
distinguish himself from the ‘relativist constructivism’ of Bloor or Latour, with whom
he disagreed on various points (see, for example, Bourdieu, 2001: 41). In this chapter,
I use the terms ‘genetic structuralism’ and ‘constructivist structuralism’ interchangeably.
3 On this point, see, for example, Alexander (1995: 131).
4 On Bourdieu and psychoanalysis, see also, for example, Fourny (2000).
5 It is no accident that Merleau-Ponty had a tremendous influence on Bourdieu’s
intellectual development in general and on his conception of habitus in particular. In
French sociology it is common to conceive of Bourdieusian structuralism in opposition
to the phenomenological project (see, for example, Bénatouïl, 1999). We can endorse
this reading on the condition that we take into account the fact that Bourdieu’s reticence
is essentially directed at the intellectualist prologue of this tradition, initially forged by
Husserl (see the discussion in the last section of this chapter). According to Bourdieu,
this intellectualist and anti-genetic tradition prevents us from posing ‘the question of
the social construction of the structures or schemata that the agent employs to construct
the world’ (Bourdieu, 1980: 44; on this point, see also Bourdieu, 1987: 47, Bourdieu,
1997: 175, and Bourdieu, 2001: 182).
6 Parts of this section are also quoted in Corcuff (1999: 103) and Corcuff (2003: 56). One
cannot but notice that Bourdieu’s conception of habitus was deeply problematic, as it
largely constrained the notion of class habitus. Indeed, the homological interpretation
of habitus of members of the same class reappears in most parts of his writings. This
is indicative of Bourdieu’s attempt to ‘build hidden analogies’ in order to identify
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 267

specific rules and regularities that determine the constitution of habitus, similar to the –
positivistically inspired – attempt to establish rules and regularities for the objects of
science (Bourdieu, Chamboredon and Passeron, 1968: 78).
7 The sociological questions arising from the concern with reflexivity and rational
competence, a concern which is of crucial importance in Corcuff ’s writings, oblige us
to reflect upon the concept of individual habitus.
8 In Réponses. Pour une Anthropologie Réflexive, Wacquant argues that, in Bourdieu’s work,
the term ‘habitus’ is a phenomenological concept. Quoting Merleau-Ponty, Bourdieu
defines it as ‘the intrinsic corporality of pre-objective contact between subject and
object so as to reproduce the body as a source of practical intentionality, as a source
of signification […] rooted at the pre-objective level of experience’ (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 27). In this regard, Bourdieu was opposed to the ‘deep intellectualism
of European philosophers who have overlooked the potential advantages of addressing
the body’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 98).
9 We ‘know’ the world intuitively through our bodies before we become ‘aware’ of the
world in a reflexive sense, and we know it with a knowledge that is shared with others
and which stems from community. Indeed, our body allows us to be ‘deaf to the world,
in an initiation to the world upon which rests the relationship between a thought and its
object, and which is always already complete when the reflexive return of the subject
takes place’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1945: 57).
10 Boltanski (2003).
11 I am immersed in the world before becoming aware of the world. Merleau-Ponty put
this as follows: ‘When I awake in me the consciousness of this social-mine (social-mien),
it is my whole past that I am able to conceive of […], all the convergent and discordant
action of the historical community that is effectively given to me in my living present’
(Merleau-Ponty, 1960b: 12).
12 On this point, see esp. Bourdieu (1987: 15).
13 Lefort (1978: 110).
14 This was best expressed in Merleau-Ponty’s later writings: ‘[T]he body overflows into
a world of which he carries the schemata [...] which continuously provokes in him
a thousand wonders’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1960a: 108). It is important to keep in mind
Merleau-Ponty’s insistence on the unconscious nature of the habitus: an ‘unconscious
incorporation of specific social dispositions in practice, as an individual or socialised
biological body, or as a social entity biologically individuate by incarnation’ (Merleau-
Ponty, 1997: 186). Thus, it develops on a daily basis through the subject’s constant
exposure to the social world. This essentially means that ‘my body has its world,
or understands its world without having to pass through representations, without
submitting itself to an objectivising function’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1997: 164).
15 See also Castoriadis (1997 [1978]-a).

References
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1995) Fin de siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of
Reason, London: Verso.
Ardizzone, Leoisa (2007) Gettin’ my Word Out: Voices of Urban Youth Activists. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Bénatouïl, Thomas (1999) ‘Critique et pragmatique en sociologie: quelques principes de
lecture’, Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales 54(2): 281–317.
268 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Boltanski, Luc (1990) L’amour et la justice comme compétences, Paris: Métailié.

Boltanski, Luc (2003) ‘Usages faibles, usages forts de l’habitus’, in Pierre Encrevé and Rose-
Marie Lagrave (eds.) Travailler avec Bourdieu, Paris: Flammarion, pp. 153–161.
Boltanski, Luc and Laurent Thévenot (1991) De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur,
Paris: Gallimard.
Boudon, Raymond (1998) ‘Social Mechanisms Without Black Boxes’, in Peter Hedström
and Richard Swedberg (eds.) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 172–203.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1972) Esquisse d’une Théorie de la Pratique, Précédé de Trois Études d’Ethnologie
Kabyle, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980) Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1987) Choses dites, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1997) Méditations pascaliennes, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2001) Science de la science et réflexivité, Paris: Raisons d’agir.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Jean-Claude Passeron (1968) Le métier
de sociologue. Préalables épistémologiques, Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales / Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) Réponses. Pour une Anthropologie Réflexive, Paris:
Seuil.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1975) L’institution imaginaire de la société, Paris: Seuil.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1996 [1978]) ‘Anthropologie, philosophie, politique’, in Cornelius
Castoriadis, La montée de l’insignifiance, les carrefours du labyrinthe IV, Paris: Seuil,
pp. 105–124.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997 [1978]-a) ‘Merleau-Ponty et le poids de l’héritage
ontologique’, in Cornelius Castoriadis, Fait et à faire, les carrefours du labyrinthe V, Paris:
Seuil, pp. 157–195.
Castoriadis, Cornelius (1997 [1978]-b) ‘De la monade à l’autonomie’, in Cornelius
Castoriadis, Fait et à faire, les carrefours du labyrinthe V, Paris: Seuil, pp. 85–107.
Corcuff, Philippe (1999) ‘Le collectif au défi du singulier : en partant de l’habitus’,
in Bernard Lahire (ed.) Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu : dettes et critiques, Paris:
La Découverte & Syros, pp. 95–120.
Corcuff, Philippe (2003) Bourdieu autrement : fragilités d’un sociologue de combat, Paris: Textuel.
Fourny, Jean-François (2000) ‘Bourdieu’s Uneasy Psychoanalysis’, SubStance 29(3): 103–112.
Fowler, Bridget (1997) Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations, London: Sage.
Frère, Bruno (2004) ‘Genetic Structuralism, Psychological Sociology and Pragmatic Social
Actor Theory: Proposals for a Convergence of French Sociologies’, Theory, Culture &
Society 21(3): 85–99.
Frère, Bruno (2005) ‘Quelle phénoménologie pour une sociologie du consensus ?’, Études
phénoménologiques 41–42: 243–266.
Husserl, Edmund (1964 [1928]) Leçon pour une phénoménologie de la conscience intime du temps,
trans. Granel Gérard, Paris: PUF.
Husserl, Edmund (1982 [1952]) Idées II, recherches phénoménologiques pour la constitution, trans.
Eliane Escoubas, Paris: PUF.
Husserl, Edmund (1994 [1950]) Méditations cartésiennes, trans. Marc de Launay, Paris: PUF.
Kuhn, Thomas (1983 [1962]) La structure des révolutions scientifiques, trans. Laure Meyer, Paris:
Flammarion.
Lahire, Bernard (1998) L’homme pluriel : les ressorts de l’action, Paris: Nathan.
Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction 269

Lahire, Bernard (1999a) ‘Esquisse du programme scientifique d’une sociologie

psychologique’, Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 106: 29–55.
Lahire, Bernard (1999b) ‘De la théorie de l’habitus à une sociologie psychologique’,
in Bernard Lahire (ed.) Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu : dettes et critiques, Paris:
La Découverte & Syros, pp. 121–152.
Lahire, Bernard (2004) La culture des individus. Dissonances culturelles et distinction de soi, Paris:
La Découverte.
Lefort, Claude (1978) ‘Réflexions sur de premiers commentaires’, in Claude Lefort, Sur une
colonne absente, Paris: Gallimard.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1945) Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris: Gallimard.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1960a) ‘Le langage indirect et les voix du silence’, in Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, Signes, Paris: Gallimard, pp. 63–135.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1960b) ‘Le philosophe et la sociologie’, in Maurice Merleau-
Ponty, Éloge de la philosophie, Paris: Gallimard, pp. 97–122.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1960c) ‘De Mauss à Claude Lévi-Strauss’, in Maurice Merleau-
Ponty, Éloge de la philosophie, Paris: Gallimard, pp. 123–142.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1964) L’œil et l’esprit, Paris: Gallimard.
Piaget, Jean (1970) Psychologie et épistémologie : Pour une théorie de la connaissance, Paris: Denoël.
Ricœur, Paul (1965) De l’interprétation : essai sur Freud, Paris: Seuil.
Scheler, Max (1993 [1926]) Problèmes de sociologie de la connaissance, trans. Sylvie Mesure, Paris:
PUF.
Schütz, Alfred (1962) ‘Phenomenology and the Social Sciences’, in Alfred Schütz, Collected
Papers, Volume I, The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, pp. 97–203.
Wolff, Kurt (1978) ‘Phenomenology and Sociology’, in T. B. Bottomore and Robert
A. Nisbet (eds.) A History of Sociological Analysis, New York: Basic Books, pp. 499–554.
CHAPTER TWELVE
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism:
Language and Habitus in Bourdieu

Hans-Herbert Kögler

Pierre Bourdieu’s conception of habitus marks a theoretical step which no

adequate understanding of social reality can ignore. By introducing habitus,
Bourdieu is able both to integrate and to transcend major insights of the
linguistic turn in philosophy, most prominently the idea that conscious
intentional understanding necessarily relies on a host of implicit, practical,
and holistic background assumptions which constitute meaning while being
themselves unrepresented (Searle, 1989). The concept of habitus incorporates
this idea since it shows that individual agency and its self-understanding are
constituted by relying on an acquired social sense, the cognitive habitus,
which defines how an agent understands, acts, and perceives itself and its
environment. At the same time, it transcends the philosophical thematisation
of a constitutive yet implicit background because it makes this hidden continent
of pre-understanding susceptible to empirical-analytic social science.
This major step is hailed in traditional social theory as well as by Bourdieu
himself as the mediation of agency and structure. It consists in reconstructing
how specific social environments (that is, the structural conditions of agency)
relate to and shape the internal sense of intentional agency (that is, the
individual first-person dimension of agency) (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]; 1990
[1980]). Habitus connects the two via a realm of pre-structured, schematised
modes of understanding that define the specific cognitive accomplishments
that any particular agent is capable of performing. Social analysis shows that
those cognitive performances can be typified, that they are quasi-determined
by the relationally constituted environments in which agents are situated,
and that therefore the realm of intentional reflexivity and decision-making
is to a large extent pre-figured (or literally ‘pre-conceived’) in terms of the
environmentally inculcated schemes that agents have previously acquired.
The trick of this mediation of agency and structure is to show that agents
272 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

require the habitus to enact the embodied typified pre-conceptions that derive
from social situations. Thus, the habitus is not itself just a form, scheme, or
structure, but rather the agent-based capability to enact, to bring into play,
to launch forward a certain understanding vis-à-vis an objective event or
situation – and yet, its capabilities can only be enacted via the drawing on
certain inculcated schemes, and thus remain in the end tied to an objectively
existing social context. The social-empirical study of intentional cognitive
attitudes has thus become possible.
Yet, the way in which Bourdieu conceives of the connection between
the symbolic-practical schemes and the capabilities that activate them does
not leave enough room for intentional and reflexive agency (Kögler, 1997;
Bohman, 1997; see also Turner, 1994). This is not, as has been said regarding
such criticisms, to deny that Bourdieu includes an account of consciously
strategic agency, even though its acts and practices are nevertheless largely
dependent on pre-accomplished modes of understanding (Foster, 2005).
Agents are indeed very much capable of reflexively adjusting their acts and
intentions to situations, albeit always on the basis of pre-structured schemes
of understanding. The real question, however, is how agency can come to
affect those interpretive schemes themselves, how the pre-accomplished
modes of self-understanding can be challenged such that (a) specific ways
of conceiving of something as something can be transformed and effectively
criticised, that is, how it can be challenged such that different ways of
understanding, feeling, and action become possible for the reflexively
engaged agent, and (b) the strategic functionalist mode of investing those
capabilities for an advantage for oneself in a situation or context could itself
be challenged, meaning that one’s existing mode of action for an agent could
be seriously evaluated in light of value assumptions that do not have merely
strategic value, but count intrinsically.
I will set out to show that Bourdieu’s mediation of agency and structure
owes too much to its departure from an overcoming of the one-sidedness of
semiotic structuralism. Bourdieu’s critique of Levi-Strauss’s neglect of the
temporal structure of gift exchange, which leads to the incomprehensibility
of structures-in-action, as it were, emphasises the focus on agency, which – to
avoid to complementary reduction of a free non-situated individual – remains
socially grounded via the habitus (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]). Yet, if we focus
specifically on Bourdieu’s account of language, we will see that his departure
from semiotic structuralism, which rightly needs to be overcome through a
more contextualist and pragmatic account, nevertheless fails to account fully
for the relatively autonomous realm of linguistic world-mediation. I will argue that
the capabilities related to habitus are capabilities operating always at both a
pre-linguistic and a post-linguistic level, that is, they can only be understood
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 273

as involving both pre-conceptual practical skills and linguistically mediated

conceptual frameworks. The way agents adjust their pre-understanding to a
situation owes to practical as well as linguistic moments, and the way in which
a socially inculcated habitus can disclose reality is itself dependent in part
on the linguistic level. Thus, to suggest a base-superstructure model between
social and linguistic habitus, to which Bourdieu appears to adhere, fails to
do justice to the co-constitution between practical and conceptual moments
in achieving an intentional approach to understanding. Yet, as we will see,
the linguistic dimension itself needs still to be understood in a practically
acquired and schematically mediated way, suggesting that overly conceptualist
or cognitivist accounts of linguistic understanding leave out the imaginative
perspective-taking based on socially situated meanings which define much of
social dialogue and understanding.
Accordingly, I will reconstruct how Bourdieu’s conception of habitus relates
to language. Specifically, this will involve an analysis and critique of how a
socially inculcated pre-linguistic habitus is supposed to relate to the linguistic
habitus, or to our linguistically mediated intentional pre-understanding. While
Bourdieu’s account in the end only illuminates one side of the equation – the
grounding relation between the social dimension vis-à-vis the linguistic one –
his analysis helps to build a richer conception. By doing so, we can hope to
make Bourdieu’s immensely rich empirical analyses accessible to a reflexive
account of agency that sees habitus-based conditions as sources of agency and
transformation. We can also hope to integrate the fruitful concept of habitus
into a body of social theory that is finally free from the traditional dualisms
of agency and structure, freedom and determinism, individual and society, to
conceive of social situations as mediated possibilities to interact creatively so as
to enhance the realm of options and opportunities. The mediating power of
the symbolic imagination, activated in intersubjective encounters wherein agents
release the creative force of empathetic and dialogical understanding, is thus
mobilised against an overly static and conservative understanding of habitus
as the arbiter of previously acquired meanings as self-identity.

1. The Limits of the Semiotic Model of Communication

In Saussure we find perhaps the best, and certainly the classic, expression
of semiotic structuralism, exemplified in his code-model of mutual
understanding. The guiding idea is that in order for two (or more) speakers
to communicate intelligibly with one another, their thoughts and beliefs have
to be expressed in a symbolic medium in which the speakers participate, or
according to which they articulate and structure their thoughts and beliefs.
According to this reading, substantiated by the early introduction of the
274 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

speech circuit as the model of his semiotics, Saussure’s semiotics sets out to
explain the possibility of successful communication (Saussure, 1983 [1915];
see also Lee, 1997, Taylor, 1992).1 An intentional speech act – inasmuch as it is
oriented towards making an intelligible statement – presupposes the existence
of a shared medium of expression.2
Saussure claims that it is essential for a sign as a sign that it has an identical
meaning for the speakers; historical or etymological knowledge is irrelevant for
this function. In order to understand the possibility of shared symbolic meaning,
it is thus necessary to leave the genetic point of view behind.3 To understand the
meaning of ‘house’, for instance, the knowledge regarding its ‘origin’ as a term is
superfluous. Identical meaning can simply be defined as a shared understanding
of certain symbols pertaining to the same ideas for the individual involved
in the communicative interaction. ‘All the individuals linguistically linked in
this manner will establish among themselves a kind of mean; all of them will
reproduce – doubtless not exactly, but approximately – the same signs linked
to the same concepts’ (Saussure, 1983 [1915]: 13). The speaker, assuming that
he or she can communicate with another speaker by means of symbols, has
to presuppose the possibility of being understood. This means that Saussure
privileges, albeit in a very general and structural fashion, the perspective of
the language-user. It is ultimately the idealised first-person perspective of the
speaker (who presupposes ‘the same signs linked to the same concepts’) that
determines the need for a structural linguistics.
Such a structural linguistics has the task to reconstruct precisely what kind
of system, or code, speaker and hearer rely on in order to explain the success of
communication. The genetic or ‘diachronic’ view has thus to be replaced by
a ‘synchronic’ view that analyses the functional properties and relations that
allow signs to have a meaning, that is, to be precise, a shared meaning. This view
alone allows us to capture the structural links that symbols establish between
different individuals communicating the sameness of the symbols used: ‘It is
clear that the synchronic point of view takes precedence over the diachronic,
since for the community of language users that is the one and only reality [...].
Synchrony has only one perspective, that of the language users’ (Saussure,
1983 [1915]: 13). Yet, this does not imply that speakers are conscious of the
structural properties of signs or symbolic orders on which they necessarily
draw in order to communicate. For Saussure, the essential task of a structural
linguistics, indeed the very birth certificate of this discipline as an autonomous
science, is precisely to reconstruct ‘objectively’ the underlying features of such
symbolic systems.4
In order to determine the nature of the code, Saussure rightly excludes
the physical-physiological aspects from consideration. We are interested not
in sounds as such, but in the ‘experienced’ sound-patterns that are endowed
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 275

with meaning. Similarly, we have to exclude individual speech from our

consideration. Saussure motivates this point, far less controversial, with the
argument that speech only ‘executes’ the underlying structure of language,
while the shared understanding can only be made possible – by definition –
by a dimension that is prior to, and both transcends and surpasses individual
intentional acts. Saussure understands that the question of shared meaning
forces one to consider language as a social phenomenon, and therefore feels
entitled to exclude the mere individual actualisation of the underlying,
meaning-enabling mechanism from semiotics. A speech act (parole) is defined
as ‘an individual act of will and intelligence’ in which speakers make use of
the underlying code provided by language; language-structure (langue) instead
creates and establishes a common medium, the code, as a sort of intermediary
ground between the speakers on the basis of which they can make themselves
understood to one another.
There is no space – and probably no need – to go into all the well-known
details of Saussure’s semiotics. Suffice it to recall that language-structure
(langue) is defined as a social, holistic, synchronic, and formal system. Language
can be defined as a system of signs. A sign can be defined as a material carrier
that ‘indicates’ or stands for something else (see also Cassirer, 1955 [1923]).
Hence, meaning is determined by a conceptual and by a material side.
A sign is a unified duality between signifier and signified, or sound image and concept/idea.
The association between a single signifier with a signified, however, is only
made possible by its difference to other signs. This is Saussure’s novel point.
The identity or meaning of a sign is thus determined neither by the prior
articulation of a thought nor by its reference to some fixed entity or thing, but
only by its difference to other symbolic units.5 We can identify two important
consequences following from this: first, the principle of arbitrariness, according
to which every sign system or language defines meaning through ‘arbitrary’
distinctions6; and second, the principle of internal differentiation, according to which
all the differences within a language are produced by the internal differences
of sound patterns that distinguish conceptual meanings and by conceptual
meanings that in turn define the differences between sound patterns.7
It is now crucial that a conventional system of signs mediates between
communicators so as to allow for shared meaning. As mentioned above,
Saussure grounds this thesis by submitting the more radical claim that the
very thought to be communicated would be impossible without a material
carrier, a symbolic articulation that structures the otherwise ‘amorphous mass’
(of thought) into ‘articulated’ and thus meaningful units (as in Cassirer, 1955
[1923]).8 This means that a Platonic conception of pre-linguistic conceptual
meaning is excluded; and since languages exist as conventional systems of
meaning, thought itself bears a conventional marker.
276 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Before noting several problems with this model, a remark is in order.

The claim that the speaker’s consciousness is symbolically structured does
not mean, as Dummett suggests, that Saussure never escaped an empiricist
psychology of association (Dummett, 1990: 131ff.). Symbolic relations are
‘associated’ in the mind of the speaker and express their meaning by being
structured by syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns of meaning. Yet,
those symbolic forms are, in a Durkheimian fashion, rendered as previously
constituted social media into which the self is socialised and out of which
each speaker builds up an ‘accumulated stock’ of patterns, thus defining
his or her specific linguistic competence. Accordingly, Saussure argues as
a social externalist by placing the meaning-constitution in the in-between of
speaker and hearer who are participating in the shared realm of symbolic
structuration, and not within a psychological realm of mental associations.9
Thus, an important step towards the mediation of language and meaning
has been undertaken. Nevertheless, despite these clarifications, three major
problems of the code-model remain.

1. Even though Saussure claims that the codes are constructed through speech,
(implying that the linguistically reconstructed code is in fact an abstraction
from embedded rules and norms), the social embeddedness of linguistic
competence is not adequately taken into account. The code is presented
as a formal and holistic grid that ultimately exists in a strictly demarcated
sphere of internal differences. In this lies its function of guaranteeing
meaning. Yet, a concept of symbolic sequence (such a syntagmatic or
paradigmatic semiotic relations (Saussure, 1983 [1915]: 121 ff.) needs
to be understood – and thus applied – in practical contexts, an application
which cannot be controlled or determined by the code itself (Stern, 2003;
Dreyfus, 1980; Wittgenstein, 1953). Since a formal rule can be interpreted
in a variety of ways, agents must already know how to understand the
rule. A new rule that would fix the interpretation cannot exist, because
it could be read in different ways; for the supposed ‘rule-of-application’,
the same problem (that is how exactly to understand it) would arise.
What is essential, however, is to know how to apply the rule. Accordingly,
agents have to possess some kind of practical know-how in order to
account for understanding here. This Wittgensteinian argument –
echoed by Gadamer’s thesis of the intertwinement of interpretation and
application (Gadamer, 1989 [1960]) – is evidenced by cultural studies that
show how processes of ‘encoding’ – producing a formal and analysable
structure of a text, a movie, an artwork, or a speech – do not predetermine
the ‘decoding’ of the intended meaning (Hall, 1980). Interpretive
understanding rather arises from an embedded, context-sensitive sense
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 277

that draws on a symbolico-practical background understanding which

is both more elusive and more pervasive than the mere application of
‘rules’. Bourdieu has a very clear grasp of this dimension of meaning, as
his concept of habitus is developed to render the intuitive, practical, and
embedded disclosure of meaning accessible to sociological analysis.
2. Saussure’s model does not entirely separate the code from the intentional
consciousness of the speaker, inasmuch as that code is introduced as a
quasi-transcendental presupposition of successful communication. This
general relation, however, does not translate into an interpretive connection
between background-code and interpretive performance. Owing to the
rigid methodological separation between langue and parole, between code
and speech act, linguistic change – albeit considered as ‘emanating’
from individual speech – is never able to exert any intended or conscious
influence on meaning. Echoing Durkheim, Saussure claims that langue
exists ‘external to the individual, who by himself is powerless either to
create it or to modify it’ (Saussure, 1983 [1915]: 14). While this statement is
plausible regarding the formal features of language, it leaves unaccounted
all processes of conscious adjustment and transformations of meanings
that agents derive from interactions with the world and others. In this
regard, Bourdieu follows in the questionable footsteps of the Saussurian
structuralist approach. As we will see, Bourdieu rejects and overcomes the
conceptualisation of language as langue or structure, which he replaces
with the notion of habitus; nonetheless, he retains a quasi-foundational
relation between habitus and agency, according to which intentional and
reflexive agency is seen as the dependent product and ‘actualisation’ of
the structural/schematic resources provided by habitus (Bohman, 1997;
Kögler, 1997).
3. Saussure’s model conceives of communication as a process enabled
through a shared structure, but the ‘sharedness’ is not understood as a mutual
and intersubjective bond of which the language-users are somewhat aware,
i.e. as an implicit normative order that binds speakers to certain (however
implicit) expectations and rules. Rather, the production of shared meaning
is explained in terms of a somewhat parallel actualisation of similarly
structured semiotic stocks. These objectively identical structures are
supposed to explain the sameness of meaning. This means that the experience
of shared meaning – that is, the fact that participants have an intuitive
knowledge of the norms and expectations that are ‘implied’ in the social
use of language – goes wholly unexplained. In fact, Saussure emphatically
rejects a ‘normative’ understanding of semiotic codes: ‘Synchronic laws are
general, but not imperative. It is true that a synchronic law is imposed upon
speakers by the constraints of communal usage. But we are not envisaging
278 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

here an obligation relative to the language users […]. A synchronic law

simply expresses an existing order’ (Saussure, 1983 [1915]: 91). Saussure
entirely misses the implicit normativity that inheres in linguistic usage.
Participation in linguistic practices, as we will see below, entails indeed
a normative dimension, it compels speakers to behave and express
themselves in specific ways, and it entails presuppositions that speakers, by
use of linguistic means, can be held accountable for. Instead of rendering
the sharedness of meaning solely in terms of regularity, the intersubjective
performance of language asks for an analysis of the normativity of the rules
that are followed.

Here, Bourdieu equally fails to include the intentional normative sense of rules
and assumptions inherent in linguistically mediated practices, such that their
violation – that is the experience of someone or something running counter to
what is expected and demanded by normal language use – is greeted with a
critical response. Often, such violations may lead to a demand for justification,
such that the unexpected behaviour becomes understandable action in light of
new reasons that are provided for it (Brandom, 2000). Bourdieu understands
that there is a certain inherent normativity in language use, but analyses this
mainly in terms of symbolic power, i.e. in light of a normal and normalised
order that is – à la Saussure – conventionally imposed onto an existing
situation. The internal organisation of the symbolic order is then explained
via disproportionally available resources, which define different social positions,
and thus different access-relations to differently constituted social environments,
including different socially inculcated skills and practices, which coalesce
to a social habitus. The sharedness of meaning is thus fully explained by the
structural-holistic organisation of the background of an intentional speaker.
This analysis is based on an agency-structure model for which the
intersubjective relation is a later result, which in turn can be explained via the
different habitus formations that are involved, and which in turn respond and
are reconfigured through the experience of agents with different resources
and habitus. In the social context as a whole, habitus functions as capital,
as skills and cognitive-social capabilities, which are agent-based and agent-
incorporated resources to advance one’s social position (Bourdieu, 1977
[1972]; 1990 [1980]; 1985) [1984]). They function as means for the realisation
of one’s interests and goals which are themselves essentially shaped by one’s
habitus, as one generally attempts to reach that which is within one’s reach.
The intentional orientation at one’s interests or values is thus conceptualised
vis-à-vis the socially encountered other, with whom one may assess the legitimacy
of one’s claims, but it is explained by means of socially produced, causally
induced background structures that produce an intuitive, practical, embedded
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 279

self-understanding via habitus. Accordingly, while Bourdieu’s practical move

advances significantly over the semiotic structuralism of Saussure, he retains
some of the methodological baggage of structuralism in the way in which he
conceptualises habitus as the underlying resource of intentional agency. To
situate our post-Saussurian analysis and critique of Bourdieu in this context,
however, we have to situate it more explicitly alongside with the normative
post-Wittgensteinian approach to communicative meaning.

2. Two Models of Linguistic Meaning: Validity Claims

versus Practical Dispositions
Our critique of Saussure’s code-model provides us with a sense for the
necessary desiderata of a revised conception of shared linguistic meaning, and
thus a linguistically mediated reflexive agency. Such a conception would have
to be able to include the context-sensitive applications of terms and sentences,
it would have to account for reflexive transformations of meanings, and it
would certainly have to account for the implicit normative dimension that
inheres in language-use. Yet, at the same time, such a theory would still have
to be able to designate ‘something’ as the common ground, it still requires
a medium that accounts for shared meaning. The perhaps obvious move, in
fact undertaken by the currently dominating turn toward performativity, is
to locate the rules that speaker and hearer follow within the performative practices
themselves. Instead of projecting (through a methodological objectification
of underlying intuitive presuppositions such as ‘sharing a code’) an external
system of symbolic relations, the rules and structures that bind agents to one
another are now seen as existing ‘within’, as being internal to communicative
practices. The turn from the code-model to the paradigm of performativity
consists precisely in the translocation of rule or structure – or, to be exact,
structuration (cf. Giddens, 1994) – into interpretive performance itself.
Now that this practical-communicative move has been undertaken, we
may follow an ideal-typical path, in two highly divergent and yet somewhat
complementary ways. On the one hand, we find the approach of speech act theory
which takes its cues from the late Wittgenstein, but attempts to systematise
the idea of rule-following in communicative contexts so as to derive some
universal presuppositions of meaning, truth, and understanding (Wittgenstein,
1953; Searle, 1969; 1995; Habermas, 1983/1987 [1981]). This paradigm
assumes that speakers reach communicative understanding through a set of
standardised uses understood as shared counterfactual norms. On the other
hand, the post-structuralist approach, as found in Foucault and Bourdieu, sets
out to analyse the ways in which speakers are constrained by implicit discursive
rules or practices (as it were, ‘normalising norms’) that shape perception,
280 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

conception, and action. Instead of aiming at universal conditions that would in

counterfactual idealisation be able to account for the success of our meaning-
intentions and truth-claims, this approach shows how the actual success
(or failure) of particular speech acts is grounded in underlying grids of
speech performances. We thus witness a dramatic split, indeed a deep
internal rift in the approaches toward linguistic performativity. The internal
reconstruction of ‘underlying’ performance-rules is either taken to account
for the possibility of intersubjective communication and shared meaning;
or it is employed as a critical means to unmask the necessary myths and
misrecognitions that precisely inhere in the universal value-orientation
which defines, among others, the speech act approach. While speech act
theory aims at a reconstruction of the universalist presuppositions that it
takes to underlie our truth-oriented sense of shared meaning, the discourse-
theoretical approach uses the reconstruction of implicit rules of performative
acts as a critique of the symbolic-social power that is usually exercised within
such practices.10
The speech act approach claims to save our universalist and truth-
oriented intuitions by providing a new ‘performative’ basis for intersubjective
meaning. The basic idea is that a speaker, much like the idea that drove
Saussure in the first place, can only avoid a ‘performative self-contradiction’
(that is, a conflict between intentional content and their speech performance)
by assuming that shared meaning is possible. A closer analysis shows that
the sameness of meaning is not sufficiently guaranteed by syntactical or
semantic rules, but requires a pragmatic understanding of the context in
which terms and sentences are used (Habermas, 1992). Yet, the pragmatic
grounding does not open the door to contextualism or relativism, since it
is possible to reconstruct types or standards inherent in language-use that
define literal meaning.11
Habermas’s version of speech act theory, the ‘theory of communicative
action’, is particularly instructive in this respect (Habermas, 1983/1987
[1981]). Habermas argues that a speaker, by entering into communicative
contexts, willy nilly comes to participate in a normatively structured situation
in which he or she is taken, however implicitly, to raise exactly three validity
claims. The idea is that speakers usually assume that what they say is true,
that it follows rationally acceptable moral norms, and that it expresses an
authentic intention on the side of the speaker. Such normative orientations
are latent in everyday speech, and become manifest once one or several of the
claims are contested: then the speaker has to provide reasons for why she
said what she said – and the broken intersubjective understanding can only
be redeemed by filling in the gaps interrupting the sharedness of sense. The
sharedness of meaning is thus, in a certain sense, based on the counterfactual
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 281

assumption that valid reasons can be provided in case of need. For Habermas,
this shows that meaning and validity are mutually presupposing concepts, because
the understanding of an utterance can be explained by ‘knowledge of the
conditions under which a hearer may accept it. We understand a speech act when
we know what makes it acceptable [i.e. what assumed conditions of validity make it
acceptable, HHK]’ (Habermas, 1983 [1981]: 297, italics in original).
Habermas’s communicative theory does take into account the contextual
embedding of meaning by granting that every speech act must, in order to make
sense, draw on an implicit horizon of pre-understandings. Those background
assumptions – which, according to Habermas, are situated in what he calls
the ‘lifeworld’ – form a context in which statements are usually embedded,
in which they initially are defined and developed. For Habermas, however,
the intended meaning of utterances is not encapsulated in – that is, it is
not bound by – their initial contexts of use. Habermas assumes that this
is the case because, even in the most concrete circumstances, statements
are uttered with the (however implicit) communicative understanding
of being true, right, and authentic; they thus imply, by definition of
their context-transcending validity claims, a wider, in fact an ultimately
‘endless’ or universal context of meaning. Because the initial assumptions
are intertwined with context-transcending claims, the meaning that is
first shaped in particular circumstances is taken to be capable of being
‘transmitted’ to any other context.
Now it is precisely this claim of the possibility of context-transcendence that
the competing paradigm of performance-rules by Foucault and Bourdieu
puts into question. In order to not miss the exact point of the opposition,
however, it is important to see that the contextual embeddedness in rule-
governed contexts is in fact not so much an issue just of ‘rules’ – rules
the discourse-analyst is capable of reconstructing – but rather one of
the practical capabilities, the embodied dispositions and skills that form the
background for the application of rules in contexts. These contextual rules
are considered formative of meaning by Foucault and Bourdieu. Following
Wittgenstein, rules are not defining meaning-contexts ‘on their own’, but are
deeply ingrained into, and operative through, the cognitive and interpretive
skills and practices of situated agents. Foucault’s attack on the humanistic
self-understandings of modern institutions – including modern concepts
of ‘madness’, ‘health’, ‘man’, ‘punishment’, and ‘sexuality’ (Foucault, 1979
[1975]; 1990 [1966]; 1994 [1976]) – as much as Bourdieu’s reconstruction
of the class-bases of certain cognitive capacities draws on the claim that
social practices and its related practical sense pre-structures and thus pre-
directs all conscious, if you wish, rule-governed behaviour (Bourdieu, 1977
[1972]). Bourdieu defines the practical sense as ‘habitus’, as a generative
282 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

capacity to produce certain statements and utterances; it always already

organises the perceptions, thoughts and actions of agents according to an
implicit grid that has been acquired in specific social circumstances:

The conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence

produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structural
structures, that is, as principles which generate and organise practices and
representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without
presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations
necessary in order to attain them. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 15)

To be sure, Habermas might reply to such a form of ‘practical reductionism’

that the actual communicative capacities of speakers are misconstrued if
rendered ‘grounded’ in contextually circumscribed understandings. Yet, the
claim that agents are in fact capable of transcending their contextually acquired
boundaries – boundaries that are assumed to be now operating from within
the agent – needs to be cashed in by more than just a repeated reference to
the inherent universal validity claims. This is so because the fact that discourse
is oriented towards truth, morality, and authenticity is not an assumption that
Foucault or Bourdieu leave on the side. Rather, it is part of their theories
that the practical and power-laden dispositions work as effectively as they do
precisely because agents consider their communicative performances as usually
being true, right, or correct; the implicit ‘modus operandi’ that distributes the
contextual resources differently so that certain statements and assumptions are
‘true’, while others are ‘false’ (and ‘illegitimate’, ‘subcultural’, ‘abnormal’, etc.)
are, literally, in the background. The ‘misrecognition’ of statements is being
guided by a socially inculcated sense that reproduces power; it works on the
basis of – and not despite – the assumption that we are all oriented towards
truth and validity, and that such truth and validity is, at least in principle,
attainable for everyone.
Habermas had already in the seventies presented a theory of moral
and cognitive development that was supposed to show how the speaker
reaches, through maturing through different stages of cognitive and moral
understanding, a universal standpoint (Habermas, 1979: 69 ff.; Habermas,
1990). Yet, the claim of such a formal reconstruction – that uses the normative
ideal of a trans-contextual perspective to reconstruct the empirical emergence
of such an understanding in each individual speaker – is subject to the very
criticism as the communication theory itself. It is remains unclear how the
universal standpoint is capable of disentangling itself from the practically
acquired modes of self-understanding, given that such modes are more
deeply ingrained in the communicative background – or the self for that
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 283

matter – than discursive rules. The reference to the normative dimension

is by itself incapable of convincing us that situated speakers are capable
of actualising its force, that they are up to the normative implications
that their discourse demands – granted that communications implies such
value-orientation. This problem is intrinsic to the universalist theory of
speech performance, since the communicative coordination of action
through speech is taken to be embedded in, and to arise from, concrete
cultural and social contexts.12
The discussion has shown that each side has to defend a certain
understanding of the background in order to make its position work. For
Habermas, the meaningful background of communication cannot be
considered resisting its communicative representation; whatever the initial
assumptions are, it must be possible to articulate and explicate them in
discursive communication so as to reach possible agreement about what’s
at stake and what’s justifiable. For Foucault and Bourdieu, on the other
hand, the background must essentially resist such reflexive explication, at
least if their position is understood as implying inescapable power relations.
Here, the critical theoretical explication of the structures of the social
world never really catches up with its true nature and operating principle,
which continues to belief in the pro-claimed normative value-orientations.
Habermas’s position must assume that the promise of possible understanding
within language can (in whatever regulative manner) be fulfilled, whereas
the poststructuralist position suggests we abandon this promise in order to
see through its illusion. Yet, how intentional and critical agency may then be
possible presents a major challenge for poststructuralist perspectives.
At this point I suggest that we should agree that we cannot simply dismiss
the practical embeddedness of intentional agents, but that we also need to
do justice to the relative autonomy of intersubjective communication, to the
capacity of an agent as well as an interpretive social theorist to understand
and exchange views regarding oneself and the other within a shared medium
of meaning. We need to preserve this dimension of our shared everyday as
well as theoretical understanding without denying that meaning entails in
its background dimensions relations of power. If this is granted, the task
becomes to show how the contextual embeddedness pointed out by Foucault
and Bourdieu doesn’t undermine the capacity of interpretive dialogue and
intersubjective communication, and that intentional agency is capable of
a reflexive self-understanding within a medium of theoretical articulation
which entails the reconstruction of power without reducing to its exercise. If
we want to find a way out of the dialectic of normative reason and practical
power, we have to find a conception of understanding that is able to
mediate between, on the one side, normative orientations and their
284 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

intentional self-understanding and, on the other side, the contexts of their

embeddedness which entail power relations through inculcated practical
dispositions. In order to prepare the ground for such a new understanding,
we will now take a closer look at how Bourdieu conceives of the relation
between language and power. In particular, we will reconstruct how the
conception of habitus is employed to make sense of the linguistic mediation
of reality and experience as grounded in social existence, i.e. power.

3. Language, Habitus, and Symbolic Power

Bourdieu assumes that an agent’s capacity to speak – including the capacities
to perceive, to think, and to act – are built up in the context of symbolic
social practices that shape an implicit sense, a hermeneutic pre-understanding.
Bourdieu can thereby sketch a theory of symbolic power in which the role of
language is conceived in terms of the concrete social contexts that establish
a speaker’s authority and guarantee shared intersubjective understanding.
Accordingly, Bourdieu does not define the construction of an agent’s or
speaker’s identity vis-à-vis truth-oriented discourse (as Habermas does), but
suggests that the overall competence to perform any speech act, in specialised
discourses as well as in the social lifeworld, depends on the acquisition of
skills and capabilities that are embodied in a linguistic habitus that in turn
is grounded in social practices of power. Accordingly, with Bourdieu we can
further pursue the most pressing questions of our inquiry at this point: to
what extent are speakers shaped and constituted by the language they speak,
inasmuch as this language reflects the social conditions of their existence,
including relations of power and domination? More generally, how do social
practices and institutions shape the symbolic meaning through which speakers
make sense of the world and of themselves?
My thesis is that as a basic approach to these questions, Bourdieu grounds the
linguistic habitus (the symbolically mediated background assumptions, values, and
skills) in the social habitus (the socially inculcated and context/class-specific knowledges,
skills, and practices) which leads ultimately to a problematic and under-analysed
identification of both background dimensions. While this move establishes a
crucial connection between intentional linguistic understanding and practices
with social background structures, it disregards – or, at least, underestimates –
the creative, reflexive, and critical potential that agents possess via the medium
of language as such. Bourdieu fails to explore the critical gap that exists
between the background inculcation of certain attitudes and assumptions, and
the potential, which is grounded in their symbolic form, of transcending those
assumptions in order to explore different attitudes, alternative interpretations,
and contrasting viewpoints. Nonetheless, his discussion of habitus, both in its
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 285

social and its linguistic form, clarifies the dimension of the social background
for any further theory of situated social agency.13
Regarding language, Bourdieu argues that what linguistics takes to
be a natural product, or the essence of language as such, is in fact the
production of political and social efforts at the unification or ‘normalisation’
of linguistic practices (Bourdieu, 1994, esp. 1994a). The process of
‘codification’ involves that unruly and open linguistic practices, which are
spread out into many different contextual forms, are subjected to some
kind of ‘streamlining’ procedure. What grammarians are analysing is thus
not a mental or biological given, but a social product produced in part by
the very activity claiming to discover its inherent structures. Accordingly,
language as a Saussurian code, as a set of rules that exists in terms of strict
syntactic mechanisms and fixed lexical meanings, is nothing but a fiction –
albeit, since the birth of the national state and its educational system, a real
because realised one: ‘Linguists merely incorporate into their theory a pre-
constructed object, ignoring its social laws of construction and masking
its social genesis’ (Bourdieu, 1994a: 44). Opposing what linguists take to
be the underlying essential reality of language, that it is a code, Bourdieu
claims that the law-like nature of ‘language’ is (a) a symbolic construction
that produces what it claims to find, i.e. it is a codification of what exists
in plural and practical contexts in a pragmatic and open-ended manner;
and (b) a social imposition that has, once ‘grammatically’ established, been
opposed to the everyday speech practices in order to normalise the social
and cognitive behaviour of its agents:

Produced by authors who have the authority to write, fixed and codified by
grammarians and teachers who are also charged with the task of inculcating its
mastery, the language is a code, in the sense of a cipher enabling equivalences to be
established between sounds and meanings, but also in the sense of a system of norms
regulating linguistic practices. (Bourdieu, 1994a: 45, italics added)

The code in Saussure (or for that matter ‘depth grammar’ in Chomsky) is in
fact produced by the social context which brings about the transformation of
linguistic practices into structured and codified entities. The concrete social
context which functions as the causal site of this particular creation is the
nation state, in the course of which local linguistic practices become subjected
to the norm created via an official national language. Thus, ‘dialects’ become
possible only against the official establishment of, say, ‘French’. Bourdieu
can show how the development of the modern state produced the need and
politics of a unified national language. In this context, normative grammar
is established, and the micro-practices of teaching and supervising linguistic
286 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

norms and conventions – such as spelling, pronunciation, and style – help to

produce a legitimate language.

[In France], the imposition of the legitimate language in opposition to the dialects
and patois was an integral part of the political strategies aimed at perpetuating
the gains of the revolution through the production and the reproduction of the
‘new man’. […] To reform language, to purge it of the usages linked to the old
society and impose it in its purified form, was to impose a thought that was itself
purged and purified. […] The conflict between the French of the revolutionary
intelligentsia and the dialects of the patois was a struggle for symbolic power in
which what was at stake was the formation and re-formation of mental structures.
(Bourdieu, 1994a: 47–48)14

For grammarians, these accountants of national languages thus help to create

the socially recognised reality of a normed, and thus ‘normal’, language,
which was also used to generate new universal forms of thinking. The new
French, however, needed to be imposed on the dialect-speaking subjects;
and, as critical sociologists, we need to examine how this was possible.15 If
there are different attitudes with regard to language and how to speak, we
need to explain how subjects who speak patois are able to accept French as
the legitimate language, how they come to perceive themselves as speaking
‘dialect’. How is it that speakers subordinate their own identities to the
ones imposed by the state, especially if they do not gain but lose symbolic
recognition in this process?
Bourdieu’s answer is prepared by the rephrasing of this problem, which
entails that symbolic power requires the cooperation of the oppressed. In other words,
the speakers themselves have to accept the view of ‘French’ as the legitimate
language, so as to allow the symbolic (state) power to take hold of them: ‘All
symbolic power presupposes, on the part of those who submit to it, a form
of complicity which is neither passive submission to external constraint nor
a free adherence to it’ (Bourdieu, 1994a, 50–51). The question is now how
this complicity is brought about, what makes it possible, since it is obviously
against the interests of those who submit to it because it denigrates them
to a subordinate position. In order to explain this phenomenon, Bourdieu
introduces a set of theoretical concepts, the most important of which is the
social habitus and its derivative form, the linguistic habitus. It is here that we
find the core thesis of Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power which consists in
the grounding of intentional linguistic self-understanding in a prior cognitive
mode, the habitus, which acquires a quasi-foundationalist meaning with
regard to reflexive agency.
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 287

Bourdieu rightly rejects the (itself one-sided and problematic) view that
the social world is constitutively created by the conscious and intentional
use of linguistic symbols. He rather assumes that agents acquire, in the
context of early childhood socialisation, a social habitus that pre-schematises
their perception, thought and action by internalising structural features of
their social environment. The general capacity of selves to adjust creatively
and spontaneously to the ever-changing demands of social situations are
thus not the free or conscious project of the subject, acting either alone or
‘intersubjectively’. They are rather made possible by general, yet flexible,
interpretive schemes that equip agents with the necessary skills to cope with their
immersion in different social situations. Being relieved from the impossible
task to always interpret anew, agents acquire a pre-conscious sense of how
to react, how to perceive, how to speak, etc., i.e. their social habitus. These
habitus formations or schemes are socially differentiated, since they are
acquired and shaped by the social situation within which agents grow up,
and thus reflect or represent the economic, educational, cultural, gendered
etc. relations that define the respective social environments. Those objective
conditions are nonetheless transformed into embodied schemes and skills
that enable agents to smoothly adjust and react to the present. As such,
habitus provides the agents with different skills, with a different form of
‘capital’, to participate in social institutions, or ‘fields’. The habitus provides
a precondition of one’s successful participation in public life, one which is
nonetheless differently shaped according to social background (Bourdieu,
1977 [1972]; 1990 [1980]).
For our context, the aspect of the unconscious and pre-linguistic nature of habitus
is most important. For Bourdieu, the habitus is acquired prior to the conscious use
of symbols, indeed to any use of linguistic symbols at all:

There is every reason to think that the factors which are most influential in
the formation of the habitus are transmitted without passing through language and
consciousness, but through suggestions inscribed in the most apparently insignificant
aspect of the things, situations and practices of everyday life. Thus the modalities
of practices, the ways of looking, sitting, standing, keeping silent, or even of
speaking (‘reproachful looks’ or ‘tones’, ‘disapproving glances’ and so on) are full
of injunctions that are powerful and hard to resist precisely because they are silent
and insidious, insistent and insinuating. (Bourdieu, 1994a: 51, italics added)

The fact that in many ways the sense of the situation – that is, of what is appropriate,
expected, adequate, acceptable – is not conveyed through the explicit and
conscious use of symbols, but in an insinuating and holistic manner, suggests
288 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

for Bourdieu that a pre-linguistic habitus builds up as a fixed and thus extremely
effective stabilisation of meaning.

The power of suggestion which is exerted through the things and persons and
which, instead of telling the child what he must do, tells him what he is, and thus
leads him to become durably what he has to be, is the condition of the effectiveness
of all kinds of symbolic power that will subsequently be able to operate on a (thereby created)
habitus predisposed to respond to them. (Bourdieu, 1994a: 52, italics added)

Accordingly, a social habitus is built up ‘without passing through language

and consciousness’ (Bourdieu, 1994a: 51). It is pre-linguistically created
in holistically structured social situations, and importantly, it pre-structures
the linguistic habitus, that is, the way a subject speaks, expresses itself, and
thinks with and through a language. The basic social habitus is defined as an
internalised scheme of meaning that adjusts the subject to the situation; it is
made up of embodied ‘assumptions’ derived from former experiences within
the objective environment; the experiences are thus organised as a quasi-
worldview.16 Because this adjustment gets incorporated into a bodily scheme, it
does not require reflective or explicit application; subjects are, on the contrary,
always already attuned to the power-defined and hierarchical structures
they know best because they grew up in them. Agents know practically
and intuitively (and in this way much better than by means of reflexive
thematisation) what to say, to think, to do, or to perceive:

The conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence

produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structural
structures, that is, as principles which generate and organise practices and
representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without
presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations
necessary in order to attain them. (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]: 15)

We thus encounter a theory close to Heidegger’s ‘practical holism’, as

understood by Hubert Dreyfus, according to which meaning, in our case the
social sense of the situation as well as the capacities to think and speak, is
preformed and basically anchored to provide a meaningful ground for the
use of linguistic symbols in intentional, conscious and intersubjective speech
(Dreyfus, 1980; 1993; Heidegger, 1962 [1927]). The habitus is supposed
to explain how agents internalise what we could call a symbolic inferiority
complex: they cannot but speak the socially based idiolect which defines, via
the world-disclosing function of language, their self-understanding. At the
same time, the agents cannot fail but recognise their own difference to the
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 289

official code, and thus must assess the value and acceptability of their own
speech practices in light of the legitimate languages: ‘All linguistic practices
are measured against the legitimate practices, i.e. the practices of those who
are dominant’ (Bourdieu, 1994a, 53). Thus, the linguistic habitus is supposed
to explain both the enduring nature of dialects, which are based on different
social conditions of existence, and the universal acceptance of the legitimate
code, which is inculcated through all sorts of micro-practices like school-
teaching, media, etc., and which helps to maintain the power-differentiated
status quo of the social order.
Yet, the question is whether we can assume that the linguistic habitus – and
therefore the very notion of linguistic agency – is as strongly tied to particular
social conditions, including specifically defined cognitive competences, as
Bourdieu claims. If it is true, this claim would suggest a full constitution of
speakers by social power. If the use of language is grounded in a linguistic
habitus, which in turn relies on a social habitus formed through unconscious,
practical interaction with one’s environment, then speech practices can be
nothing but the expression of that underlying disposition. It is hard to see then
how speakers could critically reassess or change their habitual structures, since
they are inculcated into a level of ‘understanding’ that escapes the conscious
and intentional use of symbols.17

4. Linguistic Habitus and the Social Sources of Agency

Bourdieu’s intended overcoming of the agency/structure divide can appear
to be reductionist vis-à-vis agency due to its subordination of linguistic habitus
to social habitus. Indeed, assuming that a habitus forms fully on the level of
pre-linguistic and unconscious processes of agency-development deprives the
reflectively acting subject of a major tool: namely, the capability to not only
orient his or her actions or beliefs towards something directly encountered (so
to speak, in front of it), but also the ability to engage in a reflexive restructuration
and reconfiguration of those background assumptions and schemes that disclose
something as something in the first place. While the social theorist in
Bourdieu’s case is capable of unearthing the habitus formations as the implicit
background actor that pre-configures what appears as meaningful and real
in a social context, the agents themselves remain subject to the capital they
received due to prior socialisation that they are bound to invest as is. Precisely
this division, however, would cut off the critical force that social theory could
unleash with regard to the reflexive agency of which agents themselves could
prove capable. And precisely this move, I suggest, comes about by unduly
reducing the role of language in the mediation of individual agents with their
objective environments, or in the constitution of habitus.18
290 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

This can be shown by going back to what habitus can possibly mean in
the context of a theory of agency, Bourdieu’s social theory included. If a
social habitus is integrated into a conception of human agency, it must entail
a constitutive relation to intentional agency, because without intentional
concepts agency cannot be made sense of (Winch, 1991 [1959]). Bourdieu’s
important and convincing move is to sacrifice any Cartesian assumption
of pre-existing capacities for a methodological socialism that assumes that
capabilities emerge within the context of social relations. Those relations,
however, are always already situated in objective contexts that determine
how the emergent capabilities are de facto constituted. The cognitive
resources on which agents can draw, their cognitive accomplishments as
individual bearers of intentional processes, carry the irrevocable stamp of
their environments, their relative wealth or poverty, with regard to certain
conditions that enable the development of certain cognitive processes. Since
we cannot assume any objective or independent access to the objects of
intentional disclosure, the capacities are defined relative to their contextual
usefulness, which in turn is defined in terms of the established contexts
or fields which make some capacity relevant and important. As explained
above, Bourdieu conceives the contextual structures such that they shape the
social habitus – the agent-based capabilities – which thereby become (a) an
objective reflection of the existing social environments and (b) a subjectively
incorporated scheme of understanding that directs the intentional cognition
of the respective individual agent.
The important step beyond and advantage over semiotic structuralism
consists in the designation of the habitus as agent-based intentional capabilities.
Thereby, the structures are not externally patched onto an otherwise
unaffected individual, but they are shown to function as internal resources,
as inner-cognitive dimensions of self-understanding, as true symbolic forms
that define what counts for an agent as his or her self-understanding, because
only thus can it delimit what he or she can possibly think, perceive, feel or
do. Yet, the problematic feature of this move is that the meaning-constitutive
force of linguistic concepts and assumptions in the constitution of habitus is
not sufficiently taken into account, which means that the thematisation of
the structuring forces on the habitus must remain, via methodological fiat,
one-sided. This critique is not based on an individualist or normative truth-
oriented intuition; rather, it draws on a reconstruction of how a habitus,
understood as agent-based capabilities, must be formed so that it can internally
relate to the self-understanding of the agent. To do so, it must entail capabilities that
define the agent’s self-understanding. It must track on the level at which an agent
can possibly relate to herself or himself as such-and-such an individual. To do
so, however, it must entail linguistic concepts and assumptions. It must entail
a symbolically mediated dimension that cannot be fully constituted prior to
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 291

that level, because then the agent would not be an agent that is constituted at
least in part via that self-understanding, which itself is part of the conceptual
idea of being a human agent (Taylor, 1985; Humboldt, 1988 [1836]). Human
agency is essentially defined by being constituted of having a reflexive relation
to oneself, which needs to be taken into account when one is to mediate
the intentional and reflexive understanding with an agent’s dependency on
external conditions and structures (Mead, 1934; Sokal and Sugarman, 2010).
Agency entails consciousness of oneself as an agent in the context of a given
identity and situation. It also entails the assumption that one can distinguish
between self-chosen and externally caused phenomena and events. Only if
an agent is capable of establishing a self-relation in which his or her own
understanding can be susceptible to an analysis where the agent can have an
effect on the beliefs and actions of the agent himself or herself can we speak
of human agency (Kögler, 2010). Yet, since the agent is essentially situated in
a social context from which his or her capabilities emerge, we must name a
medium in which the agent can define his or her agency with regard to himself
or herself and the environment. In other words, it must be possible for an
agent to reconstruct his or her own identity, to analyse how one is situated
socially, how one can aim for certain goods, project certain goals, all in light of
an assessment of the situation. And this analysis must (potentially) include a
reconstruction of the agent’s own limits vis-à-vis the encountered challenges.
Thus, only if the linguistic mediation of an agent’s self-understanding is taken
into account can those demands be fulfilled. The fact that the linguistic habitus
is a schematised pre-understanding that derives from an accumulated stock
of experiences and encounters that coalesced into a pattern of habits and
expectations, of skills and assumptions, allows for a reflexive thematisation
of agency via its own intentional focus. It is important to note, however, that
the very idea of habitus as an internally operative background of intentional
cognition itself requires that it is intrinsically connected to language or
linguistically mediated concepts and values. This is because only if it affects
these beliefs and assumptions does it really concern the level that in turn
shapes an agent’s self-understanding.19
To insist, this is not an external point against Bourdieu’s conception of
agency, but amounts to an immanent criticism and even constructive explication
of the implications of his position that attempts to mediate between agency
and structure. The capabilities that define habitus can only come into play
if actualised in the context of social fields, in which they function both as
competence and as capital. Nevertheless, agents must be capable to orient
their input at the value-orientations in the respective fields, which requires
a practico-conceptual grasp of their intentional structure. Clearly, the value
themselves as much as their substantive and socially shared interpretations
are not consciously represented; an unconscious grasp, however, is therefore
292 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

not pre-conceptual, as the disclosure within which the actions take place is
already saturated by the understanding of the values (Weber, 1978 [1914];
Winch, 1991 [1959]; Dilthey, 2004 [1910]). This becomes clear when their
normative-intentional orientation is not fulfilled, such as when expectations
are disappointed and agents make claims explicit. While the critical disruption
of existing practices may thus help to bring to light – both in the practice itself
as well as for the theorist – that they indeed entail a normative infrastructure,
this fact cannot, as illustrated in the above critique of Habermas, lead one to
idealise the practice in terms of formally abstract rules and apart from the
embodied and inculcated forms of practical skills and capacities that define its
local grounding. The fact that human agency is intentionally structured does
not challenge the deeply social grounding, but it anchors within the symbolically
mediated contexts the basic capability to reconstruct how a particular practice
understands itself in light of its linguistically articulated concepts as well as
its practical contexts. That the understanding of human agency requires
intentional concepts, which in turn require linguistic mediation, can be made
clear by three arguments (see also Kögler/Stueber, 2000).

1. The interpretive identification of an action as an action requires the

bringing into play of what the action intends to realise, what it is aiming
at. If we lack a purpose or value or goal at which an action aims, we are
hard pressed to identify it as an action at all (Stueber, 2004). Yet, such a
purpose or goal must be one that can be articulated, and thus can only exist
in a linguistically mediated form (Gadamer, 1989 [1960]; Kögler, 1999).
This is a quasi-transcendental argument which suggests that the medium of
identification of an action forces us to attribute some conceptual structure
to its nature (Habermas, 1988 [1968]).
2. The concrete identification that is attributed to an action as such-and-such
has to be formulated by the social scientist or interpreter who develops
a conceptual-linguistic account of what goes on. By assuming that this
account captures, at least to an extent, the action at stake, and by means
of the need to only thus be able to identify the act, the linguistic mediation
and thus articulation inheres intrinsically within action. This means that
the methodological requirement to be able to account for how one is able to
identify the action which one is reconstructing requires that they can be
explicated. This requirement would be undercut if we were to attribute
the full meaning constitution to a pre-conceptual level which would resist
any explication. In that case, any account of the social scientist would be
but an arbitrary projection upon a practical continent forever withdrawn
from our eyes, and therefore an account as good as any other, or none.
Moreover, if this pre-conceptual level would be meaning-constitutive, and
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 293

as such form the background understanding of the social scientist, his or

her explicit understanding would (a) remain encapsulated in his or her own
habitus, and (b) never catch up with the explicit meanings that it portrays
as the other’s self-understanding. Bourdieu can claim, as he does, that in
addition to the conceptual articulation of aesthetic habitus formations, as
so brilliantly executed in Distinction (1985 [1984]), a practical skill-based
level persists. Yet, he must grant that the symbolic interpretation of those
attitudes as intentional attitudes – that is, as aesthetic perspectives in the
full experiential sense – also captures a layer which is itself of meaning-
constitutive importance.
3. The acquisition of a social habitus is not accomplished pre-symbolically
but goes hand-in-hand with symbolic means. This is exemplified by
developmental accounts of human agency (Sokal and Sugarman, 2010;
Mead, 1934; Kögler, 2010). Far from suggesting that there is such a thing
as a neatly separated sphere of practical, pre-conceptual, and unconscious
meanings on the one hand, and linguistic, conceptual, and conscious
meanings on the other, the creation of socially grounded meaningful
attitudes is a symbolic-practical co-constitution. Mead’s emergence of a
communication of significant symbols adequately embedded this process
in a gradual process which can include stages of play and game, i.e. the
imaginary perspective-taking where an agent assumes in pretence the social
perspectives of other agents, which always puts into play a mix of practical
and conceptual dimensions (Mead, 1934; Sokal and Sugarman, 2010).
Subsequently, the orientation at general rules that apply to all represents
a more advanced form of abstraction, but really remains grounded in the
capacity to represent all possible roles and put oneself imaginatively into
the role of the generalised other. A widely shared developmental account of
how intentional agency emerges from basic practical and pre-conceptual
intersubjective settings strongly suggests that linguistic self-understanding,
and with it the capacity to reflect and transform modes of self-understanding
in a critical and creative fashion, belong to the core features of human
agency (Clement, 2010).

The transcendental presupposition of understanding human agency is obtained

via the intersubjective process of perspective-taking, which equips the social-
scientific interpreter with the necessary capabilities to make sense of situated
agents. The fact that linguistic elements are now seen as equally constitutive
for the agent’s self-understanding does not diminish the importance of the –
differentially acquired – social habitus. Those background schemes of pre-
understanding represent the contextually defined resources for agents to make
sense of their environment in a pre-structured manner. Nonetheless, the fact
294 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

that these schemes are symbolically synthesised via the basic concepts and
assumptions widens the options with regard to critical and reflexive agency.
Now the ray of subjective intentionality is not fully preformed by an implicit
holistic grid defining in advance its internal elements. Rather, the schemes
themselves are potentially accessible, agents can relate not only to phenomena
within their worlds, but reflectively thematise the world structures that define
them a tergo.
The emergence of habitus from intersubjective perspective-taking means
that the capabilities which brought about understanding can always be (re-)
activated to advance beyond the hitherto acquired and established schemes
of understanding. Intentional understanding is therefore not conceptually
tied to specifically defined habitus, as if they operate only within a given
frame, as if they are incapable of being utilised to challenge outworn ones,
to transcend existing ones, and to disclose new ones. By emphasising the
linguistic dimension of the background, the conceptual self-understanding is
not severed from its practical, embodied, power-based source; rather, we now
introduced a mediating level that allows agents to self-engage in an ongoing
restructuration of their socially constituted selves. Agents will not just transcend
their inculcated identities by means of idealised validity claims, but neither do
they remain imprisoned in the sense-making structures they inherited from
early childhood. By taking up, within their own agency, the otherness which
social practices instilled in them, they unleash the developmentally acquired
potential to go beyond an existing frame to understand others, to relate to
oneself critically, and to project oneself in light of value-orientations that have
a normative status and can be defended with reason. Only if the symbolic
dimension of habitus is given its due can it be reconciled with ethical agency
and, thus, with human agency as such.

Notes
1 According to the model of the speech circuit, one individual (A) makes conscious
states that are represented by linguistic signs known to another individual (B). The
communication of ideas is here undertaken by using vocal gestures that ‘transport’, by
means of physical air waves, certain sounds to the receiver who thereby ‘understands’
the thoughts which were formerly present to individual (A). The basic question is:
what makes the ‘transportation’ of meaning from (A) to (B) possible? What has to be
considered an essential part of the process of creating or enabling a mutually shared
symbolic understanding between (A) and (B)?
2 More radical than his empiricist predecessors, however, such success is not only explained
by the ‘subsequent’ transposition of thought into the social medium of ‘language’ for
the purpose of communication; rather, the very possibility of thought itself is attributed
to symbolic mediation.
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 295

3 The ‘genetic’ point of view would reconstruct the historical genesis of how a term came
to possess a certain meaning, that is how a certain ‘sound’ came to be ‘associated’ with
a certain conceptual or cognitive understanding.
4 While from the ‘intuitive’ perspective of a language user meaning is ‘simultaneously’
in both participants, the structural properties that make such a ‘miracle’ of shared
meaning possible usually remain altogether hidden. Only a ‘structuralist’ perspective
that analyses the very nature of the symbols involved can explain how it is possible.
5 This point is supported by two reflections. First, we can only distinguish linguistic units
by knowing their meaning. By hearing a foreign language, we are unable to distinguish
how many words there are. In order to do so, we have to know the meaning of the
words. However, on a more basic, phonetic level, each language defines internally
which phonetic differences are to count as meaningful. Japanese, for instance, does
not differentiate between j and r, German does not between w and v, but both are
significant, that is, meaning-constitutive, in English. ‘Jay’ and ‘ray’ mean different things,
but this could not be expressed in Japanese, and the difference between ‘wheel’ and
‘veil’ does not track phonetically in German. Second, the differentiation of phonetic
sounds into meaningful differences within a sound pattern, which makes the fixation
and identification of conceptual differences possible, is arbitrary and conventional.
Thus, while the difference between ‘cow’ and ‘now’ (and to all other units) allows us to
fix symbolically the idea of a cow, there is no intrinsic reason why ‘Kuh’ or ‘vache’ are
not just as good. The systems that make meaning identifiable are thus arbitrary.
6 What is crucial, however, is that within the system the use of differences is absolutely
determined, and thus, for the individual user, necessary in order to achieve meaning.
In contrast to the idea of arbitrariness, this can be called the conventionality of the sign-
system. While the symbolic order is arbitrary with regard to the thought (and ultimately
the reality) that it expresses or represents, it is necessary within its system of distinctions,
because only the established order of differences (as being the same for each sign and
sign-user) can establish the identity of meaning.
7 The reference to objective differences in meaning is excluded, because of the restriction
to meaning which in turn was justified by the orientation toward the ‘psychological’
side of meaning (we know that this ‘psychologism’ does not contradict Saussure’s
social theory of meaning, since the speaker becomes a speaker only as participant in
the social world of meaning, which is due to socialisation). Similarly; the reference
to objective phonetic differences is excluded, because natural languages establish
conventional systems of phonological differentiation that internally ‘decide’ what
counts as a meaningful sound-distinction. Thus, the identification of any positive term
in a language is only possible on the basis of knowing its difference within the linguistic
or symbolic system. This is the point behind Saussure’s claim that language is a form,
not a substance, because it is defined by the internal differences, and its law is the
establishment of the rules that distinguish ‘signifiers’ and ‘signifieds’ from each other.
8 This idea goes back at least to Humboldt, who saw language equally as a necessary
medium for thought. He defined language as the ‘formative organ of thought […]. The
inseparable bonding of thought, vocal apparatus, and hearing a language is unalterably
rooted in the original constitution of human nature […]’ (Humboldt, 1988: 54 and
55). Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms is based on the same thought (Cassirer
1955 [1923]).
9 One might also defend Saussure against such criticisms of the code as ‘mentalistic’ by
pointing out that codes are taken to be constituted in the course of intersubjective speech
296 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

practices. As such, they seem to be tied back to the ‘real’ social practices of communicating
agents. Yet, this defense would already reach beyond what Saussure himself supplies as
theoretical means, as the following criticisms should show.
10 My analysis does not attempt a full scale comparison of social theories that are either
based on speech act theory or on poststructuralist assumptions. Rather, I specifically
focus on the issue of explicating the implicit social background assumptions with regard
to their normative versus power-based implications. For a much needed analysis of the
respective contributions of Habermas and Bourdieu, see the much needed book by
Simon Susen (2007). For a critical comparison of Foucault and Habermas with regard
to hermeneutic reflexivity, see Kögler (1996).
11 Far from giving up the game, à la late Wittgenstein, and accept an uncontrollable
multiplicity of contexts and uses, certain standard-types of use can be filtered out –
or reconstructed from the intuitive pre-understanding of speakers engaged in social
communication. Such reconstructions will not repeat the positivist mistakes of the
tradition by remaining focused solely on truth and reference; rather, the orientation at
shared meaning deriving from intersubjective rules broadens the spectrum to include
social value-orientations in a variety of fields.
12 Habermas is a far cry from a traditional liberal or action-theoretical position that
assumes a ‘free-floating’ and disembedded agent. Yet, a final defensive move – the
switch toward the macro-perspective of a theory of modernity that assumes that the
inherent value-orientations have historically been fleshed out by constituting social
fields like science, moral and legal discourse, and modern art – is equally bound to fail.
This is because just as much as those spheres (or ‘discourses’) can be shown to be guided
by normative rules, just as much do they exemplify underlying patterns of privilege
and power, of unaccounted hierarchies and new modes of domination. The role of
power-laden habitus props up, as it were, from within the rational public sphere like the
tortoise to the hare in the fairy tale.
13 To suggest that language and linguistic habitus are ultimately grounded in social habitus
seems to be contradicted by statements where Bourdieu acknowledges ‘that social science
has to take account of the autonomy of language, its specific logic, and its particular
rules of operation’ (Bourdieu 1994: 41). Yet, the ‘autonomy of language’ is explicated
as a ‘formal mechanism whose generative capacities are without limits’, only to suggest
that those generative capacities will themselves be employed to determine social power
relations: ‘Rituals are the limiting case of situations of imposition in which […] a social
competence is exercised – namely, that of the legitimate speaker, authorised to speak and
to speak with authority’ (Bourdieu 1994: 41). At stake is whether the symbolic surplus,
the ‘originative capacity – in the Kantian sense – which derives its power to produce
existence by producing the collectively recognised, and thus realised, representation of
existence’ (Bourdieu 1994:42) can be turned against power and reflexively appropriated
by agents to realise normatively acceptable value-orientations.
14 Before going on, I should point out an ambiguity in this explanation. Bourdieu wants
to show that the grammatical structure of language is due to the fact of the codification
by grammarians, which shaped what is known as explicit grammars. Those grammars
then helped to establish a national code, a national language – and suppressed all the
dialects. However, the fact that one code was established and used to suppress and
denigrate other languages, which then came to be seen as mere dialects, does not show
as such that languages don’t contain an implicit grammatical structure, as Chomsky
or Saussure would claim. Bourdieu thus seems to conflate two issues: First, there is
the question of whether languages should be seen as being constructed on the basis of
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 297

rules and codes (we have seen in our critique of Saussure that there are good reasons to
question such an approach); and second, the question of how one specific rule system,
the one associated with modern French in France, came to be seen as the legitimate
language, and was used to integrate the population into the new ideology of the state.
Here Bourdieu gives a plausible account of how conceiving a certain code as the
legitimate ‘grammar’ of (a) language helped establish a sense of national identity and
distinction.
15 Just as in Saussure, the idea is that the linguistic code forms the ‘amorphous mass of
thought’ – even though now that amorphous mass is itself already linguistic mediated
in terms of the unruly speech practices which later become known as dialects.
16 Bourdieu, however, criticises the concept of worldview because of its cognitivist
overtones (Bourdieu 1990: 56).
17 As the previous remarks made clear, our interest is here to probe whether Bourdieu
develops a one-sided notion of reflexivity, one which remains – by all its stringent and
highly important critique of Saussure’s structural semiotics – attached to a model of
reflexive objectification that is taken from the representation of a natural fact, or an object.
The alternative model is one of a reflexive expressivism, where the reflexive project is
related to explicating and articulating the inherent conceptual, normative, and value-
orientational beliefs and assumptions that define an agent’s perspective vis-à-vis
the other, the world, and the self. Yet, any such alternative account requires a more
developed account of the role of language.
18 There is no doubt that Bourdieu, especially towards the end of his career, became
very interested in the transformative powers given to agency. Our reflections were
intended to bring to light the implications of his systematic analyses regarding the
intertwinement of agency, language, and habitus, with a special emphasis on how the
intentional meaning that agents attach to their self-understanding as well as value-
oriented social struggles can be mediated with a social analysis of agency. In this regard
I hold that the basis of Bourdieu’s philosophy of language is too narrow to account for
the complex meanings and potentials opened up by the linguistic mediation of reality.
For a very sympathetic reading of Bourdieu in this regard, see the essay by Bridget
Fowler in this volume.
19 If you drug or shoot someone, you do affect their cognition – you create weird
and uncontrolled beliefs and images, or you entirely stop any cognition at all from
happening – but you do not affect their intentional self-understanding. For that, the
beliefs have to be incorporated into the stock of beliefs and values that consciously,
and over the span of an agent’s life-activities, define his or her self-identity. Drug
experiences may later affect one’s overall self-understanding, as they can be consciously
appropriated. In any event, what counts as real and fictional is relative to the established
symbolic frameworks of the social contexts in which a self-understanding emerges, but
is nevertheless a real distinction within any such framework.

References
Bohman, James (1997) ‘Reflexivity, Agency, and Constraint. The Paradoxes of Bourdieu’s
Sociology of Knowledge’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 171–186.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1985 [1984]) Distinction, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
298 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994) Language and Symbolic Power, edited and introduced by John B. Thompson,
trans. Gino Raymond and Mathew Adamson, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1994a) ‘The Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language’, in
Language and Symbolic Power, trans. Gino Raymond and Mathew Adamson, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard U.P., pp. 43–65.
Brandom, Robert (2000) Articulating Reasons, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Cassirer, Ernst (1955 [1923]) The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, trans. Ralph Manheim,
Vol. 1: New Haven: Yale U.P.
Clement, Fabrice (2010) ‘To Trust or Not to Trust? Children’s Social Epistemology’, Review
of Philosophy and Psychology, Springerlink, published online: 6 March 2010.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (2002 [1910]) The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences.
Edited with an Introduction by Rudolf A. Makkreel and Frithjof Rodi. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Dreyfus, Hubert (1980) ‘Holism and Hermeneutics’, Review of Metaphysics 34(1): 3–24.
Dreyfus, Hubert (1993) Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dummett, Michael (1990) Origins of Analytical Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. P.
Foucault, Michel (1979 [1975]) Discipline and Punish, trans. Alan Sheridan, New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel (1990 [1966]) The Order of Things, trans. unknown, New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, Michel (1994 [1976]) History of Sexuality: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley, New York:
Vintage Books.
Foster, Roger (2005) ‘Pierre Bourdieu’s Critique of Scholarly Reason’, Philosophy & Social
Criticism 31(1): 89–107.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1989 [1960]) Truth and Method, translation revised by Joel
Weinsheimer and Donla G. Marshall, New York: Crossroads.
Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (1979) ‘Moral Development and Ego Identity’ in Communication and the
Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 69 ff.
Habermas, Jürgen (1983/87 [1981]) Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy,
Vol. 1 and 2. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (1988 [1970]) On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans. by Shierry Weber
Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen (1990) ‘Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action’ in Moral
Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber
Nicholsen Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 116–194.
Habermas, Jürgen (1992) ‘Toward a Critique of the Theory of Meaning’, in Postmetaphysical
Thinking, trans. Mark Hohengarten, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 57–87.
Hall, Stuart (1980) ‘Encoding/Decoding’, in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew
Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds.) Culture, Media, Language, Working Papers in Cultural Studies,
Hutchinson, London, pp. 128–138.
Heidegger, Martin (1962 [1927]) Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward
Robinson, New York: Harper & Row.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1988 [1836]) On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure
and its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind, trans. Peter Heath, ed. Michael
Losonsky, introduction by Hans Aarsleff, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism 299

Kögler, Hans-Herbert (1996) ‘The Self-Empowered Subject: Habermas, Foucault, and

Hermeneutic Reflexivity’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 22(4): 13–44.
Kögler, Hans-Herbert (1997) ‘Alienation as Epistemological Source: Reflexivity and Social
Background after Mannheim and Bourdieu’, Social Epistemology 11(2): 141–164.
Kögler, Hans-Herbert (1999 [1992]) The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer
and Foucault, trans. Paul Hendrickson, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kögler, Hans-Herbert (2010) ‘Agency and the Other: On the Intersubjective Roots of Self-
Identity’, in Sokol and Sugarman 2010, Human Agency and Development, New Ideas in
Psychology (NIP) (in press).
Kögler, Hans-Herbert and Karsten Stueber (eds.) (2000) Empathy and Agency: The Problem of
Understanding in the Human Science, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lash, Scott (1998) Another Modernity, A Different Rationality, London: Blackwell Publishers.
Lee, Benjamin (1997) Language, Metalanguage, and the Semiotics of Subjectivity, Durham, NC/
London: Duke University Press.
Mead, George Herbert (1934) Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1983 [1915]) Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris, La Salle:
Open Court Publishing House.
Searle, John (1969) Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John (1989) Intentionality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John (1995) The Construction of Social Reality, New York: The Free Press.
Sokal, Bryan and Jeff Sugarman (2010) ‘Human Agency and Development’, editors, special
issue in New Ideas in Psychology (NIP), Elesevier.
Stern, David (2003) ‘The Practical Turn’, in Stephen Turner and Paul Roth (eds.) The
Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell,
185–206.
Stueber, Karsten (2004) ‘Agency and the Objectivity of Historical Narratives’, in William
Sweet (ed.) The Philosophy of History: A Reexamination. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press,
197–222.
Susen, Simon (2007) The Foundations of the Social: Between Critical Theory and Reflexive Sociology,
Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Taylor, Charles (1985) Human Agency and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Talbot (1992) Mutual Misunderstanding. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.
Turner, Stephen (1994) The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and
Presuppositions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, Stephen and Paul Roth (eds.) (2003) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social
Sciences. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.
Weber, Max (1978 [1914]) ‘Basic Sociological Terms’, in Guenther Roth and Claus
Wittich (eds.) Economy and Society, trans. Ephraim Fischoff et al., Berkeley/Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 3–62.
Winch, Peter (1991 [1959]) The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy, London:
Routledge.
Winch, Peter (1964) ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, in Bryan Wilson (ed.) Rationality,
New York: Harper and Row, 78–111.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations, trans. Elizabeth Anscombe,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Social Theory and Politics: Aron, Bourdieu
and Passeron, and the Events of May 19681

Derek Robbins

The purpose of this contribution is to explore historically the relationship

between the social theory emerging at the Centre de sociologie européenne
in Paris during the 1960s and the Parisian events of May 1968. Adopting
the terminology of an article of 1981 by Pierre Bourdieu himself (‘Décrire
et prescrire. Note sur les conditions de possibilité et les limites de l’efficacité
politique’ [‘Describing and Prescribing. A Note on the Conditions of Possibility
and the Limits of Political Effectiveness’] (Bourdieu, 1981), my purpose is to
consider in what ways the work of the Centre de sociologie européenne could
be said to describe or prescribe the May ‘events’. This consideration is a vehicle
for an assessment of the diverging positions of Aron, Bourdieu and Passeron
at the time, particularly by reference to their responses to the work of Weber.
The Centre de sociologie européenne was established by Raymond Aron
in 1960. I shall explore the development of Aron’s view of sociology in the
context of his prior commitment to engaged historical observation and then
consider his influence on Bourdieu and Passeron. My purpose is to ask what
it meant (and might still mean) to regard objective phenomena or events as
either social or political.

Mise-En-Scène
Raymond Aron was born in 1905 and was one of a famous cohort of entrants
to the École normale supérieure in 1924, which also included Jean-Paul
Sartre. His training was predominantly philosophical. In 1930, he obtained a
post as Teaching Assistant at the University of Cologne. He spent almost three
years in Germany. After one year in Cologne, he moved to Berlin, leaving
in 1933. In Germany, he decided that he would undertake doctoral research
on the philosophy of history. This was not to be a consideration of idealist
302 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

philosophy of history but, instead, a philosophical analysis of the practice of

writing history and, increasingly, an exploration of what it might mean to be an
historian of the present. It was by chance that Célestin Bouglé invited him to
write an account of contemporary German sociology, which Aron published in
1935 as La sociologie allemande contemporaine [Contemporary German Sociology] (Aron,
1935). The largest part of that book was devoted to a celebration of the work
of Max Weber. Aron was the first French intellectual to give detailed attention
to Weber’s work, but at the time he was interested primarily in Weber’s
philosophy of history and his philosophy of social-scientific method, rather
than in Weber as a sociologist. Aron completed and published his main and
complementary doctoral theses in 1938. The effect of the arguments of the
two theses was that Aron developed a view of the ‘participant historian’. He
followed Weber in being committed to retaining a division between the roles
of politicians and the roles of scientists, but what was unclear was whether his
scientific historical observation of the present was essentially a form either of
social or of political science. Historical events caused Aron to begin to identify
social reality with politics. Shortly before the French surrender to the Germans
early in 1940, Aron travelled to London, where he was soon recruited to
write a regular monthly column, ‘Chronique de France’, for La France libre.
His engaged historical observations took the form of political commentary.
After the War, Aron carried on with his journalism, becoming an employee of
Le Figaro for which he wrote regularly from 1947 until 1977.
During the period between 1944/5 and 1955, in which Aron appeared
to have chosen a career in journalism, he maintained university contacts,
teaching both at the École nationale d’administration and at the Institut
d’études politiques de Paris as well as giving lectures abroad. In these years,
he also published Le grand schisme (Aron, 1948) and Les guerres en chaîne [Bounded
Wars] (Aron, 1951). As Aron states in his Mémoires, these were linked to the
intellectual position he had reached in his research theses in that they were ‘an
attempt at a kind of immediate philosophy of history in the making intended
to serve as a framework and a basis for my daily or weekly commentaries and
for the positions I took’ (Aron, 1990 [1983]: 199). Notice that Aron had come
to assume that ‘history in the making’ is virtually synonymous with politics
and international relations. In June 1955, Aron made it known that he wished
to be appointed to a Chair at the Sorbonne, and he was successful in his
application in competition with Georges Balandier. Aron was instrumental
in institutionalising the teaching of sociology for a licence within two years of
his election to the Chair at the Sorbonne. The lecture courses which he gave
in 1955–6, 1956–7, and 1957–8 were initially roneographed for distribution
by the Centre de documentation universitaire, but Aron agreed to their more
extensive publication and they appeared, respectively, as Dix-huit leçons sur la
Social Theory and Politics 303

société industrielle [18 lectures on industrial society] in 1962 (Aron, 1962); La lutte
des classes. Nouvelles leçons sur les sociétés industrielles [Class Struggle: New Lectures on
industrial societies in 1964 (Aron, 1964); and Démocratie et totalitarisme [Democracy
and Totalitarianism] in 1965 (Aron, 1965). In addition, two other courses were
published in two volumes in 1967 as Les étapes de la pensée sociologique [The
stages of sociological thought] (Aron, 1967). Throughout, Aron maintained
his commitment to the work of Weber. Julien Freund’s translations of Weber’s
two lectures of 1918 – Wissenschaft als Beruf [Science as Vocation] (Weber, 1919,
and 1922: 524–555) and Politik als Beruf [Politics as Vocation] (Weber, 1921:
396–450) – published, together with an introduction by Aron in 1959, as Le
savant et le politique [Science and Politics] (Weber, int. Aron, 1959) were the only
texts of Max Weber available in French in 1960. Freund was to translate
some articles from Weber’s Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre [Collected
Essays on Scientific Theory] (Weber, 1922) in 1965 as Essais sur la théorie de la science
[Essays on the theory of science] (Weber, trans. Freund, 1965) and also to publish his
Sociologie de Max Weber [The Sociology of Max Weber] in 1966 (Freund, 1966).
Aron’s La sociologie allemande contemporaine, first published in 1935, was re-issued
in 1950 and 1966.
Turning now to Jean-Claude Passeron, he had been teaching at a lycée
in Marseille since 1958, when, in 1961, he received a phone call from Aron
inviting him to become his research assistant at the Sorbonne. Passeron had
been born in a mountain village in the Alpes-Maritimes in 1930 and received
his secondary education at the lycée in Nice before gaining entry to the Lycée
Henri IV in Paris prior to entry to the École normale supérieure in 1950. At the
École, he gained a licence de philosophie, certificat de psycho-physiologie. He
was particularly friendly with Foucault and Althusser and was associated with
the communist cell organised at the École by Le Goff. He gained a Diplôme
d’études with a thesis entitled ‘L’image spéculaire’ [the mirror image] written
under the supervision of Daniel Lagache, who was appointed Professor of
Psychology at the Sorbonne in 1951 and who also created a Laboratoire de
psychologie sociale at the Sorbonne a year later. Passeron had remained at the
École until 1955, when he was conscripted to serve in the army in Algeria.
He had remained there until 1958, before returning to France to take up his
teaching post at Marseille. Bourdieu had been a Maître de conférences at the
University of Lille for two years when he was invited by Aron to become
the secretary to the Centre de sociologie européenne in Paris. It appears that
the paths of the two men (Bourdieu and Passeron) had not crossed significantly
either at the École normale or in Algeria, but their social backgrounds and
trajectories were remarkably similar. Bourdieu had been born in 1930 in the
Béarn and had moved early on to a mountain village in the Hautes-Pyrénées.
From the age of 7, he was a boarder at the lycée at Pau before gaining entry
304 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

to the other main Parisian lycée preparing students for entry to the École
normale supérieure – the Lycée Louis-le-Grand. Bourdieu entered the École
in 1950. He left in 1954, having acquired his licence and having gained his
Diplôme d’études supérieures with a dissertation under the supervision of
Henri Gouhier, which involved making a translation of, and a commentary
on, Leibniz’s critique of Descartes entitled Animadversiones in partem generalem
Principiorum cartesianorum. Bourdieu had taught at the lycée in Moulins for two
years before he too was conscripted to serve in the army in Algeria. Whilst
at Moulins, he registered to undertake doctoral research on ‘Les structures
temporelles de la vie affective’ [‘The Temporal Structures of Affective Life’]
under the supervision of Georges Canguilhem, but this never commenced.
Bourdieu had managed to get himself a post in military intelligence in Algeria,
which enabled him to become associated with the collection of official statistics.
He was appointed to a post at the University of Algiers in 1958, when he
published his first book: Sociologie de l’Algérie [Sociology of Algeria] (Bourdieu,
1958). By the time that Aron invited Bourdieu to become secretary to his
Research Group, the second edition of Sociologie de l’Algérie had been published
(Bourdieu, 1961) and this was followed by the English translation which was
published by Beacon books, Boston in 1962 as The Algerians, with a Preface by
Aron (Bourdieu, 1962).

Aron’s Conception of the Relationship between

Social Science and Political Action
In the first paragraph of the introduction to Le savant et le politique, Aron could
have been writing about himself:

Max Weber a été un homme de science, il n’a été ni un homme politique ni un

homme d’Etat, occasionnellement journaliste politique. Mais il a été, toute sa vie,
passionnément soucieux de la chose publique, il n’a cessée d’éprouver une sorte
de nostalgie de la politique, comme si la fin ultime de sa pensée aurait dû être la
participation à l’action. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 7)
[Max Weber was a man of science. He was neither a politician nor a
statesman, but occasionally a political journalist. All his life he was passionately
concerned about public issues and never ceased showing a kind of nostalgia for
politics, as if the ultimate goal of his thought ought to have been participation
in action.]

Aron’s introduction to Weber’s lectures is self-regarding, but it also offers some

critique. Aron explains that Weber insisted that it is not possible ‘en même
temps’ [at the same time] to be a scientist and a politician but that, equally,
Social Theory and Politics 305

Weber asserted that ‘on peut prendre des positions politiques en dehors de
l’université’ [political positions can be adopted outside the university]. In other
words, the activities had to be kept separate, but they had to impinge on each
other. There are logical grounds for this reciprocity, because the pursuit of
causal explanation in science relates to purposive action. As Aron summarises
Weber’s view:

Une science qui analyse les rapports de cause à effet […] est donc celle
même qui répond aux besoins de l’homme d’action. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959
[1919/1922]: 8)
[A science which analyses the relations between cause and effect […] is
therefore one which responds to the needs of the man of action.]

There is, however, no necessary causal connection between science and action.
Aron says:

La compréhension de l’action menée par les autres dans le passé ne conduit

pas nécessairement à la volonté d’agir dans le présent. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959
[1919/1922]: 10)
[Understanding actions taken by others in the past does not necessarily
lead to the will to act in the present.]

In other words, Aron is tacitly making it clear that his view of the function
of history is not at all historicist. He preserves human freedom by insisting
that our historical perceptions of the past do not determine future events.
Importantly for our purposes, Aron tries to insist on the separation of the man
of science from man in his everyday humanity. He continues:

Il n’y en a pas moins, philosophiquement, et, pour employer le jargon à la mode,

existentiellement, un lien entre la connaissance de soi et celle des autres, entre la
résurrection des luttes que se sont livrées les hommes disparus et la prise actuelle
de position. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 10)
[There is nonetheless, neither philosophically nor, to use fashionable jargon,
existentially, no link between self knowledge and knowledge of others, between
resurrecting the struggles in which past men were involved and taking positions
in the present.]

And, a little further on, he elaborates:

La réciprocité entre la rencontre avec l’autre et la découverte de soi est donnée

dans l’activité même de l’historien. La réciprocité entre la connaissance et l’action
306 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

est immanente à l’existence non de l’historien, mais de l’homme historique.

(Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 10)
[The reciprocity between the encounter with the other and self-discovery is a
given in the very activity of the historian. The reciprocity between knowledge and
action is intrinsic to the existence of man in history and not of the historian.]

Thus, Aron is arguing that the knowledge of somebody acting as a scientist

does not dictate their behaviour as a person. People have multiple identities,
and there is no necessary integration of knowledge acquired in following
the rules of autonomous intellectual discourses with the behaviour inducing
personality of the scientist. It is significant that Aron has a swipe at
existentialism in this context. The opposite view to the one Aron is upholding
would argue that, as individuals, we are involved in a process of self-totalising
self-construction and that the acceptance of multiple identities manifest in
fragmented and discrete roles is evidence of a lack of authenticity and of bad
faith. Aron is tacitly advancing the argument against Sartre, which he was to
make in full in D’une Sainte Famille à l’autre, published in 1969 (Aron, 1969).
I do not want to discuss whether Aron accurately represents Weber here,
but he immediately raises some theoretical objections to Weber’s position, the
first of which I want to consider. Aron continued with these three sentences:

On s’est demandé dans quelle mesure la pensée propre de Max Weber s’exprime
adéquatement dans le vocabulaire et les catégories du néo-kantisme de Rickert.
La phénoménologie de Husserl, qu’il a connue mais peu utilisée, lui aurait, me
semble-t-il, fourni l’outil philosophique et logique qu’il cherchait. Elle lui aurait
évité, dans ses études sur la compréhension, l’oscillation entre le ‘psychologisme’
de Jaspers (à l’époque où celui-ci écrivait sa psycho-pathologie) et la voie
détournée du néo-kantisme qui n’arrive à la signification qu’en passant par les
valeurs. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 10–11)
[The question is raised to what extent Max Weber’s own thought is adequately
expressed in the vocabulary and categories of the neo-Kantianism of Rickert.
The phenomenology of Husserl, which he knew but used little, would, it seems to
me, have provided him with the philosophical and logical tool for which he was
searching. It would have enabled him to avoid, in his studies of understanding,
oscillation between the ‘psychologism’ of Jaspers (at the time when the latter was
writing his psycho-pathology) and the neo-Kantian detour which only reaches
meaning by passing through value judgement.]

Aron seems to be implying that the problem with Weber’s adherence to

Rickert’s neo-Kantian epistemology is that, in imitation of Kant’s Critique
of Pure Reason, the boundaries of historical understanding are situated
categorically within a logically a priori ‘historical reason’. If, however,
Social Theory and Politics 307

Weber had lived to know both Husserl’s Cartesian Meditations (Husserl, 1977
[1950]) and his The Crisis of the European Sciences (Husserl, 1970 [1954]), he
would have had the possibility of recognising that categories of thought
derive pre-predicatively from the lifeworld. Aron seems to be implying that
he has the advantage over Weber in this respect and that although he has
followed Weber’s thought, he has replaced the transcendental idealism that
he derived from the work of Rickert with a transcendental phenomenology
based on the work of Husserl. This is what Aron appears to be saying, but
I want to suggest that it was Bourdieu who was to deploy phenomenology
descriptively, deprived of its transcendentalism, whereas Aron’s thinking
continued to rely on a neo-Kantian framework. This point is apparent in
Aron’s discussion of what he calls the continuation of Weber’s notion of the
disenchantment of the world by science in which he considers two kinds of
threat posed by contemporary science. The first is that scientists, particularly
natural scientists, have become intimidated by the consequences of the
exploitation of their science. The second is that totalitarian political states
insist on the nation-state allegiance of their scientists and seek to control the
pursuit of objective truth.
Aron argues that the fallacy inherent in this second menace is that it ignores,
as he puts it, that there is a ‘République internationale des esprits qui est la
communauté, naturelle et nécessaire, des savants’ [‘international republic of
minds which is the natural and necessary community of scientists’] (Weber,
int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 15). This community operates according
to its own rules and ‘les problèmes à résoudre leur sont fournis par l’état
d’avancement des sciences’ [‘the problems to be resolved are generated by
the stage of development of the sciences’] and not by any political state. Aron
then takes the example of his friend Jean Cavaillès to illustrate both this point
and the point that we all have multiple identities or live plurally in a range of
contexts. As a French soldier, Cavaillès fought against the occupying Germans,
but, as a man of science or logician, he remained a disciple of international
mentors – Cantor, Hilbert and Husserl. Aron concludes that, when a state tries
to dictate to science what should be its objects or its rules of activity, what we
have is the ‘intervention illégitime d’une collectivité politique dans l’activité
d’une collectivité spirituelle, il s’agit, en d’autres termes, du totalitarisme, saisi
à sa racine même’ [‘illegitimate intervention of a political collectivity into
the activity of a spiritual collectivity, which, in other words, is a question of
totalitarianism in its essence’] (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 16). The
important point to note here is that Aron assumes that these two kinds of
collectivities are categorially different. Whilst he makes no comment whether
the political collectivity is socially constructed, he uses the word ‘spirituelle’ to
show that a scientific collectivity has transcendental status, i.e. that its social
existence reflects a logical necessity. Aron proceeds to commend Simmel for
308 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

having described brilliantly ‘La pluralité des cercles sociaux auxquels chacun
de nous appartient, et il voyait dans cette pluralité la condition de la libération
progressive des individus’ [‘the plurality of social circles to which each of us
belongs, seeing in this plurality the condition for the progressive liberation of
individuals’] (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 16–17), and he contrasts
this celebration of plurality with the fundamental totalitarian impulse:

Ce souvenir nous permet de juger les tentatives de totalitarisme pour ce qu’elles

sont : des efforts proprement réactionnaires pour ramener les sociétés au stade
primitif où les disciplines sociales tendaient à embrasser tous les individus et les
individus tout entiers. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 17)
[This memory enables us to judge the endeavours of totalitarianism for what
they are: efforts which are properly called reactionary to restore societies to their
primitive state where social disciplines tended to encompass all individuals and
individuals in their entirety.]

It is clear from Aron’s other writing at the time that these words are a thinly
veiled attack on Durkheimian social science and, associated with this, is an
attack on the ideology of the Third Republic that could be said to have deployed
Durkheimian social science to legitimate a socialist, totalitarian state.
Yet, Aron is not able to hold this line entirely. He immediately concedes
that science can be seen to be ‘partially’ determined by social, historical and
racial factors. He insists, however, that there is a fundamental difference
between accepting that the character of science is shaped by its social milieu
and accepting that its agenda can be determined by political authorities. As
Aron comments:

Dans le premier cas, la communauté de la science continue d’obéir, pour

l’essentiel, à ses lois spécifiques. Dans l’autre, elle abdiquerait son autonomie et
mettrait en péril, du même coup, sa vocation et ses progrès ultérieurs. (Weber,
int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 17)
[In the first instance, the scientific community continues to obey, in its
essentials, its own specific laws. In the other, it would abdicate its autonomy and
endanger, with one blow, its calling and its future developments.]

This argument led Aron to conclude that it would be fatal to deduce from the
fact that social science is in part dependent on its social context

[…] la conclusion que les sciences sociales ne sont que des idéologies de classes
ou de races et que l’orthodoxie imposée par un Etat totalitaire ne diffère pas
en nature de la libre recherche des sociétés pluralistes. Il existe, quoi qu’on en
Social Theory and Politics 309

dise, une communauté des sciences sociales, moins autonome que la communauté
des sciences naturelles mais malgré tout réelle. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959
[1919/1922]: 19)
[ […] the conclusion that the social sciences are only the ideologies of classes
or races and that the orthodoxy imposed by a totalitarian State doesn’t differ in
kind from the free research of pluralist societies. There exists, whatever one may
say, a social scientific community which is less autonomous than the natural science
community but, nonetheless, completely real.]

Aron proceeded to outline the constitutive rules of this community of

the social sciences: first, the absence of restriction on research and the
establishment of the facts themselves; second, the absence of restriction of
any discussion and criticism of findings or methodologies; and third, the
absence of any restriction of the right to disenchant reality. For Aron, the
community of the social sciences has to retain the right to question what
he called the ‘mythologies’ that dominate our behaviour whether these are
imposed by communist or democratic states. He insisted:

Par crainte d’être accusés d’antidémocratisme, ne nous arrêtons pas devant

l’analyse des institutions parlementaires telles qu’elles fonctionnent à l’heure
présente en Europe. (Weber, int. Aron, 1959 [1919/1922]: 22)
[Don’t let us resist analysing parliamentary institutions as they currently
function in Europe for fear of being accused of being anti-democratic.]

Indeed, by allowing free criticism of itself, democracy demonstrates its

superiority.
I want to take two main points from Aron’s introduction to Weber. The
first point is that, although Aron had been appointed Professor of Sociology
at the Sorbonne in 1955, his philosophy of social science was derived from his
philosophy of history. His view of the participant historian related to Weber’s
view of the roles of the scientist and the politician in as much as Aron’s view of
participation was primarily that of the political scientist in politics. He tended
to regard historical reality as an essentially political reality. Social-scientific
explanation clarifies a subordinate domain of political reality and Aron’s hostility
to the Durkheimian tradition was that it sought to subordinate politics to social
relations and to see sociology as the instrument for actualising individual and
collective relations and of establishing a coherent, totalised social solidarity,
which renders the political sphere moribund. Aron’s subordination of social-
scientific explanation was mirrored by his wish to subordinate social and
cultural movements to changes brought about by ‘legitimate’, constitutional,
political means. Hence, his hostility to the events of May 1968 and his use of
310 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

his own terminology in describing the student revolt as a ‘mythology’. The

second point is related to this: the community of social science within which it
is practised is an intrinsically autonomous community. To regard it as socially
constructed would be to insert social-scientific explanation within a totalising
Durkheimian social-scientific world view.

Aron’s Conception of the Nature of Sociology as a Science

Aron devoted the first lecture of his Dix-huit leçons sur la société industrielle to
an attempt to offer some ‘general considerations on the nature of sociology’
(Aron, 1962a: 13). He approached this task by trying to characterise the self-
interrogations of sociologists by comparison with the self-interrogations of
philosophers and political economists. Philosophers, Aron claimed, raise
general questions without wanting to have anything to do with particular
sciences, whereas political economists want to isolate one sector of global reality
and subject this to scrutiny through the application of their own autonomous
methodology. Sociology is caught between these two ambitions. As Aron put
it, ‘it wants to be a particular science and, at the same time, to analyse and
understand society in its totality’ (Aron, 1962a: 16). On the one view, sociology
is just ‘one discipline amongst a range of social disciplines’ (Aron, 1962a: 19);
but, on the other view, which Aron attributes to Durkheim, sociology aspires
to embrace all the social sciences and ‘to become the principle of their unity
and the instrument of their synthesis’ (Aron, 1962a: 20). For Aron, the former
view is properly that of ‘sociology’, whereas the latter view is what he calls
‘sociologism’. In France, according to Aron, the confusion has been dangerous
and sociologism has usurped the functions of moral philosophy. Aron made it
clear that he was hostile to sociologism, which – he thought – was embodied in
the structure of the French educational system which was the consequence of
the political adoption by the Third Republic of the post-Comtean sociologistic
thinking of Durkheim. Nevertheless, he thought that any sociology which was
content to limit itself to detailed enquiry was unsatisfactory. Detailed enquiry
could be a means to the end of general understanding by articulating the
similarities and differences between social systems in such a way that it would
become possible ‘to determine the fundamental types of social organisation,
the subterranean logic of life in common’ (Aron, 1962a: 25). This would be
a universalisation which would be achieved in the understanding, deduced
from particular enquiries, rather than a posited universalism immanently
underpinning all forms of social life. He cited Lévi-Strauss’s Les structures
élémentaires de la parenté (Lévi-Strauss, 1968 [1949]) favourably as a ‘model
of sociological science’ (Aron, 1962a: 24) in this mode, and he proceeded
to argue that the sociologist should compare and contrast American and
Social Theory and Politics 311

Soviet economies and their political structures. Finally, in other words, Aron
reached a view of sociology as a meta-science able to suggest sociologistic
perceptions by carrying out detailed comparative examinations of economic
and political sub-systems, understood as autonomous entities. Indeed, for
Aron, the essential function of sociology, viewed in this way, was to establish
whether economic behaviour itself has a universal logic or is conditioned
by the political framework within which it is situated. Remaining loyal to
Weber, Aron wanted to argue that sociology could demonstrate that there is
no autonomous logic of economic behaviour, but his hostility to Durkheim
made him unable to conceive of the possibility that the differences perceived
sociologically might themselves be the products of autonomous social or
cultural self-determinations within different contexts.

The ‘Aronian’ Research of Bourdieu and Passeron in the 1960s

Aron was most concerned to establish sociologically whether economic
behaviour is apolitical. His own work had never been empirical, but his
intention in establishing a Research Group was precisely to sponsor empirical
investigations which would explore in detail aspects of the emergence of
industrial society within alternative political systems. Bourdieu and Passeron
had emerged deeply disenchanted out of the French higher education system.
At the very beginning of the 1960s, they launched a project which, in Aronian
terms, can be seen to have been an attempt to examine the logic of pedagogical
relations in themselves and the implications of their operation within
politically determined or managed educational systems. Initially, therefore,
Bourdieu and Passeron were united in carrying out a research agenda that
followed from Aron’s views. In the early 1960s, they undertook research that,
as Aron recommended, questioned whether aspects of French democracy in
the Fifth Republic were true to the vision of an inclusive, socialist republic
of the Third Republic. In particular, was the education system perpetuating
the values and the privilege of the dominant classes and denying the cultures
of the dominated? Were new technologies of the time, such as photography,
allowing for the expression of indigenous culture or was there an increasingly
homogenised culture imposed by the mass media? Were museums and art
galleries perpetuating social exclusion, or were they the disguised instruments
of state control? Were Malraux’s motives in establishing the Maisons de la
Culture essentially political in sustaining the subordination of popular culture
to a state approved high culture?
Bourdieu and Passeron came to the study of education and culture not
with the intention of contributing to the analysis of culture or education
per se, but with the intention of considering how educational and cultural
312 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

systems functioned politically. This explains their use of Aron’s terminology

in their attack on mass culture in ‘Sociologues des mythologies et mythologies
de sociologues’ (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1963) as well as their interest
in comparing educational systems within different political systems as
evidenced by their contributions to Education, développement et démocratie (Castel
and Passeron, 1967). The findings of the educational research of the early
1960s for which Bourdieu and Passeron are most famous were first released
in a working paper of the Centre of 1964 entitled ‘Les étudiants et leurs
études’ [‘Students and their Studies’] (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1964a). These
findings were the products of analyses of questionnaires returned by students
of sociology and philosophy at the University of Lille and a range of other
northern French universities.
In the same year, Bourdieu and Passeron published a book – Les héritiers
[the inheritors] (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1964b) – which represented these
findings with an interpretative gloss. In both forms, the research was aimed at
analysing the socio-cultural processes of pedagogic communication without
explicit consideration of the political structure of the French educational
system within which the processes were situated. Yet, the implicitly Aronian
dimension of their project is most clear from a publication of the Centre de
sociologie européenne of 1967, which assembled papers which had been
given in conferences organised by the Centre in Madrid in October 1964
and in Dubrovnik in October 1965. Education, Développement et Démocratie
(Castel and Passeron, 1967) assembled papers on education in, amongst
other regimes, those of Franco’s Spain, Tito’s Yugoslavia, de Gaulle’s France,
and the Greece of the Colonels. The collection was edited by Robert Castel
and Jean-Claude Passeron. The Introduction to the collection contains a
foreword by the editors and an essay by Bourdieu and Passeron entitled
‘La comparabilité des systèmes d’enseignement’ [‘The Comparability of
Systems of Education’], and there is a conclusion by the editors entitled
‘Inégalités culturelles et politiques scolaires’ [‘Cultural Inequalities and
Scholastic Politics’]. These attempts to impose some interpretative order
on contributions from researchers in various countries are all concerned to
discuss the implications of attempting to adopt a comparative methodology.
They express disquiet at the attempt to evaluate socialist educational systems
in terms of capitalist and technocratic criteria – what we might call a kind
of capitalist centrism –, but they also show anxiety at the inverse – the
consequences of suggesting patterns of pedagogical relationship which might
be thought to be independent of systemic context either as a result of a form
of universal idealism or of autonomous culturalism. In particular, Castel
and Passeron warn that ‘monographic fidelity to cultural singularities’ runs
the risk of leading to ‘sociological analysis with uncontrolled associations
Social Theory and Politics 313

with a metaphysics of culture’ (Castel and Passeron, 1967: 15) as in the case
of Spengler, and they comment that this is fundamentally Hegelian.
To avoid these alternative traps, Castel and Passeron claim that any
comparative analysis must be presented in tandem with an analysis of the
principles of comparison in use and, in this way, they indicate the significance
for the whole collection of the contribution made jointly by Bourdieu and
Passeron. Castel and Passeron recommend what we have come to identify
with Bourdieu’s work – the rigorous introduction of a principle of reflexivity –,
but I want to suggest that the approaches of Aron, Bourdieu and Passeron
were diverging during the 1960s and that this divergence crystallised in their
reactions to May 1968. Crudely, Aron retained a view of politics as diplomacy
and of the primacy of politics understood as such. He would regard social
action not as intrinsically political, but only as a variable in comparing political
systems. Bourdieu’s critique of structuralism led him to support immanent
socio-cultural agency, running the risk of the culturalism described by Castel
and Passeron and leading towards the totalitarianism of the social ascribed by
Aron to Durkheim and the concomitant denial of the autonomy of politics as
well as to what Passeron was to regard as clandestine Hegelianism. Attempting
to resist the elements of transcendental idealism in Aron’s position as well as the
incipient culturalism of Bourdieu’s, Passeron sought to map the autonomous
logics of plural discourses, systems and institutions.

The Incipient Divergence between the Positions

of Bourdieu and Passeron
As normaliens, both Bourdieu and Passeron had, of course, been trained
philosophically. The incipient differences between their positions became
apparent in the joint production of Le métier de sociologue (Bourdieu,
Chamboredon and Passeron, 1968) in which they tried to set out the
epistemological preliminaries for sociological enquiry. In a sub-section of their
introduction – ‘Epistémologie des sciences de l’homme et épistémologie des
sciences de la nature’ [epistemology of the human sciences and epistemology
of the natural sciences] – they appeared to be in agreement that the legacy of
the competing philosophies of social science of the nineteenth century offered
a false dichotomy between positivism and hermeneutics and that the solution
should be the establishment of an epistemology which would be particular to
the social sciences. They described their proposal as follows:

Pour dépasser ces débats académiques et les manières académiques de les

dépasser, il faut soumettre la pratique scientifique à une réflexion qui, à la
différence de la philosophie classique de la connaissance, s’applique non pas à
314 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

la science faite, science vraie dont il faudrait établir les conditions de possibilité
et de cohérence ou les titres de légitimité, mais à la science se faisant. (Bourdieu,
Chamboredon and Passeron, 1968: 27, emphasis in original)
[The way to move beyond these academic debates, and beyond the academic
way of moving beyond them, is to subject scientific practice to a reflection
which, unlike the classical philosophy of knowledge, is applied not to science
that has been done – true science, for which one has to establish the conditions
of possibility and coherence or the claims to legitimacy – but to science in
progress. (Bourdieu, Chamboredon and Passeron, 1991: 8)]

As Passeron said to me in a conversation (unrecorded) in Marseille in

September 2007, the production of the text of Le métier de sociologue was like the
preparation of agreed doctrinal statements at the Councils of Nicea or Trent
in the early church. The process showed him the disjunction between shared
language and shared thought. The idea of submitting practical scientific
research to systematic reflexion united Bourdieu and Passeron in as much as
both were opposed to merely theoretical theory or speculative theorising, but
their conceptions of reflexion were very different. Passeron – for instance,
in ‘La photographie parmi le personnel des usines Renault’ [Photography
amongst employees in Renault factories] Photography (Passeron, 1962) –
had sought to analyse the emergent discourse of photographic criticism
as manifest in everyday language, whereas Bourdieu was concerned with
examining the institutionalisation of an aestheticism of photography in the
growth of photographic clubs as social phenomena. Passeron was concerned
to reflect on the deployment of linguistic categories in social-scientific
research, whereas Bourdieu emphasised the need for social scientists to
establish themselves collectively as an epistemic community. It is significant
that the introduction ended with a passage that was deferential towards
Durkheim, quoting from The Rules of Sociological Method (Durkheim, 1982
[1901]). Bourdieu, Chamboredon and Passeron concluded the introduction
with the comment that

[i]n short, the scientific community has to provide itself with specific forms of
social interchange […]. (Bourdieu, Chamboredon and Passeron, 1991: 77)

In other words, the uneasy compromise of Le métier de sociologue was

that Passeron’s inclination to subject social-scientific discourse per se to
rigorous scrutiny was absorbed within a Durkheimian conception of the
need socially to construct the community within which such scrutiny could
occur. A fundamentally Weberian interest in rationality was absorbed
within a conception of a socially constructed community which would have
Social Theory and Politics 315

been anathema to Aron’s understanding of a social-scientific community.

My view is that Passeron’s work retained this linguistic/logical orientation,
as shown in Les mots de la sociologie (Passeron, 1980) and in Le raisonnement
sociologique (Passeron, 1991), whereas Bourdieu’s work took a turn towards
philosophical anthropology, mixed with phenomenology and ontology,
as indicated by the sub-title of Réponses : Pour une anthropologie réflexive
(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Passeron retained his interest in language
and reasoning, related to Husserl’s Logical Investigations (Husserl, 1970
[1901]) and to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, as introduced
by Bertrand Russell (Wittgenstein, int. Russell., 1961 [1922, 1921]). In
other words, he was interested in the logistic rejection of psychologism
and in the early developments of logical positivism. Bourdieu, by contrast,
was probably more influenced by the late Husserl, whose position had
been modified by contact with Heidegger, and by the late Wittgenstein
of the Logical Investigations (Wittgenstein, 1963). Trained in a philosophical
context that was primarily concerned with epistemology, Bourdieu and
Passeron both became practising social scientists who found themselves
analysing education and culture as a consequence of the political science
and political orientations of their mentor, Raymond Aron.

Emerging Differences between Bourdieu and Passeron

in Respect of the Analysis of Culture
Passeron’s translation of The Uses of Literacy (Hoggart, 1957) was published
as La culture du pauvre in 1970 (Hoggart, 1970 [1957]), that is to say after
Hoggart had left the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the
University of Birmingham, UK, and therefore precisely when the emergent
English field of Cultural Studies was trying to shake off the legacy of the
literary and textual tradition manifest in Hoggart’s book. Passeron celebrates
the way in which the Uses of Literacy practises the kind of sociology that is
appropriate for the study of the working classes or the classes populaires.
Precisely because Hoggart’s book is essentially literary or particularly strong
in registering working class language, Passeron tried to use Hoggart’s work
to support his contention that sociological analysis involves documenting
the ways in which people articulate their own experiences linguistically, to
support a kind of linguistic ethnomethodology, or, to relate this to a phrase
used by Bourdieu, to support a linguistic analysis of texts of ‘spontaneous
sociology’, like those supplied as appendices in Travail et travailleurs en algérie
(Bourdieu, Darbel, Rivet and Seibel, 1963). I just want to make one point
about Passeron’s ‘présentation’ of the translation of The Uses of Literacy as
La culture du pauvre. Passeron comments that one of the most original aspects
316 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of Hoggart’s book is his capacity to question the image of the working classes
and their values held by other classes. He notes:

Sans doute, le passé de l’auteur, né et élevé dans une famille ouvrière, devenu
boursier, puis universitaire et chercheur, le place-t-il dans une position
particulièrement favorable pour apercevoir la signification de classe de ces
jugements sur les classes populaires qui ont, dans les classes cultivées, toute
l’opacité des ‘évidences naturelles’. (Hoggart, 1970 [1957]: 17)
[Undoubtedly, the author’s past – born and brought up in a working-class
family, receiving a scholarship, becoming an academic and a researcher – puts
him in a particularly favourable situation to perceive the class significance of
those judgements on the popular classes which, amongst the cultivated classes,
have all the opacity of ‘natural self-evidence’.]

Passeron recognises that Hoggart was a ‘transfuge’. In this respect, Passeron

recognised an affinity between himself and Hoggart and, at the same time,
Bourdieu. The crucial difference, however, is that Passeron’s solution is
completely unlike that attempted by Bourdieu in his ‘Célibat et condition
paysanne’ (Bourdieu, 1962). Bourdieu tried to engineer a conceptual encounter
between the primary, unreflecting experience of Béarn peasants and the
perspective on that experience which he had acquired as a social scientist
who had attended Lévi-Strauss’s seminars. Ten years later, Bourdieu was to
articulate this encounter as a methodology when he adopted Bachelard’s
epistemological break to describe the three stages of theoretical knowledge,
elaborated in Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique (Bourdieu, 1972). By contrast,
Passeron continues in his présentation:

Mais, s’il est vrai que toute personnalité intellectuelle est socialement conditionnée
et si aucune expérience de classe n’est capable d’engendrer par sa seule vertu
l’attitude proprement scientifique (nulle grâce de naissance ne prédestinant jamais
à l’objectivité de la perception sociologique, pas plus dans les classes privilégiées
que dans les classes défavorisées, ou même dans les couches intellectuelles, n’en
déplaise à Mannheim) […]. (Hoggart, 1970 [1957]: 17)
[But, if it is true that every intellectual personality is socially conditioned
and if no class experience is in itself capable of generating a properly scientific
attitude (nothing ever predestining the objectivity of sociological perception
thanks to birth, no more in the privileged classes than in the disadvantaged, pace
Mannheim) […].]

In other words, scientific objectivity is not the preserve of any one class and
is not socially constructed. All classes articulate their own self-understandings
Social Theory and Politics 317

linguistically and these articulations have to be analysed intrinsically as

‘science’, rather than relatively as the products of different social groups.
This clear distinction between the positions taken by Passeron and
Bourdieu at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s relates as well to the
difference between them in relation to the interpretation of La Reproduction
(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1970). It was the paper given by Bourdieu in England
in 1970 as ‘Reproduction culturelle et reproduction sociale’ (Bourdieu,
1971), which consolidated the view that La Reproduction was arguing that
cultural reproduction is an instrument in social reproduction, whereas
Passeron’s position had consistently been that there are autonomous logics
in operation in both the cultural and the social spheres and that there is no
universally formulatable causal connection between the two. The position
which Bourdieu was developing became clear in the argument of Esquisse
(Bourdieu, 1972), as further developed in the English translation as Outline
of a Theory of Practice (Bourdieu, 1977), but in relation to class cultures it was,
of course, most apparent in La distinction (1979). It was the publication of
La distinction which stimulated the responses of Claude Grignon and Passeron,
which were expressed in the text which they finally published together in 1989
as Le savant et le populaire, echoing the title of Aron’s introduction to Weber’s
esssays. The book was the final version, barely altered, of seminars given
in Marseille in 1982, and published by GIDES (Groupe inter-universitaire
de documentation et d’enquêtes sociologiques [the inter-university group
for documentation and sociological enquiries]) in 1983 and by CERCOM
(Centre de Recherches sur Culture et Communication [Centre for Research
on Culture and Communication]) in 1985. In the opening part of Le savant et
le populaire, Passeron outlines the ‘cultural relativism’ position and the ‘cultural
legitimacy’ position. He seems more inclined to expose Bourdieu as a cultural
relativist and he suggests that the fallacy of Bourdieu’s position was that he
wrongly tried to adopt in France a cultural relativist position which had worked
in Algeria. Cultural relativism applies in a context of ‘pure alterity’, but within
one society there is, instead, a situation of ‘altérité mêlée’ [mixed alterity].
[Arguably, in parenthesis, in a global world, cultural relativism is now totally
excluded since there is no possibility of any pure alterity and so, for Passeron,
there is no defence remaining of Bourdieu’s approach.] Passeron’s main
criticism of Bourdieu is the one to which I have already referred which he
summarises again in the following way. Bourdieu acquiesced in a misreading
of La reproduction which failed to acknowledge that

[…] la connaissance des rapports de force entre groupes et classes n’apporte

pas sur un plateau la clé de leurs rapports symboliques et du contenu de leurs
cultures ou de leurs idéologies. (Grignon and Passeron, 1989, 27)
318 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

[ […] the knowledge of the power relations between groups and classes does
not dish out the key to their symbolic relations or to the content of their cultures
or their ideologies.]

In place of a crude, Marxist schema to model the relations between culture

and social class, Passeron proposes a second schema which has the possibility
of integrating cultural analysis with ideological analysis. This schema
represents diagrammatically the complex nature of socio-cultural analysis.
As Passeron says:

Une sociologie de la culture qui veut intégrer à ses analyses les faits de domination
a toujours affaire à un circuit complexe d’interactions symboliques et de
constitutions de symbolismes. (Grignon and Passeron, 1989: 29)
[A sociology of culture which wants to integrate the facts of domination into
its analyses is always involved in a complex circuit of symbolic interactions and
constituted symbolisms.]

Passeron knows that his second schema is no more prescriptive or definitive

than the first:

Le schéma suggère évidemment l’apparence trompeuse d’un réseau routier

que le chercheur pourrait parcourir sans problèmes. Ce n’est là qu’optimisme
graphique. (Grignon and Passeron, 1989: 30)
[The schema clearly suggests the mistaken appearance of a road network
that the researcher can navigate without any problems. That is just graphical
optimism.]

In other words, Passeron is in sympathy with Aron’s criticism of Weber that

he imposed a simplistic model on social reality, that is, a theoretical model
which failed to do justice to the empirical complexities of society. To return
to my starting point, my contention is that Passeron is equally in sympathy
with Aron’s more positive interpretation of Weber’s position in balancing the
commitments of science and politics. Passeron’s second schema purports to
offer a continuously self-modifying model of relations between culture and
ideology, which itself is scientific and non-ideological. The autonomous status
of science is not questioned and political convictions or commitments are of a
different order. I am reminded of Paul Veyne’s recent use of Weber to defend
Foucault. Veyne (a close friend of Passeron) wrote:

Si l’on cherche à cerner un type d’humanité, il y avait chez Foucault ce

‘renoncement sceptique à trouver un sens au monde’ dont parle Max Weber, qui
y voyait avec quelque exagération une attitude ‘commune à toutes les couches
Social Theory and Politics 319

intellectuelles de tous les temps.’ (Veyne, 2008: 203, quoting Weber, 2006
[1910/1920]: 228)
[If we seek to discern a type of human nature, there was in Foucault that
‘sceptical refusal to find meaning in the world’ of which Weber spoke, who, with
some exaggeration, saw in it an attitude which is ‘common to all intellectual
milieux at all times’.]

By contrast, Bourdieu tried to develop a conceptual framework which sought

to represent the complexity of reality itself. Just as Passeron counteracts the
Marxist schema logically, Bourdieu tried, by developing the concept of ‘field’,
to moderate the crudity of a Marxist position. Bourdieu’s contention was that
there are in society relationally constructed or institutionalised ‘fields’ within
which autonomous cultural analyses are exchanged whilst these fields are
themselves socio-economically conditioned. Grignon accuses Bourdieu of
evaluating dominated culture by the criteria of dominant culture, but the point
of Homo Academicus (Bourdieu, 1984) is that Bourdieu deliberately situates the
view of culture taken in Distinction as a function of his own position within the
‘game of culture’.

Differences between Aron, Bourdieu and Passeron

in Respect of Education
This is not the place to look fully at the work of the three men in respect of the
sociology of education during the 1960s. I want to offer some bibliographic
details and make a few comments as a prelude to some brief reference to the
events of May 1968.
Aron wrote two articles specifically on education in this period. The first
was ‘Quelques problèmes des universités françaises’ [‘Some Problems of
French Universities’], published in 1962 (Aron, 1962b). He made it clear
that his interest was in the way in which European universities, as historic
institutions, might adapt to the challenges of modern, industrial society.
The problems of adaptation were to be resolved politically. He examined
the ideological legacy in France, not of the medieval university but of the
revolutionary and Napoleonic regimes, revised at the beginning of the
Third Republic. He was highly critical of French universities, but he sought
solutions in terms of management, governance, or legislative change. His
second article was a paper given in June 1966 (Aron, 1966) at a conference
of the Institut international de planification de l’éducation [International Institute
for Educational Planning], thereby confirming his orientation towards the
central, governmental planning of change.
As well as writing ‘Les étudiants et leurs études’ and Les héritiers in 1964,
Bourdieu and Passeron wrote, with others under a pseudonym, an article in
320 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Esprit in the same year entitled ‘L’universitaire et son université’ [professors and
their universities] (Boupareytre, 1964). In 1965, they together wrote ‘Langage
et rapport au langage dans la situation pédagogique’ and, with Monique de
Saint-Martin, ‘Les étudiants et la langue d’enseignement’[students and the
language of teaching], both of which were issued as a working paper of
the Centre, with the title Rapport pédagogique et communication [The pedagogic
relationship and communication] (Bourdieu, Passeron and de Saint Martin,
1965) most of which was published in English translation in 1994 as Academic
Discourse (Bourdieu, Passeron and de Saint Martin, 1994). The tendency of
these joint papers was still to see the social or class differences of students
as a variable to be considered in the analysis of pedagogic communication,
but not yet to see the system within which the communication was occurring
as something which itself should be subject to sociological analysis. Writing
separately, Passeron produced a report in 1963 entitled ‘Les étudiantes’
[women students] (Passeron, 1963), which demonstrated that the language
codes deployed by female students were the sources of pedagogically
significant communicative variations and this view, perhaps, constituted
a challenge to Bourdieu’s inclination to define the student body as a social
group exclusively in terms of its ‘studentness’, its gender-free situatedness. In
1967, Passeron published an article entitled ‘La relation pédagogique dans
le système d’enseignement [The pedagogical relationship in the teaching
system]], in which he explicitly contended that the analysis of pedagogical
relations was in danger of divorcing pedagogy ‘from the institutional and
social conditions in which it is accomplished’ (Passeron, 1967: 149), and he
proceeded to analyse instead the discourses of conservatism and innovation
that were being deployed by those involved in educational reform. It was
this discourse analysis that was also the basis of Passeron’s contribution to
a book that he published in 1966 with Gérald Antoine, entitled La réforme de
l’Université [Reforming the university] (Antoine and Passeron, 1966). Passeron
here compared the implementation of educational change at the beginning
of the Third Republic, based upon the shared discourse of academics and
legislators, with the difficulty of effecting change in the present when there
was neither a shared discourse amongst academics nor a shared discourse
between academics and administrators. Aron wrote a foreword to this book
in which he recognised that the change by legislation which he favoured was
predicated on a community of values which was currently lacking in France.

The May ‘Events’ of 1968

Aron used his position at Le Figaro to write pieces about the student
revolt whilst it was happening. These were reproduced in a book which he
Social Theory and Politics 321

published in September 1968, entitled La révolution introuvable. Réflexions sur

les événements de mai [The unrealisable revolution. Reflections on the events
of May]] (Aron, 1968). Fourteen short pieces, published between May 15th
and June 28th, were collected as an appendix. The first, retrospective, part
of the book offered reflections on the events, beginning with a statement
about the nature of his involvement, which helps us steer a way through
his intellectual response to the events, contextualising the contents of the
appendix. On Friday, May 3rd, the University Rector called in the police
to clear the Sorbonne, and there was a mass demonstration in the Latin
Quarter. A week later, during the night of Friday 10th to Saturday 11th,
there was a rising in the Latin Quarter following the breakdown of talks
between the government and the students. The uprising was brutally
repressed by the police. Aron recollects that he refused to write anything
in Le Figaro in this first week of the Events. In the University, as he says,
he ‘belonged to the reformist and not the conservative party’ (Aron, 1968:
21). As much as possible, he tried to abstain, not wanting to ‘add to the
confusion’ nor to join those of his university colleagues who considered it
their ‘duty to accompany the students to the barricades’ (Aron, 1968: 21).
He was abroad in the United States from the 14th to the 23rd of May,
honouring a long-standing commitment. Before leaving, he had written
two ‘Réflexions d’un universitaire’ [Reflections of a professor], which were
published on May 15th and 16th. In the first, he argued against the student
view that their condition was universal, and he insisted that lecturing
staff should force themselves ‘patiently and modestly’ to resolve problems
which took particular forms in different countries in spite of ‘certain
common characteristics’ (Aron, 1968: 159). In the second, he argued that
the crisis of the university derived from the fact that student numbers had
increased – something which had occurred in all industrial countries –, but
that this had not been matched in France with the necessary disposition
of resources.
What was articulated by students as an intrinsic shortcoming of a
‘technocratic university’ was actually the shortcoming of the modern
state in failing to make provision for the kind of university entailed by
its modernisation. Aron argued still for dialogue but he feared that the
current events prefigured more danger than hope. The analysis offered
in these first two articles was still reminiscent of his earlier lectures on
industrial society and totalitarian and democratic political systems. On
May 16th, Pompidou announced ominously that the government would
‘do its duty’ in the face of disorder. On the 18th, de Gaulle returned
hastily from a visit to Roumania. The following week, the parliamentary
left demanded the resignation of the government, but a motion of censure
322 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

was defeated in the National Assembly on the 22nd. On Friday 24th, de

Gaulle announced a referendum on participation, adding that he would
resign if it were rejected. Aron cut short his trip to the United States, and
he recollects that, on his return on May 23rd, there was ‘apparently no
government’. It was, therefore, as he puts it, no longer ‘a question of writing
then about the university’ (Aron, 1968: 22–23). In his absence, the issues
had escalated. His response escalated from that of a sociologist concerned
with educational reform to that of a political philosopher confronting the
problems of a modern social democracy. His method was historical. Rather
than attempt a scientific analysis of contemporary events, Aron offered
an account by analogy with the events of 1848 as recounted by Alexis
de Tocqueville in a piece published on May 29th, entitled ‘Immuable et
changeante’ [immutable and changing] – a title which deliberately echoed
that of a book which Aron had written in 1958 on the eve of the adoption
of the constitution of the Fifth Republic. On Thursday, May 30th, de
Gaulle returned to Paris from a meeting in Germany and made a speech
broadcast on radio and television in which he announced his refusal to
withdraw and his decision to dissolve the National Assembly. When,
as Aron comments, ‘there was a government again, that is to say after
May 30’ (Aron, 1968: 23), he considered it his duty to continue pieces in
his Le Figaro column, which were informed by the fact that he was also a
university professor. The present circumstances demanded this, that is to
say because ‘there is such a confusion between university revolution and
political revolution’ (Aron, 1968: 23).
Aron’s intention was to continue the political debate of May ex post
facto, and the production of the book in September was an extension
of this purpose. He compared the function of his book with that of his
La tragédie algérienne, (Aron, 1958) which he had written in 1958 when de
Gaulle had been recalled to power during the Algerian crisis. The aim
was to be polemical. He had no pretention ‘to impart the truth or the
meaning of the event’. His objective was to ‘demystify’ and ‘desacralise’
it (Aron, 1968: 12). Aron’s interventions had begun as contributions
to debate about the reform of the university, but – after the beginning
of June, culminating in the publication of his book in September – he
broadened the discussion so as to offer an ideological critique, as a political
philosopher, of the libertarian tendency in the French political tradition,
which drew inspiration from the Jacobin communes of Paris of the 1790s,
the 1848 revolution, and the Paris Commune of 1871.
The clearest evidence for Bourdieu’s association with the Events of May
1968 is offered in the book published in the year of his death by two of his
disciples – Franck Poupeau and Thierry Discepolo – entitled Interventions,
Social Theory and Politics 323

1961–2001. Science sociale et action politique (Bourdieu, 2002). They are

concerned to show the continuity of Bourdieu’s position from the early 1960s
through to his opposition to neo-liberalism in the 1990s and, in particular,
they reproduce two documents with which Bourdieu was associated, the
first entitled Appel à l’organisation d’états généraux de l’enseignement et de recherche
[Call for the organisation of Estates General of teaching and research]
and the second entitled Quelques indications pour une politique de démocratisation
[some suggestions for a democratisation policy]. The first document was the
product of a meeting of a group of lecturers and researchers which took
place on May 12th ‘at the moment when, by their courage, the students have
won a first battle’ (Bourdieu, 2002: 63). It was most concerned to argue that
there was a danger that the future of the university would be debated only
by those who were the beneficiaries of the current system. In recommending
the organisation of an Estates General which would provide a forum for
those involved in education at all levels, from primary to higher education,
the Call sought to ensure that the educational revolt would not be one within
an autonomous, politically managed system, but would be transformed into a
widespread social democratic revolution which would be operationalised by
means adopted by the revolutionaries of 1789 in opposing the Ancien Régime.
The second document outlines 16 principles to be followed in seeking to
ensure that technocratic reform of the university does not reinforce existing
social inequality. Together, these papers indicate the political implications
of Bourdieu’s sociocratic opposition to technocratic control of educational
processes, and they do anticipate the position that he was to outline in La
noblesse d’état (Bourdieu, 1989) as well as in the publications of Liber. Raisons
d’Agir of the 1990s, especially Quelques diagnostics et remèdes urgents pour une
université en péril (ARESER, 1997).
In 1966 Passeron moved to the University of Nantes and established a
Department of Sociology there before accepting a post as Head of Sociology
in 1968 at the new post-1968 University of Paris VIII at Vincennes, where
he remained until 1977. He was committed to the institutionalisation of
sociology and to the view that legislative changes would become effective if a
receptive common discourse of educational innovation could be established.
He was one of the seventy-eight signatories to the call for an Estates-General
attributed, as we have seen, to Bourdieu, but it seems that Passeron had no
further direct involvement with the Parisian events.

Conclusion
I have tried to sketch the three positions adopted in the 1960s by Aron,
Passeron and Bourdieu. For me, the legacy of 1968 is encapsulated in the
324 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

tension between these three positions, which is still our tension today. All three
men wanted to be socio-politically engaged as scientists. Aron emphasised
the necessity for political engagement and marginalised social activism. He
sponsored sociological research in the hope of consolidating his political
convictions through comparative analyses. Bourdieu and Passeron carried out
these analyses. By exposing the extent to which pedagogical communication
euphemised political domination, however, they autonomised the social and
the cultural as arenas for a potential counter-politics, thereby undermining
Aron’s intention. Bourdieu sought to translate this sociological analysis into a
blueprint for political action, based on the mobilisation of social movements.
Passeron was to detach himself from Bourdieu’s project in 1972 to concentrate,
instead, on developing an epistemology of the social sciences, crystallised in
Le raisonnement sociologique (1991)2, so as to seek to understand philosophically
the explanatory claims of those political and sociological discourses of which
Aron and Bourdieu were opposed exponents.

Notes
1 This paper benefits from research which I am undertaking with the support of the ESRC
on the work of Jean-Claude Passeron. I am also indebted to Simon Susen and Bryan
S. Turner for their assistance and encouragement during the production of this text.
2 The revised edition of 2006 is currently being translated, to be published in 2010/11.

References
ARESER (Association de réflexion sur les enseignements supérieurs et la recherche
[Association for reflection on higher education and research]) (1997) Quelques diagnostics et
remèdes urgents pour une université en péril, Paris, Liber-Raisons d’Agir.
Antoine, Gérald and Jean-Claude Passeron (1966) La réforme de l’université, Paris: Calmann-
Lévy.
Aron, Raymond (1935) La sociologie allemande contemporaine, Paris: Alcan.
Aron, Raymond (1948) Le grand schisme, Paris: Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1951) Les guerres en chaîne, Paris: Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1957) La tragédie algérienne, Paris: Plon.
Aron, Raymond (1964) La lutte des classes. Nouvelles leçons sur les sociétés industrielles, Paris:
Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1962a) Dix-huit leçons sur la société industrielle, Paris: Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1962b) ‘Quelques problèmes des universités françaises’, Archives européennes
de sociologie 1: 102–122.
Aron, Raymond (1965) Démocratie et totalitarisme, Paris: Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1966) ‘Remarques sociologiques sur les notions de qualité et de quantité
en fait d’éducation’, Communication au colloque de l’Institut international de
planification de l’éducation, June.
Aron, Raymond (1967 [1962]) 18 Lectures on Industrial Society, trans. M. K. Bottomore,
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Social Theory and Politics 325

Aron, Raymond (1967) Les Etapes de la pensée sociologique, Paris: Gallimard.

Aron, Raymond (1968) La révolution introuvable. Réflexions sur les événements de Mai, Paris: Fayard.
Aron, Raymond (1969) D’une sainte Famille à l’autre : essai sur les marxismes imaginaires, Paris:
Gallimard.
Aron, Raymond (1990 [1983]) Memoirs: Fifty Years of Political Thought, trans. George Holoch,
New York: Holmes and Meier.
Boupareytre, Émile [Pierre Bourdieu, Jean-Claude Passeron, Jean-Daniel Reynaud and
Jean-René Treanton] (1964) ‘L’universitaire et son université’, Esprit 5–6: 834–847.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1958) Sociologie de l’Algérie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1961) Sociologie de l’Algérie, 2nd edition, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1962 [1961]) The Algerians, Boston: Beacon Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1962) ‘Célibat et condition paysanne’, Études rurales 5–6: 32–136.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1971) ‘Reproduction culturelle et reproduction sociale’, Information sur les
sciences sociales X(2): 45–99.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1972) Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé de trois études d’ethnologie kabyle,
Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1981) ‘Décrire et prescrire. Note sur les conditions de possibilité et les
limites de l’efficacité politique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 38: 69–73.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984) Homo academicus, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans.
Richard Nice, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus, trans. Peter Collier, Cambridge: Polity
Press in association with Basil Blackwell.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989) La noblesse d’État. Grandes Écoles et esprit de corps, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1989]) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans.
Loretta Clough, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002) Interventions, 1961–2001. Science sociale et action politique, textes choisis
et présentés par Franck Poupeau et Thierry Discepolo, Marseille: Agone.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Jean-Claude Passeron (1968) Le métier
de sociologue. Préalables épistémologiques, Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales/Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Jean-Claude Passeron (1991 [1968]) The
Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries, trans. Richard Nice, edited by Beate Krais,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Darbel, Jean-Paul Rivet and Claude Seibel (1963) Travail et travailleurs
en Algérie, Paris: Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1963) ‘Sociologues des mythologies et
mythologies de sociologues’, Les temps modernes 211: 998–1021.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1964a) Les étudiants et leurs études, Cahiers du
Centre de sociologie européenne, 1, Paris-The Hague: Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1964b) Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture,
Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1965) « Langage et rapport au langage dans la
situation pédagogique », in Pierre Bourdieu, Jean-Claude Passeron, Monique de Saint
Martin, eds, 1965, 9–36.
326 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1970) La reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du
système d’enseignement, Paris: Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1979 [1964]) The Inheritors: French Students and
their Relation to Culture, trans. Richard Nice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990 [1977,1970]) Reproduction in Education,
Society and Culture, trans. Richard Nice, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Passeron and Michel Eliard (1964) Les étudiants et leurs études,
Paris: Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Passeron and Monique de Saint Martin (eds.) (1965) Rapport
pédagogique et communication, Cahiers du Centre de sociologie européenne, 2, Paris-The
Hague: Mouton.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Passeron and Monique de Saint Martin (1994) Academic
Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power, trans. Richard Teese, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) Réponses. Pour une anthropologie réflexive, Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Castel, Robert and Jean-Claude Passeron (eds.) (1967) Éducation, développement et démocratie,
Paris & The Hague: Mouton.
Durkheim, Émile (1982 [1901]) The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. W.D. Halls, 2nd
edition, New York: Free Press.
Freund, Julien (1966) Sociologie de Max Weber, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Grignon, Claude and Jean-Claude Passeron (1989) Le savant et le populaire. Misérabilisme et
populisme en sociologie et en littérature, Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.
Hoggart, Richard (1957) The Uses of Literacy: Aspects of Working-Class Life, London: Chatto
and Windus.
Hoggart, Richard (1970 [1957]) La culture du pauvre, trans. Jean-Claude Passeron, Paris: Minuit.
Husserl, Edmund (1970 [1954]) The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology.
An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, Edmund (1970 [1901]) Logical Investigations, trans. J.N. Findlay, 2nd edition, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Husserl, Edmund (1977 [1950]) Cartesian Meditations. An Introduction to Phenomenology, The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1968 [1949]) Les structures élémentaires de la parenté, nouv. éd. revue,
Paris: Mouton.
Passeron, Jean-Claude (1962) ‘La photographie parmi le personnel des usines Renault’,
Paris, Centre de sociologie européenne (internal working paper).
Passeron, Jean-Claude (1963) ‘Les étudiantes’, Paris: Centre de sociologie européenne
(internal working paper).
Passeron, Jean-Claude (1967) ‘La relation pédagogique dans le système d’enseignement’,
Prospective 14: 149–171.
Passeron, Jean-Claude (1980) Les mots de la sociologie, Nantes: University of Nantes.
Passeron, Jean-Claude (1991) Le raisonnement sociologique. L’espace non poppérien du raisonnement
naturel, Paris: Nathan.
Passeron, Jean-Claude (2006 [1991]) Le raisonnement sociologique. Un espace non poppérien de
l’argumentation, édition revue et augmentée, Paris: Albin Michel.
Passeron, Jean-Claude (2010/11 [2006]) Sociological Reasoning. A Non-Popperian Space for
Argument, Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Social Theory and Politics 327

Veyne, Paul (2008) Foucault. Sa pensée, sa personne, Paris: Albin Michel.

Weber, Max (1919) Wissenschaft als Beruf, München: Duncker & Humboldt.
Weber, Max (1921) Gesammelte Politische Schriften, München: Duncker & Humboldt.
Weber, Max (1922) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, Tübingen: Mohr.
Weber, Max (1959 [1919/1922]) Le savant et le politique, trans. J. Freund, Paris: Plon.
Weber, Max (1965) Essais sur la théorie de la science, trans. J. Freund, Paris: Plon.
Weber, Max (2006) Sociologie des religions, traduction de Jean-Pierre Grossein, introduction de
Jean-Claude Passeron, Paris: Gallimard.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1961, int. Russell [1922, 1921]) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1963) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere:
Between the Corporatism of the Universal
and the Realpolitik of Reason

Yves Sintomer
Translated by Steven Corcoran

But because what we propose to study above all is reality, it does not follow that
we should give up the idea of improving it. We would esteem our research
not worth the labour of a single hour if its interest were merely speculative.
(Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, p. xxvi)

In the French edition of The Weight of the World, Bourdieu contends that the
goal of his critical sociology is to ‘open up possibilities for rational action to
unmake or remake what history has made’ (1999 [1993]: 187).1 But what is
‘rational action’ in politics? And what potential contribution can intellectuals
make to it? This last question is the one that I would like to address here,
taking Bourdieu’s own answers to it as my starting point. The aim will not be
to analyse the concrete orientation of his public interventions, but instead to
understand the type of articulation between political life and the intellectual
world that he conceptualised. I have no philological ambitions of retracing
Bourdieu’s trajectory from the 1960s onwards. My intention is to focus on his
theorisation of these issues during the last period of his life, from the moment
he committed himself increasingly to the public realm (the turning point here
is symbolised by the publication in 1993 of The Weight of the World, whose
echo outside the academic world was considerable). After briefly defining
the notion of the intellectual as it is used here, I will outline the essential
characteristics of the Bourdieusian conception of engagement, as grounded
in the concepts of ‘corporatism of the universal’ and the ‘Realpolitik of reason’.
We will then see why this problematic, despite its stimulating character, risks
falling into scientism, and why, by thinking with and against Bourdieu, it needs
330 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

to be reformulated by means of its articulation with a socio-historical notion

of the public sphere.

A Realpolitik of Reason
The word ‘intellectual’ possesses multiple meanings. The Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary of Current English defines it broadly as ‘a person who is well
educated and enjoys activities in which they have to think seriously about
things’. In a more restricted sense, the word is often used to refer to those who
exercise a profession in which intellectual activity is fundamental (‘intellectual
workers’ by contrast to ‘manual workers’). It can also take on a still more
exclusive meaning and designation for those for whom reflection and artistic
and literary creation is a profession. I would like here to uphold an even more
circumscribed meaning, which stresses the one that Bourdieu gave to the word.
I will employ the term ‘intellectual’ to designate that two-dimensional figure
whose specific authority is earned in one of the cultural fields (scientific, artistic,
and literary) and who invests his symbolic authority through his involvement
in public affairs (1996 [1992]: 372). This definition does not follow as a matter
of course, because it presupposes the historical thesis according to which the
said intellectual is a modern invention that emerges only with the relative
autonomisation of fields of culture. The definition, moreover, distinguishes
intellectuals from figures who proclaim themselves intellectuals and have no
academic or artistic recognition properly speaking, but are very present in
a media scene, on which they depend heavily and in relation to which they
therefore have no autonomy. Lastly, it designates a potential tension between
the work of accumulation of specifically scientific or artistic capital and
activities that enable the constitution of a ‘politico-intellectual’ capital with
the public at large or a fraction of it. Each individual’s time constraints and
limited energy mean that every scientist or artist who decides to get involved
in public affairs has to deal with this issue; and this is so irrespective of one’s
mode of engagement, as expert or fellow traveller in an institution (state,
tribunal, party, social movement) or as a ‘free’ intellectual.
I will not go back over the concept of field again here, since it has already
been dealt with abundantly. Instead, I will delve into two concepts which have
remained relatively unanalysed thus far: the ‘corporatism of the universal’
and the ‘Realpolitik of reason’. To establish the first, Bourdieu had recourse
to the paradigmatic example of the scientific field’s achievement of (relative)
autonomy in modernity in relation to the political or economic fields. According
to him, this field becomes structured in such a way that lasting success in it is
impossible to achieve by saying merely whatever. It is true that external social
pressures continue to exert themselves and that power relations internal to the
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 331

field (such as the weight of scientific bureaucracy) produce distortions whose

effects are not relegated only to the margins. Nevertheless, in modern western
democracies, recourse to social or political force turns out to be unable to
prevent the better scientific arguments from winning out over the long term.
The structure of the terrain of modern science demands a regulated and, to a
certain extent, self-controlled competition. Those who appeal to bad arguments
inevitably wind up disqualifying themselves in the eyes of their peers. By the
same token, they lose the symbolic capital that comes with scientific prestige
and find themselves handicapped in the competition of the search for truth.
The agonistic relation which traverses the scientific field – like all the other
fields – thus results in a sublimation of relations of power, since the agents
have to place themselves in the service of reason and the universal if they are
to be crowned with success. As Bourdieu puts it, ‘[t]he scientific field is a game
in which you have to arm yourself with reason in order to win’. It is in this
way that, far from being innate to ‘man’ or from following inevitably from the
a priori conditions of human sociality, reason constitutes a historical and social
product (1990 [1987]: 32).2 The argument is, in some sense, a historicising
rectification of the Kantian argument about the ‘unsociable sociability’ of
human beings, and Bourdieu’s Republic of Letters is evocative of the people
of demons to which Kant alluded: instead of providence, however, specific
social mechanisms constrain individuals to behave ‘rationally’ in determinate
fields. In this way, it becomes possible to historicise reason without falling
into relativism (2000 [1997]: 136). The scientific field constitutes a historical
approximation of the ideal situation of communication. In Bourdieu’s words,
‘I do not think that reason is inscribed in the structure of the human spirit
or in language. [...] Irrespective of what Habermas says, reason itself has a
history: it did not fall from the heavens into our thinking and our language.
The habitus (scientific or otherwise) is a transcendental, but it is an historical
transcendental, which is partly connected with the structure and the history of
the field’ (1992: 188–189; 2000 [1997]: 110; 1997: 60).
This sociological argument, moreover, enables a coherent normative stance
to be taken and its concepts take on the status of a ‘normative description’
(Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 140; 1996 [1992]: 214–274). Provided that the
intellectual objectifies himself in a reflexive manner, that is, critically analyses
his own interests and his own situation in the scientific field and society in
general – his own historical unconscious – then he can, so the argument goes,
lay claim to being a ‘functionary of humanity’. To demonstrate the social
conditions of the ‘production of truth’ in itself entails the actual existence
of a ‘politics of truth’, one which aims precisely to ‘defend and improve the
functioning of the social universes in which rational principles are applied
and truth comes into being’ (1990 [1987]: 32). According to this view, then,
332 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

the essential thing is to defend and increase the autonomy of the scientific
field and its virtuous logic ‘by strengthening the entry barriers, by rejecting the
introduction and utilization of non-specific weapons, by favouring regulated
forms of competition which are subject solely to the constraints of logical
coherence and experimental verification’ (1990 [1987]: 32). Bourdieu concludes
his argument with a response to potential objections: ‘This Realpolitik of reason
will undoubtedly be suspected of corporatism. But it will be part of its task to
prove, by the ends to which it puts the sorely won means of its autonomy, that
it is a corporatism of the universal’ (1996 [1992]: 348).
The social sciences have a particular role to play in the matter: via a socio-
history of scientific practice, they bring to light the collusions or homologies
between the structure of the scientific field and that of other fields, notably
the economic and political fields. They enable us to discern the influences
of the latter over scientific practices. They are therefore better at helping
conceive how the latter can free themselves of the particular interests linked
to this or that economic or political force, and how, by gaining in autonomy,
they can gain in universality. It is in this precise sense that, at the end of his
life, Bourdieu called for a ‘politicisation of science’ as opposed to the ‘fatal’
politicisation that would occur by importing polemics from the political into
the scientific field (1997: 61). Bourdieu’s definition of the intellectual does
not only have analytic import, but it also contains a normative dimension. If
a rigorous distinction has to be made between true intellectuals and ‘media-
intellectuals’, the reason is that the latter, in abdicating their demands for
the autonomy of the scientific field and without any legitimacy over it, go
directly against the virtuous resort of scientists. And mere withdrawal into a
purely academic position is likewise insufficient to guarantee the conditions of
production so peculiar to scientists.
Had this been Bourdieu’s only argument, it would, all in all, take us but a
simple logical step further than the position that he previously advanced in the
times when he firmly advised all collaborators against political involvement.
Henceforth, the defence of the autonomy of science, a constant of Bourdieu’s
position, would be portrayed as requiring a certain ‘politicisation’, in a restricted
sense. Bourdieu, however, makes a second argument. While the two concepts
of the ‘corporatism of the universal’ and the ‘Realpolitik of reason’ are closely
interrelated, the latter distinguishes itself from the former insofar as it involves
more than a simple defence of the autonomy of the scientific or artistic fields.
It requires that the universal values that guide the logic of functioning of
the latter, such as truth and authenticity, be reinvested in specifically political
debates. From the 1990s onwards, Bourdieu began to endorse a broader sense
of intellectual commitment. The critical intellectual, he wrote, is moved by
a ‘politics of purity’, which is the ‘perfect antithesis to the reason of state’.
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 333

This politics entails an assertion of the right to transgress the most sacred
values of the political community, such as patriotism, ‘in the name of values
transcending those of citizenship or, if you will, in the name of a particular
form of ethical and scientific universalism which can serve as a foundation not
only for a sort of moral magisterium but also for a collective mobilisation to
fight to promote these values’ (1996 [1992]: 339–343).
It is this second step, at once theoretical and practical, which marks
the real turning point with respect to his position in the 1970s. Hitherto,
he had remained content to advance the notion that the social sciences,
insofar as they proceed towards the unveiling of an otherwise masked
reality, constitute a critique by the mere fact of their existence. By jealously
demanding their independence in relation to political, economic, religious,
etc., powers, the social sciences defend a liberty of judgement with respect
to these latter; and by deconstructing the pseudo-evidences of the existing
order, shot through with relations of domination, they contribute to
putting such relations into question. In his later years, however, Bourdieu
took things much further, advancing that critical intellectuals must reinvest
positively in a politics of the universal values that are theirs in order to
provide arguments for social movements.

Transcending the Political via Intellectual Critique?

From the 1990s onwards, the strength of Bourdieu’s commitment is played out
in his concept of the Realpolitik of reason (thus defined in its full scope). By dint
of calling for scientists to mobilise politically and his own growing political
involvement, he played a decisive role in public debate in the 1990s. He had not
only joined the tradition of the great politically committed sociologists (Marx,
Weber, and Durkheim), but also, although in a specific way, the heritage of the
most famous French intellectuals, stretching from Voltaire to Jean-Paul Sartre,
including Émile Zola, Michel Foucault and Simone de Beauvoir. He thereby
acquired an immense politico-intellectual prestige. His role is not unrelated to
that played by the Frankfurt School intellectuals in Germany. On this point,
the closest figure to Bourdieu on the other side of the Rhine is Habermas.
There can be little doubt, however, that Bourdieu had a proportionally far
larger public echo. He influenced a whole generation of actors, both in the
scientific field and social movements, and he contributed to a repoliticisation
of the French university.
Nevertheless, the Realpolitik of reason raises two series of problems. On
the one hand, in its cognitive dimension and its ‘defensive’ normative version
(struggle for the autonomy of science), it tends to simplify, idealise and
homogenise the fields of culture and, in particular, of the sciences. Indeed,
334 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

social history provides us with a far more complex panorama of the dynamic
of development of the sciences and technology, the driving force of which
is irreducible to a progressive freeing in relation to other social relationships
(Atten and Pestre, 2002; Pestre, 2003). Polarisation on the sole issue of the
defence of scientific autonomy dissimulates the political dimension involved
in the choice of research orientation or of the distribution of means making
it possible to perform demonstrations of proof. It tends to disconnect research
from public debates and prevents us from conceiving of a democratisation of
sciences and technologies, whose topicality has nonetheless been extensively
demonstrated over recent last years, including biomedical questions,
controversies over nuclear power and research on the OGN gene (Callon,
Lascoume and Barthes, 2001; Sclove, 1995).
In its ‘offensive’ dimension, the concept of the Realpolitik of reason presents
an equally formidable problem: with which criteria is it possible to perform
the conversion of ‘universal’ values of a cultural or scientific type into political
values? How are we, for example, to go from an historical or sociological
analysis of education or the social state to propositions for reform, that is,
without getting involved in ethico-political debates? The social sciences can
certainly contribute to deconstructing the self-evidences of such or such
a policy by showing its contingency. In the 60s and 70s, to take only this
example, the demonstration that the French school system reproduced social
hierarchisations could in fact have a political effect, so long as the republican
sense of equality through schooling constituted a broadly shared myth. Yet, in
the name of what science or what art would it be possible to declare that one
is for or against such and such a type of overhaul of the school or retirement
system – that is, without further mobilising criteria that are, properly
speaking, political? Bourdieu speaks of culture as an ‘instrument of freedom
presupposing liberty’, in contrast to culture as ‘thing-like and closed’, that is,
to ‘dead’ culture insofar as it is an ‘instrument of domination and distinction’.
From a similar perspective, he wrote that the ‘liberation of women’ had as
its prior condition a culture that no longer functioned as ‘a social relation of
distinction’ – something which makes women (and the dominated in general)
into objects rather than subjects. Reacting to a rather regressive political
conjuncture, he also warned against returning to the most primitive forms of
barbarism in opposition to which all the democratic, parliamentary and notably
judiciary institutions were built (1996 [1992]: 214–274 and 337–348; 1990c;
1993b). Now, what possible definition and conceptual status can notions such
as the universal, democracy or liberty have? By implicitly maintaining – with
Durkheim and against Weber – that normative positions can be deduced from
cognitive reasoning while remaining positively ‘scientific’, Bourdieu reconciles
science and morality at little cost by subordinating the latter to the former; he
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 335

scientises politics by giving intellectuals a monopoly over the definition of the

universal and, more broadly, of reason. Intellectual critique is then carried
out from on high, without any real dialogue with the ‘profane’ actors of
public life. Would it be at all surprising, then, if his privileged, even unique,
styles of ‘intellectual’ or political writings came to be satirical pamphlets
and magisterial lessons? Taken to an extreme, this orientation can lead to a
modernised version of the myth of the cave, with the sociologist playing the
role of the Platonic philosopher.
The risks of scientism are even greater as in his practice (if not in theory),
Bourdieu progressively moves away from the figure of the ‘specific intellectual’,
and closer to that of the ‘universal intellectual’. Foucault theorised the former
figure by arguing that scientists must involve themselves in public affairs,
but can only do so with real legitimacy on the terrains in which they have
specific competences. Foucault contrasted this figure to that of the universal
intellectual, as embodied in Sartre, who himself deemed that he was able
to intervene legitimately on the most varied of subjects in the name of the
privileged place that he occupied in society or in that of a general theory able
to establish the prolegomena for all possible political questions (1980 [1976]).
Universal intellectuals have traditionally been philosophers or writers. Yet,
by elaborating a general theory of society, by basing himself on the works
of collaborators that touch on nearly all the aspects of the contemporary
world, and indeed by laying claim to a privileged place for intellectuals in
society in the name of the corporatism of the universal, did Bourdieu not also
end up transforming himself into a universal intellectual, the very position
he had once severely criticised? In the last years of life, Bourdieu adopted
stances on practically every issue, whether directly or through close associates
who benefitted from his symbolic capital. The collective intellectual that he
gathered around him behaved like a universal intellectual, while nonetheless
denying the position he very occupied.

The Public Sphere and the Corporatism of the Universal

Faced with the cognitive and normative difficulties of an approach, which, by
intending to politicise science, threatens to become a scientisation of politics, is
it not possible to adopt another path, with Bourdieu and against him? For this,
it is necessary to take up a threefold guiding thread. On the one hand, at issue
is to uphold the sound idea of the historicity of reason by inquiring into the
social apparatuses which permit the development of rational processes. On the
other hand, it is necessary to follow Bourdieu by avoiding all withdrawal into
an ‘apolitical’ science and assuming intellectual involvement in the problems
of society. Lastly, it is necessary to advance a mode of conversion, or at least
336 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

a homology, between the pressures towards universalisation in the various

fields that is cognitively convincing and normatively legitimate. Bourdieu
sketched such a path in the third chapter of Pascalian Meditations, titled ‘The
Historical Foundations of Reason’. Pursuing it, however, would have involved
major modifications to his global theoretical framework, and we are obliged to
note that he did not proceed to make them. In fact, although the sociologist’s
evolution after The Weight of the World could appear as a veritable about-
face with respect to the years in which he seemed to object to researchers
undertaking any political activity, this turn masked fundamental continuities
on the theoretical level, notably in his conception of science as Aufklärung and
of the cut between science and common sense.
Two arguments seem particularly important for tackling the question of
reason in history. The first sets out from an interrogation into the mechanisms
of universalisation that render a corporatism of the universal possible in the
scientific and artistic fields. How do ‘bad’ scientific productions or ‘bad’ works
come to be deemed as such, and by what means are they recognised and
rewarded? How do we arrive at adequate criteria, the means to renew them or
to apply them, and a legitimacy so that the entirety of a field (as well as other
fields, at least indirectly) accepts these criteria and the detailed judgements
that they authorise? The explanation will naturally have to be complex; it
cannot but vary according to historical conjunctures and no single mechanism
could ever be made into the sole explanatory factor. Yet, it seems difficult
to understand the dynamic of universalisation without going back over the
historical emergence of the scientific and literary public spheres. Bourdieu
alludes to this fact, notably, via the multiple references to Habermas strewn
throughout his writings, but he never tackles the notion head on. It is doubtless
necessary to adopt a realist socio-historical perspective on this public sphere
and avoid conceiving all spheres on the same model. The history of science
shows, notably, that it is imperative to contemplate the plurality of public
spheres linked to the diverse disciplines in order to analyse the multiplicity
between legitimate actors, types of dialogical confrontation and of apparatuses
of objects on which they are based, or the modes of anchorage in cultural and
national contexts. The criteria for proof and demonstrations, for example, are
distinctly more rigorous and homogeneous in the mathematical sciences than
in artistic and literary criticism, while the social sciences are situated in an
intermediary position. What a collective considers ‘universal’ as the outcome
of critique differs according to the type of public sphere, with dependency to
local context being more or less strong depending on the case. The arts and
many sciences do not really have a cumulative character.
It seems important, however, to have an ideal-type that aims at a
characterisation of spheres in which the set of ‘reasons’ and positions are
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 337

subject to critique, where bad arguments are at major risk of being disqualified,
and in which veritably deliberative moments make possible dynamics that are
not reducible to power relations that could be indifferent to the content of
the arguments exchanged. Bourdieu comes closest to such a definition in the
Pascalian Meditations. In it he writes that the social and human sciences ‘make it
possible to extend and radicalise the critical intention of Kantian rationalism
[…] by helping to give sociological weapons to the free and generalised exercise
of an epistemological critique of all by all, deriving from the field itself ’.
Here, then, competition appears to be part of ‘the imperatives of rational
polemics’, with each of the participants having an interest in subordinating
his egotistical interests ‘to the rule of dialogic confrontation’ (2000 [1997]:
119–120). Unfortunately, however, Bourdieu often goes from the notion of
ideal-type to concrete description without due precaution, such that the latter
ends up being generally idealised. His demonstration seems only to work
if it is assumed that the reference point for the ideal of the scientific public
sphere – that towards which all the others ought to aim in order to most
effectively liberate the corporatism of the universal that they all harbour – is
the model of pure mathematics.

Politics as a Corporatism of the Universal?

These reflections lead to a second argument bearing on the relation to
establish between the corporatism of the universal and the political sphere.
Are the social mechanisms that privilege reason and the universal restricted
to the scientific field alone? Can politics not also be organised in such a way
that it forms ‘functionaries of humanity’, in a way that the ‘corporatism of
the universal’ prevails within it ‘objectively’? Bourdieu gives two tendencially
contradictory responses to this question.
On the one hand, similarly to the chapter from Distinction in which he deals
with the political field, Bourdieu makes the general contention that agents in
this field are only concerned with power struggles, and not with any universality
comparable to that of the truth or of ethical authenticity. The scientific field
tends ‘to grant a practical primacy to the opposition between truth and error’,
and therefore ‘an effective decision-making power to an agreement among
specialists’. The political field, by contrast, is organised around the friend/
enemy opposition and consequently tends to exclude the arbitrating invention
of a third party (1990 [1987]: 831). Elsewhere, Bourdieu rejects the metaphor
of war in his attempt to grasp the logic of the political, instead preferring
that of the market, whose idea is presented through the terms of political
offer and demand (1984 [1979]: 397–459).3 In both cases, what appears to be
excluded is the idea according to which public opinion can tend to play a role
338 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

in public arbitration when a society is actually in the process of democratising

and that this establishes a political public sphere. Moreover, the idea that
democratic institutions, or at least some of them, can press the agents in struggle
to adopt a universal stance is likewise excluded. Bourdieu (1984 [1979]: 27) is
permanently tempted to reduce politics to the rivalry between elites for state
power and to refuse citizens all critical political acumen – except in the form of
access to knowledge popularised by sociologists and other scientists. Bourdieu
endeavours to demonstrate that the idea of personal opinion is illusory, just
like that of personal taste; that it is socially and historically determined, as
also is opinion itself. It appears difficult that the opinion of citizens might,
following the example of scientific knowledge, take up a certain distance in
relation to that determination.4 On this view, the corporatism of the universal
driving intellectuals is unable to find any equivalent in civic life.
This first response that Bourdieu is tempted to give to the question of the
relations between the corporatism of the universal and politics promotes an
elitist view of the role of intellectuals: in a similar way to the avant-garde party
once advocated by political movements inspired by Leninism, these latter
purportedly have the monopoly on political interventions guided by the truth
(or ethical purity). Such a politics is rather unconvincing, both from a cognitive
and a normative viewpoint. Can a vibrant and institutionally guaranteed public
sphere not constitute a potentially powerful vector of enlightened discussion
about the problems of public life? Can the acts of scientists and writers find
no echo in the action taken by ordinary citizens? Bourdieu himself recognises
that the naturalised differences of the old order can be constituted ‘as political,
that is to say as likely to be contested and transformed’ (1990: 26n.55; 2000
[1997]: 182–185). In this process, political reflexivity can echo what Bourdieu
considers the specificity of social sciences: the critique of relations (and notably
of relations of domination) which are reified as a second nature in everyday
life. Moreover, it is no coincidence if one of the most positive evaluations of
politicisation to be read in Bourdieu’s work is expressed in an article dealing
with masculine domination and feminist struggles: these latter are proof that
the putting into question of social relations considered for centuries to be
natural could stem from an emancipatory practice of everyday life, and in
the political arena, well before critique in the field of science first became
institutionalised (which does not mean that the latter cannot serve the former in
a second stage). This is why the critique of state reason cannot be the exclusive
prerogative of a scientific or artistic universalism, any more than it could be
conducted in the name of universals that transcend public life. Quite to the
contrary, a critique of state reason proves to be sharpest when undertaken in
the name of the ideals of democracy. If we can grant Bourdieu the fact that
human reason is thoroughly historical and that it resides ‘in certain types of
historical conditions, in certain social structures of dialogue and non-violent
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 339

communication’, then it must be added that such structures precisely constitute

a primordial resort at the same time as an essential aim for every perspective
of democratisation (1992: 174–201).
It is doubtless because he was cognisant of these objections that, in the last
decade of his life, Bourdieu sketched a second response to the question of the
relations between the corporatism of the universal and the political sphere. He
began to consider that the political sphere can also be organised such that the
practices deployed in it are always constrained to orient themselves toward a
real universalisation. It is of interest to note the theoretical references under
whose auspices Bourdieu carries out this analysis. On the one side stands Kant
with his test of universality, which constitutes the point of anchorage on the
basis of which an implicit claim is made for a normative type of universality.
On the other hand, however, Bourdieu has no intention of endorsing any kind
of moralisation of politics as founded on ahistorical presuppositions, as with
Kant. To put the question in sociologically realist terms entails understanding
that only a modification of the logic of the functioning of the political field
will be able to carry along with it the development of a ‘corporatism of the
universal’ in this domain: ‘It would be a question of establishing social universes
where, as in the Machiavellian ideal of the Republic, agents had an interest in
virtue, disinterestedness, and devotion to public service and the common good.
Political morality does not fall from heaven, and it is not innate to human
nature. Only a Realpolitik of reason and morality can contribute favourably to
the institution of a universe where all agents and their acts would be subject –
notably through critique – to a kind of permanent test of universalisability
which is practically instituted in the very logic of the field’ (1998 [1994]: 144).
Such a perspective is not purely utopian: history shows that dominant forces
in struggle with one another have regularly availed themselves of the universal
(‘and, by dint of this, at least formally, [the] interests of the dominated’) to
the extent that they had to refer to it ‘for the purposes of legitimation, or
mobilization’ (2000 [1997]: 103). Such a subordination to the universal,
even if only outward, would enable the political field and, further still, the
bureaucratic field and the state, to embody partially universalising rationales.
As a result, the scientific field could be conceptualised as a ‘reasonable utopia’
serving as a model to ‘indicate the principles of action aimed at promoting
the equivalent, within the political field, of what is observed in the scientific
field in its most autonomous forms: […] a regulated competition, which would
control itself […] through social mechanisms capable of forcing agents to
behave “rationally” and to sublimate their drives’ (2000 [1997]: 126).
How are we to explain the fact that Bourdieu never went on to develop
this intuition, that he counterbalanced it with opposed arguments until the
very end, and that it never gave rise to an empirical research programme
among his circle of collaborators or in the journal that he edited (2002b)? The
340 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

above-mentioned absence of any ideal type of the public sphere no doubt

heavily contributed to this. No doubt the limited scope of ‘games of reason’ or
‘freedom’ in the political field refers back to a pessimistic anthropology of the
social bond, inherited from Weber much more than from Marx or Durkheim.
Struggle and power relations, for Bourdieu, constitute the driving forces
of all social relations, and this is so universally the case that the other relations
do not merit being constituted as ideal types. The behaviour of individuals
is, on this view, always ‘interested’ and therefore monological and strategico-
instrumental – even as the types of interest vary and are not reducible to
economic interest alone (1996 [1992]: 141–145; 1998 [1994]: 75–91). From
this standpoint, conceptualising public sphere becomes understandably
difficult, and the notion of corporatism of the universal tends to cast the
process of universalisation as a result of strategic orientations rather than as
the product of cooperation. Bourdieu recognised that not taking into account
non-agonistic relations might constitute a real problem, but he relativised their
place within social reality. For him, these relations are exceptional and based
on what Aristotle calls philia, and as such can only be deployed within the
family or between friends. Bourdieu adds that non-distorted communication,
in the Habermasian sense, can only be attained in altogether extraordinary
circumstances (1992). This statement, however, merely skirts the problem:
a form of communication that is totally free of domination certainly is an
exceptional phenomenon, but the same holds for situations in which only
relations of force and symbolic or physical violence are at play to the exclusion
of all cooperation between the persons concerned. The value of such
categories lies in their ideality: they do not aim to grasp a human essence, and
attempts to define some such essence can only end up in an interminable,
rather fruitless quest. Forms of cooperation vary historically, just as do forms
of domination, and they depend on the institution of determinate social
mechanisms. This takes nothing away from the need to elaborate ideal
types whose value is at once cognitive (they enable us to understand what,
in a given situation, pertains to this or to that rationale) and normative (to
put forward this or that and not another model also involves ethico-political
arguments; basing oneself on a given model makes it possible to measure the
gap separating it from reality; and lastly, the model furnishes a normative
foundation for critique). Whenever Bourdieu gives a description of ‘science’,
no doubt an ideal type is fundamentally at stake.5 In some of his last writings
he recognises this, but refrains from actually drawing any conclusions from it
(2000 [1997]: 126; 2002b).6
In similar fashion, it is at once possible and necessary to put forward an
ideal type of democracy that has a cognitive and normative import. It is
clearly necessary to go beyond all ‘provisional and deliberate reductionism’,
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 341

since this confines the social sciences to a strategy of suspicion and prohibits
them from positively elaborating ideal types of historical freedom (1992: 115).
To employ the terms of ‘liberation’ or ‘emancipation’ also entails recognising
the legitimacy of normative discussions aiming to give depth and coherence
to notions of freedom, political universality or justice. It is undoubtedly
necessary for theories of justice to renounce all their transcendental
pretensions and preoccupy themselves with the fact that politics – no matter
how democratic – is necessarily irreducible to a social contract. Yet, for their
part, the social sciences must make room for concrete studies and, each in their
own theoretical field, for analytic concepts on which a reasoned normative
reflection can be articulated. At stake, in particular, is to understand how
democracy, without being the proper fate of mankind, can be instituted
historically as a social mechanism that enhances rights, freedoms, and
practices of universalisation. From this perspective, it is, for example, possible
to conceive of rights as ‘historical transcendentals’—to use one of Bourdieu’s
terms – that is to say, as socially instituted rules which favour an orientation
towards an ethico-political universal. Similarly, it is also necessary to analyse
the institutional mechanisms that, in the institutional political game, push or
could push the various actors involved in the competition for power to defend
the common good when they engage in the effective promotion of their
own interests. Indeed, a whole field of reflections opens up in this regard,
including everything from forms of ballot to legislative rules governing
political competition, from modes of organisation to institutional structures
for organising communication between elected members and citizens, and
from the material infrastructures of civil society to the social characteristics
of persons who devote themselves to politics.
A particular importance is assumed by reflections on an ideal type of
public political sphere that take the diversity of its concrete forms into
account (Fraser, 1992; Sintomer, 1998). Only such a notion can give
conceptual meaning to the idea that the Realpolitik of reason can aim ‘at
favouring the setting up of non-distorted social structures of communication
between the holders of power and the citizens’ (2000 [1997]: 126). It alone
is in a position to explicate the deployment of normative rationalities,
which – while they may not claim a comparable objectivity or universality
to a mathematical type of rationality – cannot be reduced to pure
contingency or arbitrariness.7 Lastly, the idea of a public political sphere
enables us to understand better the homologies and differences between
the various corporatisms of the universal capable of being instituted in
the fields of politics, art and science. From the historical viewpoint of the
longue durée, the various forms of public sphere are constituted according to
a similar dynamic. Besides, in both the literary and political public spheres,
342 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

we find a rather similar logic concerning the credibility of claims about the
validity of statements (which may claim sincerity, authenticity, coherence
and plausibility, but which can rarely be submitted to an analysis in terms
of truth and error). In politics, there is also an observable tension between
a logic ‘of the quality’ of the public sphere and a plebiscitary logic in
which communication is emptied of any real argumentative content,
and publicity marketing alone triumphs. A considerable historical and
sociological literature already exists on these matters. For a large part,
it simultaneously moves away from uniquely normative idealising views
and from conceptions that, symmetrically, reduce public sphere to a
manipulation of the masses by the power elite. These socio-historical works
find a fulcrum in the renewal of a philosophical reflection on processes of
deliberation that lay claim to realism.

Conclusion
As soon as the problematic of the corporatism of the universal is broadened
to the political and a constellation of public spheres (scientific, literary
and political) comes into theoretical consideration, it becomes possible to
conceive the Realpolitik of reason differently to Bourdieu. It becomes possible
to move away from a defence of the maximal autonomy of science and to
avoid the failings of scientism in politics. It becomes possible to discard the
idea that intellectual critique can be carried out from a putative bird’s-eye
view over the city: critical activity is an activity that can be shared, at least
potentially, by both ordinary citizens and intellectuals, and the latter by no
means have the monopoly over it. It is necessary to study the homologies and
the gaps between scientific critique and artistic critique, intellectual critique
and political critique, as well as the way in which they influence one another.
On this basis, it becomes possible to envisage a genuine socio-history of
intellectuals. The implications of such an approach are not limited to the
cognitive dimension alone. On the back cover of the French edition of The
Weight of the World, Bourdieu wrote: ‘the reader will comprehend in closing
this book that it offers another way of practicing politics’. However, there
has to be yet another way of practising politics and the ‘corporatism of
the universal’, one that is not the mere preserve of angels and savants. The
social sciences have a duty to study the aspects whereby some political
apparatuses promote a logic comparable to that which Bourdieu deems
specific to a reflexive practice of the sociological interview (1999 [1993]:
608): the maximal reduction of the symbolic violence that accompanies
communication between interlocutors of disparate social statuses.
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 343

Notes
1 Previous versions of this chapter have been published in Sintomer (1996) and Sintomer
(2006).
2 See also Bourdieu (1996 [1992]: Postscript; 2000 [1997]; 2004 [2001]). Bourdieu extends
his reasoning to the literary and artistic fields, which have also won their autonomy
progressively over the course of recent centuries, and in which, by the same token, such
strong values as ‘ethic purity’ are expressed.
3 These two possibilities were systematically developed by various currents inspired by
Bourdieu in the French political sciences. See, on the one hand, Dobry (1992) and, on
the other, Gaxie (1993) and Offerlé (1987).
4 It is true that, objecting to his adversaries’ accusation of quietism, Bourdieu
(1993 [1984]) retorts: ‘Does that mean that one can only mobilize on the basis of
illusions?’ He adds that if opinion is socially determined, it is preferable to know
it, before concluding with the following words: ‘if we have some chance of having
personal opinions, it is perhaps on condition that we know our opinions are not
spontaneously so’. Bourdieu, however, leaves unanswered the question of knowing
whether this veritably personal opinion, which implicitly refers to a reflexive
autonomy, can be reached by agents situated in the political field. Reading the pages
devoted to this field in Distinction, the reader is given cause to doubt it: the analysis
bears uniquely on the conditioning of the habitus and of opinions, and passes in
silence over anything that might lead towards a notion of the autonomous action
and reflection of citizens.
5 Besides, it would be necessary to propose an ideal-type that operates somewhat
differently to the scientific ‘ideal’, which takes further account of the potential
contributions of mobilised citizens in its research orientation. Instead of basing
oneself simply on the autonomy of the scientific field, this model would consider a
certain opening up of the sciences out of their enclaves as a positive phenomenon.
At the same time, it would be more pertinent cognitively in helping us to understand
the contemporary evolution of relations between the sciences and the rest of
society.
6 In the 1990s, Bourdieu directs his gaze further towards a ‘comparative anthropology’.
He thus attempts to extract a transhistorical law, namely that of the symbolic profit from
which every individual would benefit if he put himself, at least outwardly, in the service
of the universal. Bourdieu thereby supplements his philosophy of suspicion with a theory
of legitimacy (Colliot-Thélène, 1995). This explication does not work to contradict the
contention that advances in universalisation can only be the products of determinate
social structures, and in particular of the institution of fields whose logic pushes the
agents towards strategies of universalisation. Bourdieu simply presents this transhistorical
law as a primary given, as a necessary condition for the appearance of fields with more
virtuous logics: ‘The genesis of a universe of this sort is not conceivable if one does not
posit the motor, which is the universal recognition of the universal, that is, the official
recognition of the primacy of the group and its interests over the individual and the
individual’s interests, which all groups profess in the very fact of affirming themselves as
groups’ (1998 [1994]: 89–90 and 141–144).
7 If Bourdieu could only conceive of politics on the mode of struggles between elites for
power, thereby ruling out the idea of judgement from a third party, it was doubtless
because he lacked this notion.
344 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

References
Atten, Michel and Dominique Pestre (2002) Heinrich Hertz. L’administration de la preuve, PUF,
Paris.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, transl.
Richard Nice, London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990 [1987]) In Other words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, trans.
Matthew Adamson, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) ‘La domination masculine’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 84:
2–31.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992) ‘Doxa and Common Life’, New Left Review, 191, January/
February.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1984]) Sociology in Question, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993b) ‘Un entretien avec Pierre Bourdieu’, Le Monde, 7 December.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996 [1992]) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans.
Susan Emanuel, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1997) Les usages sociaux de la science, Paris: INRA Éditions.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998 [1994]) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, trans. Randal Johnson,
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson, London: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, London: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002a) Propos sur le champ politique, Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002b) ‘Science, politique et sciences sociales’, in Actes de la recherche en
sciences sociales, 141–142, March, Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2004 [2001]) Science of Science and Reflexivity, trans. Richard Nice, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoume and Yannick Barthes (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain.
Essai sur la démocratie technique, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Colliot-Thélène, Catherine (1995) ‘La sociologie réflexive, l’anthropologie, l’histoire’,
Critique, August/September.
Dobry, Michel (1992) Sociologie des crises politiques, Paris: Presses de la FNSP.
Durkheim, Émile (1984 [1893]) The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Halls,
2nd Edition, New York: Free Press.
Fraser, Nancy (1992) ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of
Actually Existing Democracy’, in Craigh Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere,
MIT Press, Cambridge/London.
Foucault, Michel (1980) ‘Truth and Power’, Interview with Alessandro Fontana and
Pasquale Pasquino, in Colin Gordon (ed.) Michel Foucault: Power/Knowledge, transl. Colin
Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham and Kate Soper, New York/London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Gaxie, Daniel (1993) La démocratie représentative, Paris: Montchrestien.
Offerlé, Michel (1987) Les partis politiques, Paris: PUF.
Pestre, Dominique (2003) Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation, Paris: INRA
éditions.
Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere 345

Sclove, Richard (1995) Democracy and Technology, New York and London: The Guilford
Press.
Sintomer, Yves (1996) ‘Le corporatisme de l’Universel et la cité’, Actuel Marx, 20.
Sintomer, Yves (1998) ‘Sociologie de l’espace public et corporatisme de l’universel’, L’homme
et la société, 4, Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 7–19.
Sintomer, Yves (2006) ‘La critique intellectuelle entre corporatisme de l’universel et espace
public’, in Hans-Peter Müller and Yves Sintomer (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu. Théories et sens
pratique, Paris: La Découverte, pp. 207–222.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Practice as Temporalisation:
Bourdieu and Economic Crisis

Lisa Adkins

Introduction
This chapter will examine the question of whether Bourdieu’s social theory
can be mobilised to understand our recent and ongoing global economic
crisis. This may seem an odd question to pose on many fronts, not least
because – and with the exception of markets for normatively defined cultural
goods1 – Bourdieu’s corpus is rarely, if ever, called upon to engage with strictly
economic processes and formations.2 And this is the case despite the fact
that Bourdieu (2005 [2000]) dedicated a whole volume to the study of the
social structures of the economy and despite the fact that in his later, arguably
more polemical, work (Bourdieu, 1998; 1999 [1993]; 2003 [2001]) he directly
engaged with the political economy of neo-liberalism, mounting a sustained
critique of what he termed the ‘tyranny of the neo-liberal market’.
Yet, while this is so, Bourdieu’s social theory is widely critiqued for its lack
of traction in regard to economic processes, not least because of its inability
to grasp the specificity of capitalist economic relations. Craig Calhoun (1993),
for example, has argued that despite the emphasis we find in Bourdieu on the
forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986), what is striking is that nowhere in Bourdieu’s
social theory do we find an elaboration of the specificity of capitalist capital.
Thus, while Bourdieu understands the various capitals he describes as
comprising accumulated labour, he fails to specify what differentiates capitalist
capital from such labour. More particularly, Bourdieu fails to elaborate the
process of abstraction and quantification of labour into units of time, that
is, the process of conversion of labour into exchangeable equivalents, which
is both paradigmatic of and specific to capitalist social relations. Hence,
whereas in Marx capitalist capital is understood as homogenous abstract units
of labour time, in Bourdieu it is simply conceived of as accumulated labour
348 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

(see Adkins, 2008). Understanding capital as congealed labour, Calhoun goes

on, will never allow us to capture the specificity of capitalist capital – of how
and why capitalism is able to constantly expand its reach and transcend its
own limits and boundaries – since it is unable to grasp the extraordinary levels
of convertibility encountered in capitalism, levels of convertibility that are
precisely constituted in the very process of the production of abstract universal
equivalents. Jon Beasley-Murray (2001) also observes that Bourdieu ignores
the process of abstraction specific to capitalism, especially the conversion of
living into abstract labour. Yet, while Calhoun is concerned that ignoring this
process brackets the exponential rates of exchange specific to capitalist capital,
Beasley-Murray is concerned that ignoring the process of abstraction amounts
to a refusal to engage with the process of the production and accumulation
of surplus value specific to capitalism, a refusal which amounts to a failure
to confront the exploitation of human labour power characteristic of and
inherent to capitalist production.
Given the apparent failure on the part of Bourdieu to confront the specificity
of processes of capitalist accumulation, it is perhaps of little surprise that his
general theoretical resources have not been put to use to engage with recent
economic events. This is even less surprising if we consider that our current
economic crisis is widely understood to concern a crisis of capitalism, indeed
to concern a reaching of the limit point of a particular mode of capitalist
accumulation, namely neo-liberal accumulation (see, for example, Law, 2009).
In this context we might quite reasonably ask the following question: of what
possible use is a social theory that fails to specify the dynamics of capitalism
for understanding a crisis in those very dynamics? And, in as much as a crisis
always implies social change and movement (Brown, 2005), we might add
to this another question: how useful is a social theory which is concerned
not primarily with crisis or change but predominately with stasis and social
reproduction (Jenkins, 2002) for coming to terms with events which have been
described as involving ‘catastrophic generic change’ (Poovey, 2009)?
It is also of little surprise that Bourdieu’s later polemical work on neo-
liberalism has not been put to use in regard to recent economic events. For
not only has this part of his oeuvre been critiqued for a lack of sophistication
and seen as a break from his own core socio-theoretical propositions (see,
for example, McRobbie, 2002a),3 but – more significantly for my concerns
here – in his later works Bourdieu characterised neo-liberalism as doxic. Of
what use, we might reasonably ask, is such an understanding when recent
economic events suggest the end of that very doxa? We also might quite fairly
ask of what use is a general social theory in relation to recent economic events,
which rarely, if ever, touches on the issues that appear to be at the centre of
economic crisis, including the performative power of socio-technical devices,
Practice as Temporalisation 349

especially the power of those devices and instruments concerned with financial
calculation and measure (see Callon et al, 2007). Little wonder then that in
existing accounts of recent economic events the work of Bourdieu rarely, if
ever, features with the resources of what has been termed the ‘new economic
sociology’ (McFall, 2009) being favoured not only above Bourdieu’s approach
but also above those approaches to the economy that might generally be located
in the ‘social embeddedness school’ of economic sociology (Granovetter, 1985;
Polanyi, 2001 [1957]).4
Nonetheless, despite the range of objections that could be raised in relation
to thinking the economic crisis with and through the theoretical resources of
Bourdieu, it is the contention of this chapter that in Bourdieu we can find
important resources for this task, even if those resources may need certain
refinements and modifications, and even if, at first sight, those resources
appear to bear little connection to or resonance with recent economic events.
The usefulness and relevance of these resources, however, may only be made
explicit if we understand these events as concerning a reworking of time, an
understanding that positions Bourdieu’s understanding of temporality, and
especially of practice as temporalisation, as rich and provocative, not only in
regard to recent economic events, but also in regard to questions of economic
futures. This chapter, therefore, contains two key interventions. The first is
the claim that recent economic events concern a crisis of time or, and perhaps better
said, a restructuring of time; and the second is the claim that in Bourdieu we
find unexpected resources that help us to elaborate this restructuring. To lay out these
two interventions it is necessary that I first turn to the issue of time and in
particular the place of time in recent economic events.

Trading the Future?

A frequently rehearsed account of the financial actions and dealings that
sparked our current global economic recession turns on a particular and
normative account of time. Specifically, this is an account in which traders,
dealers and finance capital in general are positioned as having engaged in
an activity that should not have taken place, namely trading in the future at
the expense of the present. Adams et al (2009), for instance, suggest that our
current global economic recession was ‘sparked by finance capital’s delirious
trade in futures and risks’ (Adams et al, 2009: 254), a trade, which makes
violently plain that our current moment is defined by a state of anticipation,
that is, a thinking and living towards the future. The related credit-led
financialisation of everyday life has been understood in similar terms, that is,
as compelling forms of life and ways of being orientated towards and hinging
on uncertain futures. A number of social phenomena are considered as
350 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

evidence of the emergence anticipatory ways of life: consumers mortgaging

their futures in the form of indebtedness to secure commodities in the here
and now (Law, 2009); farmers obtaining credit for what might happen to
their crops (Adams et al, 2009); company and organisation valuations not
on the grounds of present assets but on the grounds of events yet to come
(Marazzi, 2007); and calculations of the value of workers and workforces not
on the basis of existing skills, experiences and capabilities but on potential
ability, that is, on their ability to deal with events that are yet to take place
(Sennett, 2006).
Similar to the financial dealers trading in (virtual and actual) futures,
such anticipatory life forms are generally understood in no uncertain terms
as negative. Adams et al (2009), for example, expose such a negativity via
a set of reflections on strategies of refusal in regard to anticipation, while
Sennett argues that the shift in skill he describes not only raises the spectre of
uselessness, but also deprives people of a sense of narrative movement, that
is, of the accumulation of experience and of connections between events in
time. It also ‘eschews sensate impressions, divides analyzing from believing,
ignores the glue of emotional attachment, penalises digging deep’ (Sennett,
2006: 121–122). I will return to the issue of the severing of connections
between events in time as well as to the eschewing of sensate impressions,
and for now I will also suspend any judgement regarding the imperative to
anticipate. Instead, it seems important first to focus on the version of time
that such accounts enact. For these are accounts that place the politics of
time in particular and issues of temporality in general at the heart of our
contemporary moment, a positioning of time with which a range of writers
from a number of disciplines appear to agree (see, for example: Adam,
2004; Colebrook, 2009; Coleman, 2008; Edelman, 2005; Grosz, 2004). Yet,
accounts of increasingly anticipatory forms of life also carry with them a
further set of assumptions regarding time. These include the notion that
the future should be at some distance from the present (or that a boundary
should exist between the present and the future), the conjecture that the
future can (and should be) protected via prudent action in the here and now,
the assumption that the future should not be traded as a resource (that is, that
it should not be commodified), and the supposition that the future should
not determine the present. But most significantly, from the point of view of
my concerns here, these accounts share two linked assumptions. First, they
assume that the present – or, more precisely, a certain version of the present,
one in which, on Sennett’s account, experience can be accumulated and
connections can be made between events in time – is being destroyed by
a certain relationship to the future, namely by the injunction to anticipate.
Second, they assume that the injunction towards thinking and living in the
Practice as Temporalisation 351

direction of the future is one which is relatively new or, at the very least, has
intensified in our current moment.
Yet, many of these assumptions regarding time fly in the face of numerous
sociological accounts of temporality. They pull against, for instance, Helga
Nowotny’s (1994) account not of a present under threat, undercut or
destroyed by the future, but of a loss of temporal horizons. More specifically,
they challenge Nowotny’s thesis of the disappearance of the category of the
future and the emergence of an extended present. Central to the disappearance
of the future, Nowotny maintains, is the emergence of a present geared to
accelerated innovation, a present, which ‘devour[s] the future’ (Nowotny,
1994: 11). Thus, she notes that a range of technologies and socio-technical
devices have increased the permeability of the time boundary between
present and future via facilitating temporal uncoupling and decentralisation.
Such technologies and devices also produce different models of time and,
in particular, generate presents that are detached from linearity. Indeed, as
Nowotny remarks, with the end of an age in which the belief in linearity
and progress were maintained by the time structure of industrial production
‘the category of the future is losing much of its attractiveness’ (1994: 11).
What is striking about this account is not only that it raises questions about
the assumption that the present is being undercut by the future, but also that
as a substantive sociological account of time, and especially of the changing
boundaries between the past, present and future and, thus, of shifts in and to
the categories and experience of time, it challenges some of the fundamental
presuppositions regarding time found in accounts concerned with the rise of
anticipation. Specifically, rather than assuming where boundaries between past
present and future should be, or how time should be experienced, Nowotny’s
account alerts us to how these boundaries and experiences change, in short,
to how these are pre-eminently sociological, rather than normative, issues. In
fact, Nowotny’s account makes clear that to make such normative assumptions
regarding time is to close down the sociological imagination, indeed to assume
that time itself should (and does) remain the same.

Anticipation: Time in the Making

But it is not just in substantive sociological accounts of temporal change but
also in social theory that we can find challenges to the assumptions regarding
time found in accounts of intensifying anticipation. While not particularly
celebrated for his work on time, Bourdieu can be regarded as a thinker
prepared to confront such challenges, particularly when insisting that the future
is not a contingent possibility (a possible, which may or may not happen) or a
distant horizon separated from the present, but always already present in the
352 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

immediate present, a future that is always already there. As I have elaborated

elsewhere (Adkins, 2009a), for Bourdieu the future is always already present
in the immediate present because agents are ordinarily immersed in the
forthcoming or, more precisely, agents practically and pre-reflexively anticipate
the forthcoming as a routine part of action. Put differently, the future is always
already present in the immediate present because practice – for Bourdieu,
following Husserl (1931) – is protensive in character. Indeed, Bourdieu suggests
that a pre-reflexive – that is, unconscious – aiming at the forthcoming is the
most common form of the experience of time, although this experience is itself
paradoxical, since, similar to the experience of the self-evidence of the familiar
world, time does not offer itself to be felt or sensed and passes largely unnoticed.
According to Bourdieu, then, time is – for the most part – unexperienced.
The ordinary practical anticipation of the forthcoming that Bourdieu
proffers is particularly clear in the case of emotions, through which the body
sees the forthcoming – the oncoming car or threatening dog – as something
already there, that is, as something irremediable. In such instances, Bourdieu
describes how ‘the body is snatched by the forthcoming of the world’ (Bourdieu,
2000 [1997]: 208). Yet, beyond these instances of fear, Bourdieu claims that
similar processes are at work for mundane action. In a game of football, for
instance, a good player positions himself or herself not where the ball is, but
where the ball is about to land. In this instance, the forthcoming is not simply
a possible, but it is already present in the configuration of the game, including
the present positions and postures of teammates and opponents (Bourdieu,
2000 [1997]: 208).
For Bourdieu, however, the inscription of the future in the immediate
present – or, put differently, the presence of the forthcoming in the
configuration of the game – is not a simple given of practice;5 rather, it is
constituted in the relationship between the habitus and the social world, and
more precisely, in the relationship between the dispositions, durable habits,
schemes of appreciation and action with which agents are endowed (the
habitus) and the tendencies of social fields. As is well rehearsed (see, for
example, McNay, 1999), for Bourdieu fields are only fully viable if their
logics are durably embedded in the dispositions of agents operating within
them (Bourdieu, 1977 [1972]); that is, and to put it slightly differently, fields
can only exist insofar as the unconscious and pre-reflexive dispositions, habits
and schemes of agents are aligned with the objective principles of fields. Such
schemes, Bourdieu writes, are ‘the product of incorporation of the structures
and tendencies of the world […] [and] make it possible to adapt endlessly to
partially modified contexts, and to construct the situation as a complex whole
endowed with meaning, in a practical operation of quasi-bodily anticipation
of the immanent tendencies of fields’ (Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 139, emphasis
Practice as Temporalisation 353

in original). It is then because agents are incorporated in the world – that

their dispositions are open to the very structures of the world – indeed that
dispositions are the incorporated form of those structures, which enable a
routine, pre-reflexive and practical anticipation of the future. And this is so
because in the relationship between habitus and field the future is inscribed as
an objective potential or trace in the immediate given. Specifically, ‘what is to
be done’ is defined in the relationship between the structure of expectations
constitutive of a particular habitus, and the structure of probabilities, which
is constitutive of a given social space (a social field).
Bourdieu illustrates the practical anticipation of the forthcoming,
engendered in the relationship between habitus and field, with reference to
a variety of examples, but particularly relevant in the context of this chapter
is the description of anticipation in the economic field that he provides in his
book The Social Structures of the Economy.6 In line with his general theorisation
of social space, Bourdieu posits that to operate in the economic field agents
must be endowed with the habits and dispositions of that field. That is, agents
must be endowed with dispositions engendered by the incorporation of the
experience of constant or recurring situations which are adapted to new,
but not necessarily unprecedented, situations. Such engendering provides a
practical mastery of situations, including situations of uncertainty, since the
habitus ‘grounds a relation to the future which is not that of a project, as an
aiming for possible outcomes […], but a relation of practical anticipation […]
grasping time-to-come as a quasi present (and not as a contingent future)’
(Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 214). By virtue of the regularities inscribed in the
recurrent games that are played out in it, the economic field therefore

offers a predictable and calculable future and agents acquire in it transmissible

skills and dispositions (sometimes called ‘routines’) which form the basis of
practical anticipations that are at least roughly well founded. (Bourdieu, 2005
[2000]: 196)

Thus, just as agents operating in other fields practically anticipate the

forthcoming, for agents in the economic field the future is always already
present in the immediate present, allowing agents routinely to anticipate the
forthcoming. Yet, and following Granovetter’s (1985) insistence that economic
action is always embedded in networks of social relations, Bourdieu warns that
this practical anticipation of the future in the economic field – the grasping of
time yet-to-come as a quasi-present – should not be understood – or, rather,
misunderstood – to concern a rational calculus of risk, as economic science
would suggest. Indeed, Bourdieu maintains that while economic orthodoxy
will always reduce the practical mastery of situations of uncertainty to a
354 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

rational calculus of risk, construing the anticipation of the behaviour of others

as a calculation of the intent of opponents, understanding economic action
and especially the practical anticipation of the future as engendered by the
habitus – that is, by collective, historical and unconscious structures – throws
the calculating agent of economic orthodoxy into radical doubt.7
I will return to the issue of time and the economic field, but for now it
seems important to reflect on how Bourdieu’s understanding of time and
temporalisation raises challenges to accounts of increasingly anticipatory ways
of life. At least four issues stand out here.
First, Bourdieu’s insistence that ordinary action is anticipatory and that the
future is already inscribed in the immediate present raises questions around
the assumption, found in accounts of increasingly anticipatory ways of life,
that the injunction to anticipate is relatively new and specific to our present
moment. For in as much as ordinary action is necessarily anticipatory, how can
it be claimed that action attuned to the forthcoming is specific to the present?
Second, Bourdieu’s understanding of the inscription of the forthcoming in
the immediate present surely also questions the assumption, found in accounts
of the injunction to anticipate, that the present is being undercut or destroyed
by the future. For if, as Bourdieu claims, the forthcoming is always and
necessarily inscribed in the present, that is, if the present contains the future,
how can it be claimed that the forthcoming can undercut and destabilise the
present? How, for example, can the forthcoming undercut the accumulation
of experience and compromise connections between events in time if the
forthcoming is inscribed in those very practices?
Third, Bourdieu’s account of time must surely make us question the
normative assumptions in accounts of the injunction to anticipate that the
future should be at some distance from the present, that a boundary should
exist between the present and the future, and that the proper sequence of
time is one in which the present precedes the future. For if the forthcoming
is already present in the configuration of the game, how can such claims be
upheld? How can we, for instance, uphold the claim that the proper sequence
of time is one in which the future is at a distance from and comes after the
present, when the future is already inscribed in ordinary practical action in
the here and now?
Yet, perhaps the most significant – and fourth – challenge that Bourdieu’s
conception of time raises to accounts of increasingly anticipatory ways of life
is the insistence that time is not an entity that simply passes. More specifically,
for Bourdieu, time is not a simple medium through which or vessel in which
events take place, nor does time operate externally to subjects and their
actions. For far from practice simply taking place in time, for Bourdieu practice
makes time. In short, Bourdieu insists that ‘practice [is] temporalisation’
Practice as Temporalisation 355

(Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 206). This insistence is of some significance when we

consider that in accounts of increasingly anticipatory ways of life time and
events (or practice) tend to be separated out. Thus, in Sennett’s account of
the undercutting of the present by the forthcoming, the present under threat
is one in which connections can (and should) be made between events in time,
that is, a present in which time operates and proceeds externally to events. Yet
for Bourdieu events (or practices) do not only take place in time, but they also –
more significantly – make time. As we have seen, the future, for example, is not
separate from or an external horizon to practice but, and in as much as agents
are endowed with the habitus adjusted to the field, is routinely constituted in
practice (for instance, in a game of football). And while we can make use of
Bourdieu to problematise the idea of a present in which time is external to
events, the very notion of practice as temporalisation also makes it clear that the
futures at issue in accounts of increasing anticipation – including the traded,
mortgaged and contracted futures at issue in the global financial crisis – are not
pre-existing blocks of yet-to-come time which have been (wrongly) subjected
to certain practices (trading, contracting and mortgaging), as critics of the
injunction to anticipate tend to assume. Whereas critics of anticipatory forms
of life presuppose not only the latter, but also that the future is and should be
a separate horizon from present practices and events, Bourdieu’s notion of
practice as temporalisation alerts us to the fact that traded, contracted and
mortgaged futures are made in the present, that is, that they are in fact made
in and through the very practices of trading, contracting and mortgaging.
Bourdieu’s account of practice as temporalisation, however, does more
than problematise the idea that the future has been, or can be, traded, and
that, by implication, the recent financial crisis concerns such a trading. For it
highlights a further normative assumption at work in critiques of the injunction
to anticipate. Specifically, both Bourdieu’s injunction that to perform practical
acts is precisely to temporalise – that is, to make time – and the implications
of this injunction for recent economic events – namely that practices such as
trading, mortgaging and contracting do not stand outside of time or colonise
existing futures, but make futures – make clear that critics of the injunction
to anticipate are (problematically) objecting to the entanglement of economic
practices with issues of time and temporalisation and demanding their
separation. Indeed, we might speculate that the desire to separate out present
and future on the part of such critics precisely concerns such a demand.
And it is not only Bourdieu’s oeuvre that permits us to speculate this to be
the case, but also the range of voices currently being heard which explicitly
object to the entanglement of economic practice with time and demand their
disentanglement. ‘Don’t mortgage our children’s future’, a US Republican
senator recently barked in a CNN commentary critical of the Democratic
356 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

government’s economic stimulus plan for the US economy;8 responding to

the economic crisis, do not ‘mortgage the future’, the Bank for International
Settlements warns governments, banks and consumers;9 ‘Gordon Brown is
mortgaging our future’ claim the UK’s – formerly opposition – Conservative
party;10 while a journalist for the The Times newspaper claims that our future
has been mortgaged by ‘insane spendaholics’, who she names as the then
current UK Labour government.11 Thus, it seems that it is not only financial
traders and dealers who have problematically entangled economic practice
and time, but also banks, governments and consumers.

Time is Money
Yet in response to such demands to separate out economic practice from time,
we might, following Bourdieu, point out that economic practice – and in as
much as it is practice – is always entangled with time, a point made particularly
clear by the case of industrial capitalist production, where ‘time is money’
(Adam, 1994; Hassan, 2003; O’Carroll, 2008). Specifically, for capitalist
industrial production, not only do rates of profit relate to rates of speed in
production (where doing things faster and more efficiently produces increases
in profits),12 but those rates are measured in and as units of clock time, that is, in
abstract, quantitative, homogenised and reversible units of the clock. Indeed,
for the case of capitalist industrial production, not only are rates of profit
and production measured in such units, but such time is hegemonic (Postone,
1993; Thompson, 1967). It is, moreover, precisely measurement in terms of
abstract units of clock time that enables the exponential rates of exchange
specific to industrial capitalism noted by Calhoun in his critique of Bourdieu’s
understanding of capital. In particular, the abstraction and quantification of
labour into units of clock time, or the conversion of labour into exchangeable
abstract equivalents, is the precise process which generates exponential rates
of exchange, a conversion, which also allows the extraction of surplus from
human labour, that is, the process by which capitalist exploitation of human
labour takes place.
Thus, far from being disentangled from economic practice, time is central
to and for such practice, an entanglement, which is made dramatically clear
by the case of industrial capitalism. Yet, while we might posit – following
Bourdieu – that economic practice will always concern temporalisation,
and while the case of industrial capitalism unambiguously demonstrates the
entanglement of economic practice with time, the case of industrial capitalism
is – in a rather paradoxical fashion – of some significance for, and raises
important challenges to, Bourdieu’s theorisation of time. As we have seen for
both Calhoun and Beasley-Murray, Bourdieu’s failure to grasp the process
Practice as Temporalisation 357

of abstraction (the conversion of living labour into abstract and quantifiable

units of time) specific to capitalist capital is ultimately a failure to confront the
dynamics of capitalism, including processes of exploitation. But we might add
to this and say that Bourdieu’s general failure to elaborate the hegemony of
clock time for the case of industrial capitalism, along with a failure to specify
the operations and characteristics of that time, not only leads to a failure to
confront the dynamics of capitalism, but confounds his insistence that time
should not be understood as operating externally to subjects and their actions,
as ‘a thing with which we have a relationship of externality, that of a subject
facing an object’ (Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 206). This is so because, as a form
of time, clock time is one arranged exogenously to practices and events, acting
paradigmatically as an external measure of events, witnessed in measures
such as production rates and targets, profit ratios and predictions, working day
and working break lengths (Gilbert, 2007; Adkins, 2009b). And it does such
measuring in abstract, quantitative, reversible, homogenous units. Contrary
to Bourdieu’s understanding of temporalisation as practice, in clock time
phenomena and time are, in other words, separated out. In short, in clock
time events do not make time but take place in time. Bourdieu’s failure to
recognise and elaborate the hegemony, operations and characteristics of clock
time for industrial capitalism therefore not only – as Calhoun and Beasley-
Murray observe – limits the ability of his social theory to capture the dynamics
and specificities of capitalism, but also – and in as much as clock time operates
externally to the events it attempts to measure – throws his account of time, of
practice as temporalisation, into radical doubt.
So we have, or at least appear to have, a set of contradictions in regard
to Bourdieu’s understanding of time in general and in regard to time and
economic practice in particular. On the one hand, and as I have already
suggested, Bourdieu’s understanding of practice as temporalisation permits us
to cut through and problematise various normative assumptions concerning
time, for example, that time should flow in one direction or another, or that
there should be a certain sequencing of time, including the assumption that
the future should operate as a distant horizon vis-à-vis present practices and
events. In addition, Bourdieu’s understanding that anticipation is a mundane
feature of practice also warns that a degree of caution may be required around
the claim that ways of life are increasingly anticipatory. The notion of practice
as temporalisation also allows us to problematise the view that economic
practices should (and can) be held at a distance from time and, therefore,
question the view – expressed by all manner of voices in regard to the global
financial crisis and its aftermath – that the future can be colonised, traded or
commodified. Hence, as I have argued here, Bourdieu’s social theory helps
us to understand that, far from existing at a distance from economic presents,
358 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

futures in general are made in practices, and financial futures in particular are
made in economic practices, such as mortgaging, trading and contracting.
Yet while Bourdieu’s social theory permits us to develop these kinds of
insights, we might reasonably ask to what extent are they destabilised by his
sidestepping of the issue of clock time and its hegemonic status in industrial
capitalism. Does the bracketing of an abstract and ‘externalist’ form of
time, one that moreover is at the very core of the logic and dynamics of
capitalist accumulation, mean that Bourdieu’s social theory is set to remain
apt and germane for grasping issues of symbolic and cultural value and a
rather blunt instrument in regard to economic practices, especially capitalist
economic practices? Certainly, Calhoun and Beasley-Murray understand this
to be the case. But while it may be correct to state that Bourdieu ignored and
bracketed the hegemony of the clock and in so doing sidestepped a form of
time which has radical implications for the status and relevance of his notion
of practice as temporalisation, a closer look at the relationship between time
and contemporary economic practices suggests that this bracketing may not
be fatal. In fact, the nature of this relationship seems to suggest that, while
it may well be the case that Bourdieu’s social theory shot wide of the key
dynamics and processes of industrial capitalism, for post-industrial or post-
Fordist capitalism, this may be far from so. And this latter is the case because
post-Fordist economic practices indicate an end to the hegemony of clock
time and the emergence of a form of time in the economic field that is more
akin to the conception of temporality that can be found in Bourdieu’s analysis,
that is, a form of time which is not simply a vessel for events but one in which
time and events proceed together. In other words, the critical analysis of the
relationship between time and contemporary economic practices suggests that
while Bourdieu’s social theory will never be a key resource for understanding
the dynamics and processes of industrial capitalism, far greater traction can be
found for the case of post-Fordist capitalism, including the recent and ongoing
global economic crisis.

Money is Time
Consider, for example, the case of financial prediction. For many, financial
prediction and related practices, such as economic forecasting and foreseeing,
are increasingly blunt instruments, not least because of the novel forms of
value unfolding in post-Fordist regimes of production which are not easily
captured by such devices (see, for example, Marazzi, 2007). Indeed, the recent
financial crisis – widely reported as unpredicted and unexpected, that is, as not
amenable to instruments of prediction and foreseeing – seems to indicate that
this view may well hold water. Yet, we can modify this view when we consider
Practice as Temporalisation 359

that in practices such as prediction and forecasting the relationship between

time and events is not necessarily fixed but open to (and perhaps increasingly
open to) change and flux. In a recent discussion of a specific predictive financial
instrument, namely the yield curve of the US Treasury, Zaloom (2009) makes
this shifting relation between time and events particularly clear. Specifically,
Zaloom charts a shifting relationship between time and money, one where
rather than standing outside of events, mapping and measuring the value of
money, time is increasingly fused with money (and, hence, with events). In
short, rather than acting as an external measure of events (as we encounter
paradigmatically in clock time), in the practices associated with the yield curve,
time unfolds with events.
As Zaloom explains, the yield curve of the US Treasury maps U.S. bonds’
future value and is ‘a widely used indicator of economic strength’ (Zaloom,
2009: 247) both in the U.S. and internationally. The curve is a device for
understanding risk and time in the U.S. Treasury market, and it does so by
mapping treasury yields, that is, the relationship between interest rates and
the time to maturity of a bond, a mapping which ‘offers a way to understand
the market’s collective assessment of the future’ (Zaloom, 2009: 247).
While, as Zaloom describes, yield curve analysis had existed in the 1960s, its
significance emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, that is, during a period of major
transformation in global finance, including the floating of US currencies and
interest rates on the open market following the collapse of the Bretton Woods
agreement. Thus, rather than being fixed by the U.S. government, the market
began to set the prices of dollars, bonds and interest rates. Before this shift,
Zaloom goes on, bonds had been dealt as ‘discrete packages of time’ (Zaloom,
2009: 252), with traders being assigned to separate markets in two, five and
ten-year bonds. Hence, for a two year bond, traders ‘bought and sold the
security looking at the risks that lay in the economy to the point of the bond’s
expiration’ (Zaloom, 2009: 253). In short (and while Zaloom herself does not
explain it in these terms), when the prices of dollars, bonds and interest rates
were fixed, time and bonds were held as separate entities with bonds moving
in and through time, and time acting as an external measure of yield and
bond duration.
During the 1970s, however, the increasing deregulation of financial markets
and especially market price setting shifted the relationship between time and
money. Instead of acting as an external measure of financial objects, time
became both part of those very objects and an object or event in and of itself.
Zaloom describes, for instance, how as the market floating of price setting took
place, and on receipt of the company’s first computer, a mathematician working
at a New York bond house used it to calculate the prices of bonds and even
fractions of bonds and began trading on the basis of these calculations. Such
360 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

calculations connected bonds that were previously traded as separate entities

(for example, two and ten year bonds), a connection which crucially generated
opportunities to exploit ‘the relationships between future points in time’ (2009:
253). In brief, such techniques ‘generated profit making opportunities from
temporal relationships’ (2009: 252). Such practices therefore transformed the
very materiality of bonds – instead of simply moving in and being measured
by time, bonds themselves became time, indeed such practices transformed
bonds from discrete objects moving in time into ‘a continuum of moments’
(Zaloom, 2009: 252). The unfixing of the price of dollars and interest rates
therefore created a new relationship between time and phenomena, with the
latter (such as bonds) becoming increasingly temporalised and temporalising.
Indeed, in deregulated financial markets time itself emerged as an object of
innovation. Thus, contrary to the case of industrial capitalism, where time is
money, in deregulated finance markets, money has become time.
This previous point is crucial, for it allows us to see, once again, how the
practices of financial traders, as well as of governments and consumers, have
not involved a simple trade, commodification or colonisation of pre-existing
futures; but rather that these practices relate to a shift in time itself. To be exact,
in deregulated financial markets, time has ceased to operate as an external
vessel for practice and has increasingly merged with events. And it is in this
sense that we find resonances with Bourdieu’s understanding of time. For just
as Bourdieu insists that time is not a ‘thing’ in which events take place (that
time is not something that simply ‘passes’) and that practice is temporalisation,
in deregulated financial markets, practices and events are both temporalised and
temporalise. In short, in deregulated financial markets, time has increasingly
taken on the characteristics of the form of time theorised by Bourdieu: events
and objects (such as bonds) have become forms of time, and time itself has
become an object of both innovation and differentiation. While we might
therefore rightly chastise Bourdieu for his lack of attention to the hegemony
of clock time for the case of industrial capitalism and his lack of concern with
the centrality of clock time for the very functioning of industrial capitalism,
we find – perhaps ironically – that practice as temporalisation offers much
purchase for contemporary economic practices, and we may even speculate
about whether or not practice as temporalisation may be paradigmatic for
post-Fordist regimes of production.
To be sure, Bourdieu had little, if anything, to say about time and
financial practices; nonetheless, in an undeveloped aside in The Social
Structures of the Economy, he noted how the liberalisation and deregulation of
the financial sector tended ‘to eliminate the time differentials that separated
various national markets’ (Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 224). While this
comment was made in the context of a discussion on the political creation
Practice as Temporalisation 361

of what Bourdieu termed the ‘global market’, nonetheless it is suggestive

that he understood – at least implicitly – that financial deregulation and
liberalisation concerned a restructuring of time in the economic and
financial field, one which I have described here as a shift from the hegemony
of clock time to practice as temporalisation. This shift not only poses challenges
to attempts to understand recent economic events via externalist and/or
normative theories of time, but also raises a range of more general issues
and questions for sociology as a discipline. It will be recalled, for instance,
that Sennett laments the demise of narrative movement – that is, the
accumulation of experience and of connections between events in time –
and that he demands the reinstallation of a present in which such experience
can be sensed. It will be recalled also that Sennett makes this case especially
for economic practice. Yet, and in as much as it has been hypothesised here
that in economic practice time and events increasingly unfold together and
that events are not connected in time but are themselves forms of time, one
might question whether or not such an experience is available to be either
accumulated or sensed. Practice as temporalisation, therefore, raises the
sociological spectre that experience may too have restructured, a prospect
also gestured towards in Patricia Ticineto Clough’s (2009) claim that social
life is increasingly ‘unexperienced’, that is, increasingly beyond human
meaning and interpretation, including narrative interpretation.

Conclusion
This chapter has argued that in Bourdieu’s social theory we find unexpected
and surprising resources to think through recent economic events. These
resources, however, do not lie in the places that we might instinctively
be drawn to think through such events. They do not lie, for example, in
Bourdieu’s understanding of the forms and structure of capital, in his
understanding of the constitution and circulation of value, or in his later
writings on the political economy of neo-liberalism. Instead, I have argued
that it is in Bourdieu’s writings on time, and especially on practice and
temporalisation, that such resources are to be found. This is particularly so
because, as illustrated in the previous analysis, post-Fordist economic practice –
including, above all, financial economic practice – has contributed to the
decline of the hegemony of clock time (under which practices and events take
place in the shadow of the clock) and the emergence of practices and objects
which are increasingly temporalised and temporalise. Yet this chapter has
not sought to argue that we should (let alone attempted to) ‘apply’ or ‘map’
Bourdieu’s writings on time to and onto recent economic events, for such an
application or mapping is neither desirable nor helpful. Such methods would,
362 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

for instance, leave the received terms of those events entirely intact. Instead,
I have mobilised the resources of Bourdieu to understand these events in
new terms. These new terms have not only allowed for an unsettling of many
normative assumptions regarding the financial crisis and its aftermath, but
they have also allowed events so often reported as unpredicted, unknowable,
incalculable and inexplicable to become explicable. And in the face of the
restructuring of time outlined here, it may well be that the work of sociologists
will increasingly involve such procedures, indeed that, while once it was the
job of sociologists to make the familiar strange, it is now their job to make
the strange familiar.

Acknowledgments
This chapter was written during a period of sabbatical leave at the School of
Philosophy and Social Inquiry at the University of Melbourne. I wish to thank
the School and especially Associate Professor Helen Verran for their support
during this period.

Notes
1 See, for example, Demaggio and Mukhtar (2004), Grenfell and Hardy (2007), and
Lipstadt (2003).
2 An example of this – somewhat uncommon – view can be found in Lash (1993), who
argues that the large-scale and general process of de-differentiation of economy and
culture positions Bourdieu’s social theory as particularly relevant for the contemporary
economy or, more precisely, for the contemporary cultural economy.
3 As a contrast, see Calhoun (2006), who argues that, far from breaking with the principles
of his general social theory, Bourdieu’s critique of neo-liberalism is informed by his
early ethnographic studies in Algeria and in particular by his studies of the economic
and social transformations relating to French colonisation, especially those relating
to Algeria’s incorporation into capitalist economic relations. Thus, both in The Social
Structures of the Economy and in Firing Back, Bourdieu parallels the social and economic
transformations relating to the unification of the economic and financial field, aimed
at by the juridical-political devices of neo-liberal policy, to those transformations
concerning the unification of the economic field in the context of the colonial state.
4 The ‘social embeddedness school’ of economic sociology proposes that economic
practices and events should be understood to be embedded in social relations, rather
than to take place in the abstract. Bourdieu explicitly acknowledges his debt to this
school, and specifically to Polanyi, in The Social Structures of the Economy (2005) when
he argues that just as Polanyi observed to be the case for national markets, the ‘global
market’ is a political creation, that is, a product of ‘a more or less self-consciously
concerted policy’ (Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 225). Such policy, Bourdieu goes on, was
implemented by a set of agents and institutions, and concerned the application of rules
deliberately crafted for specific ends – specifically, trade liberalisation – involving the
‘elimination of all national regulations restricting companies and their investments’
Practice as Temporalisation 363

(Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 225). Bourdieu’s debt to the ‘social embeddedness school’ is
also registered in his acknowledgment (again, following Polanyi) that economic practice
should be conceived of as a ‘total social fact’ (Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 2).
5 Bourdieu (2000 [1997]) elaborates how the inscription of the future in the immediate
present is not a given of practice via the case of the chronically unemployed. The
latter, he suggests, often exist with ‘no future’, or, to be more precise, experience time as
purposeless and meaningless. For, without employment, the unemployed are deprived
of an objective universe (deadlines, timetables, rates, targets and so on), which orientates
and stimulates protensive practical action. In short, the chronically unemployed have
‘no future’ because they are excluded from the objective conditions (the pull of the field)
that would allow for the practical making of time (see Adkins, 2009a).
6 Bourdieu explicitly conceives of the economy as a field, that is, as an autonomous
structured space of positions, differentiated from other fields by virtue of the fact that it
has its own properties. Moreover, the positions that comprise the field are constituted by
accumulated capital, the volume and structure of which determines the ‘structure of the
field that determines them’ (Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 193). Thus, the force attached to
an agent depends on the volume and structure of capital that agents possess in different
species: cultural, financial (potential or actual), technological, juridical, organisational,
commercial, social and symbolic (Bourdieu, 2005 [2000]: 194). In brief, for the case
of the economic field, and as in Bourdieu’s general social theory, the structure of the
distribution of capital determines the structure of the field.
7 For Bourdieu, understanding economic action via a philosophy of agents, action, time
and the social world restores economics to ‘its true vocation as a historical science’ (2005
[2000]: 216), that is, as a discipline whose epistemological and ontological assumptions
are highly contingent.
8 http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/sanford.economy/index.html
(accessed on 18th March 2010).
9 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2611909.htm (accessed on 30th March
2010).
10 http://www.coventryconservatives.com/index.php/news/brown_s_borrowing_
bonanza_mortgages_nations_futu/ (accessed on 18th March 2010).
11 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/
article5941273.ece (accessed on 18th March 2010).
12 This principle does not necessarily always hold; see, for example: Sennett (2006), for the
case of craft labour; and McRobbie (2002b), for the case of creative labour.

References
Adam, Barbara (1994) Time and Social Theory, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Adam, Barbara (2004) ‘Towards a New Sociology of the Future’ http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/
socsi/futures/newsociologyofthefuture.pdf, accessed 14.03.09.
Adams, Vincanne, Michelle Murphy and Adele E. Clarke (2009) ‘Anticipation:
Technoscience, Life, Affect, Temporality’, Subjectivity 28: 246–265.
Adkins, Lisa (2008) ‘From Retroactivation to Futurity: The End of the Sexual Contract?’,
Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 16(3): 182–201.
Adkins, Lisa (2009a) ‘Sociological Futures: From Clock Time to Event Time’, Sociological
Research Online 14(4): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/4/8.html.
Adkins, Lisa (2009b) ‘Feminism After Measure’, Feminist Theory 10(3): 1–17.
364 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Beasley-Murray, Jon (2000) ‘Value and Capital in Bourdieu and Marx’, in Nicholas Brown
and Imre Szeman (eds.) Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, pp. 100–119.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, in John C. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood, pp. 241–258.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1993 [1984]) Sociology in Question, trans. Richard Nice, London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998) Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time, trans. Richard
Nice, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1999 [1993]) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society,
trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson [et al.], Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2003 [2001]) Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2, trans. Loïc
Wacquant, London: Verso.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2005 [2000]) The Social Structures of the Economy, trans. Chris Turner,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, Wendy (2005) Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics, Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Calhoun, Craig (1993) ‘Habitus, Field, and Capital: The Question of Historical Specificity’,
in Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical
Perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61–88.
Calhoun, Craig (2006) ‘Pierre Bourdieu and Social Transformation: Lessons from Algeria’,
Development and Change 37(6): 1403–1415.
Callon, Michel, Yuval Millo and Fabian Muniesa (eds.) (2007) Market Devices, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Clough, Patricia (2009) ‘The New Empiricism: Affect and Sociological Method’, European
Journal of Social Theory 12(1): 43–61.
Colebrook, Claire (2009) ‘Stratigraphic Time, Women’s Time’, Australian Feminist Studies
24(59): 11–16.
Coleman, Rebecca (2008) ‘Things that Stay’, Time and Society 17(1): 85–102.
Dimaggio, Paul and Toqir Mukhtar (2004) ‘Arts Participation as Cultural Capital in the
United States, 1982–2002: Signs of Decline?’, Poetics 32(2): 169–194.
Edelman, Lee (2005) No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Durham and London: Duke
University Press.
Granovetter, Mark (1985) ‘Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.
Grosz, Elizabeth (2004) The Nick of Time: Politics, Evolution and the Untimely, Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Hassan, Robert (2003) ‘Network Time and the New Knowledge Epoch’, Time and Society
12(2–3): 225–241.
Husserl, Edmund (1931) Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans. W.R. Boyce
Gibson, London: Allen and Unwin.
Jenkins, Richard (1992) Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.
Lash, Scott (1993) ‘Pierre Bourdieu: Cultural Economy and Social Change’, in Craig
Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (eds.) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 193–211.
Practice as Temporalisation 365

Law, Alex (2009) ‘The Callous Credit Nexous: Ideology and Compulsion in the Crisis of
Neoliberalism’, Sociological Research Online 14(4): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/4/5.
html.
Lipstadt, Helene (2003) ‘Can Art Professions be Bourdieuean Fields of Cultural Production?
The Case of the Architecture Competition’, Cultural Studies 17(3–4): 390–419.
Marazzi, Christian (2007) ‘Rules for the Incommensurable’, SubStance 36(1): 11–36.
McFall, Liz (2009) ‘Devices and Desires: How Useful is the “New” Economic Sociology for
Understanding Market Attachment?’, Sociology Compass 3(2): 267–282.
McNay, Lois (1999) ‘Gender, Habitus and the Field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of
Reflexivity’, Theory, Culture & Society 16(1): 95–117.
McRobbie, Angela (2002a) ‘A Mixed Bag of Misfortunes? Bourdieu’s Weight of the World’,
Theory, Culture & Society 19(3): 129–138.
McRobbie, Angela (2002b) ‘Clubs to Companies: Notes on the Decline of Political Culture
in Speeded up Creative Worlds’, Cultural Studies 16(4): 516–531.
Nowotny, Helga (2005 [1994]) Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience, trans. Neville
Plaice, Cambridge: Polity Press.
O’Carroll, Aileen (2008) ‘Fuzzy Holes and Intangible Time: Time in a Knowledge
Industry’, Time and Society 17(2–3): 179–193.
Polanyi, Karl (2001 [1957]) The Great Transformation, foreword by R.M. MacIver, Boston:
Beacon Press.
Poovey, Mary (2009) ‘Understanding Global Interconnectedness: Catastrophic Generic
Change’, unpublished paper presented at the Nolte Center, University of Minnesota,
6th April 2009.
Postone, Moishe (1993) Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx’s Critical
Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sennett, Richard (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thompson, E. P. (1967) ‘Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism’, Past and Present
38: 56–97.
Zaloom, Caitlin (2009) ‘How to Read the Future: The Yield Curve, Affect and Financial
Prediction’, Public Culture 21(2): 245–268.
AFTERWORD
Concluding Reflections on the Legacy
of Pierre Bourdieu

Simon Susen

Approaching Pierre Bourdieu

Those who are unfamiliar, or barely familiar, with the writings of Pierre
Bourdieu will find a useful and comprehensive introduction to his work in
the opening chapter, entitled ‘Between Structuralism and Theory of Practice:
The Cultural Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’. In it, Hans Joas and Wolfgang
Knöbl provide us with a clear and accessible overview of some of the main
philosophical and sociological themes that run through Bourdieu’s writings.
Joas and Knöbl centre their analysis on five interrelated concepts that
play a pivotal role in Bourdieu’s work: the concepts of (1) practice, (2) action,
(3) the social, (4) cultural sociology, and (5) social science.
(1) The authors examine Bourdieu’s concept of practice by focusing on one
of his most influential early works, namely his Outline of a Theory of Practice
(1977 [1972]). As explained by Joas and Knöbl, Bourdieu’s theory of practice
is based on a sympathetic but critical revision of Lévi-Strauss’s anthropological
structuralism through the proposal of an alternative, somewhat refined, form of
structuralism, commonly described as ‘genetic’ or ‘constructivist’ structuralism.
According to Joas and Knöbl, the paradigmatic transition from Lévi-Strauss’s
‘anthropological structuralism’ to Bourdieu’s ‘genetic structuralism’ contains
a number of significant presuppositional shifts. (i) The shift from ‘rule following’
to ‘rule breaking’ is motivated by the insight that social actors do not always
follow the rules imposed upon them by their social environment: the relative
unpredictability of society is due to the ineluctable power of human agency.
(ii) The shift from ‘structure’ to ‘action’ is justified considering the fact that social
structures cannot exist without social action: the very possibility of society is
contingent upon the constant interplay between social structure and social
action. (iii) The shift from ‘theory’ to ‘practice’ is imperative to avoid falling into the
368 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

scholastic fallacy of treating ‘the things of logic’ as ‘the logic of things’ and
thereby passing off ‘the reality of the model’ as ‘the model of reality’: a truly
reflexive sociology, in the Bourdieusian sense, needs to recognise that human
life is to be conceived of as an ensemble of social practices. (iv) The shift from
‘substantialism’ to ‘relationalism’ is based on the conviction that we need to replace
the substantialist with the relationalist mode of thought in order to account for
the fact that social fields are defined by contingent relations between, rather
than by universal properties of, social actors: society is a relationally constructed
reality. (v) The shift from ‘logocentric dichotomism’ to ‘homological holism’ permits us to
transcend the counterproductive antinomy between objectivist and subjectivist
approaches to the social: society emanates from the homological interplay
between field-divided objectivities and habitus-specific subjectivities. Thus,
from a Bourdieusian perspective, social practices are possible only through the
homological interplay between positionally structured realms of objectivity
and dispositionally constituted forms of subjectivity.
(2) Joas and Knöbl begin their examination of Bourdieu’s concept of action
by pointing out that the Bourdieusian model of human action differs from
‘utilitarian’ or ‘economic’ models in three respects: first, it conceives of human
action in relationalist, rather than rationalist, terms; second, it studies human
action in contextualist, rather than universalist, terms; and, third, it examines
human action in praxeological, rather than transcendental, terms. If human
action is always relationally, contextually, and praxeologically constituted, it
cannot be reduced to the outcome of a largely self-sufficient, predominantly
calculative, and merely cognitive subject. The habitus constitutes a dispositionally
structured apparatus of perception, appreciation, and action. Its main function
is to allow social actors to confront the field-specific imperatives thrown at
them in a field-divided world. The social field denotes a positionally structured
realm of socialisation, interaction, and competition. Its main function is to
provide social actors with a practically defined framework in which to mobilise
their habitus-specific resources in relation to a habitus-divided world. Different
forms of capital describe different – objectively externalised and subjectively
internalised – sources of material and symbolic power. The main function of
(different types of) capital is to enable social actors to compete over material
and symbolic resources in relationally constituted realms. A general theory of
the economy of practices needs to account for the fact that the homological
interplay between habitus-specific forms of subjectivity and field-differentiated
forms of objectivity lies at the heart of the struggle over capital-based resources
available in a given society.
(3) The two authors continue by reflecting upon Bourdieu’s concept of the
social. As they point out, field, habitus, and capital constitute the three conceptual
cornerstones of the Bourdieusian architecture of the social. Yet, rather than
Afterword 369

conceiving of these categories in isolation from each other, Bourdieusian

analysis is concerned with exploring the various and often contradictory ways
in which they are empirically interconnected. From a Bourdieusian perspective,
the field can be regarded as the ontological foundation of the social: to be
situated in different realms of social reality means to be embedded in different
social fields. Social fields constitute the espaces des possibles, that is, the delimited
and delimiting spaces of possibilities in which human actions take place. As
Joas and Knöbl explain, Bourdieusian field theory and Luhmannian systems
theory converge and diverge in three fundamental respects. They converge in
emphasising that social fields – in the Bourdieusian sense – and social systems –
in the Luhmannian sense – are characterised by their (i) constraining ubiquity,
(ii) functional differentiality, and (iii) relative autonomy. Paradoxically, the two
accounts also diverge in precisely these respects. (i) According to Bourdieu,
the constraining ubiquity of social fields can be challenged through the
generative power of social struggle and human agency. By contrast, according
to Luhmann, there is little – if any – room for transformative malleability
within social realms whose normative horizons are defined by systemic
boundaries. (ii) From a Bourdieusian perspective, the functional differentiality
of social fields is limited to the degree of evolutionary determinacy of a given
society. Conversely, from a Luhmannian perspective, any kind of society has,
in principle, the capacity to develop an infinite number of systemic realms that
generate a potentially unlimited amount of spaces of delimited interactionality.
(iii) Following Bourdieu, the relative autonomy of social fields is always subject
to the hegemonic imperatives of a given type of society. Following Luhmann,
social systems can, in principle, reproduce themselves without being dictated
by the overarching imperatives of a dominant form of normativity.
(4) Joas and Knöbl provide us with useful insights into some of the key
aspects of Bourdieu’s notion of cultural sociology. Far from regarding culture
as a neutral and disinterested affair, Bourdieu conceives of it as a vehicle of
social distinction. Given the foundational status of our daily immersion in
culture, the attainment of cultural capital is a precondition for the acquisition
of other forms of capital. In other words, we obtain social, economic, political,
linguistic, and educational forms of capital on condition that we have access
to cultural capital. Ordinary actors can participate in social life only insofar
as they are exposed to cultural fields, develop a cultural habitus, and acquire
cultural capital. Since the human species is a socio-constructive species, the
emergence of society is inconceivable without the creation of culture. In order
to develop a cultural habitus and participate in a cultural field, we need to
incorporate cultural capital. Culture is inevitably interest-laden because we can
develop an interest in the world only if we develop an interest in culture, and
culture is necessarily power-laden because access to culture is a precondition
370 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

for access to power. Symbolic power derives from people’s generative capacity
to convert the need for self-realisation into an endogenously mobilised resource
of exogenously approved consecration.
(5) The authors conclude their chapter by reflecting on Bourdieu’s remarkable
influence on contemporary social science. They observe that Bourdieu’s
influence is particularly palpable in the Francophone, Germanophone, and
Anglophone fields of social and political thought. (i) Probably more than in
any other national tradition of sociology, the contemporary French academic
field of sociology appears to be divided between ‘the Bourdieusians’ and
‘the Boltanskians’; whereas the former are associated with the paradigm
of sociologie critique, the latter are referred to as advocates of an alternative
agenda commonly described as sociologie de la critique or, more recently, sociologie
pragmatique de la critique. Bourdieusians tend to regard social science as a tool to
uncover the underlying mechanisms that shape the hierarchical structuration
of society. By contrast, Boltanskians tend to conceive of social science as a
tool to make sense of the various disputes generated by ordinary actors when
engaging in the discursive problematisation of society. (ii) In the contemporary
German academic field of sociology, Bourdieusian conceptual frameworks are
increasingly popular in empirical studies on life-style. This tendency reflects
the sociological significance of actors’ dependence on access to multiple
forms of capital in differentiated societies: in order to enjoy the status of an
empowered member of society we have no choice but to develop the capacity
to acquire and mobilise capital-based resources that permit our subjectivity
to relate to and act upon increasingly differentiated realms of objectivity. (iii)
Despite the persisting paradigmatic predominance of economic and utilitarian
approaches in the contemporary North American academic field of sociology,
it appears to be more and more common to establish an elastic comfort zone
between the utilitarian paradigm of ‘rational action’ in the market place and
the relational paradigm of ‘interest-laden action’ in the social field. Social life,
then, is driven by a permanent struggle over resources: cultural resources,
economic resources, linguistic resources, educational resources, political
resources, and symbolic resources. In short, the history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of struggles over social resources. Ultimately, to have
access to a legitimate habitus via the acquisition of legitimate capital and
participation in a legitimate field means to have access to a legitimate life.

Bourdieu and Marx (I)

In the second chapter, entitled ‘Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist?’,
Bridget Fowler defends the view that Bourdieu can be regarded as one of the
great heirs of the Western Marxist tradition. Although she does not suggest that
Afterword 371

Marx was the only classical sociologist whose oeuvre significantly influenced
Bourdieu’s writings, Fowler argues that Marx had a distinctive impact on
Bourdieu and that the significance of this influence is often downplayed when
examining Bourdieusian concepts such as field, habitus, and doxa. More
specifically, she claims that Bourdieu’s syntheses, which possess a masterly
originality derived from a variety of intellectual traditions, were aimed at
strengthening, rather than at undermining, Marx’s historical materialism.
Bourdieu neither abandoned nor repudiated Marx’s materialist method,
but rather converted it into a sociologically more complex and analytically
more sophisticated approach, insisting upon the central importance of the
ineluctable links between the material and the symbolic, the economic and the
cultural, and the objective and the normative dimensions of social life.
Given his emphasis on the multidimensional constitution of human
reality, it comes as no surprise that Bourdieu was strongly opposed to all
forms of Vulgärmarxismus, which – as Fowler points out – fall into the traps of
‘false radicalism’ and ‘mechanical materialism’. We are therefore confronted
with a curious paradox: Bourdieu provides his most powerful critique of
orthodox Marxism by adopting and developing Marx’s own conceptual and
methodological tools. He draws upon insights from Marxist thought whilst
seeking to overcome some of its most significant shortcomings. In so doing,
Bourdieu is firmly situated in the self-critical spirit of the Marxist project:
just as ‘it is essential to educate the educator himself ’ or herself, it is crucial
to criticise the critic himself or herself (Marx, 2000/1977 [1845]: 172); and
just as it is imperative to sociologise sociology itself, it is indispensable to
reflect upon the process of reflection itself (Bourdieu, 1976: 104; 2001: 16,
19, and 220).
What, then, allows us to assume that Bourdieusian forms of reflection
stand in the tradition of Marxist social analysis? To what extent can Bourdieu
be regarded as one of the great inheritors of the Western Marxist tradition?
As Fowler demonstrates on the basis of a close textual analysis, Marxian
thought is an omnipresent feature in key areas of Bourdieu’s writings. In
order to illustrate this, the author focuses on six Bourdieusian themes: Algeria;
education and class; the cultural field; struggles within the academic field; the
problem of agency; and, finally, the idea of a general theory of cultural power.
As Fowler outlines in the introductory part of her chapter, we can identify a
number of theoretical concerns that feature centrally both in Marxian and in
Bourdieusian social analysis. These overlapping theoretical concerns, which
are instances of Bourdieu’s debt to Marx, can be synthesised as follows.
(1) Relationality: The most obvious point of convergence between Marx
and Bourdieu can be found in their shared conviction that human reality is
the ensemble of social relations. From a sociological perspective, social life
372 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

is to be conceived of not in terms of transcendental essences or ahistorical

abstractions, but in terms of spatiotemporally contingent relations between
different people and between different groups of people.
(2) Practice: A further important meeting point between Marx and Bourdieu
is the assumption that social life is essentially practical. Marx’s historical
materialism and Bourdieu’s genetic structuralism constitute two macro-
theoretical frameworks that are based on the presupposition that both the
constitution and the evolution of society are shaped by the unfolding of
interrelated social practices.
(3) Capital: Yet another shared concern in the works of Marx and Bourdieu
is their critical engagement with the fact that, in stratified societies, access to
social resources depends on access to capital. Bourdieu’s differentiation between
various forms of capital – such as economic, cultural, social, linguistic, and
symbolic capital – does justice to the complexity of polycentrically organised
realities in which social resources are not only asymmetrically distributed but
also positionally externalised and dispositionally internalised.
(4) Power: In light of the fact that our ability to act upon the world is
contingent upon our hierarchically defined position in the social space,
Marx and Bourdieu aim to demonstrate that asymmetrically structured
social relations are interest-laden power relations. Before we can imagine the
possibility of a classless reality, we need to face up to the complexities arising
from the structural divisions that permeate every class-ridden society.
(5) Economic and Symbolic Power: Both Marx and Bourdieu are holistic thinkers
in that they stress the inseparability of the material and the cultural, the
economic and the symbolic, and the objective and the normative dimensions of
social life. Bourdieu’s attempt to shift the emphasis from the study of economic
power, which is central to early modern forms of orthodox Marxism, to the
study of symbolic power, which is a key component of late modern versions of
cultural Marxism, reflects the need to account for the sociological significance
of people’s capacity to acquire social power through both material and cultural
resources. What is present in class is the power of social classification; what is
present in culture is the power of social representation. Power-laden divisions
in the world manifest themselves in interest-laden visions of the world.
(6) Contradiction and Crisis: In both Marx’s and Bourdieu’s writings,
contradiction and crisis are considered as indivisible aspects of the
social world. Regardless of whether – following Marx – we focus on
the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations
of production, or – following Bourdieu – we examine the contradiction
between the orthodox discourses of dominant groups and the heterodox
discourses of dominated groups, we cannot make sense of material and
symbolic revolutions without recognising that structural and ideological
Afterword 373

contradictions, which can lead to small-scale and large-scale social crises,

are major driving forces of historical development.
(7) Anti-Idealism: As critical thinkers who are committed to the empirical
investigation of social reality, both Marx and Bourdieu are deeply suspicious
of philosophical idealism. The presuppositions underlying Marx’s critique
of German idealism are omnipresent in Bourdieu’s critique of European
idealism: Kant’s transcendental account of reason and taste; Derrida’s merely
philosophical, and hence ultimately scholastic, attack on logocentrism;
Foucault’s obsession with free-floating épistèmes; Habermas’s romantic belief
in the socio-ontological preponderance of communicative action in the
lifeworld; or Austin’s meticulous study of language, which overestimates
the power of words and underestimates the power of social roles. All of
these philosophical projects are illustrative of scholastic attempts to study
cognitive, discursive, or linguistic forces of human reality regardless of their
socio-historical determinacy.
(8) Science: Just as Marx rejects a facile utopianism in the name of
science, Bourdieu has little patience with postmodern relativism, insisting
that a genuinely sociological study of human reality requires a scientific
analysis of social relationality. From this perspective, neither ideal worlds,
in which ‘anything is possible’, nor rainbow worlds, in which ‘anything
goes’, contribute much – if anything – to the scientific world, in which
‘everything is to be questioned’. Neither the Idealpolitik of utopian reason
nor the Provokationspolitik of cynical reason can play a constructive role in the
Realpolitik of scientific reason.
(9) Theory and Practice: For both Marx and Bourdieu, theorising for the sake
of theorising can only lead to self-sufficient and pointless forms of knowledge
production. Marx regards theory as an instrument that can become a material
force when absorbed and mobilised by the masses, and Bourdieu considers
sociology as a normative tool that can and should be used not only to
undermine the disempowering effects of social domination but also to realise
the empowering potentials of social emancipation.

Bourdieu and Marx (II)

The third chapter, ‘From Marx to Bourdieu: The Limits of the Structuralism
of Practice’, was originally written in French by Bruno Karsenti and was
translated into English by Simon Susen. It ties in with Bridget Fowler’s
conviction that the impact of Marx’s historical materialism on Bourdieu’s
genetic structuralism cannot be overestimated. As the chapter’s title suggests,
Marxian thought can be regarded as an integral element of the Bourdieusian
project. Thus, in order to make sense of the presuppositional underpinnings
374 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of the latter, we need to remind ourselves of the philosophical premises of

the former. In relation to Bourdieu, the socio-ontological significance of these
philosophical premises manifests itself in three of Marx’s key concerns: first,
in his concern with anthropological distinctiveness, which is rooted in humans’
capacity to produce their own – materially constituted and symbolically
mediated – means of subsistence; second, in his concern with anthropological
contradictions, particularly those derived from the structural division between
producers and non-producers; and, third, in his concern with anthropological
development, which is inconceivable without the gradual differentiation between
material labour and intellectual labour. Inspired by Marx’s oeuvre, the whole
point of Bourdieu’s project is to replace the ‘game of theory’ with the ‘reality
of practice’. In the ‘game of theory’, the act of critical reflection is treated
as independent of, and removed from, the empirical constitution of human
life. By contrast, in the ‘reality of practice’, the act of critical reflection is
experienced as both dependent upon and embedded within the relational
production of social existence.
With the relational production of cultural life forms in mind, Karsenti
provides a detailed analysis, on a number of levels, of the cornerstones of
Bourdieu’s structuralism of practice. Three levels of comparison between
Marx and Bourdieu are particularly important. First, just as Marx insists upon
the interwovenness of the material and the symbolic dimensions of social life,
Bourdieu invites us to overcome the – arguably artificial and, in some respects,
counterproductive – antinomy between objectivist and subjectivist approaches
in the social sciences. Second, just as from a Marxian perspective the point
is not only to interpret but also to transform the world, from a Bourdieusian
perspective we need to move from the ‘logic of theory’ to the ‘logic of practice’
in order to account for our ineluctable situatedness within, rather than our
imaginary detachment from, the world. And, third, just as in Marx we can
find an unambiguous attempt to conceive of human consciousness in terms
of social determinacy derived from the physical organisation of the world,
in Bourdieu we are confronted with the task of shifting from the imaginary
of cognitive detachment, celebrated in scholastic forms of philosophy, to
the reality of bodily engagement, explored in reflexive forms of sociology.
Hence, socio-analysis – as advocated by Bourdieu – is a form of sociological
psychoanalysis, compelling us to comprehend the biographical condition of
human individuality in relation to the historical condition of human society:
every time we seek to throw ourselves at society by virtue of individual agency,
society has already thrown itself at us by virtue of its relational determinacy.
In fact, the ‘belatedness’ of the human condition explains the ‘taken-for-
grantedness’ of human practices: our physical immersion in reality necessarily
precedes our material and symbolic actions upon society.
Afterword 375

Crucial to the paradigmatic shift from the scholastic illusion of ‘cognitive

detachment’ to the critical reflection upon ‘bodily engagement’ is a normative
issue: if we recognise that, as bodily beings, we are not only exposed to but also
immersed in the structural contradictions of society, then we need to accept
that the material and symbolic divisions by which we are surrounded are
sources of separation between people that exist as classificatory schemes within
people. Put differently, positional separations, which divide the social universe
into competing groups and fields, manifest themselves in dispositional schemes
of perception and appreciation, which impose themselves as quasi-naturalised
resources upon all historically mediated forms of human action. To the extent
that the positional divisions that exist in our society permeate the dispositional
schemes that exist in our bodies, the structural contradictions that pervade
the normative world have the power to colonise the corporeal apparatus
that underlies our subjective world. There is no such thing as an innocent
subject, for our inevitable immersion in the world compels us to internalise
the contradictions of the world. Before we can create subversive forms of
reflexivity and invent transformative modes of agency, we need to face up
to the predominance of our bodily constituted complicity with established
patterns of ideological and behavioural normativity.

Bourdieu and Durkheim

In the fourth chapter, ‘Durkheim and Bourdieu: The Common Plinth and its
Cracks’, written in French by Loïc Wacquant and translated into English by
Tarik Wareh, we move from Marx to another key figure in classical sociology
whose writings have had an enormous impact on Bourdieu’s work: Émile
Durkheim. Rather than providing a sterile comparison between Durkheim
and Bourdieu, and far from suggesting that Bourdieusian sociology represents
a merely Durkheimian endeavour, Wacquant, whilst acknowledging
the eclectic underpinnings of Bourdieu’s work, offers a systematic and
intellectually challenging account of four presuppositional pillars upon
which both Durkheimian and Bourdieusian sociology are based. These four
pillars, which according to Wacquant are omnipresent in the works of both
Durkheim and Bourdieu, can be described as follows: (1) the attachment to
rationalism, which manifests itself in the conviction that scientific knowledge
can provide us with the conceptual and methodological tools that allow for a
critical analysis of the social world; (2) the defence of the undividedness of social
science, which is expressed in the categorical refusal of theoreticism; (3) the
commitment to recognising the intimate link between sociology and historiography,
which is articulated in the study of the socio-historical constitution of human
existence; and (4) the recourse to ethnology as a privileged device for ‘indirect
376 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

experimentation’, which is motivated by the idea that ethnological analysis

can serve as a legitimate experimental technique of sociological investigation.
As stated above, Wacquant argues that the aforementioned concerns
represent four normative pillars in the writings of both Durkheim and
Bourdieu, particularly with regard to their respective conceptions of knowledge.
According to both thinkers, sociological knowledge is by definition rationally
motivated, scientifically oriented, historically informed, and ethnologically
sensitive. Nevertheless, as Wacquant demonstrates, their epistemological
frameworks not only converge but also diverge at various points.
(1) Both Durkheim and Bourdieu insist upon the epistemological gap between
ordinary and scientific knowledge. Yet, whereas Durkheim seeks to free sociology
from all presuppositional knowledge based on common sense, Bourdieu aims
to construct an enlarged conception of the social, capable of accounting for
the fact that insofar as the very possibility of society rests upon the homological
interplay between field and habitus, the construction of a critical sociology
depends on its capacity to explore the functional interplay between scientific
types of reflexivity and ordinary forms of knowledgeability.
(2) Both thinkers highlight the normative potentials of social science, which are
epitomised in a threefold refusal: (i) the refusal of worldly seductions, (ii) the
refusal of confinement within the scholarly microcosm, and (iii) the refusal
of disciplinary fragmentation and theoreticism. Paradoxically, however, the
two scholars are both united and divided by this tripartite concern. (i) For
Durkheim, the scientificity of sociology emanates from its purposive capacity
to be guided by the rational search for objectivity. For Bourdieu, on the other
hand, the scientificity of sociology derives from its contemplative capacity to
embrace a self-critical position of reflexivity. (ii) Whereas Durkheim stresses
the impersonal, and thus allegedly disinterested, constitution of scientific
knowledge, Bourdieu emphasises the relational, and hence ultimately interest-
laden, constitution of scientific knowledge. (iii) Durkheim opposes the scholastic
celebration of theoreticism by reminding us of the objective prevalence of
social facts. Bourdieu, by contrast, seeks to move from the ‘logic of theory’ to
the ‘logic of practice’ by pointing at the powerful mystery of social acts.
(3) According to both Durkheim and Bourdieu, it is the task of social
scientists to uncover the historical constitution of the human condition. The
spatiotemporal contingency of the human condition can be illustrated on the
basis of three forms of historicisation: (i) the historicisation of human agency,
(ii) the historicisation of human society, and (iii) the historicisation of human
knowledgeability. Yet, again – and again somewhat paradoxically – the two
thinkers are not only united but also divided by this tripartite concern. (i) From
a Durkheimian perspective, the creative power of human agency tends to be
superseded by the constraining power of social factuality. From a Bourdieusian
Afterword 377

perspective, however, the omnipresence of social factuality can be challenged

by the unfolding of human agency. (ii) According to Durkheimian parameters,
the preponderance of objectivity over subjectivity pervades the functional
determinacy of every society. According to Bourdieusian parameters, it is
the homology between positionally structured realms of objectivity and
dispositionally constituted forms of subjectivity which permeates the relational
determinacy of every society. (iii) In the Durkheimian universe, the validity of
scientific knowledge hinges upon its objective capacity to rise above its own
historicity. In the Bourdieusian universe, the validity of scientific knowledge
rests upon its reflexive capacity to face up to its own historicity.
(4) Both Durkheim and Bourdieu favour a posteriori over a priori knowledge in
that they are committed to the ethnological, rather than the logocentric, study
of the social world; and both prefer a fortiori over arbitrary knowledge in that
they are committed to scientific, rather than speculative, forms of reasoning.
Yet, their respective conceptions of ethnologically informed validity also differ
substantially from each other: whereas for Durkheim social-scientific research
is oriented towards the discovery of irrefutable generalities that underlie the
functioning of society, for Bourdieu social-scientific research cannot dispense
with categorical openness to the potential refutability of all explanatory
categories. In light of the above reflections we are obliged to recognise that,
as Wacquant indicates in the title of his chapter, the common plinth beneath
Durkheim and Bourdieu has significant cracks.

Bourdieu and Weber

Bourdieu was interviewed on several occasions in his career, and by now most
of these interviews have been published and translated into English. The
fifth chapter contains one that has not been previously translated into, let
alone published in, English. This interview, conducted by Franz Schultheis
and Andreas Pfeuffer, was published in German (see Bourdieu, 2000) one
year after it took place in a café on Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris in the
spring of 1999. The interview was originally conducted in French, and we
are grateful to Stephan Egger, the translator of the German publication, for
providing us with both the original (French) audio version and the published
(German) translation.
The title of this chapter anticipates the thematic focus of the interview:
‘With Weber Against Weber: In Conversation With Pierre Bourdieu’. It is
commonly accepted that some of the key elements of Marxian, Durkheimian,
Weberian, and – to some extent – Simmelian sociology can be considered
cornerstones of Bourdieusian thought. It is often suggested, however, that there
is an imbalance between these ‘classical’ approaches in terms of their respective
378 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

influence on the development of Bourdieu’s oeuvre. More specifically, there

is a pronounced tendency in the literature to presume or, in some cases, to
demonstrate that both Marxian and Durkheimian sociology had a particularly
strong impact on Bourdieu’s work (see, for example, chapters 2, 3, and 4 in this
volume). Yet, in comparison to the previous two influences, the impact that
Weberian sociology had on Bourdieu remains not only widely underestimated
but also to a significant extent underexplored.
This interview, hitherto largely unknown in the Anglophone world of
social science, permits and indeed compels us to challenge the notion that
Marx and Durkheim can be regarded as the ‘primary’ classical influences
on Bourdieu’s work, and that consequently Weber plays a somewhat
‘secondary’ role in his oeuvre. The elaborate responses given by Bourdieu
in this interview illustrate not only that he had a far-reaching appreciation
of Weber’s writings, but also that Weberian sociology can be considered a
pierre angulaire of the entire edifice of Bourdieusian thought. The interview
covers a wide range of topics and touches upon issues related to some of
Bourdieu’s deepest concerns and convictions. The key assertions made in
the interview shall be summarised here, somewhat provocatively, in Eleven
Theses on Bourdieu:

1. The chief defect of most hitherto existing forms of materialism in France (that of
Althusser included) is the disregard of Weber. Weber was not taken seriously
by French Marxists because he was largely perceived as a conservative
defender of ‘methodological individualism’ and ‘bourgeois philosophy’.
2. The question whether objective truth can be attributed to scientific thinking is not a
question of theory but is a practical question. Bourdieu makes this point clear
when affirming that ‘[a]t the end of the day, the important thing is the
research itself, that is, the research on the subject matter itself ’ (Bourdieu
et al., 2011 [2000]: 117). In order to embark upon the study of society we
need to engage with the reality of human practices.
3. The orthodox materialist doctrine concerning changing circumstances and upbringing
forgets that circumstances are changed through both material and symbolic struggles
over the monopoly of legitimate power over worldly and sacred goods and that if, in
principle, nothing ‘must remain as it was’ (Bourdieu et al., 2011 [2000]: 121,
italics added), it is essential to socialise and resocialise the socialisers themselves. If
we can find one categorical imperative in Bourdieusian thought it is the
notion that social arrangements are relatively arbitrary. Social reality ‘does
not have to be – that is, it is not necessarily – like this or like that’ (Bourdieu
et al., 2011 [2000]: 121, italics in original). From Bourdieu’s constructivist
perspective, ‘great philosophical revolutions’ cannot be dissociated
from ‘great social revolutions’ (Bourdieu et al., 2011 [2000]: 120). The
‘coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity’
Afterword 379

(Marx, 2000/1977 [1845]: 172) indicates that social actors cannot escape
the homology between objectivity and subjectivity. They cannot step out
of the socio-ontological interdependence between field-specific positions
and habitus-specific dispositions. The homological interplay between
objectivity and subjectivity underlies the construction of spatiotemporally
specific arrangements in every society.
4. Weber starts from the fact of the religious permeation of the world, of the duplication of
the world into a religious world and a secular one. Given that, throughout history,
the constitution of society appears to be characterised by the intimate
intertwinement of religious and secular modes of relating to and making
sense of the world, a comprehensive social science needs to develop both
a ‘political economy of religion’ and a ‘critical anthropology of religion’.
The former does justice to the fact that ‘the symbolic’ and ‘the material’
are two interdependent dimensions of the social world; the latter accounts
for the fact that, in the long run, the social world can only survive as
an enchanted – or at least quasi-enchanted – world. It is the meaning-
donating function of religion which explains its pervasive power to deal
with existential questions. As long as existential dilemmas are part of
the human condition, religious – or at least quasi-religious – beliefs and
practices will be an integral part of social life.
5. Orthodox Marxists, not satisfied with abstract thinking, want concrete action; but they
do not conceive of either abstract thinking or concrete action as field-specific and habitus-
dependent practices. Given the polycentric nature of complex societies, we
need to recognise that different ways of making sense of and acting
upon the world are positionally defined ways of being immersed in and
dispositionally constituted ways of relating to the world. Polycentric social
settings require centreless social theories.
6. Every human being is situated in and constituted by an ensemble of social relations.
In order to understand both the positional and the dispositional
determinacy of human actors, we need to capture the relations between
them, for it is the contingent relations between, rather than the universal
properties of, social actors which determine how they are situated in and
relate to the world.
7. If the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a social product and if every religion emerges under
particular social conditions, then it must be the task of a critical sociology of religion to
shed light on both the material and the symbolic mechanisms that contribute to either the
reproduction or the transformation of religious fields. Religious fields, however, are
to be conceived of not only as relations of feelings and meanings, but also
as relations of power: a ‘political economy of religion’ needs to shed light
on ‘the stakes in the struggles over the monopoly of the legitimate power
over the sacred goods’ (Bourdieu et al., 2011 [2000]: 119 , italics removed)
in order to understand that the power-laden nature of material relations
380 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

is impregnated with the interest-laden nature of symbolic relations, and

vice versa.
8. To recognise that all social life is essentially practical and that all human practices are
essentially social means to acknowledge that society is practically lived. It is because
people have to live with one another that they encounter one another, and
it is because they are situated in the world that they are invested in it.
9. The highest point of orthodox materialism – that is, of materialism that does not
comprehend the multilayered complexity of practical activity – is the reduction of
sociorelational realities to socioeconomic ontologies. Yet, the material and the
symbolic are two irreducible components of the social world. There has never
been a society whose mode of production could have been disentangled
from its mode of signification, since all coexistentially established human
arrangements are composed of materially constituted and symbolically
mediated social relations.
10. The standpoint of dogmatic philosophy is scholastic purism; the standpoint of
critical sociology is reflexive eclecticism. To engage in the critical exercise of
reflexive eclecticism requires resisting the temptation of relying on
intellectual inward-lookingness and thereby embarking upon a journey of
transdisciplinary outward-lookingness. No tradition can possibly emerge
without drawing on previously existing traditions. The success of a
critical sociology depends on its capacity to overcome counterproductive
boundaries between artificially divided epistemologies.
11. Social actors reproduce the world in various ways; the point is to recognise their capacity
to transform it. Just as one cannot be situated in the world without perceiving
the pervasive power of social constraints, ‘one cannot make any progress
without a respectful sense of freedom’ (Bourdieu et al., 2011 [2000]: 117).

Bourdieu and Nietzsche

In the sixth chapter, ‘Bourdieu and Nietzsche: Taste as a Struggle’, Keijo
Rahkonen offers an insightful comparison between Bourdieusian and
Nietzschean thought, which fills a significant gap in the literature. Rahkonen’s
analysis is divided into five sections.
In the first section, Rahkonen examines Bourdieu’s conception of taste. It is
worth mentioning that Bourdieu was one of the first thinkers to provide a
sociological account of taste. Although influential scholars such as Max Weber,
Georg Simmel, Thorstein Veblen, and Norbert Elias clearly touched upon
the concept of taste in their writings, none of them systematically explored
its sociological significance. Hence, as Rahkonen – borrowing an expression
from Loïc Wacquant – points out, Bourdieu’s sociological account of taste,
an elaborate version of which can be found in Distinction, can be described
Afterword 381

as a ‘Copernican revolution in the study of taste’. Several philosophical

accounts of taste – particularly those associated with Kantian thought – are
based on the assumption that the nature of taste is transcendentally, and
thus transhistorically, determined. By contrast, most sociological accounts
of taste – notably those associated with Bourdieusian thought – put forward
the idea that the constitution of taste is socially, and hence spatiotemporally,
determined. Bourdieu differentiates between three different ‘universes of taste’:
the realm of ‘pure taste’, oriented towards the consumption of ‘highbrow
culture’ and mainly acquired by members of the dominant classes; the realm
of ‘average taste’, directed towards the consumption of ‘middlebrow culture’
and particularly common amongst members of the middle classes; and the
realm of ‘popular taste’, aimed at the consumption of ‘lowbrow culture’ and
spread amongst members of the lower classes. In other words, the realm of
human taste is impregnated with the relationally defined interplay between
positionally structured forms of objectivity and dispositionally structured forms
of subjectivity, which underlies the functioning of every stratified society.
In the second section, Rahkonen examines Bourdieu’s critique of Kant’s
conception of taste. The Bourdieusian sociology of taste represents a radical
critique of the Kantian philosophy of taste. From a Bourdieusian perspective,
Kant’s three famous critiques – the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical
Reason, and the Critique of Judgement – are deeply flawed for failing to take
into consideration the social conditioning of reason and judgement. Kant’s
scholastic quest for aesthetic transcendentality disregards the ineluctable
predominance of social relationality in the cultural construction of reality. If
there is anything transcendental about the realm of aesthetics it is the fact that
the transcendental itself is socially constituted. Rather than speculating about
the analytical purity of theoretical reason, the moral universality of practical
reason, or the transcendental lawfulness of aesthetic judgement, we need to
examine the social determinacy of subjectivity in order to understand why our
perception and appreciation of reality cannot escape the omnipresent power
of human relationality. An interest-laden society generates interest-driven
actors. How we perceive, appreciate, and act upon the world depends on how
we are situated in the world in relation to others. Hence, taste is a matter not
of disembodied or transhistorical subjectivity but of social determinacy.
In the third section, Rahkonen explores Bourdieu’s conceptions of taste and
‘ressentiment’ in relation to power. From a Bourdieusian perspective, struggles
over taste are struggles over power. If there is one truth about taste, it is that
both its constitution and its meaning are constantly at stake in society. If taste
is so powerful because it makes us perceive, appreciate, and act upon the
world in particular ways, then neither access to nor cultivation of a particular
taste can be dissociated from inclusion in or exclusion from symbolically
382 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

mediated forms of social power. If we accept that no worldly situated subject

can possibly escape the endogenous power of an exogenously determined
apparatus of perception, appreciation, and action, then the classificatory
schemes acquired by habitus-specific dispositions cannot be divorced from
social struggles over field-specific positions. Given the interest-laden nature
of our immersion in the social world, a truly reflexive sociology needs to be
critical of itself: of its own schemes of classification, of its own programmes
of perception, of its own agendas of appreciation; in short, as Rahkonen
puts it, of its own ‘ressentiments’.
The concern with the nature of ‘ressentiment’ leads Rahkonen, in the fourth
section, to reflect upon Nietzsche’s conception of taste. However one interprets the
role of the concept of taste in Nietzsche’s writings, there is little doubt that,
from a Nietzschean perspective, not only ‘power’ and ‘truth’ but also ‘power’
and ‘taste’ are intimately interrelated: just as ‘the will to power’ cannot be
disentangled from ‘the will to truth’, ‘the will to power’ cannot be dissociated
from ‘the will to taste’. What we consider to be either right or wrong is often
what we like to be either right or wrong. The categorising powerfulness of taste
is intertwined with the stratifying tastelessness of power. In Nietzsche’s Thus
Spoke Zarathustra we are reminded that ‘all life is dispute over taste and tasting’.
For, as we may add, ‘all taste is dispute over life and living’.
And this is where, in the final section of Rahkonen’s chapter, Bourdieu
enters the stage again – this time together with Nietzsche. What, then, can we
learn from bringing Nietzsche and Bourdieu closer together? Following Rahkonen, one
of the most obvious features they have in common is their anti-Kantianism:
both are opposed to Kant’s arguably sterile and disembodied account of the
subject in general and of taste in particular. To be precise, Nietzsche and
Bourdieu share six anti-Kantian assumptions. First, taste is interest-laden: the
symbolic differentiation between legitimate and illegitimate forms of taste
emanates from the structural differentiation between dominant and dominated
social groups, whose taken-for-grantedness of habitus-specific dispositions is
permeated by the interest-ladenness of field-specific positions. Second, taste is
perspective-laden: our perception of the world is contingent upon our position in
the world. Third, taste is context-laden: before we can make sense of the world,
we have to be situated in the world; and before we can develop a taste for the
world, the world has to shape our taste. Fourth, taste is culture-laden: human
subjectivity cannot escape the spatiotemporal determinacy of the intrinsic
relationality which permeates all coexistential forms of human objectivity.
Fifth, taste is body-laden: all socially acquired dispositions are bodily located
traces of quasi-naturalised conditions. Sixth, taste is power-laden: the stratifying
tastelessness of power nourishes the categorising powerfulness of taste. The
tasteless empowerment of the powerfully tasteful goes hand in hand with the
Afterword 383

tasteless disempowerment of the powerfully tasteless. In short, the Wille zum

Geschmack and the Wille zur Macht constitute two integral components of our
Wille zur Welt.

Bourdieu and Elias

In the seventh chapter, Bowen Paulle, Bart van Heerikhuizen, and Mustafa
Emirbayer discuss Bourdieu’s somewhat ambiguous relation to the oeuvre
of one of the most influential thinkers in modern sociology: Norbert Elias.
The chapter, succinctly entitled ‘Elias and Bourdieu’, examines both points
of convergence and points of divergence between these two thinkers. The
authors insist, however, that such a comparative endeavour is motivated not by
the pursuit of intellectual speculation but by the convictions that we can gain
fruitful insights from bringing Bourdieu and Elias closer together and that we
can learn important lessons from cross-fertilising their approaches. Thus, as
the authors emphasise at the beginning of their chapter, their point is not only
to shed light on the similarities and differences between Elias and Bourdieu,
but also, and more importantly, to demonstrate that their perspectives yield a
more comprehensive and more powerful sociological vision when considered
together rather than separately.
The authors suggest that we can identify a number of reasons why the
various affinities and commonalities between Elias and Bourdieu have not been
a subject of debate in contemporary Anglophone sociology. First, there is the
significant influence of diverging historical contexts: Elias’s seminal works were
produced in the years culminating in the Second World War; all of Bourdieu’s
influential works were produced a quarter-century after the Second World War.
Second, there is the problem of an obvious language barrier: Elias’s main works
were written in German, whereas most of Bourdieu’s oeuvre was written in
French, and the English translations of their respective writings are not always
of the most reliable quality. Third, there is the difference in sociological emphasis:
while Elias studied long-term historical trends and developments spanning
several centuries, Bourdieu focused on dynamics of social reproduction in
particular historical contexts. Finally, there is the dividing question of the
role of sociological knowledge: according to Elias, sociological knowledge is
too specialised to have a significant use value in political matters; according
to Bourdieu, it is the normative task of the reflexive sociologist not only to
examine the social world but also to have a constructive and emancipatory
impact on its development. There are multiple reasons why the idea of
bringing the works of Elias and Bourdieu closer together is far from obvious.
There are, however, also a number of striking affinities and commonalities
between these two thinkers. Both were heavily influenced by continental
384 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

sociologists such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, as well as by continental

philosophers such as Husserl, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Both fought their way
through the power-laden environment of academic institutions. And both had
experienced and criticised the tangible consequences of social processes of
inclusion and exclusion. Hence there are profound intellectual, biographical,
and ideological similarities between the two thinkers. With both the differences
and the similarities between Elias and Bourdieu in mind, the chapter explores
key points of convergence and divergence between them by focusing on three
concepts that feature centrally in their writings: habitus, field, and power.
How is this conceptual triad deployed by Bourdieu? We must first remind
ourselves that, as Bourdieu insists, the notions of habitus, field, and capital are
to be regarded as interdependent concepts in his architecture of society. In other
words, habitus, field, and capital constitute three societal cornerstones, which
cannot exist independently of each other. A socially competent actor is equipped
with a habitus, immersed in different fields, and able to acquire different forms
of capital. Regardless of whether we look at Bourdieu’s earlier or later work,
the ontological interdependence between these three cornerstones of the
social is omnipresent in his writings: together, the dispositionally structured
apparatus of the habitus, the positionally structured spaces of social fields,
and the compositionally structured resources of capital form the relationally
structured realm of society.
How is this conceptual triad deployed by Elias? In Elias’s writings, habitus,
field, and power are also conceived of as interdependent, but what meanings does
he ascribe to these categories? The defining feature of a field, in the Eliasian
sense, is that it describes a social space generated by relational dynamics with
constantly shifting balances and imbalances of power. According to this view, a
field is composed of chains or webs of interdependent actors and actions. Given
the inescapable preponderance of relationally constructed fields in social life,
all our actions are inevitably caught up in dynamic chains of interdependence
and constantly shifting networks of power. One of the interesting features of
the habitus is that its internally located and externally materialised steering
mechanisms are the embodied manifestation of the fact that micro- and
macro-sociological dynamics are intimately intertwined. Thus, the pervasive
power of Elias’s famous ‘civilising process’ is expressed in its capacity to shape
the development of society by permeating every actor’s subjectivity and
thereby establish itself as a habitus-colonising reality. Yet, as Elias insists, the
development of people’s habitus often lags behind the transformation of social
structures; and this is one of the reasons why macro-societal transformations
normally need an enormous amount of time to insert themselves in people’s
day-to-day habits. The efficacy of social power consists in its capacity
to assert the presence of its powerfulness as a subtle form of quotidian
Afterword 385

taken-for-grantedness. What is interesting from an Eliasian perspective,

however, is that power is about both hierarchy and interdependence, competition
and cooperation, subversion and compliance: not only do we all depend on
other people, but we all depend on people who are objectively either more or
less powerful than we are. In brief, to be immersed in social relations means to
participate in the construction of power relations.
On the basis of these reflections, it seems justified to suggest that the
works of Bourdieu and Elias are not as far apart as they may appear at first
glance and that the conceptual triad of habitus, field, and power features
centrally in their writings. In order to illustrate the tangible relevance
of Bourdieu’s and Elias’s respective conceptual tools and sociological
frameworks, Paulle, van Heerikhuizen, and Emirbayer use the example
of sport, highlighting the fact that Bourdieu and Elias were the only
influential sociologists of the twentieth century to take sport seriously and
to regard it as a central and indeed illuminating element of modern social
life. The authors argue that if we look at Bourdieu’s and Elias’s respective
approaches to sport, it becomes obvious that there is an uncanny and
far-reaching similarity between them. Above all, they share the view that
sport can be seen as a social field in which emotional self-control and
bodily self-discipline play a particularly important role in the mobilisation
of resources, the normalisation of rules, the development of abilities,
and the competition between actors. As such, the field of sport is a social
field par excellence, because all social fields are relationally constructed
and normatively codified spaces of possibilities with specific modes of
functioning and competitive struggles over power. To suggest that the field
is in the habitus because the habitus is in the field is to assume that the
game is in the player because the player is in the game. The power of
social actors depends on their practical capacity to determine not only the
outcome but also the rules of the game.

Bourdieu and Adorno

In the eighth chapter, Simon Susen examines the transformation of culture
in modern society by drawing upon the works of Pierre Bourdieu and
Theodor W. Adorno. The chapter, entitled ‘Bourdieu and Adorno on the
Transformation of Culture in Modern Society: Towards a Critical Theory of
Cultural Production’, comprises four sections: the first provides some general
reflections on the concept of culture; the second focuses on Bourdieu’s analysis
of culture, particularly his interest in the social functioning of the ‘cultural
economy’; the third centres on Adorno’s analysis of culture, notably his concern
with the social power of the ‘culture industry’; and the fourth offers a comparison
386 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

between Bourdieu and Adorno in relation to their respective accounts of the

transformation of culture in modern society.
(1) With regard to the concept of culture, it is important to keep in mind
that we can distinguish at least three interrelated meanings of culture:
culture can be used as a sociological, philosophical, and aesthetic category. As a
sociological category, the concept of culture refers to a specific form of life
produced and reproduced by a given group of people. As such, it describes a
spatiotemporally contingent mode of human coexistence: just as different life
forms produce different cultures, different cultures produce different life forms.
As a philosophical category, the concept of culture can be conceived of as a
human ideal. As such, it designates a civilisational achievement of advanced
societies, whose progressive development is determined by the transcendental
power of ‘the mind’ or ‘the spirit’ and embodied in increasingly differentiated
social institutions: the evolution of every society depends on the education
of its members. As an aesthetic category, the concept of culture denotes a
distinctively human expression of artistic creativity. As such, culture is a body of
artistic and intellectual work and the vehicle for human creativity par excellence:
culture is both a medium and an outcome of the distinctively human capacity
to attach meaning to the world through the expressive power of artistic and
intellectual production. In brief, the normative, purposive, and creative
aspects of human life are realised through the sociological, philosophical, and
aesthetic potentials of culture.
(2) Given the paradigmatic importance ascribed to the study of culture
in his writings, Bourdieu’s sociological theory can be regarded as a cultural
theory. From a Bourdieusian perspective, there is no general theory of society
without a general theory of culture. When examining Bourdieu’s account of
culture in general and his analysis of the cultural economy in particular, three
social processes are particularly important: the differentiation, commodification,
and classification of culture. (i) The differentiation of culture in the modern
world manifests itself most significantly in the gradual separation between
‘the field of restricted cultural production’ and ‘the field of large-scale cultural
production’. Whereas the former – created and legitimated by the société
distinguée – is destined for a public of producers of distinguished cultural goods,
the latter – reproduced and legitimated by the société massifiée – is destined for a
public of consumers of mainstream cultural goods. (ii) The commodification
of culture in the modern world indicates that, under capitalism, symbolic goods
have a two-faced reality: they have both a cultural use value and an economic
exchange value. The degree of commodification of culture reflects the degree
of colonisation of society by the market. The commodification of culture
is problematic in that it reinforces the primacy of form over function, the
prevalence of the mode of representation over the object of representation, the
predominance of the signifier over the signified, and thus the preponderance of
Afterword 387

appearance over substance. (iii) The classification of culture in modern society

illustrates that symbolic struggles are power struggles over the distribution of
legitimate resources. Legitimately situated actors are legitimately classified and
legitimately classifying actors, able to mobilise the cultural resources of their
subjectivity, which they acquire through their positionally determined and
dispositionally mediated exposure to society. Patterns of cultural consumption
need to generate patterns of aesthetic perception and appreciation in order to
produce and reproduce patterns of social legitimation.
(3) It is difficult to overemphasise the complexity of Adorno’s analysis
of the transformation of culture in modern society. Yet, notwithstanding
the complexity of his account, it is obvious that if there is one concept that
features centrally in Adorno’s social theory in general and in his cultural
theory in particular, it is the notion of the culture industry. From an Adornian
perspective, the rise of the culture industry is symptomatic of the changing
nature of culture under late capitalism. In essence, the transformation of culture
in modern society is reflected in three social processes: the heteronomisation,
commodification, and standardisation of culture. (i) The heteronomisation of
culture in the modern world is reflected in the fact that culture, although it
never ceases to be an irreplaceable ‘source of artistic creativity’, is primarily
used as a ‘vehicle of systemic functionality’. In the totally administered world,
which is mainly driven by instrumental rationality, culture is converted into
an integrationist weapon of social domination. (ii) The commodification
of culture in the modern world is illustrated in the fact that culture, whose
true purpose is ‘purposefulness without a purpose’, becomes degraded to an
existence oriented towards ‘purposelessness for the purposes of the market’.
Under late capitalism, even the most autonomous spheres of society can be
heteronomised by the market. (iii) The standardisation of culture in the modern
world suggests that we live in an increasingly synchronised and synchronising
society in which the main function of culture is to serve as a ‘machine of
reproductive sociality’, rather than as a ‘realm of transformative individuality’.
For, under late capitalism, the culture industry succeeds in imposing its
systemic imperatives on the whole of society, thereby forcing culture to wear
the standardised corset of the standardising market and transforming social
entertainment, rather than social critique, into one of the main legitimating
pillars of the social order.
(4) Although there are substantial differences between Bourdieusian and
Adornian thought, the two perspectives share a number of fundamental
assumptions about the nature and role of culture in modern society. As
demonstrated in the final section of this chapter, the two approaches converge
on at least five levels. (i) Given their concern with the relationship between
culture and economy, both accounts shed light on the dynamic mechanisms
underlying the commodification of culture in modern society: advanced
388 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

societies have developed omnipresent cultural economies and powerful

culture industries. (ii) Determined to uncover the relationship between culture
and domination, both accounts explore the interest-laden nature of the systemic
functionalisation of culture in modern society: every economy of symbolic
goods and cultural commodities is embedded in an economy of social power.
(iii) Drawing our attention to the relationship between culture and legitimacy,
both accounts remind us of the stratifying pervasiveness that underpins the
classification of culture in modern society: struggles over cultural classification
are struggles impregnated with social patterns of ideological legitimation.
(iv) In light of the intimate relationship between culture and history, both
accounts insist upon the spatiotemporal determinacy of every form of cultural
specificity: culture is never forever. (v) Convinced that critical sociologists need
to confront the normative task of reflecting upon the relationship between
culture and emancipation, both accounts permit us to make sense not only of
the disempowering consequences but also of the empowering potentials of
the transformation of culture in modern society: emancipatory societies are
inconceivable without emancipatory forms of culture.

Bourdieu and Honneth

In the ninth chapter, ‘The Grammar of an Ambivalence’, Mauro Basaure
examines Bourdieu’s influence on the critical theory developed by Axel
Honneth. Basaure’s main thesis is that Honneth’s relation to Bourdieu is
marked by a profound ambivalence: on the one hand, Bourdieu’s work plays
a pivotal role in Honneth’s reformulation of critical theory, particularly
regarding the view that social struggles are a motor of historical development;
on the other hand, Honneth is deeply critical of Bourdieu’s approach,
accusing him of failing to account for the normative constitution of social
life and of putting forward an overly pessimistic and essentially utilitarian
conception of social action. In other words, while Honneth and Bourdieu
converge in conceiving of social relations as power relations, Honneth
criticises Bourdieu for not paying sufficient attention to the meaning-laden
normativity that allows for the interactional functioning of society. Basaure
proceeds in four steps: first, he presents the cornerstones of Honneth’s
theory of the struggle for recognition; second, he aims to explain why most
commentators tend to ignore Honneth’s sympathetic reading of Bourdieu;
third, he analyses the impact of Bourdieusian thought on Honneth’s theory
of recognition; and, finally, he explores the common ground between
Honnethian and Bourdieusian thought, in particular with regard to the
role that Honneth and Bourdieu ascribe to struggles for recognition in their
respective approaches to the social.
Afterword 389

With regard to the first task, Basaure distinguishes three axes in Honneth’s
theory of the struggle for recognition: (i) a moral-sociological explicative axis,
(ii) a historico-philosophical reconstructive axis, and (iii) a political-sociological axis.
The first axis reflects the conceptual effort to account for moral motivations
behind social actions (the micro-level of intersubjective relations based on
reciprocal recognition processes); the second axis is concerned with wider
historical processes of moral development (the macro-level of societal relations
based on collective learning processes); and the third axis captures the political
nature of social struggles and the ways in which they can contribute to the
normative construction of antagonistic collectives (the normative level of social
relations based on contestatory processes). Central to Honneth’s theoretical
framework is the assumption that all three axes have a moral dimension.
Put differently, social struggles are by definition moral struggles, for every
struggle over the constitution of society is concerned with the constitution
of normativity. This is precisely where Honneth’s main critique of Bourdieu
comes into play: he accuses Bourdieu of paying insufficient attention to the
moral dimension of social struggles.
With regard to the second task, Basaure argues that contemporary
theories of social struggles are characterised by a failure to differentiate
between two levels of analysis, namely between the ‘why’, which is crucial
to the moral-sociological axis, and the ‘how’, which is central to the political-
sociological axis. Basaure claims that, in Honneth’s social theory, the former
dimension is somewhat overdeveloped, while the latter aspect remains
largely underdeveloped. And this appears to be one of the reasons why most
commentators tend to ignore Honneth’s sympathetic reading of Bourdieu:
Honneth’s emphasis on the normative nature of our daily search for various
forms of social recognition seems irreconcilable with Bourdieu’s insistence
upon the strategic nature of our engagement in interest-laden forms of social
action. However one tries to make sense of the relationship between these
two positions, the Bourdieusian use of ‘superstructural’ concepts – such as
‘interest’, ‘illusio’, and ‘doxa’ – in relation to ‘infrastructural’ concepts –
such as ‘field’, ‘habitus’, and ‘capital’ – suggests that conflicts over social
power are driven by struggles over social recognition.
With regard to the third task, Basaure makes the point that, in Honneth’s
writings, the political-sociological axis is seen as embedded in the moral-
sociological axis. Thus, within the Honnethian framework of social analysis,
we are confronted with the assumption that ‘the moral’ is preponderant
over ‘the political’: social relations are primarily conceived of as moral and
normative, rather than as political and purposive. Central to Honneth’s
account of struggles for social recognition (soziale Anerkennung), however, is
the profound ambivalence of the subject’s dependence on social esteem
390 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

(soziale Wertschätzung): just as the presence of social recognition allows for the
empowerment of individuals, the absence of social recognition leads to their
disempowerment. Individual or collective experiences that are characterised
by feelings of social disrespect (soziale Mißachtung) are indicative of the
fragility of human subjectivity: the human dependence on mechanisms of
social recognition is so strong that the possibility of individual self-realisation
is inconceivable without people’s capacity to be integrated into society by
establishing links based on reciprocity and intersubjectivity. Bourdieusian
analysis is directly relevant to this moral-sociological explicative axis in that
subjects dependent on reciprocal recognition are unavoidably interest-driven:
we do not only depend on but we also have an interest in social recognition,
because attainment of social esteem is a precondition for sustainable access
to social power. Different social groups in different social fields struggle over
different forms of social power by mobilising different resources of social
recognition. All forms of capital – notably economic, cultural, political,
educational, and linguistic capital – acquire social value if, and only if, they
are convertible into at least a minimal degree of symbolic capital. The long-
term sustainability of every field-specific form of normativity is contingent
upon its capacity to obtain sufficient symbolic legitimacy to assert and, if
possible, impose its general acceptability.
With regard to the fourth and final task of his chapter, namely the attempt
to demonstrate that Bourdieusian thought is crucial to Honneth’s sociology
of recognition, Basaure asserts that Honneth has both a ‘broad’ and a ‘dynamic’
conception of social struggle: in the ‘broad’ sense, social struggles range from
clearly visible and widely recognised collective movements in the public sphere
to largely hidden and hardly problematised forms of conflict in the private
sphere; in the ‘dynamic’ sense, social struggles change over time, and so do
the ways in which they are discursively represented and politically interpreted.
If we account not only for the eclectic but also for the processual nature of
social struggles, then we need to accept that social conflicts over material and
symbolic power, and the ways in which individual and collective actors make
sense or fail to make sense of these conflicts, are constantly changing. Thus, a
comprehensive critical theory needs to do justice to both the multifaceted and
the dynamic nature of struggles for recognition and thereby shed light on the
various ways in which the existential significance of social struggles manifests
itself in the constant competition over material and symbolic resources.

Bourdieu and Religion

In his commentary on Bourdieu’s engagement with the sociology of
religion, Bryan S. Turner offers a comprehensive account of the strengths
and weaknesses of Bourdieu’s approach to religion. In essence, the chapter,
Afterword 391

which is entitled ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the Sociology of Religion’, is concerned

with five issues: first, the relative decline of religion in the modern world;
second, the apparent revival of religion in the contemporary world; third,
recent attempts to reconcile secular with religious forms of reasoning; fourth,
Bourdieu’s account of religion; and, finally, the ‘new paradigm’ that has
become increasingly influential in recent North American developments in
the sociology of religion.
With regard to the first issue, the relative decline of religion in the
modern world, Turner points out that the secularisation thesis can be
regarded as a central and hitherto largely unquestioned element of classical
sociological discourse. The secularisation thesis is based on the assumption
that secularisation processes in modern societies contain five interrelated
tendencies: industrialisation, differentiation, privatisation, welfarisation,
and rationalisation. (i) The industrialisation of the social system has led to
the weakening of face-to-face ties characteristic of traditional forms of
religiously regulated societies. (ii) The differentiation of the social system into
various coexisting and competing spheres – such as the state, the market,
science, art, and religion – has degraded religion to only one field amongst
other social fields. (iii) The privatisation of the social system has contributed
to the gradual marginalisation of religion to the domestic sphere. (iv) The
welfarisation of the social system – that is, the provision of social welfare
by specialised institutions – has added to a significant improvement of
living standards and contributed to a reduction of both short-term and
long-term risks, undermining people’s dependence on belief in the
uncontrollable power of supernatural forces over empirical reality. (v) The
rationalisation of the social system, driven by the gradual replacement of
faith and superstition by reason and science, has resulted in the shift from
the ‘enchanted world’ of traditional societies to the ‘disenchanted world’
of modern societies.
With regard to the second issue, the apparent revival of religion in the
contemporary world, Turner reminds us that religion has far from disappeared
and that, consequently, in recent years more and more sociologists and
philosophers have concluded that religion needs to be taken seriously. Turner
identifies some of the key developments associated with the revival of religion
in late modern societies: the collapse of organised communism in the early
1990s, the subsequent decline of Marxism-Leninism as a quasi-religious
ideology of the Eastern socialist bloc, the rise of globalisation, and the
worldwide emergence of diasporic communities. Hence, whatever lies at the
‘heart of the heartless world’ in the contemporary context, there is substantial
evidence to suggest that religion has not only survived the transition from
traditional to modern society but that, in late modern society, in various parts
of the world – particularly in America, Africa, and Asia, but also in some
392 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

regions of continental Europe – it has expanded and gained increasing powers

of adaptation, absorption, and transformation.
With regard to the third issue, concerning recent attempts to reconcile
secular with religious forms of reasoning, Turner draws upon the work of
Jürgen Habermas, who in his recent writings has made a sustained and
vigorous effort to demonstrate that secular and religious citizens are capable
of living peacefully side by side and that they are, furthermore, both morally
and practically obliged to confront the challenge of establishing a fruitful
dialogue between reason and faith. Secularists cannot ignore, let alone
marginalise, religious practices and beliefs if they aim to be seriously involved
in the construction of pluralistic and multicultural societies; at the same time,
religious citizens cannot disregard, let alone demonise, secular ways of life and
thought if they seek to be realistically engaged in the construction of maturing
and reason-guided societies. Notwithstanding the question of whether, in late
modern societies, either ‘believing without belonging’ or ‘belonging without
believing’ is the predominant form of religious reproduction, there is little
doubt that, in postsecular societies, there can be no ‘reasoning without
believing’ just as there can be no ‘believing without reasoning’.
With regard to the fourth issue, Bourdieu’s account of religion, the obvious
question to be asked is this: what, if anything, can we learn from Bourdieu’s
account of religion? Turner’s answer to this question is, as he admits,
somewhat paradoxical: on the one hand, it appears that Bourdieu’s analysis of
religion, developed in his small oeuvre of essays on religion, is not particularly
insightful and is essentially a synthesis of Max Weber’s sociological and Louis
Althusser’s philosophical interpretations of religion; on the other hand,
Bourdieu’s conceptual tools – such as habitus, field, and capital – do allow for
the construction of a useful analytical framework that allows us to understand
the sociological power of religion in terms of embodied practices, rather than
in terms of disembodied beliefs. Turner argues that, given its functionalist
undertones, Bourdieu’s account of religion is based on a crude combination of
the Marxian contention that religion serves as the ‘opium of the people’ used
to obtain ideological acceptability, the Weberian notion that religion serves as
an ‘instrument of power struggles’ oriented towards the attainment of social
legitimacy, and the Althusserian view that religion serves as an ‘ideological
vehicle’ mobilised for the control of people’s subjectivity. From a Bourdieusian
perspective, then, it is the task of a critical sociology of religion to explore the
actual practices and interests of embodied actors situated in religious fields, rather
than the formal beliefs and doctrines of disembodied subjects removed from those
fields. According to this position, it is the ensemble of social relations which
determines the ensemble of social beliefs. Despite Turner’s appreciation of
Bourdieu’s approach to religion, he criticises Bourdieu for concentrating almost
Afterword 393

exclusively on field-specific positions and habitus-specific dispositions. In other

words, he accuses Bourdieu of overestimating the reproductive mechanisms of
social determinacy and underestimating the transformative potentials of social
agency within religious fields. The argument is underscored by Turner’s
disappointment with Bourdieu’s somewhat reductive reading, and partial
misrepresentation, of Weber’s sociology of religion.
With regard to the fifth issue, the ‘new paradigm’ prevalent in North
American approaches to religion, the author turns his attention to a novel
set of assumptions in the contemporary sociology of religion, epitomised by
economic interpretations of religion. The shift from the ‘old’ European to the
‘new’ North American paradigm reflects a move away from an emphasis on
symbolic and ideological dimensions to an emphasis on economic and pragmatic aspects
of religious behaviour in advanced societies. This paradigmatic shift tends to
be undertaken by focusing on three dimensions: (i) the resilience of religion
in late modern, including secular, societies; (ii) the various social functions of
religious and spiritual markets; and (iii) the cross-cultural invariability of
religiously grounded demands for meaning. It is well known that Bourdieu was
deeply critical of social-scientific approaches based on rational action theories.
Nevertheless, somewhat counter-intuitively Turner draws our attention to the
fact that there are striking similarities between Bourdieu’s analysis of religious
fields and the rational choice model of religious markets: both approaches
move within a sociological comfort zone founded on economic concepts such
as ‘interests’, ‘stakes’, and ‘competition’. The economy of religious fields is
inconceivable without a politics of religious markets. Whichever paradigm
we subscribe to, however, we cannot ignore the existence of the functional
dialectics of belief and practice: belief can only survive if embedded in and
nourished by practice, just as practice can only survive if situated in and
motivated by belief. Thus, from a Bourdieusian perspective, the sociology of
religion describes another significant area of study that permits and indeed
compels us to conceive of the apparent antinomy between ‘the ideological’
and ‘the practical’ as a socio-ontological unity.

Bourdieu and Habitus

In the eleventh chapter, ‘Bourdieu’s Sociological Fiction: A Phenomenological
Reading of Habitus’, Bruno Frère provides a detailed analysis of Bourdieu’s
conception of habitus. Frère points out that just as we need to be aware
of the key strengths of Bourdieu’s genetic-structuralist approach, we
need to identify its main weaknesses. Hence it is possible to draw on
Bourdieu’s approach whilst developing it further and thereby overcoming
its most significant shortcomings. Illustrating the complexity inherent in the
394 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

analytical task of revising Bourdieu’s genetic-structuralist approach to the

social, Frère’s chapter focuses on five accounts of the ‘social actor’: (1) Pierre
Bourdieu’s account of the ‘homological actor’, (2) Bernard Lahire’s account
of the ‘plural actor’, (3) Philippe Corcuff ’s account of the ‘dynamic actor’,
(4) Merleau-Ponty’s account of the ‘bodily actor’, and (5) Bruno Frère’s own
account of the ‘imaginative actor’.
(1) With regard to Bourdieu’s account of the ‘homological actor’,
Frère remarks that arguably the most influential French sociologist of the
late twentieth century has a tendency to privilege the reproductive and
mechanical, over the transformative and creative, dimensions of social
action. The fact that this is a common view in the literature, not only
amongst those who are deeply critical of Bourdieu’s work but also amongst
those who sympathise with his approach, seems to indicate that Bourdieusian
thought is particularly strong in terms of uncovering social mechanisms of
reproduction and domination, but rather weak in terms of explaining social
processes of transformation and emancipation. If, however, we are prepared
to accept that the human proclivity towards creation and innovation as well
as the human capacity of reflection and contemplation constitute integral
components of ordinary social life, we are obliged to abandon a determinist
view of the social, which fails to account for both the creative and the
reflective potentials inherent in every ordinary subject. Although the whole
point of Bourdieu’s project is to overcome the counterproductive antinomy
between objectivist and subjectivist approaches in the social sciences, his
account of the ‘homological actor’ seems to suggest that he remains trapped
in an objectivist-determinist paradigm of social action. According to this
homological view, the dispositional constitution of every social actor is
largely determined by the positional constitution of social fields.
(2) Seeking to move beyond Bourdieu’s purportedly determinist conception
of the social, Lahire puts forward an alternative model of social action,
epitomised in the concept of the ‘plural actor’. As Frère elucidates, Lahire’s
alternative approach allows us to account for three key features of subjectivity
in complex societies: multiplicity, irreducibility, and autonomy. Multiplicity
is a constitutive component of late modern subjectivity in that the diversity
of dispositions incorporated by social actors corresponds to the plurality of
positions located in social fields. Irreducibility is a pivotal aspect of late modern
subjectivity in that the coexistence of various dispositions developed by social
actors reflects the complexity of multidimensionally structured schemes of
perception and action. Autonomy is an empowering element of late modern
subjectivity in that individualist societies create ‘dissonant profiles’ which
illustrate that people’s attitudes, tastes, and practices do not necessarily
correspond to one overriding (for example, socioeconomically defined)
Afterword 395

disposition. In brief, unlike Bourdieu’s ‘homological actor’, conceived of

as a largely predictable entity determined by the correspondence between
habitus and field, Lahire’s ‘plural actor’ is an essentially unpredictable
source of multi-causally determined agency in the fragmented landscape of
centreless societies.
(3) In line with Lahire’s insistence upon the multifaceted constitution of the
‘plural actor’, Corcuff puts forward the concept of the ‘dynamic actor’. The
most obvious feature of ‘dynamic actors’ is a ‘malleable habitus’, that is, a
habitus capable of adjusting itself to the dynamic pace of life to which human
actors situated in highly differentiated societies are almost inevitably exposed.
As Frère points out, Corcuff ’s alternative perspective permits us to make sense
of three key features of subjectivity in complex societies: reflexivity, creativity,
and adaptability. Actors in complex societies have the potential to develop high
degrees of reflexivity because the constant exposure to normative complexity
requires not only the practical capacity to slip back and forth between different
social roles played in particular social fields, but also the critical capacity to
convert one’s performative immersion in everyday forms of human agency
into an object of reflection when trying to cope with role conflicts generated
by the quotidian interactions taking place in differentiated societies. Actors in
complex societies have the potential to develop high degrees of creativity because,
in order to realise themselves through the development of their individuality,
they are expected to be both competent carriers and self-determined creators
of their identity. Actors in complex societies have the potential to develop high
degrees of adaptability because, in order to find their individual place in the
collective spaces constructed by different communities, they need to develop
the ability to adjust to, and function in accordance with, various coexisting
and often competing normativities. In short, unlike Bourdieu’s ‘homological
actor’, reducible to a largely reproductive element in a power-driven society,
Corcuff ’s ‘dynamic actor’ is a transformative source of self-critical reflexivity,
self-motivated creativity, and self-responsible adaptability in the fluid landscape
of freedom-based societies.
(4) With the aim of overcoming the explanatory limitations arising from
the philosophical obsession with the allegedly self-determining power of
the ‘rational actor’, Bourdieu draws upon the works of phenomenological
thinkers, in particular the writings of Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-
Ponty, to explore the sociological implications of the fact that every social
actor is a ‘bodily actor’. By centring his phenomenology on the body, rather
than on consciousness, Merleau-Ponty shifts the emphasis from the rationalist
concern with the subject’s cognitive processing of and conscious control over
the world to the phenomenological preoccupation with the actor’s corporeal
immersion in and unconscious absorption of the lifeworld. Regardless
396 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of whether one favours an Aristotelian, a Husserlian, or a Bourdieusian

conception of human subjectivity, one has to accept that these perspectives
converge in acknowledging that the tangible power of the habitus stems from
the dispositional structures which inhabit our bodies: the various positions that
we occupy in the external world of society are worthless without the numerous
dispositions that we carry within the internal world of our body. To accept the
preponderance of the collective over the individual elements that inhabit our
subjectivity, of the external over the internal facets that constitute interactional
forms of objectivity, and of the unconscious over the conscious dimensions
that permeate human reality means to face up to the omnipresence of society.
Bourdieu’s aphoristic statement that ‘society is God’ essentially suggests that, as
members of humanity, we cannot escape the ubiquity of a relationally defined
reality (Bourdieu, 2000 [1997]: 245). Given that we, as bodily entities, are
physically exposed to the lawfulness, power-ladenness, and interest-drivenness
of human reality, we are obliged to develop the practical capacity to cope
with the material and the symbolic struggles over the normative arrangements
that shape the development of society. The bodily constitution of the habitus
makes the social appear natural to us: we are so used to absorbing, and thereby
accepting, the givenness of the way things are that we – as bodily entities,
nourished by the immersive power of everyday experience – tend to recognise
the relative arbitrariness of social reality only when confronted with the crisis-
ladenness of established patterns of normativity.
(5) Inspired by Bourdieu’s account of the ‘homological actor’, Lahire’s
notion of the ‘plural actor’, Corcuff ’s interest in the ‘dynamic actor’, and
Merleau-Ponty’s examination of the ‘bodily actor’, Frère insists that we
need to conceive of the human subject also as an ‘imaginative actor’. With
reference to the work of Cornelius Castoriadis, Frère introduces the idea of
the ‘sociological fiction’ of the habitus: the imaginary institution of society
is constantly constructed and reconstructed by the imaginary apparatus of
the habitus. Frère’s emphasis on the ‘fictitious’ constitution of the habitus is
aimed not at suggesting that the habitus does not actually exist, but at drawing
our attention to the fact that the habitus, as a perceptive and projective
apparatus, has the power to bring things into being: for us, as perceiving
and projecting entities, the normalisation of society is inconceivable
without the externalising power of human subjectivity. As ‘imaginative
actors’, we literally bring existence into being insofar as we project ourselves
into the being of our existence. As Frère seeks to demonstrate in his own
studies on social movements, it is by interacting with others that our need
for expression about and working upon the world becomes a major resource
that we need to mobilise in order to invent and reinvent our place within
the world. A sociology that disregards the innovative power of imaginary
Afterword 397

creativity cannot account for the developmental power of socio-historical

contingency.

Bourdieu and Language

In the twelfth chapter, ‘Overcoming Semiotic Structuralism: Language
and Habitus in Bourdieu’, Hans-Herbert Kögler provides an intellectually
stimulating and analytically rigorous account of an ambitious philosophical
project: the attempt to overcome some of the key pitfalls of semiotic structuralism
by drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of language and habitus. As illustrated in
Kögler’s essay, there is a noteworthy affinity between the ‘linguistic turn’ in
philosophy – associated with the works of Saussure, Heidegger, Gadamer,
Habermas, and Searle – and the ‘reflexive turn’ in sociology – associated
with the writings of Bourdieu. The affinity is in the following sense: both
paradigmatic turns are motivated by the insight that human actors, insofar as
they are unavoidably immersed in particular socio-historical contexts, cannot
escape the preponderance of implicitly reproduced and practically mobilised
background horizons. Background horizons are socially powerful because
they shape people’s modes of perception, reflection, and action and, as a
consequence, their spatiotemporally situated ways of relating to, making sense
of, and acting upon the world.
However one conceives of the relation between necessity and freedom,
objectivity and subjectivity, and structure and agency, it is imperative –
as Kögler rightly insists – to explore the empowering potentials derived
from one species-constitutive capacity: intentional and reflexive agency. The
question that arises from recognising that we are not only motivationally
and intentionally driven beings, but also reflexively and critically guided
subjects is to what extent Bourdieu’s notion of habitus allows us to account
not only for the reproductive and habitual but also for the transformative
and creative elements of human action. Even if we assume that Bourdieu
is right to suggest that our linguistic habitus is embedded in and largely
determined by our social habitus, it is far from clear to what extent the
genetic-structuralist approach permits us to do justice to the relative
autonomy of linguistically mediated forms of reflexivity.
After setting the scene and elucidating the complexity of the theoretical
problems arising from Bourdieu’s notion of habitus in relation to both social
and linguistic practices, Kögler examines, in the first part of his chapter, the
explanatory limitations of the semiotic model of communication. Drawing on Saussure’s
semiotic structuralism, Kögler argues that every language is based on a system
of signs, which constitutes not only a unified duality between ‘the signifier’ and
‘the signified’ but also, more importantly, a communicative vehicle for intelligibly
398 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

organised forms of intersubjectivity. From this perspective, a ‘diachronic’ view,

which is primarily concerned with monological speech, needs to be replaced by
a ‘synchronic’ view, which draws our attention to the importance of dialogical
speech, when examining the very possibility of linguistically mediated forms of
meaning: we need to focus on shared understandings, shared symbols, and shared
meanings to make sense of the fact that our linguistic competence is primarily
a social competence, that is, an interactive capacity developed through the
constant exposure to and immersion in ordinary forms of intersubjectivity
sustained through the linguistically mediated construction of mutual
intelligibility. If, following Saussure’s externalist rather than internalist model,
the construction of linguistic meaning takes place ‘between’ rather than ‘within’
speakers, then we need to be aware of three levels of intertwinement: first,
the intertwinement of interpretation (know-that) and application (know-how);
second, the intertwinement of language-as-a-structure (langue) and language-
as-a-process (parole); and, third, the intertwinement of intelligibility (meaning)
and normativity (values). This is precisely where Bourdieu’s work is helpful:
from a sociological point of view, the internal organisation of a symbolic order
is to be studied not as an autopoietic system of codes used by symmetrically
situated subjects equipped with universally ingrained competences, but as
an interest-laden market of signs mobilised by asymmetrically related actors
divided by disproportionally available resources.
With this arguably Bourdieusian framework in mind, Kögler goes on to
draw a broad distinction between two models of linguistic meaning: the first
approach centres on the role of validity claims; the second approach focuses
on the role of practical dispositions. Whereas the former is closely associated
with Habermas’s theory of universal pragmatics, the latter is particularly
important in Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power. The main point that
these two approaches have in common is their emphasis on the performative
nature of linguistic practices: speakers need to speak – that is, they need to
use language – in order to be part of a speech community. Yet, one of the key
points that separate these two approaches from one another is the question
of the main function that language plays in society. According to Habermas,
people raise validity claims as linguistic subjects who have a deep-seated
need to attribute meaning to their daily participation in the social practices
of their lifeworlds: society can be reproduced and transformed only through
communicative action. According to Bourdieu, people raise legitimacy claims
as interest-driven actors who are determined to mobilise their habitus-
specific resources to position themselves in relation to one another when
immersed in struggles over material and symbolic power in different social
fields: society is reproduced and transformed through strategic competition.
According to Kögler, the epistemological discrepancy between these two
Afterword 399

positions is reflected in the dialectic of normative reason and practical power. Taking
into account the respective merits of these models, a critical philosophy of
language needs to shed light on the functional ambivalence of language: on
the one hand, language is a vehicle for social normativity, communicative
intelligibility, and critical reflexivity; on the other hand, language is a vehicle
for social hierarchy, asymmetrical relationality, and surreptitious strategy.
In short, language is both a communicative medium of rational action
coordination and a purposive instrument of power-laden competition.
From a Bourdieusian perspective, we are obliged to reflect on the
relationship between language, habitus, and symbolic power. Kögler’s main
thesis is that Bourdieu grounds the linguistic habitus in the social habitus.
According to this view, linguistically mediated background assumptions
are embedded in socially inculcated dispositions. Yet, the main problem
with Bourdieu’s conception of language is that, as Kögler insists, it
underestimates the creative and critical potentials of linguistic actors. We
need to account for the fact that subjects capable of speech and action are
also capable of justification and reflection. A sociological approach that
focuses almost exclusively on the relational determinacy and resourceful
dispositionality of social actors fails to do justice to the anthropological
specificity of linguistically mediated forms of intersubjectivity. Our sens
linguistique, which inhabits our sens pratique, is not only a dispositional
conglomerate, whose existence is indicative of our socially constituted
determinacy, but also an empowering resource, which is indispensable to
the development of our rationally grounded sense of autonomy.
In light of the empowering potentials inherent in rationally grounded forms
of reflexivity, it is difficult to defend the – somewhat reductive – view that our
linguistic habitus can be subordinated to our social habitus. The preponderance
of social objectivity does not necessarily imply the preponderance of social
heteronomy. As subjects capable of speech and reflection, we are able to
develop a sense of linguistically grounded and rationally guided autonomy.
To reduce the linguistic habitus to a mere subcategory of the social habitus
means to treat linguistically mediated expressions of reflexivity as a peripheral
element of exogenously determined forms of human agency. In opposition
to this arguably ‘sociologistic’ perspective, Kögler makes a case for the view
that there are at least three reasons why linguistically mediated forms of
intentionality constitute an indispensable element of human agency. First,
human beings are both goal-oriented and value-rational actors: the interdependence
of purposive and substantive forms of rationality lies at the heart of every
society. Second, human beings are both immersive and reflexive actors: the
interdependence of doxic and discursive forms of rationality is fundamental
to the daily unfolding of human performativity. Third, human beings are both
400 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

perspectival and transperspectival actors: the interdependence of perspective-laden

and perspective-taking forms of rationality is an indispensable moral driving
force of human interactionality. In short, there is no ethical agency without
linguistically mediated forms of reflexivity.

Bourdieu and Politics

The thirteenth chapter, written by Derek Robbins, is entitled ‘Social Theory
and Politics: Aron, Bourdieu and Passeron, and the Events of May 1968’.
Derek Robbins is an established and internationally recognised scholar in the
field of contemporary social and political theory, and his chapter is yet another
example of his in-depth knowledge of twentieth century intellectual thought.
In the chapter’s first section, Robbins provides us with a brief mise-en-scène by
which he situates Aron, Bourdieu, and Passeron in their respective intellectual
contexts. Particularly important with regard to Aron is the fact that from an
early stage he maintained an intellectual and methodological commitment
to the work of Max Weber. Due to this commitment to the Weberian view
of the world, Aron’s approach is based on the assumption that there is no
genuine sociology of development without a critical philosophy of history, just
as there is no professional separation between scientists and politicians without
a conceptual distinction between objectivity and normativity. Yet, it is striking
when reflecting on the works of Passeron and Bourdieu that, whilst both were
philosophers by training, they became sociologists by choice. Given that both
thinkers migrated from philosophy into sociology, Passeron and Bourdieu can
be regarded as ‘self-exiled intellectual emigrants’, who escaped from the age-
old discipline of philosophy, and as ‘self-invited intellectual immigrants’, who
sought refuge in the juvenile discipline of sociology. With the motives for their
intellectual migration from philosophy to sociology in mind, it is possible to
understand Passeron and Bourdieu’s radical critique of the ‘scholastic gaze’,
that is, of the illusory philosophical pursuit of intellectual purity, universal
validity, disinterested rationality, and value-neutrality. With their plea for
a ‘sociological gaze’ in mind, one can make sense of their commitment to
putting philosophy front and centre by insisting upon the socio-historical
embeddedness of all forms of knowledge production.
In the chapter’s second section, Robbins focuses on the work of Aron and
proposes to examine his intellectual positions with regard to two concerns:
the relationship between social science and political action, and the nature of
sociology as a science. With regard to the first concern, the relationship between
social science and political action, it comes as no surprise that Aron, as a Weberian,
was a strong defender of the division between science and politics and, as a
result, of a strict separation between the search for scientific validity and the
search for political normativity. Although Aron – following Weber – regarded
Afterword 401

the historical nature of society as a constitutive component of human

existence, he was opposed to historicist attempts to reduce the constitution of
being to an evolutionary product of the hitherto-been. According to Aron, it
is essential to preserve a notion of human freedom that allows us to recognise
that our perceptions of the past do not necessarily shape, let alone determine,
our actions in the future. Whatever may be one’s view on the role of history
in general and on the role of historical consciousness in particular, it seems
indisputable that the disenchantment of worldly existence, triggered by the
rise of modern society, is inextricably linked to the disenchantment of worldly
knowledge, driven by the rise of modern science. With regard to Aron’s second
concern, the nature of sociology as a science, it is worth pointing out that – following
Aron – there are two, fundamentally different, conceptions of sociology: one
‘modest’ and one ‘ambitious’ conception. According to the former, sociology
is only one amongst a series of other social-scientific disciplines; according to
the latter, sociology is the master discipline that both stands above and exists
through other social-scientific disciplines. As Robbins remarks, Aron clearly
favoured the former – that is, the ‘realistic’ – over the latter – that is, the
‘sociologistic’ – view. Thus he was concerned not to hypostatise ‘the power of
the social’ into ‘the fetish of the social’. Even if, due to its general commitment
to exploring the nature and development of the social world, we conceive of
sociology as both the most wide-ranging and the most ambitious discipline in
the social sciences, we must not assume that it therefore possesses the epistemic
monopoly over the systematic study of the functioning of society.
In the chapter’s third section, Robbins sheds light on the – arguably
‘Aronian’ – nature of the research carried out by Bourdieu and Passeron in
the 1960s. Profoundly disillusioned with the French higher education system
and deeply critical of the exclusionary aspects of the presumably inclusionary
French democracy, Bourdieu and Passeron developed a research agenda aimed
at examining the underlying logic of both pedagogical and political relations
in France and the ways in which they contributed to the actual reproduction,
rather than the potential transformation, of established power relations. In
essence, these studies demonstrated that in modern France the relative elasticity
and stability of social domination was due to the interwovenness of symbolic and
material, habitual and institutional, informal and formal, and cultural and
economic resources of power. Yet, as Robbins insists, there were also some
striking differences between Bourdieu and Passeron in terms of their respective
approaches to the social. Bourdieu had a tendency to concentrate on the
heteronomous, and thus ultimately reproductive, logic of field-dependent
discourses, field-specific systems, and field-embedded institutions; conversely,
Passeron was prepared to acknowledge the autonomous, and hence potentially
transformative, logic of pluralised discourses, differentiated systems, and
diversified institutions. Despite this not insignificant point of divergence derived
402 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

from a normative discrepancy between different sociological presuppositions,

Bourdieu and Passeron were united in their epistemologically inspired and
methodologically justified ambition to overcome what they conceived of
as artificial and counterproductive dichotomies: the oppositions between
positivist and hermeneutic, naturalist and anti-naturalist, and empiricist and
interpretivist approaches in the social sciences. Questioning the legitimacy of
widely accepted antinomies in intellectual thought, Bourdieu and Passeron
established themselves as two practising social scientists who, whilst sharing an
educational background in philosophy, ended up developing an interest and
expertise in sociology, particularly in the sociology of education and culture.
As Robbins emphasises, their academic itineraries had been heavily influenced
by Aron, notably by his practical engagement with politics and his intellectual
interest in political science.
Finally, Robbins reminds us that, following in Aron’s footsteps, Passeron
and Bourdieu were politically engaged. They tried to link their commitment
to politics with their commitment to science, and hence they sought to show
both in their writings and in their actions that even if, in a classical Weberian
fashion, one attempts to separate politics and science, the two spheres
are inextricably interrelated. Practical questions concerning the political
organisation of society cannot be separated from theoretical questions arising
from the scientific study of society. Where both Bourdieu and Passeron clearly
differed from Aron, however, was in their sustained efforts to bring to light the
extent to which processes of pedagogical communication euphemised, and
hence reproduced, mechanisms of political domination. More importantly,
they differed from Aron in their radical, rather than conservative, beliefs in
the liberating potentials of counter-cultures and counter-politics aimed at
undermining the established doxa of the cultural and political mainstream
of French society. From this perspective, a raisonnement sociologique can only
have a constructive impact on society insofar as it conceives of itself as a
raisonnement politique.

Bourdieu and the Public Sphere

In the fourteenth chapter, ‘Intellectual Critique and the Public Sphere:
Between the Corporatism of the Universal and the Realpolitik of Reason’,
Yves Sintomer discusses Bourdieu’s account of the nature of scientific and
intellectual thought. If, following Bourdieu, we conceive of critical sociology
as a systematic attempt to uncover the underlying mechanisms that determine
both the constitution and the evolution of the social world and if, furthermore,
we consider this task to be a normative endeavour aimed at shedding light on
both different sources of social domination and different resources of human
Afterword 403

emancipation, then the production of scientific knowledge is not an end in itself

but an empowering tool that enables us to have a transformative impact on
the world. Insisting on both the descriptive and the normative dimensions that
permeate scientific and intellectual thought, Sintomer provides an insightful
account of Bourdieu’s sociology of reason, that is, of the systematic attempt to
examine the social conditions underlying the rationally grounded production
of knowledge. In essence, Sintomer’s chapter offers a critical analysis of five
types of reason: (1) intellectual reason, (2) scientific reason, (3) political reason,
(4) critical reason, and (5) communicative reason.
(1) Reflecting upon the nature of intellectual reason, Sintomer identifies
different denotative and connotative meanings of the word ‘intellectual’.
First, in the broadest sense, it can be used to refer to knowledgeable and
cultured people, who are equipped with the necessary educational capital to
immerse themselves in intellectual fields and thereby develop an intellectual
habitus. Second, in a more restricted sense, the term is used to distinguish
‘skilled labour’ from ‘manual labour’, suggesting that the former is primarily
cerebral whereas the latter is mainly physical in nature. Third, in an even
narrower sense, the term can be employed to characterise professional
academics and artists, for whom reflexivity and creativity constitute the sine
qua non of their everyday existence. Finally, in an even more confined – and
arguably Bourdieusian – sense, the term can be used to designate those people
who have the symbolically, and often institutionally, conferred authority to
participate in one of the three cultural fields par excellence – scientific, artistic,
or literary – and defend their cultural legitimacy through the affirmation of
their symbolic authority in the public realms of society. As Sintomer points
out, it is this last meaning which is particularly important in making sense
of the multifaceted ways in which the cultural field possesses the paradoxical
capacity to convert its dependence on publicity into a privilege of collective
privacy: in order to be part of a distinguished cultural group, one needs to
master the distinguished cultural codes that allow one to relate to, and be
recognised within, a distinguished cultural field.
(2) Examining the nature of scientific reason, Sintomer reminds us that one
of the most remarkable achievements of the scientific field has always been its
capacity to affirm its relative autonomy in relation to other powerful realms
of society. If the lasting success of the scientific field manifests itself in its
relative independence from other social fields, then the pervasive influence of
scientific reason is expressed in its epistemic ability to distinguish itself from
other forms of social rationality. Thus, the power of scientific reason is not
only due to its – endogenously developed – explanatory capacity but also due
to its – exogenously recognised – epistemic autonomy: in order for scientific
rationality to be a source of enlightening knowledgeability it constantly needs
404 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

to affirm and demonstrate its relative independence from other – notably

political, economic, and religious – forms of rationality. In Bourdieusian
terms, the scientific game can be characterised as a ‘corporatism of the
universal’ because it is based on the collectively negotiated search for universal
truths. Nonetheless, in order to avoid the trap of epistemic transcendentalism
or epistemic relativism, it is necessary to recognise both the historical
embeddedness and the emancipatory progressiveness of scientific reason: just
as particular life forms produce particular language games, particular language
games produce particular life forms. The functional interdependence of
scientifically motivated forms of rationality and scientifically shaped forms of
society reflects the fruitful interplay between reason-guided language games
and reason-guided life forms.
(3) Exploring the nature of political reason, Sintomer – following Bourdieu –
puts forward the idea that the ‘production of truth’ can be conceived of as a
‘politics of truth’: given the social embeddedness of all knowledge claims and
given the interest-ladenness of all social conditions, we cannot deny the intrinsic
normativity that inhabits the most rigorously argued claims to epistemic validity
and scientific objectivity. The ‘Realpolitik of reason’, as Bourdieu calls it, is only
sustainable insofar as it is guided by the ‘Realvernunft of politics’, for a commitment
to critical rationalism is worth nothing without a commitment to ethical
pragmatism. As Sintomer – drawing on Bourdieu – insists, the ‘corporatism of the
universal’ and the ‘Realpolitik of reason’ are closely interrelated, for the scientific
quest for defensible truth claims and the political quest for justifiable rightness
claims are two integral components of the civilisational search for universally
acceptable legitimacy claims. The politics of universal values, however, needs
to face up to the interest-laden nature of all forms of normativity in order to
recognise its own socio-historical determinacy.
(4) Exploring the nature of critical reason, Sintomer frames his analysis in
terms of the relationship between the ‘corporatism of the universal’ and
the ‘public sphere’, that is, in light of the emancipatory potentials inherent
in all forms of rationality that are exposed to public scrutiny. By definition,
the aforementioned types of reason – intellectual, scientific, and political –
represent critical forms of reason. Yet, what are the constitutive features of
such critical forms of reason? Inspired by Bourdieu’s sociological critique of
scholastic notions of reason in general and by his relentless attack on Kantian
and Habermasian forms of abstract rationalism in particular, Sintomer brings
five essential features of critical reason to our attention. First, critical reason
is aware of its own historicity: a critical analysis of reason needs to examine the
socio-historical contingency of all forms of rationality. Second, critical reason is
capable of acknowledging its own partiality: a critical analysis of reason needs to
explore the interest-laden normativity of all forms of rationality. Third, critical
Afterword 405

reason does not hide away from its own determinacy: a critical analysis of reason
needs to face up to the field-specific referentiality of all forms of rationality.
Fourth, critical reason is prepared to put its own existence into perspective by
recognising the enlightening power of epistemic plurality: a critical analysis of
reason needs to accept the presuppositional elasticity underlying all forms of
rationality. Finally, critical reason is inconceivable without a sustained reflection
upon its own contestability: a critical analysis of reason needs to uncover the
power-laden negotiability of all forms of rationality. In short, critical reason,
in the Bourdieusian sense, demands the awareness of the social conditioning
underlying all forms of action and reflection.
(5) In a Habermasian spirit, Sintomer offers critical reflections on
Bourdieu’s account of knowledge production, insisting on the emancipatory
potentials inherent in social processes oriented towards mutual understanding,
epitomised in what we may refer to as communicative reason. Despite the
aforementioned strengths of the reflexive-sociological approach to knowledge
production, Bourdieu’s account of reason essentially suffers from three
serious shortcomings: determinism, scientism, and fatalism. Bourdieu’s tendency
to conceive of rationality in terms of its field-immanent determinacy prevents
him from accounting for the field-transcendent autonomy of both ordinary
and scientific claims to epistemic validity: epistemic validity is partly, but not
exclusively, determined by its field-specific legitimacy. Bourdieu’s tendency
to conceive of rationality in terms of a duality between mundane and
methodical knowledgeability is based on the scientistic assumption that critical
reflexivity represents a socio-professional privilege of intellectuals and experts,
rather than a socio-ontological privilege of the human species. Yet, ordinary
subjects capable of speech and action are also capable of reflection and
action. Bourdieu’s tendency to conceive of rationality in terms of strategic,
rather than communicative, action is symptomatic of his fatalistic view of the
social. A one-sided focus on the monological and purposive elements of social
action oriented towards power and competition, however, proves incapable
of doing justice to the emancipatory potentials inherent in the dialogical and
communicative elements of social action oriented towards discussion and
cooperation. In brief, a ‘Realpolitik of reason’ should not only seek to recognise
but also aim to realise the ‘Realpotential of reason’.

Bourdieu and Time

In the final chapter, ‘Practice as Temporalisation: Bourdieu and Economic
Crisis’, Lisa Adkins assesses the relevance of Bourdieu’s work to economic
sociology in general and to the sociology of time in particular. Specifically, she
asks to what extent Bourdieu’s social theory can be a useful tool to make sense
406 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

of the recent and ongoing global economic crisis. It is Adkins’s contention that
in Bourdieu’s work we can find powerful resources to study economic crisis
from a sociological perspective, but that the conceptual and methodological
tools borrowed from a Bourdieusian framework need to be modified and
refined to exploit their explanatory power in relation to the social and political
analysis of contemporary issues.
Adkins identifies five main reasons why Bourdieu’s work is not commonly
used to analyse economic crises. (i) Despite his exploration of different types of
capital – notably social, cultural, symbolic, and economic capital – nowhere in
Bourdieu’s writings can we find an attempt, however rudimentary, to elucidate
the specificity of capitalist capital. (ii) Even though he insists upon the temporal
constitution of the social world in general and of social fields in particular,
Bourdieu does not examine the process of abstraction and quantification of
labour into temporally structured units. Insofar as he fails to consider that
under capitalism labour can be converted into exchangeable equivalents,
Bourdieu does not account for the specificity of capitalist labour appropriation. (iii)
While he is concerned with social processes of domination and exploitation,
Bourdieu does not explore the social implications of the conversion of
living labour into abstract labour (let alone of living into abstract forms of
capital), which is central to the very functioning of capitalism as a social
system; thus, he fails to do justice to the specificity of capitalist abstraction. (iv)
Notwithstanding his general interest in the sociological significance of field-
specific forms of crisis, usually triggered by a confrontation between orthodox
and heterodox discourses as well as between dominant and dominated groups
in a given social field, Bourdieu does not provide a set of explanatory tools
capable of aiding our understanding of the specificity of capitalist crisis. (v) In
spite of Bourdieu’s emphasis on the dialectical nature of reproductive and
transformative processes of social structuration, it is generally assumed that,
within his theoretical framework of ‘generic structuralism’, the reproductive
power of stasis remains prevalent over the transformative potential of crisis
and that, as a consequence, Bourdieu’s approach does not account for the
specificity of capitalist transformation.
Adkins goes on to assert that, despite the aforementioned shortcomings,
Bourdieu offers a number of conceptual resources that permit us to make
sense of recent economic events, not only in terms of a crisis of time but also in
terms of a restructuring of time. Drawing on Richard Sennett’s critical account of
the corrosive effects of late capitalism, she reminds us that the accumulation
of flexibilised – that is, fragmented – experiences and the cultivation of weak –
that is, opportunistic – ties in the post-Fordist economy have contributed
to the construction of a world in which people find it increasingly difficult
to develop a sense of narrative movement. Under the heading ‘Trading
Afterword 407

the Future?’, Adkins remarks that the post-Fordist universe is a world

characterised by the radical renegotiation of temporal horizons. In a world
dictated by the powerful dynamics of permanent scientific innovation,
compulsive large-sale technologisation, and macro-societal transformation,
the temporal boundaries between past, present, and future are constantly
being reshaped and resignified towards emphases on situational contingency,
historical indeterminacy, and societal uncertainty. Consequently, the
looking-forwardness of the human condition is absorbed into the taken-for-
grantedness of the post-Fordist condition.
This is where Bourdieu is helpful. Under the heading ‘Anticipation: Time in
the Making’, Adkins discusses a Husserlian theme in Bourdieu’s writings on time:
according to Bourdieu, the future is always already existent in the immediate
present, for human agents are ordinarily immersed in the forthcoming. Since
human agents are equipped with predispositional schemes of perception and
appreciation, which anticipate their positionally situated course of action, in the
social world the always-still-to-be is part of the always-already-been just as the
always-already-been is part of the always-still-to-be. In short, it is the protensive
nature of practice which explains the extensive nature of the present. Human
agents are condemned to anticipate the forthcoming within the world because
they are obliged to impose their structured and structuring resources upon the
world. The ineluctable preponderance of the predispositionally constituted
and prereflexively executed nature of human agency is indicative of the
protensive constitution of social temporality. The objective potentials that
are always already inscribed in a given social field, constitute the background
horizon of the subjective potentials that are still to be realised by a given
social agent. To the extent that the espace de possibles is always a temps de possibles,
the possibles d’un espace are always the possibles du temps: every spatially defined
horizon of possibilities is also a temporally defined horizon of possibilities, and
every possibility arising from a given social space is also a possibility emerging
from a given social time. In other words, what is possible through a given
human action is contingent upon the spatiotemporally constituted horizon of
possibilities prescribed by a given social field.
If, as Adkins points out, we accept that the forthcoming is always already
inscribed in the present, we have to be prepared to confront at least four issues:
first, the injunction to anticipate may be an idiosyncratic feature of our present
moment (the socio-historical structuration of time); second, to the degree that the
forthcoming is capable of undercutting or destabilising the present, the former
is preponderant over the latter (the future-laden orientation of time); third, given
our simultaneous immersion in the temporal horizons of past, present, and
future, we should conceive of human practices as being situated in a temporal
continuum (the fluid constitution of time); and, fourth, rather than simply assuming
408 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

that time makes practice, we also need to recognise that practice makes time
(the praxeological production of time).
In the section entitled ‘Time is Money’, Adkins stresses the sociological
importance of one of the underlying principles of the capitalist economy:
to be able to do things faster and more efficiently than one’s competitors is a
precondition for increasing the profitability of one’s business. The hegemonic
mode of production, then, is also a hegemonic mode of temporalisation: rates of
profit and production depend on profit-oriented and production-driven forms of
temporalisation. The entanglement of economic practice with time obliges us, as
critical sociologists, to reflect upon the ways in which societies are not only spatially
but also temporally structured. Every mode of production requires a particular
mode of temporalisation. The key issue when exploring the structuration of time
in capitalist society is that, under the rule of clock time, social phenomena and
social time are separated and hence – to use Adkins’s formulation – in clock time
events do not make time but take place in time. Rather than human practices determining
time, time determines human practices.
In the section entitled ‘Money is Time’, Adkins examines the paradigmatic
transformation of time in late modern societies. The slogan ‘time is money’
captures a central normative imperative of Fordist regimes of production:
the more rapid and the more efficient, the more productive and the more
profitable. By contrast, the slogan ‘money is time’ sums up a key normative
imperative of post-Fordist regimes of production: the stronger and richer
financially, the more flexible and powerful socially. Whereas under industrial
capitalism time is money, in deregulated financial markets money has become
time. Given that in the post-Fordist context, which is dictated by the pressing
imperatives of the financial markets, time has ceased to operate as an external
vessel for practice and has become increasingly merged with events, time
itself has become a pivotal driving force of economic empowerment: in
the post-Fordist world, the production of society is increasingly contingent
upon the temporalisation of production. The question remains, however, to
what extent the restructuration and resignification of time in the post-Fordist
world have created a situation in which the experience of social life has
become more abstract than in previous societies. If we now live in a world
reproduced and kept alive through the collective experience of unexperienced
experiences, then – as Adkins pertinently remarks – the participation in social
life is potentially beyond meaning and interpretation. A society in which the
control of time escapes the control of ordinary people is a society in which
the search for meaning is increasingly shaped by the purposive power of
systemic reproduction, rather than by the communicative power of everyday
interaction. We certainly do not live in a timeless society, but we may live in a
society without time.
Afterword 409

Conclusion
From a range of authors and from a variety of perspectives, the chapters of
this book provide a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the sociology
of Pierre Bourdieu. Although they raise many difficult problems concerning
Bourdieu’s legacy, they illustrate the power and scope of his sociology in
shaping our understanding of modern society, especially with regard to the
sociological significance of field-specific struggles over various forms of power
and different resources. It is obvious that Bourdieu borrowed extensively and
openly from the writings of classical sociologists, notably from the works of
Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Yet, he also created a battery of concepts –
such as ‘field’, ‘habitus’, and ‘capital’ – which have profoundly influenced,
and will continue to stimulate, contemporary social and political analysis.
These diverse contributions demonstrate the enduring importance of classical
sociology, while recognising the creative and innovative energy that derives
from Bourdieu’s thought.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Bryan S. Turner and Elena Knox for their detailed comments
on an earlier version of this Afterword.

References
Bourdieu, Pierre (1976) ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales
8–9 [2–3]: 88–104.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977 [1972]) Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000 [1997]) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) ‘Mit Weber gegen Weber: Pierre Bourdieu im Gespräch’, in Pierre
Bourdieu, Das religiöse Feld. Texte zur Ökonomie des Heilsgeschehens, herausgegeben von
Franz Schultheis, Andreas Pfeuffer und Stephan Egger, übersetzt von Stephan Egger,
Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, pp. 111–129.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Terry Eagleton (1992) ‘Doxa and Common Life’, New Left Review
191: 111–121.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Franz Schultheis and Andreas Pfeuffer (2011 [2000]) ‘With Weber
Against Weber: In Conversation With Pierre Bourdieu’, in Simon Susen and Bryan S.
Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, trans. Simon Susen, London:
Anthem Press, pp. 111–124.
Marx, Karl (2000/1977 [1845]) ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in David McLellan (ed.) Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–174.
INDEX OF NAMES

Aarsleff, Hans 298 Barthes, Yannick 334, 344

Abrams, Philip 106–7 Basaure, Mauro vi–vii, xxii–xxiv, xxvi,
Adam, Barbara 350, 356, 363 203, 220, 388–90
Adams, Vincanne 349–50, 363 Bastian, Jean-Pierre 239, 242
Adamson, Matthew 31, 55, 108, 171, 200, Baudelaire, Charles 25, 49
219, 298, 344 Baudrillard, Jean 90, 129, 140
Adkins, Lisa vi–vii, xxii–xxiv, xxvii, 347–8, Beasley-Murray, Jon 348, 356–8, 364
352, 357, 363, 405–8 Beattie, Caroline 108, 141
Adorno, Theodor W. v, xiii, xxiv–xxvi, 46, Beck, Ulrich 142, 254
50, 52, 55, 130, 173, 175, 184–90, Beckford, James A. 238, 242–5
192–7, 199, 200–2, 385–7 Beethoven, Ludwig van 47, 258
Alexander, Jeffrey C. xiv, xxvii, 50, 55, Behr, Hartmut 204, 219
244, 256, 266–7 Bell, Catherine 228, 242
Althusser, Louis xvi, xx, xxvii, 40, 51, 114, Bellah, Robert N. 106–7, 227, 236, 242
223, 228, 231–2, 239, 242, 303, Bénatouïl, Thomas 266–7
378, 392 Benjamin, Walter 37, 46, 50–1, 55,
Anderson, Joel 220 226, 245
Anscombe, Elizabeth 299 Bennington, Geoff 141
Antoine, Gérald 320, 324 Bentham, Jeremy 43
Archer, Margaret 35, 55 Benton, Gregor 57
Ardizzone, Leoisa 265, 267 Berger, Peter L. xx, 238
Aristotle 39, 41, 229, 260, 340 Berlin, Isaiah xv
Aron, Raymond vi, xvi–xvii, xxvii, 55, Berlinerblau, Jacques 242
112–15, 228, 301–13, 315, 317–25, Bernstein, J. M. 55, 184, 191, 200
400–2 Bloch, Ernst 139–40
Ash, Mitchell G. 220 Bohman, James 199–200, 272, 277, 297
Atten, Michel 334, 344 Boltanski, Luc x, 29–31, 75, 90, 106, 108,
Auger, Henri 90 141, 218, 223, 248–9, 257–8, 261,
Austin, John Langshaw xx, 38, 373 267–8, 370
Austin-Bross, Diane 221 Bonnewitz, Patrice 199–200
Bostock, Anna 55
Bachelard, Gaston 93, 118, 316 Bottomore, M. K. 324
Back, Les xxvii Bottomore, Tom B. xv, xxvii, 126, 143, 269
Badiou, Alain 233–35, 242 Boudon, Raymond xvi–xvii, xxvii, 256,
Bakhtin, Mikhail 38, 53 259, 268
Balandier, Georges 302 Bouglé, Célestin 302
Barbalet, Jack 228, 242 Boupareytre, Émile 320, 325
412 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieu, Pierre i–xiv, xvi–xxix, 1–57, Cavaillès, Jean 307

59, 63, 65–109, 111–41, 143–52, Cervantes, Miguel de 47
154, 158, 160–3, 165–83, 193–209, Chamboredon, Jean-Claude 31, 106, 108,
211–21, 223, 228–35, 239–44, 141, 199, 201, 267–8, 313–14, 325
247–50, 252. 254–62, 265–73, Charle, Christophe 30–1
277–9, 281–91, 293–301, 303–4, Chartier, Roger 47, 56, 106, 108
307, 311–17, 319–26, 329–49, Christ, Jesus 232, 233, 235
351–8, 360–5, 367–407, 409 Cicourel, Aaron Victor 107
Bourgois, Philippe 171 Cladis, Mark S. 109
Bourricaud, François xvii, xxviii Clark, Jon 141
Boutroux, Émile 93 Clarke, Adele E. 363
Bouveresse, Jacques xxviii, 54, 56 Clarke, Peter B. 243
Boyer, Robert 35, 56 Clement, Fabrice 293, 298
Brandom, Robert 278, 298 Clough, Lauretta C. 55, 108, 325
Branson, Jan 208, 221 Clough, Patricia 361, 364
Braque, Georges 28 Colebrook, Claire 350, 364
Brassier, Ray 242 Coleman, James S. 171
Braun, Willi 228, 242 Coleman, Rebecca 350, 364
Brewster, Ben xxvii, 242 Collier, Peter xxviii, 31, 55, 107–8, 140–1,
Brodocz, André 219 325
Brown, Nicholas 364 Collins, Randall 24, 115
Brown, Wendy 348, 364 Colliot-Thélène, Catherine 343–4
Brubaker, Rogers 33, 37–8, 46–7, 56, 166, Comte, Auguste ix, 79, 93, 138, 310
171 Connor, Peter 142
Bruce, Steve 238, 242 Cooke, Maeve 217, 219
Brunner, Reinhard 220 Corcoran, Steven vi, 329
Brunschvicg, Léon 112 Corcuff, Philippe 249–51, 255–57, 259,
Bryant, Joseph 238, 242 261–63, 265–68, 394–96
Coser, Lewis A. xi, xiv, xxviii
Caillé, Alain 208, 219 Cosman, Carol 109
Calhoun, Craig xviii, xxviii, 35, 51, 55–6, Cournot, Antoine Augustin 54
201–2, 208, 219, 344, 347–8, Cronin, Ciaran P. 243
356–58, 362, 364 Crowther, Paul 127, 141
Callinicos, Alex 35, 52, 56 Crozier, Michel xvi–xviii, 114
Callon, Michel 334, 344, 349, 364 Crump, Eric 243
Camiller, Patrick xxix Cumming, John 200
Canguilhem, Georges xx, 93, 304
Cantor, Georg 307 Dahme, Heinz-Jürgen 142
Carr, David 57 Dahrendorf, Ralf xv, xxviii, 114, 224
Casanova, José 227–8, 243 Damasio, Antonio 168, 171
Cassirer, Ernst 93, 146, 275, 295, 298, Dangeville, Roger 90
384 Darbel, Alain 106, 108, 141, 315, 325
Castel, Robert x, 31, 106, 108, 141, Darnton, Robert 106, 108
312–13, 326 Davie, Grace 227, 243
Castoriadis, Cornelius 252, 262–64, Davis, Howard H. xxvii
267–8, 396 Dawe, Alan xv, xxviii
Cattani, Mary H. S. 31 de Beauvoir, Simone 333
Cavada, Eduardo 142 de Gaulle, Charles 312, 321–2
Index of Names 413

DeLamater, John D. 172 Eriksen, Tore 143

Delaunay, Robert 28 Escoubas, Eliane 268
Deleuze, Gilles 132–3, 136, 138, 141
Demerath III, Nicholas Jay 225, 243–45 Falk, Pasi 139, 141
Derrida, Jacques xvii, 37, 128, 141, 373 Farrell, John 220
Dervin, Fred 143 Feltham, Oliver 242
Descartes, René 93, 304 Ferguson, Priscilla Parkhurst xxviii, 31,
Dewey, John 20, 166, 172, 220 56, 108, 141, 219, 344, 364
Dews, Peter 243 Ferry, Luc 23, 31
Dillon, Michele 231, 243 Fields, Karen 56, 171
Dilthey, Wilhelm 292, 298 Fietkau, Wolfgang 31
Dimaggio, Paul 364 Filloux, J. C. 106, 109
Discepolo, Thierry 322, 325 Findlay, J. N. 326
Dobry, Michel 343–4 Finke, Roger 235, 237, 243–4
Dortier, Jean-François 199, 201 Fischoff, Ephraim 244, 299
Dosse, François 29, 31 Flaubert, Gustave 25, 47, 92, 98, 152–3,
Douglas, Mary 172, 201, 241, 243 232, 243
Dreyfus, Hubert 276, 288, 298 Florence, Leah 219
Duchamp, Marcel 28 Forst, Rainer 219
Dummett, Michael 276, 298 Foster, Roger 272, 298
Dunning, Eric xxix, 157, 170, 172 Foucault, Michel vii, ix, xvi–xvii,
Durkheim, Émile iv–v, xiv, xix–xxi, xxviii–xxix, 9, 37, 98, 124, 136,
xxiv–xxvi, 4, 10, 26, 33, 36, 45, 141, 223, 243, 279, 281–83, 296,
47, 51, 54–56, 88, 91–7, 99–101, 298–9, 303, 318–19, 327, 333,
105–9, 112–15, 117–19, 123–4, 335, 344, 373
126, 148–9, 171–2, 239–41, 265, Fourny, Jean-François 266, 268
277, 310–11, 313–14, 326, 329, Fowkes, Ben 57
333–4, 340, 344, 375–78, 384, 409 Fowler, Bridget iv–v, viii, xxii–xxiv, xxv,
33, 51, 57, 106, 127, 141, 182, 199,
Eagleton, Terry xxviii, 409 201, 255, 268, 297, 370–1, 373
Eastwood, Jonathan 232, 243 Fraser, Nancy 210, 215–20, 341, 344
Edelman, Lee 350, 364 Frère, Bruno vi, viii, xxii–xxiv, xxvi, 247,
Eder, Klaus 18, 29, 31, 141 250, 259, 261, 268, 393–96
Egger, Stephan iv, xxviii, 124, 242, 377, 409 Freund, Julien 303, 326–7
Eisendle, Reinhard 142 Friedrich, Caspar David 28
Eisenstadt, S. N. 243 Frisby, David 126
Eliard, Michel 326 Furseth, Inger 228, 243
Elias, Norbert v, xv, xxiv–xxv, 33, 56, 101,
118, 126, 141, 145–50, 153–63, Gadamer, Hans-Georg ix, 276, 292,
165–72, 223, 380, 383–85 298–9, 397
Eliassen, Kurt Ove 143 Gaines, Jeremy 32
Emanuel, Susan 31, 55, 108, 171, 344 Ganahl, Joseph 220
Emirbayer, Mustafa v, vii, xxii–xxiv, xxvi, Gartman, David 208, 220
145, 148, 166, 172, 383, 385 Gaxie, Daniel 343–4
Encrevé, Pierre 56, 268 Genet, Jean 53
Engels, Friedrich 37, 57, 59–61, 90, 231 Gérard, Granel 268
Engler, Steven 228, 243 Gerth, Hans H. xiv, 143, 244
Eribon, Didier xvii, xxviii Gibson, W. R. Boyce 364
414 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Giddens, Anthony 1, 10–12, 56, 142, 223, Heidegger, Martin xvii, xix–xx, xxviii,
279, 298 47, 97, 107–8, 122, 124, 140–42,
Glassman, Deborah 31 146, 148, 166, 168, 288, 298,
Goffman, Erving xx, 40, 53, 255 315, 384, 397
Golb, Joel 219–20 Heinich, Nathalie 168, 172
Goldhammer, Arthur xxviii, 30 Hendrickson, Paul 299
Goldman, Harvey 133, 141 Herberg, Will xiv
Goldman, Katherine 218 Herder, Johann Gottfried von 44
Goldstein, Kurt 70, 76, 90 Hervieu-Léger, Danièle 230, 243
Göle, Nilüfer 225, 243 Hilbert, David 307
Goodman, Douglas J. 146, 172 Hill, Christopher 51, 239
Goodman, Jane E. 229, 243 Hillier, Jean 56
Gordon, Colin xxviii, 344 Hirsch, Walter xxix
Goudsblom, Johan 145, 156, 168, 170, 172 Hobson, Dorothy 298
Gouhier, Henri 304 Hoggart, Richard 53, 315–16, 326
Gramsci, Antonio 50 Hohengarten, Mark 298
Granovetter, Mark 349, 353, 364 Hollingdale, R. J. 142–3
Grignon, Claude 317–19, 326 Holoch, George 325
Gronow, Jukka x, 127, 139, 142 Holton, Robert John xiii, xxviii
Grosz, Elizabeth 350, 364 Honneth, Axel vi–vii, xxiv–xxv, 11, 31,
Guattari, Pierre-Félix 132–3, 141 203–20, 388–90
Guillaume, Paul 70, 90 Horkheimer, Max 46, 188, 192, 200
Howard, Richard xxvii
Haacke, Hans 49, 56, 136, 141 Hullot-Kentor, Robert 200
Habermas, Jürgen xi, xviii, 1, 2, 20–1, Humboldt, Wilhelm von 291, 295, 298,
37, 52, 202–3, 215–18, 225–7, 243, 327
279–84, 292, 296, 298–9, 331, 333, Hurley, Robert 141, 298
336, 344, 373, 392, 397–8 Husserl, Edmund xx, 12, 33, 42, 48, 51,
Hacking, Ian xxi, xxviii 57, 106, 146, 148, 260–1, 266, 268,
Haddour, Azzedine xxvii 306–7, 315, 326, 352, 364, 384, 395
Hall, Stuart 276, 298
Halliday, Fred 225, 243 Iannaccone, Laurence R. 235, 237, 243
Halls, W. D. 109, 171, 326, 344 Ingram, James 219–20
Hamelin, Octave 93 Iser, Mattias 216, 220
Hamilton, Malcolm 235, 243
Hanoteau, Adolphe 88, 90 Jaeggi, Rahel 219
Harris, Roy 299 Jarvis, Simon 189, 201
Harrison, Paul Raymond 106, 109 Jaspers, Karl 306
Hartmann, Martin 219 Jay, Martin 190, 200–1
Harvey, David 223 Jenkins, Richard 178–9, 181, 199, 201,
Hassan, Robert 356, 364 208, 220, 348, 364
Heath, Peter 298 Jenkins, Tim 229, 244
Hedström, Peter 268 Jephcott, Edmund 56, 141, 171–2
Heerikhuizen, Bart van v, viii, xxii–xxiv, Joas, Hans iv–v, viii–ix, xxii–xxiii, xxv, 1–2,
xxvi, 145, 383, 385 10–11, 14–15, 22, 24, 30, 32, 367–9
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich xx, 36, John the Baptist 234
39, 42, 53, 57, 113, 123–4, 204, Johnson, Randal viii, 31, 55–6, 141,
218, 313 201, 344
Index of Names 415

Jolin, Annette 57 Latour, Bruno 248, 266

Joppke, Christian 208, 221 Launay, Marc de 28, 268
Law, Alex 348, 350, 365
Kant, Immanuel xx, 37, 51, 100–1, 113, Lawrence, Frederick G. 243
126–9, 131, 134, 136, 138, 142, Lazreg, Marnia 225, 244
259, 306, 331, 339, 373, 381–2 Lechner, Frank J. 238, 244
Kaplan, Nicole 219 Le Goff, Jacques 303
Karady, Victor 106, 109 Lee, Benjamin 274, 299
Karakayali, Nedim 193, 201 Lee, Simon 243
Karsenti, Bruno v, ix, xxii–xxv, 59, Lefebvre, Henri 46, 64, 90
89, 373–4 Lefort, Claude 261, 267, 269
Kaufmann, Walter 143 Lenhardt, Christian 298
Keast, Paul 32 Lenski, Gerhard E. xiv
Kelbel, Peter 220 Lerner, Daniel xiii, xxix
Kelley, Dean M. 237, 244 Lescourret, Marie-Anne 33, 51, 57
Kellner, Douglas 185, 201 Letourneux, Aristide 88, 90
Kempers, Bram 162, 172 Lévi-Strauss, Claude xx, 2–3, 7, 66, 72,
Kenny, Peter P. 243 75, 87, 89, 90, 98, 130, 229, 269,
Kilminster, Richard 146, 168, 172 272, 310, 316, 326, 367
Knight, Paul 140 Lewandowski, Joseph D. 199, 201
Knöbl, Wolfgang iv–v, viii–ix, xxii–xxiii, Lichtblau, Klaus 133, 136–38, 142
xxv, 1–2, 10–11, 14–15, 24, 30, Liénard, Georges 199–200
32, 367–69 Lipset, Seymour Martin xiii, xxix
Knoblauch, Hubert 199, 201 Lipstadt, Helene 362, 365
Knorr-Cetina, Karin 107 LiPuma, Edward xviii, xxviii, 56, 199,
Knox, Elena xxvii, 199, 266, 409 201–2, 219, 364
Kocyba, Hermann 203, 208, 219 Livingstone, Rodney 57
Kodat, Catherine Gunther 200–1 Locke, John 226
Kögler, Hans-Herbert vi, ix, xxii–xxiv, Lockwood, David xv, xxix
xxvi, 271–2, 277, 291–93, 296, Lojkine, Jean 202
299, 397–9 Losonsky, Michael 298
Krais, Beate 325 Louis XIV 153
Kraus, Karl 131 Lovell, Terry 49, 50, 57
Krieken, Robert van 146, 172 Lowe, Andrew 298
Kuhn, Thomas Samuel xx, 49, 54, 248, 268 Loyal, Steven 168, 172, 228, 244
Luhmann, Niklas 1–2, 22–3, 369
Lacan, Jacques 101 Lukács, György 50
LaCapra, Dominick 106, 109 Lukes, Steven 172
Lagache, Daniel 303 Luxon, Nancy xvi, xxix
Lagrave, Rose-Marie 56, 268 Lyotard, Jean-François x, 127, 142
Lahire, Bernard 249–56, 258–9, 261–63,
265, 268–9, 394–96 Macmillan, Harold xv, 57, 143, 172,
Lamont, Michèle 30, 32 202, 243
Lane, Jeremy F. 54, 57 Macquarrie, John 298
Lascoume, Pierre 334, 344 Maffesoli, Michel 136, 142
Lash, Scott 55, 128, 130–1, 139, 142, Mahé, Alain 89–90
176, 180, 182, 199, 201, 242, Makkreel, Rudolf A. 298
299, 362, 364 Malevich, Kazimir S. 28
416 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Malraux, André 311 Modgil, Sohan 141

Manet, Édouard 47, 49 Moore, Barrington 42, 57, 220
Manheim, Ralph 298 Morrissey, Grace 171
Mannheim, Karl ix, 299, 316 Mukhtar, Toqir 362, 364
Mapplethorpe, Robert 49 Müller, Hans-Peter xi, 29, 32, 126–7, 140,
Marazzi, Christian 350, 358, 365 142, 345
Marshall, T. H. xv Müller-Rolli, Sebastian107
Martindale, Don 244 Münch, Richard 23
Marx, Karl v, xiv–xvi, xix–xxii, xxiv–xxv, Muniesa, Fabian 364
xxvii, xxix, 3, 9, 15, 17, 19, 33–48, Murphy, Michelle 363
50–54, 57, 59–63, 68, 70–72, 79, Myers, Daniel J. 172
82, 84, 87, 89–90, 94, 106, 112–15,
118, 120, 124, 138, 142, 146, 149, Nancy, Jean-Luc 142
161, 166, 202, 228–31, 239–40, Nehemas, Alexander 133, 138, 142
244, 333, 340, 345, 347, 364–5, Neustadt, Ilya xv
370–75, 378–9, 384, 409 Newman, Charles 201
Masson, Philippe xviii, xxix Nice, Richard xxviii, 31, 55, 56, 107–8,
Matejka, Ladislav 57 140–1, 171, 200–1, 219, 242,
Mauss, Marcel ix, xx, 33, 49, 76, 90–1, 297–8, 325–6, 344, 364, 409
117, 135, 219, 239–40, 269 Nicholsen, Shierry Weber 298
McCarthy, Thomas 298 Nicolaus, Martin 57
McCutcheon, Russell T. 228, 242 Nietzsche, Friedrich v, xiv, xvi, xxiv–xxvi,
McFall, Liz 349, 365 123–5, 130, 132–43, 380, 382
McLellan, David xxix, 53, 57, 90, 409 Nimtz, August H. 37, 57
McLeod, Ian 141 Nisbet, Robert A. 269
McNay, Lois 352, 365 Nordlund, Joan 139
McNeil, Brian 243 Nowotny, Helga 351, 365
McRobbie, Angela 348, 363, 365
Mead, George Herbert xiv, xx, 149, 166, O’Carroll, Aileen 356, 365
204, 291, 293, 299 O’Malley, Joseph 57
Mendieta, Eduardo 243 Offerlé, Michel 343–4
Mennell, Stephen 56, 156, 168, 170–2 Outhwaite, William 124, 143
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice xx, 70, 76, 79,
90, 106, 112, 124, 130, 148, 166, Pareto, Vilfredo 112, 115
168, 239–40, 252, 260–63, 265–69, Park, Robert Ezra xiv
394–96 Parker, Andrew 57
Merriman, Nick 108, 141 Parks, Rosa 49
Merton, Robert 100, 141 Parsons, Talcott xiii–xv, xvii, xxviii–xxix,
Meyer, Laure 268 23, 96, 228, 244
Michener, H. Andrew 170, 172 Pascal, Blaise xx, 33
Miklautz, Elfie 142 Passeron, Jean-Claude vi, xvii–xviii, xxviii,
Mill, John Stuart 41 24, 31, 42, 53, 56, 106, 108, 150,
Miller, Don 208, 221 171, 199, 201, 267–8, 301, 303,
Miller, Max 208, 221 311–20, 323–7, 400–2
Millo, Yuval 364 Paulle, Bowen v, ix, xxii–xxiv, xxvi, 145,
Mills, C. Wright xiv, 143 166, 172, 383, 385
Mitchell, Stanley 55 Pensky, Max 243
Modgil, Celia 141 Pestre, Dominique 334, 344
Index of Names 417

Pfeuffer, Andreas iv–v, ix, xxii–xxiv, xxvi, Roof, Wade C. 236, 244
xxviii, 111, 124, 228, 242, 377, 409 Rooksby, Emma 56
Piaget, Jean 253–55, 269 Rorty, Richard 241
Pinto, Louis 133, 143, 248 Rose, Gillian 191, 202
Plaice, Neville 140, 365 Ross, Alan C. M. 55
Plaice, Stephen 140 Roth, Guenther 299
Pluhar, Werner S. 142 Roth, Paul 299
Polanyi, Karl 349, 362–3, 365 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 227, 230
Pompidou, Georges 321 Russell, Bertrand 315, 327
Poovey, Mary 348, 365
Pope, Liston xiv Saalmann, Gernot 201
Postone, Moishe xviii, xxviii, 56, 201–2, Saar, Martin 219
219, 356, 364–5 Said, Edward 323
Poulantzas, Nicos xvi, xxix Saint Martin, Monique de 125, 141,
Poupeau, Franck 56, 322, 325 229, 320, 325–6
Prawer, Siegbert Salomon 54, 57 Saint Paul 235, 242
Puwar, Nirmal xxvii Sapiro, Gisèle 57, 248
Sartre, Jean-Paul xvi–xvii, xx, 4, 9, 101,
Quilley, Stephen 168, 172 113, 124, 301, 306, 333, 335
Saussure, Ferdinand de 38, 69, 273–80,
Rabinbach, Anson G. 55, 200 285, 295–7, 299, 397–8
Rahkonen, Keijo v, x, xxii–xxiv, xxvi, 125, Sayad, Abdelmalek 40, 56
138–9, 143, 380–2 Schaal, Gary 219
Rammstedt, Otto 142 Scheler, Max 135, 258, 269
Rancière, Jacques 35, 57, 90 Schiller, Hans-Ernst 208, 220
Ratzinger, Joseph 226–7, 243 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 120
Raymond, Gino 219 Schmidt, Lars-Henrik 140, 143
Reemtsma, Jan-Philipp vii, 203, 220 Schnapper, Dominique 106, 108, 141
Rehbein, Boike 201 Schneiderhan, Erik 148, 172
Renaut, Alain 23, 31, 254 Schrift, Alan D. 140, 143
Renouvier, Charles 93 Schuller, Florian 243
Rex, John xv, xxix Schultheis, Franz iv–v, x, xxii–xxiv,
Rey, Terry 228–9, 244 xxvi–xxviii, 111, 124, 228, 242,
Reynaud, Jean-Daniel 325 377, 409
Richardson, John G. 31, 171, 364 Schulze, Gerhard 30, 32, 139–40, 143
Rickert, Heinrich 306–7 Schütz, Alfred 252, 258, 269
Ricœur, Paul 250, 255, 257–8, 261, 269 Schwartz, David 228
Riesman, David xxix Schwengel, Hermann 201
Ritzer, George 146, 172 Schwibs, Bernd 203, 208, 219
Rivet, Jean-Paul 315, 325 Sclove, Richard 334, 345
Robbins, Derek M. vi, x, xviii, xxii–xxiv, Searle, John xx, 271, 279, 299, 397
xxvii, 3, 32–3, 57, 182, 201–2, 301, Seibel, Claude 315, 325
400–2 Seignobos, Charles 97
Robertson, Roland xv, 239, 244 Sennett, Richard 350, 355, 361, 363,
Robinson, Edward 298 365, 406
Roche, Daniel xxviii Servais, Émile 199, 201
Rodi, Frithjof 298 Shariati, Ali 225
Rojek, Chris xv, xxix Sheridan, Alan 298
418 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Shilling, Chris xviii, xxix, 41 Thévenot, Laurent x, 257, 268

Shostakovich, Dmitri 28 Thompson, E. P. 36, 50–52, 57, 356, 365
Shusterman, Richard xviii, xxix, Thompson, John B. 55, 108, 200, 219,
146, 172, 200 298
Sica, Alan xiv, xxix Tipton, Steven M. 236, 242
Sieverding, Nora 218 Titmuss, Richard M. xv
Silber, Ilana F. 232, 244 Titunik, I. R. 57
Simmel, Georg 121, 125–7, 133, 135, Tocqueville, Alexis de xvii, 322
137–8, 142–3, 166, 168, 307, 380 Tréanton, Jean-René 325
Simpson, George 56, 109 Trejo-Mathys, Jonathan 218
Sintomer, Yves vi, x, xxii–xxiv, xxvii, 46, Turner, Bryan S. iii–vi, xi, xiii, xviii,
57, 329, 341, 343, 345, 402–5 xix–xxiv, xxvi, xxviii–xxix, 89, 124,
Skinner, Alex iv, v, 1, 30, 32 133, 137, 143, 162, 172, 199, 223,
Smetana, Bedřich 28 225, 239, 241–2, 244, 390–3, 409
Sokal, Bryan 291, 293, 299 Turner, Chris 55, 242, 364
Spaulding, John A. 56, 109 Turner, Stephen P. xiv, xxix, 272,
Spencer, Herbert 137 299, 324
Spengler, Oswald 313
Spinner-Halevy, Jeff 226, 244 Valjakka, Timo 143
Spitzweg, Carl 28 Vandenberghe, Frédéric 199, 202
Stark, Jerry A. 298 Vattimo, Gianni 241
Stark, Rodney 235, 237–8, 243–4 Veblen, Thorstein 101, 126, 380
Stauth, Georg 133, 137, 143 Verdès-Leroux, Jeannine 50, 57
Stern, David 276, 299 Verter, Bradford 228, 231, 244
Stones, Rob 172 Veyne, Paul 318–19, 327
Storey, John 202 Vološinov, Valentin N. 38, 42, 57
Stueber, Karsten 292, 299 Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) 333
Sugarman, Jeff 291, 293, 299 Vries, Bert de 168, 172
Suomela-Salmi, Elina 143
Susen, Simon iii–vi, xi, xiii, xviii, xxi–xxiv, Wacquant, Loïc iv–v, xi, xviii, xxi–xxiv,
xxvi, xxix, 30, 35, 52, 57, 59, 111, xxvi, xxviii, 1–2, 10–12, 14–15, 21,
139, 173, 178, 199–200, 202, 218, 23, 31, 37, 50, 52, 55–7, 79, 90–1,
266, 296, 299, 324, 367, 373, 385, 106, 108–9, 124, 126, 128–31, 135,
409 141, 143, 145, 149, 160, 162–3,
Swartz, David 199, 202, 208, 221, 232, 168–72, 199, 201–2, 208, 219, 221,
244 267–8, 315, 326, 344, 364, 375–7,
Swedberg, Richard 268 380
Sweet, William 299 Walker, Nicholas 200
Swyer, Rupert 201 Wareh, Tarik v, 91, 109, 375
Szeman, Imre 364 Warner, R. Stephen 235, 238, 244
Weaver, Helen xxvii
Talbot, T. 220 Weber, Max iv–v, xi, xiii, xiv–xvi, xix–xxi,
Tamney, Joseph B. 237, 244 xxiv–xxv, xxviii, xxix, 24, 33–5,
Taylor, Charles 224, 228, 244, 254, 291, 47, 49–51, 55, 101, 106, 111–25,
299 133–4, 137–8, 143, 146, 149, 161,
Taylor, Talbot 274, 299 228–35, 239, 241–2, 244, 292, 299,
Teese, Richard 326 301–9, 311, 317–19, 326–7, 333–4,
Therborn, Göran 223 340, 377–80, 384, 392–3, 400, 409
Index of Names 419

Weber, Samuel 200 Wittgenstein, Ludwig xx, 106, 240–1,

Weber, Shierry 200, 298 276, 279, 281, 296, 299, 315, 327
Wenzel, Bernice M. 126, 143 Wittich, Claus 299
Whimster, Sam 55, 242 Wolff, Kurt 109, 260, 269
White, Harrison C. 166, 172 Wolin, Richard 226, 245
Whiteside, Shaun 31, 108, 141 Woolf, Virginia 49
Wilke, Christiane 219–20 Wright, Charles W. 32, 220
Williams, Christine L. 244
Williams, Raymond 36, 50, 52–3, 57, Yacine, Tassadit 52, 56
174–5, 202 Yang, Fenggang 235, 245
Willig, Rasmus vii, 203, 220 Young, David 55
Willis, Paul 298 Young, Michael xv
Willmott, Peter xv
Wilson, Bryan xiv, 225, 235, 245, 299 Zola, Émile F. 333
Winch, Peter 290, 292, 299 Zaloom, Caitlin 359–60, 365
Wing, Betsy xxviii Zollschan, George K. xxix
INDEX OF SUBJECTS

9/11 terrorist attack / Twin Towers 225 actor network theory 248
Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of
academia 169 Our Time (Bourdieu) 171, 364
Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales xxviii, Adornian 173–4, 184–5, 192–3, 197–8,
4, 55, 93, 107–8, 140–1, 170, 200, 387
325, 344, 409 aesthetics xviii, xxiii–xxix, 20, 25, 27–8,
action xxvii, xix, 5–16, 20–5, 28–9, 31–2, 101, 124, 126–7, 131, 134, 136,
70, 74, 76, 79, 92, 98, 109, 119, 140, 142, 188, 381
147, 153–5, 159, 169, 204, 206, agency ix, xv, xix, 46, 57, 66, 170, 179,
208, 232, 234, 239, 248–9, 253, 200, 232–3, 240–1, 271–3, 277–9,
256–7, 259, 261–5, 267, 272, 283, 285, 286, 289–94, 297, 299,
278, 280, 282–3, 287, 289, 291–2, 313, 367, 369, 371, 374–7, 393,
304–6, 323–5, 329, 338–9, 343, 395, 397, 399–400, 407
349, 350, 352–3, 354, 357, 363, agent(s) 7, 10, 24, 38, 40, 45, 47, 52, 61–3,
364, 367–8, 374, 379, 382, 384, 67, 71, 78, 84, 93, 98–9, 103, 130,
393–4, 397, 399–402, 405 148, 150, 169, 170, 178, 212, 234,
communicative action 21, 37, 215, 240, 248–9, 251, 253, 256, 259,
280, 298, 373, 398, 405 264, 266, 271–3, 276–9, 281–5,
human action 6, 20, 368–9, 375, 287–94, 296–7, 331, 337–9, 343,
397, 407 352–5, 362–3, 407
instrumental action 220 Algeria xvi, xviii, xix, xxv, 2–3, 40–1, 52,
logic of action 8 55, 111–12, 116–17, 120–2, 150,
social action 34, 68, 97, 170, 179, 203, 228–9, 244, 303–4, 317, 322, 325,
206, 213, 232, 251, 259, 265–6, 362, 364, 371
313, 367, 388–9, 394, 405 Algerian War of Independence xviii,
strategic action 405 40, 51, 100
theory of action xxviii, 56, 105, 108, alienation ix, 84–7, 262–3, 299
206, 213, 219, 268, 344 Althusserian 232, 392
typology of action 21 Althusserianism 40
actor(s) xxvi, 5–12, 14–15, 18–23, 36, 39– America xiii, 50, 236, 242, 391
40, 45, 67–9, 71, 77, 83, 85, 131, North America xiii, xvi, 30, 226,
147, 152, 155, 179, 181, 212–14, 228, 235–8
216–17, 231, 235, 239–40, 247–9, South America 224
251–3, 255–9, 261–6, 268, 289, United States of America xiii
333, 335–6, 341, 367–70, 379–81, American xiv, xvii–xix, 12, 30, 32, 109,
384–5, 387, 390, 392, 394–400 148, 162, 225, 236, 310
422 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

African-American 49–50 150–2, 163, 165, 173–4, 176,

Anglo-American xvi 193, 197–8, 203, 208–9, 211–13,
Anti-American xvii, xix 217–18, 247–9, 252, 254, 257, 260,
North American xiii–xv, xvii–xix, 265–6, 329, 368–71, 373–8, 380–1,
235–7, 370, 391, 393 386–90, 392–4, 396, 398–9, 403–6
An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Bourdieu Britain xiv–xviii, 36, 39, 139, 227, 243
and Wacquant) 128 British xiv–xvi, xviii, 1, 51–2, 139, 158,
Anglophone xiv, xvii–xviii, 370, 378, 383 255
Anglo-Saxon xvii Buddhism / Buddhist 223–4, 234
antagonism 36, 119, 186, 192, 198 bureaucracy xiv, 42, 53, 331
anthropology xviii, xx–xxi, xxiii, 2, 5, 7,
12, 70, 130, 241, 315, 340, 343, 379 capital xxiii, xxvi, xxix, 15–22, 25, 30–1,
antinomies / antinomy 97, 128, 368, 374, 33–7, 43, 45–7, 52–3, 56–7, 96,
393–4, 402 101, 103–4, 117, 119, 129, 149,
apparatus 3, 19, 83, 148, 182, 250, 264, 151–2, 163, 166, 171, 181, 208,
295, 335, 356, 342, 368, 375, 382, 219, 228, 287, 289, 291, 330, 356,
384, 396 361, 363–4, 368, 372, 389–90, 392,
arbitrariness 79, 182, 275, 295, 341, 396 403, 406, 409
Aristotelian 396 cultural capital x, xix, 17–19, 26, 42,
Aronian 311–12, 401 45, 51–2, 100, 102–3, 130, 150–1,
art xx, xxix, 3, 17, 21, 25, 27–8, 30, 31, 161, 167, 169, 181, 216, 364, 369
37, 40–1, 44, 47, 52, 55–6, 102, economic capital 15–19, 34, 51, 103,
104–5, 108, 119, 126, 139–41, 130, 151, 161, 169, 181, 406
143, 151–3, 169, 171, 174, 180, linguistic capital 390
182, 185–93, 195–8, 200–1, 251, political capital 17
296, 311, 334, 336, 341, 344, scientific capital 92
364–5, 391 social capital 17–18, 130, 161, 164, 181
artistic field: see field symbolic capital 15–18, 34–5, 119,
Asia 225, 391 160–1, 216, 228–9, 231, 239, 331,
Aufklärung 92, 187, 336 335, 347, 372, 390
authenticity 113, 236, 282, 306, 332, capitalism vii, xiii–xiv, 11, 17, 46, 86, 88,
337, 342 174, 176, 178–9, 183–6, 188–90,
autonomy 21, 39, 94, 152, 177–9, 192, 194–5, 202, 348, 356–8, 360,
185–90, 192, 197, 199, 217, 365, 386–7, 406, 408
263, 265, 283, 296, 308, 313, capitalist 12, 16, 37, 40, 41, 44–5, 61,
330, 332–4, 342–3, 369, 394, 63, 86, 90, 176, 178–80, 185–6,
397, 399, 403, 405 189, 193–5, 198, 224–5, 231, 312,
347–8, 356–8, 362, 406, 408
base and superstructure 193–4 Cartesian 148, 168, 290, 307, 326
body, the xviii, xxiii–xxix, 12, 70–8, 80–5, Catholic / Catholicism 36, 224–5,
87–9, 101, 135, 150, 165, 168, 175, 229–31, 238
241, 250, 252, 260, 262–3, 265, charisma 50, 113, 123, 158, 160, 172,
267, 352, 395 232–5, 238, 240–1
sociology of the body xviii, 241 China 224, 235, 245
Boltanskian 248, 370 Christianity 231–2, 235–6, 244
Bourdieusian viii, xix, xxi–xxiii, xxv–xxvi, church / Church 30, 37, 48, 114, 119,
4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 19, 22, 25, 29, 162, 224–5, 227, 230–1, 236–8,
30, 66, 77, 80–2, 117, 130, 132, 243–4, 314
Index of Subjects 423

citizenship xv, 333 337, 339, 341, 368, 385, 390, 393,
civil religion 227, 236, 242 398–9, 405
civil rights xiv, 46, 50 conflict / conflictual 6, 14–15, 19, 22–4,
civilisation 40, 54, 89, 113, 126, 143, 156, 27–8, 35, 54, 103, 119, 159, 163,
175, 225 170, 185, 204–5, 207–9, 211, 213,
class xiv, xix, 3, 13, 16, 18–20, 24–30, 216, 230–1, 280, 286, 389–90, 395
34–6, 38, 42–3, 45, 48–9, 51, 53–6, consciousness xiv, 13, 59, 79–80, 99,
61, 83–7, 100, 102–5, 126–9, 131, 147–8, 150, 157, 185–6, 216, 220,
135–7, 139–40, 147, 150, 154–5, 236, 248, 252, 256–7, 260–1, 267,
157–9, 161–4, 170, 176, 181–2, 276–7, 287–8, 291, 374, 395, 401
186, 194–5, 202, 208, 211, 216, self–consciousness 79
220, 221, 224, 240, 248, 250, 254, consecration 179, 196, 239, 243, 370
256, 259, 262, 266, 281–2, 284, conservatism 230, 320
288, 303, 308–9, 311, 315–18, 320, construction (of the object) 96
371–2, 381; see also social class social construction 75, 85, 160, 182,
class consciousness xiv 252, 266
classification 7, 26, 40, 48, 51, 100, 102, socially constructed 24, 182–3, 262,
105, 125, 131, 160, 173, 180–4, 307, 310, 314, 316
195, 197–8, 211, 372, 382, 387–8 constructivism 248
colonial xvi, xxv, 2, 41, 89, 362 relativist constructivism 266
colonisation 88, 174, 180, 360, 362, 386 structuralist constructivism 258
commitment xvii, xx–xxii, xxv, 51, 67, 70, constructivist xx, 8, 162, 248–9, 255, 266,
94, 208, 210, 233, 237, 301, 303, 367, 378
318, 321, 332–3, 375, 400–2, 404 structural–constructivist 253, 255
commodifiability 179–80 contextualism / contextualist 272, 280, 368
commodification 173–4, 178–80, contingency 73–4, 182–4, 194, 196,
184, 188, 190, 192–3, 197–8, 199, 248, 265, 334, 341, 376,
360, 386–7 397, 404, 407
commodities / commodity 38–9, 178–80, Copernican revolution 102, 126, 381
188–9, 193–4, 198, 350, 388 ‘corporatism of the universal’ vi, 46, 95,
common sense 93, 127, 336, 376 107, 329–30, 332, 335–40, 342,
communication xxiii, 5, 6, 51, 132, 402, 404
139–40, 143–4, 183, 258, 273–4, correspondence analysis 167
277, 280, 282–3, 293–4, 296, 312, creativity 21–2, 175, 179, 184–5, 192,
317, 320, 324, 331, 339–40, 341, 194, 198, 247, 251, 256–7, 262,
342, 397, 402 265, 386–7, 395, 397, 403
communism 224, 235, 391 crisis 3, 36, 45, 48–9, 51, 54, 57, 96, 98, 238,
communist xvi, 224, 303, 309 307, 321, 348–9, 365, 372, 396, 406
Communist Party xvi, 224 academic crisis 45
community xiv, 38, 41, 54, 87, 95, 127–8, Algerian crisis 322
130, 142, 146, 159–60, 219, 241, capitalist crisis 406
248, 267, 274, 307–10, 314–15, economic crisis vi, xxiv, xxvii, 347–9,
320, 333, 398 356, 358, 405–6
competence 4, 68, 76, 136, 182, 252, educational crisis 45
256–7, 262, 267–8, 276, 284, 289, financial crisis 355, 357–8, 362
291, 296, 335, 398 crises 24, 35, 45, 54, 344
competition xix, 14, 23, 53, 130, 177, economic crises 406
195, 234–6, 238–41, 302, 331–2, social crises 373
424 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

critique xxiv, xxvi–xxvii, 4, 21, 36, 46–50, popular culture x, 53, 202, 311
53, 56–7, 60–70, 75, 80, 89–90, sociology of culture viii, 17, 19, 26, 31,
101, 126–8, 134, 136–7, 142, 192, 176, 220, 251, 318
203–4, 206–9, 215–20, 229, 242–3,
267–9, 272–3, 279–80, 290, 292, democracies / democracy x, xiii, xvii, 57,
297–8, 304, 306, 313, 322, 333, 172, 220, 303, 309, 311, 322, 331,
336–40, 342, 344–5, 347–8, 355–6, 334, 338, 340–1, 344–5, 401
362, 370, 373, 381, 389, 400, 404 determinism / determinist xv, xxv, 23, 92,
critique of utilitarianism 14 99, 161, 220, 240, 248–9, 251, 255,
critiques of globalisation 26 257–9, 263–4, 266, 273, 394, 405
critiques of Marxism 33, 36, 371 dialectic(s) 6, 45, 51, 71, 74, 77, 95, 149,
intellectual critique vi, 329, 333, 335, 177, 200, 243, 253, 283, 393, 399
342, 402 dialectical 10, 74, 95, 181, 185, 201,
Marxist critique 37, 62 406
social critique xxviii, 3, 31, 90, 102, differentiation x, xiii, 17, 22–3, 60, 103,
107, 127, 140, 171, 200, 219, 325, 173, 176–8, 180–1, 183–4, 197,
344, 387 226–7, 275, 295, 360, 362, 372,
critical sociology xxvii, 66, 176, 204, 215, 374, 382, 386, 391
247, 252, 264, 329, 376, 379–80, discourse 25, 29–30, 49, 68, 123, 130,
392, 402 202, 204, 216, 225, 227, 263, 265,
critical theory v–vii, ix, xi, xiii, xviii, xxix, 280–4, 296, 306, 313–14, 320,
57, 173, 193, 198, 200–4, 208, 323–4, 326, 372, 391, 401, 406
213–18, 220, 227, 299, 365, 385, disembodied xxi, 263, 381–2, 392
388, 390 disembodiment 74, 88
culturalism / culturalist 36, 41, 51–2, disempowerment 184, 190, 198, 200, 202,
312–13 383, 390
culture iv–v, viii, x, xviii, xxiii, xxv–xxvi, disempowering xxvi, 88, 373, 388
xxviii, 3–4, 19–20, 26–7, 29–32, disenchantment 46, 115, 307, 401
36, 43–4, 51–3, 55–7, 72–3, 83, 99, disinterestedness 15–16, 134, 339
102, 104–6, 120, 123, 126–7, 134, disinterested 28, 123, 128, 131–2,
138–9, 141, 150–2, 170–1, 173–80, 134–5, 137, 183, 232, 369, 376, 400
182–202, 206, 220–1, 224–6, 236, see also interest
244, 248, 252, 261, 268–9, 298, disposition 10, 12, 20, 34, 47, 67, 73–4,
311–13, 315, 317–19, 325–6, 330, 78–9, 81–3, 86, 88, 98–100, 102,
333–4, 362, 364–5, 369, 372, 105, 127, 147, 150–1, 165, 170,
381–2, 385–8, 402 206, 229, 232–3, 239, 250–60, 262,
cultural consumption 44, 53, 104, 182, 264, 267, 279, 281–2, 284, 288–9,
195, 387 321, 352–3, 375, 379, 382, 393–6,
cultural field: see field 398–9
cultural production v, 21, 55, 94, 119, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement
141, 149, 151–2, 171, 173, 176–8, of Taste (Bourdieu) xxviii, 3, 31, 107,
183, 193, 195, 197–8, 201, 243, 140, 171, 200, 219, 325, 344
365, 385–6 domination viii, xi, xxii, xxvii, 6, 17, 24–6,
cultural sociology iv–v, xviii–xix, xxii, 33, 35, 41, 51, 55–6, 85, 87, 96,
1, 3, 5, 13, 29–30, 239, 367, 369 101, 105–7, 115, 119, 121, 124,
cultural world 179–80, 182, 261 138, 151, 162, 169, 171, 181–2,
culture industry xxvi, 55, 174, 184–93, 185, 190–6, 198, 201–2, 216, 220,
198–200, 385, 387 225, 232, 234, 255, 262, 284, 296,
Index of Subjects 425

318, 324, 333–4, 338, 340, 344, embodied xxi, 39, 77, 83, 88, 98, 151,
365, 373, 387–8, 394, 401–2, 406 174, 194, 228, 232, 240–1, 259,
doxa xxviii, 33, 44, 48, 344, 348, 371, 263, 265, 272, 281, 284, 287–8,
389, 402, 409 292, 294, 310, 335, 384, 386, 392
doxic 348, 399 empirical vii, x, xiv, xxi, xxiv–xxv, 1, 4,
doxic complicity 195 7–8, 22, 92–3, 96, 99–100, 105,
Durkheimian xxi, xxix, 10, 33, 37, 51, 54, 132, 146–7, 150–1, 153, 160, 167,
91, 93–4, 97, 100, 102, 105–6, 109, 208, 218, 229, 238, 249, 252, 254,
146, 255, 261, 276, 308–10, 314, 256, 258–9, 271–3, 282, 311, 318,
375–8 339, 370, 373–4, 391
empiricism / empiricist xvii, 250, 256,
economic: 258, 276, 294, 364, 402
economic base 189 empowerment 184, 190, 198, 200, 202,
economic behaviour 111, 311 382, 390, 408
economic capital: see capital empowering xxii, xxvi, 151, 158,
economic determinism 161 163–4, 235, 373, 388, 394, 397,
economic field: see field 399, 403
economic interests: see interest empowered 152, 180, 299, 370
economics xv, xix–xx, 15, 176, 239–40, England 137, 161–2, 317
244, 363 enlightenment / Enlightenment 41, 53,
economies / economy vii–viii, xxiii, xxvi, 74, 127, 187, 200, 227
xxviii, 14, 17, 19–20, 40–1, 47, 57, epistemology ix, xxvii, 93–4, 97, 297–9,
81, 114, 123, 173, 176, 178–9, 181, 306, 313, 315, 324
189–90, 193–4, 197–8, 201, 237, epistemological break 316
243–4, 224, 268, 299, 311, 347, epistemological critique 337
349, 353, 356, 359–64, 368, 379, equality 43, 61, 210, 215, 226, 334
385–8, 393, 406, 408 Erklärung (explanation) 187
economism 16, 20, 161 espace des possibles / espaces des possibles 369
education x, xviii–xix, xxviii–xxix, 1–2, ethics xvi, xxix, 89, 138, 202, 228
22, 24, 29, 31, 42, 53, 56–7, 78, ethnicity 25, 158, 160, 171, 224
102, 126, 143, 150, 158, 169, 171, ethnography ix, xii, 243–4
175, 199, 201, 303, 311–12, 315, ethnology 66–7, 86–8, 91, 99–101, 105–6,
319, 323–4, 326, 334, 364, 371, 109, 113, 249, 375
386, 401–2 Europe ix, xviii, 96, 157, 223, 225, 243,
educational 1–3, 43, 45, 52, 126, 150–1, 309, 392
285, 287, 310–12, 319–20, 322–3, European xiii–xiv, xvii–xix, 50, 57, 102,
369–70, 390, 402 108, 141, 224–6, 229, 235, 238,
educational capital: see capital 267, 307, 319, 326, 373, 393
educational field: see field everyday life 28, 42, 49, 104, 126, 237,
Eliasian 165, 172, 384–5 240, 266, 287, 338, 349
emancipation xxii, xxvii, 185, 188, 193, evolution 61, 98, 164, 242, 298, 336, 343,
196–7, 199, 202, 224, 341, 373, 364, 372, 386, 402
388, 394, 403 existentialism xx, 113, 124, 306
emancipated 186
emancipatory xxii, xxiv–xxvi, 47, 191, fatalism 42, 56, 405
196, 199–200, 265, 338, 383, 388, fatalistic 262, 405
404–5 field (champ) 3, 8–10, 14–15, 19–26, 30,
embodiment 53, 87, 190, 228, 241 33–4, 40, 45, 47, 50, 54–6, 68,
426 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

70, 75, 88, 94, 96, 98, 101, 105, 319, 322, 326, 329, 333–4, 342–3,
107–8, 116–20, 126, 129–30, 141, 362, 370, 373, 375, 377–8, 383,
146, 149–53, 156–8, 161–3, 165–9, 394, 401–2
171, 176–83, 195–7, 199, 201, Francophone xvii–xviii, 370
208, 211, 213–15, 217–19, 228–9, Frankfurt School 201, 203, 208, 226, 333
232–5, 238–41, 247–9, 251–2, 255, freedom xxiv–xxv, 13, 23, 29, 43, 117,
257, 259, 287, 290–1, 296, 315, 122, 135, 146, 201, 224, 240, 249,
319, 325, 330–3, 336–9, 341, 343, 264, 273, 305, 334, 340–1, 380,
352–5, 363–5, 368–71, 375–6, 379, 395, 397, 401
382, 384–6, 389–93, 395, 400–1, Freudian 79–80
405, 409 functionalism xv, 8–10, 25, 96, 130
academic field 129, 370–1 functionalist xx, 240, 272, 392
artistic field 8, 22, 102, 182, 332, 336, functionalists 11
343 fundamentalism 226
conceptual field 216 fundamentalist 237–8
cultural field 28, 34, 44, 49, 176–81,
231, 330, 369, 371, 403 game xxv, 14, 20, 26, 44, 51–2, 65, 70, 85,
economic field 178, 181, 330, 353, 123, 126, 128, 130, 138, 147, 150,
354, 358, 362–3 153, 162, 164–5, 170, 187, 240,
educational field 45 293, 296, 319, 331, 340–1, 352–5,
financial field 361–2 374, 385, 404
intellectual field 93, 113–14, 122, 403 gaze 43, 47, 53, 99, 214, 261, 343, 400
literary field 31, 55, 108, 116, 152, gender vii, xix, 53, 158, 201, 210, 237,
171, 344 320, 363, 365
phenomenal field 211, 214–15, 217 German x, xiii, xvii, xxv, 1, 3, 30, 42,
political field 332, 337, 339–40, 343 53–4, 57, 59, 62–4, 67, 90, 93,
scientific field 95, 330–3, 337, 339, 112–13, 122–3, 132, 134, 137, 139,
343, 403 146, 174, 199, 203, 211, 227, 295,
social field 10, 23–4, 128, 146, 150, 307, 370, 373, 377, 383
178, 181–2, 239, 241, 250, 257–8, German idealism xx, 373
291, 296, 352–3, 368–70, 384–5, Germany vii, ix, xi, xiii, 18, 29–30, 62,
390–1, 394–5, 398, 403, 406–7 133, 156, 168, 224, 301–2, 322, 333
sociological field 146, 209 Gesellschaft 112, 116, 124, 175, 190, 192,
theoretical field 341 220
Foucauldian 136 globalisation 4, 26, 29, 224, 265, 391
France vii, xvi–xviii, xxviii, 1–4, 29–30, grammar vi, 19, 68, 70, 203–5, 220, 285,
64, 89, 103, 108–9, 111–12, 114, 296–7, 388
122–3, 124, 133, 137, 139, 143, grammarian 285–6, 296
149–51, 159, 161, 200, 202, 223, Grandes Écoles 43, 107, 325
229–30, 243, 244, 256, 286, 297,
302–3, 310, 312, 317, 319–21, Habermasian 202, 215, 340, 404–5
325–6, 378, 401 habitus vi, xviii, xxiii, xxv–xxvi, 12–15,
French vii, x, xvi–xix, xxviii, 2–4, 17, 20–4, 26, 28, 30, 33–4, 38, 40, 41,
23–4, 29–32, 35, 38, 41–3, 47, 47, 51, 53–4, 56, 68, 74, 79–80,
51, 54, 89, 91–3, 103, 105, 109, 82–5, 94, 96, 98–9, 101, 104–5,
111–13, 119, 123–4, 129–30, 134, 107, 117, 128, 130–1, 135, 146–51,
136, 139, 141, 146, 150–2, 167, 153, 156–8, 161–3, 165–7, 169–70,
170, 230–1, 244, 249, 266, 268, 172, 179–81, 199, 201, 206, 208,
285–6, 297, 302–3, 307, 310–12, 211, 219, 228–9, 232–4, 239–41,
Index of Subjects 427

243, 247–53, 255–69, 271–3, 195, 224, 231–2, 239–40, 242, 297,
277–9, 281–2, 284, 286–91, 293–4, 308, 318, 365, 391
296–7, 331, 343, 352–5, 364–5, illusio 20–1, 119, 153, 208, 239, 389
368–71, 376, 379, 382, 384–5, 389, imperialism xiv, 141
392–3, 395–9, 403, 409 In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive
Hegelian 53, 203, 313 Sociology (Bourdieu) 31, 51, 55, 108,
hegemony 29, 51, 180, 357–8, 360–1 171, 344
hermeneutic / hermeneutics ix, 143, 243, Indonesia 224
284, 296, 298–9, 313, 402 institution(s) xv–xvi, xviii, 1–2, 25, 37, 52,
heteronomy 177–9, 185–7, 190, 399 97, 101, 149–51, 153, 169, 174–5,
hexis 228, 240 223, 227, 230–1, 233, 235, 238–9,
hierarchy 16, 18, 27, 36, 42, 45, 103–4, 241, 261, 263, 268, 281, 284, 287,
130, 210, 385, 399 309, 313, 319, 330, 334, 338–40,
historical materialism xxv, 33, 35, 83, 371–3 343, 362, 384, 386, 391, 396, 401
historicisation / historicist 97–8, 105, 305, institutionalisation xx, 162, 265,
376, 401 314, 323
historiography 97, 105–6, 168, 375 intellectuals xv–xvi, 2, 4, 27–30, 34, 41,
history viii–ix, xiv, xvii–xviii, xx–xxi, xxiii, 45, 95, 103, 107, 113, 122–3, 141,
14, 24, 30–1, 51, 53, 61–2, 82–4, 156, 223, 241, 329–30, 332–3, 335,
86–7, 91, 94, 96–9, 106–8, 112–13, 338, 342, 405
116, 118, 122–3, 126, 132–3, 136, interest viii, xi, xiii, xiv, xvi, xviii–xix, xxvi,
141, 143, 150, 172, 175, 186–7, 2, 4–7, 10–12, 14–15, 19–22, 24,
193, 196, 199, 201, 225, 231, 234, 35, 37, 44–5, 52–3, 55, 66, 72, 94,
236, 251, 256, 260, 264, 269, 129, 134, 153, 155, 168, 182, 190,
298–9, 301–2, 305–6, 309, 329, 208–9, 212–13, 215–17, 223, 225,
331–2, 334, 336, 339, 342, 370, 228, 230–1, 233, 239, 242, 256,
379, 388, 400–1 274, 278, 286, 297, 312, 314–15,
Hobbesian 96 319, 329, 331–2, 337, 339–41, 343,
holism / holistic 189, 271, 275–6, 278, 359–60, 369–70, 372, 376, 380–2,
287–8, 294, 298, 368, 372 385, 388–90, 392–3, 396, 398, 402,
Homo Academicus (Bourdieu) 3, 31, 36, 45, 404, 406
55, 107, 132, 140–1, 143, 319, 325 economic interests 5, 15, 20, 340
homology 100, 169, 199, 336, 377, 379 Internet 57, 224
homological xxv–xxvi, 266, 368, 376, intersubjectivity xxiii, 390, 398–9
379, 394–6 intersubjective 66, 71, 168, 204, 212,
homologies 54, 101, 182, 332, 341–2 241, 273, 277–8, 280, 283–4, 288,
Honnethian 207, 388–9 293–6, 299, 389
Husserlian 252, 260, 396, 407 invested / investment 34, 37, 52, 122,
165, 322, 362, 380
idealism / idealist xx, 21, 33, 37, 68, 174, Islam 111, 225, 229, 243
239, 301, 307, 312–13, 373 Islamic 120, 225–6
ideal type 119, 336–7, 340–1, 343
identity 4, 13, 23–4, 51, 53, 60, 105, Jewish xiv–xv, 226, 233
187–8, 191, 204, 223–5, 250–1,
255–61, 273, 275, 284, 291, 295, Kabyle 3, 5, 9, 17, 88, 90, 100–1, 229,
297–9, 395 249, 268, 325
identity politics 223 Kantian 27, 93, 102, 104, 106, 127,
ideology xiv, xvi, 17, 25, 44, 48, 54, 57, 134, 136, 139, 150, 296, 331, 337,
59, 62–4, 67, 87, 90, 131, 185, 191, 381–2, 404
428 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Kantianism / anti-Kantianism 93, 106, linguistics xx, 69, 274, 285, 299
168, 306, 382 Luhmannian 22, 369
knowledge xxiii, xxv, xxviii, 1, 7–8, 10,
17–18, 26, 42–3, 50, 53, 55, 76, Machiavellian 339
78–9, 92, 94, 97–8, 105, 107, 113, magic 43, 47, 50, 233
123, 132, 133, 136, 140–1, 146–7, Malaysia 224
157, 163–4, 168, 172, 251, 260, market viii, 6, 37, 39, 54, 151, 167,
267, 274, 277, 281, 284, 297, 299, 177–80, 184, 187–94, 196, 198,
305–6, 314, 318, 338, 344, 364–5, 227, 235–9, 242, 244, 337, 347,
373, 376–7, 383, 400–1, 403–5 359–62, 364–5, 370, 386–7, 391,
practical knowledge 24, 81 393, 398, 408
scientific knowledge 54, 338, 375–7, labour market 103, 224
403 market of symbolic goods 179, 197, 201
sociology of knowledge xx, xxii, 129, Marxian xxi, 15, 61–6, 68, 102, 118, 371,
131, 251, 297 373–4, 377–8, 392
theoretical knowledge 107, 316 Marxism xiv–xvi, 15–16, 19, 29, 31, 33–4,
Kuhnian 248 36–8, 42, 50, 53, 57, 63, 113, 115,
201, 231–2, 325, 371–2, 391
labour vii, x, xxi, 17, 33–4, 36, 39–40, 43, Marxist v, viii, xvi, xx, xxii, xxv, xxix, 19,
45, 51, 61–7, 71, 87, 90, 95, 103, 33–8, 40, 46, 50–3, 60, 64, 66, 72,
119, 182, 191, 210, 224, 237, 329, 84, 104, 113–14, 161, 189, 193–4,
347–8, 356–7, 363, 374, 403, 406 223–4, 239, 318–19, 370–1, 378–9
language vi, viii, ix, xi, xix–xx, xxii–xxv, Masculine Domination (Bourdieu) 35, 55–6,
xxvii, 4, 7, 15, 20, 25, 33, 38, 41, 101, 151, 162, 171, 338
48, 51, 57, 69, 74, 76–7, 135, 139, metaphysics xx, 298, 313
148, 156, 164, 201, 211, 249, 271– method xviii, 10–11, 35, 51, 64, 92, 95,
80, 283–9, 291, 294–9, 314–15, 97, 101, 109, 123, 148, 171–2, 242,
320, 331, 373, 383, 397–9, 404 298, 302, 314, 322, 326, 361, 364,
Language and Symbolic Power (Bourdieu) 34, 371
37, 55, 108, 200, 219, 298 methodological individualism /
Latin America xiv, 228, 231 methodological individualist 113,
law 8, 29, 39, 41, 97, 103, 120–1, 123, 166, 378
138, 151, 187–8, 229, 233–4, methodology 107, 166, 173, 310, 312, 316
277–8, 285, 295, 308, 343 migration xiv, xix, 224, 244, 400
legitimacy xxvi–xxvii, 24–5, 28, 34, 177, misrecognition 43, 231, 280, 282
180–4, 193–5, 198–200, 230–1, modern society v, xiii, xv, xxvi–xxvii, 18,
244, 278, 314, 317, 332, 335–6, 62, 65, 105, 133, 173–5, 177–8,
341, 343, 388, 390, 392, 398, 402–5 183–4, 193–8, 223, 236, 241,
legitimation 25, 51, 55, 126, 181, 183, 385–8, 391, 401, 409
230, 242, 339, 387–8 modernisation xiii, 142, 176, 223, 225–7,
Leicester School xv, xxix 235, 321
liberalism xiv, xvii, 29, 54, 230, 264, 323, modernity vii, 22, 41, 51, 55, 97, 143,
347–8, 361–2, 365 201, 223, 225, 227, 237, 242–4,
libertarian 322 296, 299, 330
libido 208 money xxvii, 17, 30, 32, 43, 47, 51, 126,
lifeworld 37, 281, 284, 307, 373, 395, 398 143, 164, 356, 358–60, 408
Lille 112, 115, 303, 312 music xx, 26–8, 53, 100, 125–6, 139, 259
linguistic turn 271, 397 Muslim(s) xi, xix, 111, 224–5, 244
Index of Subjects 429

nationalism 223–4 140–3, 171–2, 200–2, 218–19, 264,

nationalist 225 268–9, 301–3, 322–7, 344–5, 377
necessity xxiv, 27, 49, 73–4, 80–1, 87, Paris Commune 35, 322
104–5, 135, 184–5, 191, 196, 240, Parisian 301, 304, 323
307, 324, 397 Parsonian xv
neo-Kantian 93–4, 112, 306–7 Pascalian Meditations (Bourdieu) xxviii, 3,
neoliberal / neoliberalism xii, xix, 348, 365 31, 52, 56, 171, 336–7, 344, 364,
neo–liberal / neo–liberalism 54, 264, 323, 409
347–8, 361–2 peasant(s) 27, 40, 42, 46, 51, 53, 57, 88,
neo-Marxist 193–4 106, 122, 229, 316
neo–utilitarian 11, 14, 21 performance(s) 6, 34, 40, 68, 182, 271,
network(s) 7, 18, 76, 146–7, 154–5, 159, 277–83
164, 167, 169, 248, 318, 353, 364, phenomenological vi, 9, 42, 45, 57, 70–1,
384 83, 124, 148, 247, 252, 258, 260,
Nietzschean 124, 132–3, 136, 380, 382 266–7, 326, 393, 395
normativity 205, 278, 369, 375, 388–90, phenomenology xx, 10, 57, 113, 168, 247,
396, 398–400, 404 251–2, 260, 262, 269, 306–7, 315,
North Africa xvi, 111 326, 364, 395
philosophy vii–ix, xi, xv–xvii, xix–xxi,
objectivation 101 xxiii–xxv, 2, 4, 7–8, 13, 31–2,
objectivism / objectivist 9–10, 38–40, 65, 43, 57, 92–3, 97, 99, 101–2, 105,
93, 130, 248, 258, 261, 268, 374, 394 108–9, 112–13, 120–1, 123–4,
objectivity 38–9, 93, 132, 188, 197, 299, 126–7, 133, 136–7, 141, 143, 190,
316, 341, 368, 370, 376–7, 379, 201–2, 220, 242, 250, 252, 258–61,
381–2, 396–7, 399–400, 404 271, 295, 297–9, 301–2, 309–10,
ontologies / ontology xix, xxviii, 10, 97, 312, 314, 326, 343, 362–3, 374,
108, 141, 168, 315, 380 378, 380–1, 397, 399–400, 402
order xvi, 25, 35, 37–8, 41, 49, 61, 78, 86, Photography: A Middle-Brow Art (Bourdieu)
93, 96–7, 102, 104, 117, 120–1, 125, 3, 31, 102, 108, 141
134, 142, 149, 155, 164, 187, 197, pluralism 235–7
205, 217, 229, 264, 274, 277–8, 295, Poland 224–5, 228, 231, 238
298, 312, 318, 333, 338, 398 political science(s) x–xi, 302, 315, 343,
ordinary order 49 402
political order 48 political theory xi, xxix, 223, 244, 400
social order 38, 41, 96, 142, 195, 229, politics vi, xi–xii, xvi, xx, xxiii, xxvii, 8, 22,
231, 289, 387 49, 56–7, 89, 100, 119, 142, 217,
orthodoxy 33, 49, 54, 113–14, 177, 232, 223–4, 228–9, 235, 243, 262, 285,
309, 353–4 301–4, 309, 312–13, 318, 324, 329,
Outline of a Theory of Practice (Bourdieu) 331–3, 335, 337–9, 341–3, 350,
xxviii, 3–5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 31, 40, 55, 363–4, 393, 400, 402, 404
66, 71, 73, 75, 88–9, 200, 242, 297, position xi, xix, xxi, xxiv–xxvi, 4, 6, 8–9,
317, 325, 364, 367, 409 14, 16, 18, 21, 24–5, 34, 36, 43,
47–8, 51, 54, 61, 65, 70–6, 78, 80,
paradigm xxvii, 7, 54, 66, 68–9, 119, 84, 87, 97–8, 100, 102–5, 122,
235–9, 244, 247–9, 251–2, 255–6, 127–8, 132, 149–54, 156, 159–60,
266, 279, 281, 370, 391, 393–4 162, 169, 181, 206, 208, 211,
Paris vii–xi, xix, xxvii–xxix, 2, 30–1, 41, 228–9, 231–2, 238, 255–6, 259,
56–7, 89–90, 107–9, 119, 124, 278, 283, 286, 291, 296, 301–2,
430 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

305–6, 313, 315–20, 323–4, 332–6, 367–8, 372–4, 376, 378–80, 392–4,
341, 349, 352, 362–3, 372, 376, 397–8, 405, 407–8
379, 382, 389, 392–4, 396, 398–400 pragmatism xiv, xviii–xix, 12, 148, 228,
position–takings 75, 100, 152 242, 402
positivism xvii, 92, 313, 315 pragmatists 166
post–war xiii, xvi–xvii, 123, 223, 236 praxeology / praxeological 221, 368, 408
postcolonial / post–colonial xviii, xxv, praxis 29, 31, 34, 52, 96, 141, 221
xxvii, 88 production v, 1–2, 9–10, 13, 20–1, 23,
postmodern 92, 109, 365, 373 40–1, 44, 52, 55, 59–64, 67–8, 72,
postmodernists 118 84, 86–8, 94, 119, 133, 141, 149,
poststructuralist(s) 48, 283, 296 151–2, 171, 173, 175–80, 183, 193,
power ix, xiv, xvi, xix–xx, xxii–xxvi, 195–8, 201, 228, 243, 277, 285–6,
xxviii–xxix, 4, 10, 16, 25, 29, 34–8, 298, 313–14, 322, 324, 331–2, 336,
40, 47–8, 50, 54, 61, 65–7, 70, 72, 348, 351, 356–8, 360, 365, 372–4,
78, 86, 88–9, 94, 102, 105, 108, 385–6, 400, 403–5, 408
113, 116, 119, 121, 123–6, 129–38, forces of production (productive forces)
146, 149–55, 158–67, 169–70, 372
172, 175–81, 184–5, 189–90, 192, means of production 61–2, 161
195–6, 198, 202, 216, 221, 230–3, mode of production 46, 61, 83–4, 86,
239, 242, 251, 256–7, 265, 273, 180, 380, 408
282–4, 288–9, 294, 296–7, 299, relations of production 46, 104, 372
318, 322, 325–6, 330–1, 333–4, profit(s) 16, 19, 22, 44, 164, 169, 200, 356
337–8, 340–4, 348–9, 367, 369–73, profitability 408
375–6, 378–82, 384–8, 391–2, Protestant / Protestantism xiii, xxix, 36,
395–7, 399, 401, 403, 405–6, 408–9 111, 224, 228, 244
balance of power 154, 170, psychoanalysis xx, 79, 250, 266, 268, 374
social power 199, 211, 280, 289, 296, psychoanalytical 78, 101
372, 382, 384–5, 388–90 psychological 148, 226, 232, 250–3, 255,
symbolic power 35, 38, 55, 108, 129, 258–9, 263, 268, 276, 295
138, 160, 176, 180, 200, 216, 244, psychology 70, 99, 167, 170, 172, 250,
278, 284, 286, 288, 368, 370, 372, 252, 255, 258, 276, 298–9, 303
390, 398–9 public opinion 337
practical reason 200, 381 public sphere vi, xxiii–xxiv, 20, 212, 214–
Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action 15, 217, 223, 226, 296, 329–30,
(Bourdieu) 31, 56, 108, 219, 344 335–8, 340–2, 344, 390, 402, 404
practical sense 105, 165, 179, 201, 281
practice vi, xviii–xix, xxiii, xxv–xix, 1, ‘race’ 160, 308–9
3–5, 7, 9–10, 12–13, 16–17, 20, ‘racial’ viii, xiv, 160, 166, 308
24–5, 30–1, 33–4, 39–40, 59, 63, rational action 11, 166, 240, 329, 370,
65–89, 93–5, 98–105, 108, 121, 393, 399
123, 128, 130–1, 134–5, 141, rational choice 11–12, 40, 235, 238,
147–8, 152, 157, 159, 171, 176, 242–4, 393
179, 200, 202, 205–6, 210–12, 214, rationalisation 137, 190, 227, 391
216, 223–4, 227–30, 232–3, 235–6, rationalism 91–3, 105, 168, 187, 337, 375,
239–42, 248–9, 254, 258, 267, 272, 404
278–82, 284–4, 287–9, 292, 294, rationality 12, 17, 40, 55, 215, 242, 299,
296–9, 302, 314, 332, 335, 338–9, 314, 341, 399, 404–5
341–2, 347, 349, 352, 354–63, critical rationality xxii
Index of Subjects 431

disinterested rationality 400 reflexivity 12, 36, 130, 142, 240, 255, 257,
economic rationality 16, 40 267, 271, 296–7, 299, 313, 338,
ends–means–rationality 190 365, 375–6, 395, 397, 399–400,
Enlightenment rationality 227 403, 405
instrumental rationality 185, 215, 387 regulation 6, 66, 75, 163, 238, 362
religion and rationality 225, 243 relation:
social rationality 403 relation between fields of artistic
scientific rationality 403 production and fields of economic
theoretical rationality 2 production 178
Realpolitik vi, xxii, 46, 107, 329–30, 332–4, relation between habitus and agency
339, 341–2, 373, 402, 404–5 277
reason vi, xii, xxii–xxiii, 6, 13, 15, relation between individuals and their
19–20, 26, 44, 46, 52, 76, 81–3, social environment 248
92–3, 98, 118, 122, 125, 128, relation between language and power
141, 145, 157, 225, 230, 232, 284
243, 247, 250, 265, 267, 278, relation between nature and culture 73
280–1, 283, 287, 294–5, 297–8, relation between necessity and freedom
306, 329–42, 373, 381, 383–4, 397
389, 391–2, 399, 402–6 relation between sociology and
communicative reason 403, 405 ethnology 87
critical reason xxvii, 403–5 relation between taste and education
cynical reason 373 126
historical reason 306 relation between time and events 359
instrumental reason 37 relation between Weber and Nietzsche
normative reason 283, 399 123
political reason xxvii, 403–4 relational vii, xxii, 8, 11, 24, 52, 54, 63,
practical reason 31, 56, 108, 200, 219, 102, 105, 145, 147, 149, 151–3,
344, 381 156, 158–9, 166, 168, 172, 202,
reasoning 99, 163, 226, 315, 326, 334, 370, 374, 376–7, 384, 399
343, 377, 391–2 relationalism 368
scientific reason 95, 108, 373, 403–4 relationalist 368
theoretical reason 381 relationship:
recognition xxiii, xxv, 34, 98, 102, 203–5, relationship between a thought and its
207–13, 215–16, 218–20, 231, 330, object 267
388–90 relationship between competition and
fundamental recognition 52, religious dynamism 238
mutual recognition 204 relationship between culture and
official recognition 42, 343 domination 198, 388
political recognition 209, 212–13, 215, relationship between culture and
217–18 economy 198, 387
reciprocal recognition 205, 389–90 relationship between culture and
social recognition xxvi, 205, 210, emancipation 199, 388
212–13, 215, 217, 389–90 relationship between culture and
universal recognition 343 history 199, 388
reductionism 21, 232, 282, 340 relationship between culture and
reductionist 66, 289 legitimacy 198, 388
reflexive sociology 128, 130–2, 135–6, relationship between culture and
201, 240–1, 368, 382 society 175
432 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

relationship between habitus and field anthropology of religion 241, 379

353 authenticity of religion 236
relationship between habitus and the Bourdieu’s interpretation of religion
social world 262 231
relationship between Honneth’s critical decline of religion xiv, 225, 291
theory and Bourdieu’s critical ‘deprivatisation’ of religion 227
sociology 204 discussion of religion 228–9
relationship between interest rates and economic approach to religion 235
the time to maturity of a bond 359 economic interpretation of religion
relationship between language, habitus, 235
and symbolic power 399 European theories of religion 235
relationship between modern culture field of religion 8
and modern society 173, 197 historical understanding of religion
relationship between philosophy and 236
empirical psychology 258 history of religion 123
relationship between religious activity institutions of religion 230
and competition or deregulation management of religions 224
238 marginalisation of religion 227, 391
relationship between secular and Marx’s view of religion 229
religious xxvi philosophers of religion 228
relationship between social science and place of religion in civil society 227
political action 304, 400 political economy of religion 114, 379
relationship between structure and presence of religion xxiv
agency 241 privatisation of religion 226
relationship between the consumer and public nature of religion 227
the consumed 183 rational choice model of religion 235
relationship between the ‘corporatism religion viii–ix, xi, xxiii, 8, 44, 48, 59,
of the universal’ and the ‘public 100, 113, 115–16, 119–21, 123,
sphere’ 404 148, 158, 223–32, 234–45, 379,
relationship between time and 390–3
contemporary economic practices resilience of religion xiv, 235, 393
358 return of religion 224
relationship between the habitus and revival of religion 391
the social world 352 role of religion 227, 229
relationship between the state and science of religion 230
religion 239 social scientific accounts of
relationship between time and events religion 241
359 sociological significance of
relationship between time and money religion xxv
359 sociologies of religion 47
relationship between time and sociologists of religion 225, 227–8
phenomena 360 sociology of religion vi, xi, xix, xxii,
relationship between Weber and 55, 114–16, 118, 223, 225–30, 233,
Nietzsche 123 235, 239–45, 379, 390–93
relativism 267, 280, 317, 331, 373, 404 student of religion 228
relativist 266, 317 study of religion 229–31, 236, 241–2
religion: theory of religion 236
analysis of religion 44, 241, 392 Weber’s treatment of religion 230
Index of Subjects 433

reproduction xviii, xxii, xxv, 9, 13, 23–4, social science(s) viii, ix, xv, xix–xxii,
28–9, 35, 42–3, 46, 53, 60–1, 67, xxiv–xxv, xxvii, 8, 64, 66, 68, 89,
72, 75, 83–4, 87, 96, 106–7, 117, 91, 93–4, 101, 105–6, 115, 126,
126, 141, 146, 150–1, 167, 176–9, 166, 247, 249, 269, 271, 296,
181, 185–6, 192, 194, 198, 220, 298–9, 304, 308–10, 313, 324,
247, 251–2, 264, 286, 298, 317, 332–4, 336, 338, 341–2, 367, 370,
325–6, 348, 379, 383, 392, 394, 374–6, 378–9, 394, 400–2
401, 408 scientific 2, 46, 49, 54, 67, 91–2, 94–6, 99,
Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture 105, 108, 117–18, 123, 136, 156,
(Bourdieu) xviii, xxviii, 31, 56, 150, 226, 241, 248, 293, 302, 307–10,
171, 201, 326 314–16, 318, 322, 330–4, 336–8,
resources xxii, xxvi–xxvii, 16, 18, 56, 60, 342–3, 373, 376–7, 393, 400–5, 407
82, 85, 89, 146, 149, 151, 158, 161, scientific capital 92
181, 232, 266, 277–8, 282, 290, scientific field 95, 330–3, 337, 339,
293, 321, 348–9, 361–2, 368, 370, 343, 403
372, 375, 384–5, 387, 390, 398, scientific knowledge 54, 338, 375–7,
401–2, 406–7, 409 403
revolution 35–6, 45, 47–50, 54, 66, 98, scientificity 376
102, 120, 126, 225, 286, 321–3, Science of Science and Reflexivity (Bourdieu)
372, 378, 381 56, 344
French Revolution 47, 230 scientism 329, 335, 342, 405
Iranian Revolution 223, 225, 227 self (the self) xvi, 57, 71, 77, 81, 85, 155,
Roman Catholicism 224, 229–30 240, 244, 255–6, 260, 263, 276,
rule 3, 5–7, 14, 20, 22–3, 25, 31, 37, 40, 282, 297, 299
47, 55, 68, 74, 77–8, 80, 92, 102, selves 148, 183, 287, 294
108–9, 130, 148, 151–2, 155, 171, semiotic vi, xx, 271–7, 279, 281, 290, 297,
250, 267, 276–81, 283, 285, 292–3, 299, 397
295–7, 306–7, 309, 314, 326, 337, semiotic structuralism: see structuralism
341, 344, 362, 365, 367, 385, 408 semiotics xx, 274–5, 297, 299
Russia 224, 238 sex 25
sexist 164
Saussurian 7, 277, 279, 285 sexuality vii, 75, 136, 141, 230, 281, 298
schemata 13, 28, 98, 105, 206, 249–50, Simmelian 377
253–6, 258–9, 266–7 Singapore xi, 225
scholastic xxi, xxiv–xxv, 37, 67, 91, 95, social action 68, 97, 170, 203, 206, 213,
113, 166, 312, 373–6, 380–1, 400, 232, 251, 259, 265–6, 313, 367,
404 388–9, 394, 405
scholastic fallacy 368 social and political theory xi, 223, 400
science xx, xxii–xxiii, 12, 22, 34, 37, 51, social class(es) xiv, 38, 55, 100, 126, 135,
54–7, 64, 76, 83, 89, 92–5, 97–8, 248, 254, 318
106–9, 112, 118, 124, 127, 132–4, social movements viii, xiv, xxiv, 212, 214,
143, 168, 196, 202, 224, 230, 217, 223, 247, 251–2, 264, 266,
266–7, 274, 296, 302–5, 307–11, 324, 333, 396
313–15, 317–18, 331–6, 338, social recognition: see recognition
340–4, 353, 363, 373, 391, 400–2 social struggle xxv, 15, 38, 103, 194–5,
critical social science xxi, 204–5, 207, 209–10, 212–15,
human sciences ix, 172, 298, 313, 337 217–18, 229, 252, 265, 297, 369,
natural science(s) 309, 313 382, 388–90
434 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

social theory iv, vi–xii, xviii, 30, 32, 39, genetic sociology 256
56, 64–5, 107, 198, 203, 206–7, genetic–structuralist sociology 252
213, 221, 235, 242, 247, 261, 265, German sociology 137, 302
267–8, 271, 273, 289, 295, 299, historical sociology 29, 97, 99, 106–7,
301, 347–8, 351, 357–8, 361–4, 123, 167
387, 389, 400, 405 Honneth’s sociology 390
Social Theory for a Changing Society (Bourdieu interpretive sociology xx
and Coleman) 171 mainstream sociology 227
socialisation 12, 18, 71, 73, 82–3, 87, 153, Marxist sociology xvi, xxix, 64, 239
155, 157, 164, 169, 170, 190, 240, materialist sociology xx, 149
259, 265, 287, 289, 295, 368 micro–sociology xx
socialism / socialist xxix, 50, 137, 290, modern sociology 383
308, 311–12, 391 moral sociology 124
socio–ontological xxvi, 199, 203, 208, national sociology xviii
373–4, 379, 393, 405 nineteenth–century sociology 136–7
sociology: North American sociology xiv–xv,
Anglo-American sociology xvi xvii–xix, 235
Anglophone sociology xiv, xvii, 383 organisational sociology 167
anti–sociology 137 Parsons’s sociology xiii
Bourdieu’s sociology xviii, xxii, xxv, Parsonian sociology xv
31, 53, 84, 91, 96, 130, 138, 204, political sociology viii, xix, xxii, 29,
206–7, 209, 213, 215, 217, 220–1, 129, 205–6, 213
240–1, 297, 403 pragmatic sociology 248
Bourdieusian sociology 375, 381 psychological sociology 253, 255, 268
bourgeois sociology xvi reflexive sociology 128, 130–2, 135–6,
British sociology xv 201, 240–1, 368, 382
classical sociology xix, xxiv, 375, 409 relational sociology vii, 172
comparative sociology xii, 229 religious sociology 230
constructivist sociology xx Simmelian sociology 377
contemporary sociology xix, 393 sociology as a meta–science 311
counter–sociology 137 sociology as a normative tool 373
critical sociology xxvii, 66, 176, 204, sociology as a science 310, 400–1
215, 247, 252, 264, 329, 376, sociology of aesthetics 126
379–80, 392, 402 sociology of Algeria 3, 304
cultural sociology iv–v, xviii–xix, xxii, sociology of art 251
1, 3, 5, 13, 29–30, 239, 367, 369 sociology of class xix, 128
disinterested sociology 132, 135 sociology of contingency 265
Durkheim’s sociology 97 sociology of conversion 240–1
Durkheimian sociology 97, 378 sociology of cultural consumption 53
economic sociology xix, xxii, 228, 239, sociology of culture viii, 17, 19, 26, 31,
249, 362, 365, 405 176, 220, 251, 318
empirical sociology 132 sociology of development 400
European sociology xiii–xiv, xviii, 235, sociology of domination 115, 138
248 sociology of education xviii, xix, 31,
Francophone sociology xviii 171, 319, 364, 402
French sociology vii, xvi–xvii, 266 sociology of experience xix, xxii
functionalist sociology xx sociology of French cultural
general sociology 176, 229, 232 institutions 2
Index of Subjects 435

sociology of gender vii, xix mapped space 69

sociology of human practices 176 mental space 169
sociology of knowledge xx, xxii, 129, phenomenal space 214
131, 251, 297 privileged space 69
sociology of language xix, xxii, xxvii public space(s) 43, 205, 212–13, 216–17
sociology of law 229 social space(s) xxv–xxvi, 9–10, 31, 36,
sociology of Pierre Bourdieu iv–v, 1, 55, 71–2, 80, 87, 96, 103–5, 150–1,
30, 63, 202, 205, 221, 247, 367, 409 169, 251, 257, 353, 372, 384, 407
sociology of piety 229 sociology of space: see sociology
sociology of power xix, xxii, 129 space of dispositions 100
sociology of practice 228 space of humanity 191
sociology of reason 403 space of lifestyles 103–4
sociology of recognition 213, 390 space of play and competition 130
sociology of religion vi, xi, xix, xxii, space of position–takings 100
55, 114–16, 118, 223, 225–30, 233, space of possibles 22
235, 239–45, 379, 390–93 space of practice 70
sociology of Schütz 252 spaces of positions 70, 100, 363
sociology of science 34 spaces of possibilities 369, 385
sociology of singularity 257 temporal space 70
sociology of social inequality 29 time and space 147
sociology of social movements 251 species 59–60, 72, 75, 103, 129, 149,
sociology of society 176 151–2, 169, 175, 363, 369, 397
sociology of space xx human species 60, 369, 405
sociology of sport 167 social species 97
sociology of structures 66 stake(s) 5, 15–16, 19, 51–2, 70, 83, 87,
sociology of symbolic power 129, 138 103, 105, 119, 122, 129, 164, 169,
sociology of taste 142, 381 181, 194, 239, 248, 255, 283, 286,
sociology of the body xviii, 241 292, 296, 340–1, 379, 381, 393
sociology of the past 97 state xi, xiv, xxix, 2, 7, 23, 30, 40, 42–3,
sociology of the plural actor 252 50, 53, 55, 61, 75, 88, 99–100, 108,
sociology of the unconscious 130 137–8, 152, 154, 156–7, 160–1,
sociology of time xx, xxii, 405 164, 167–72, 174, 188, 191, 196,
spontaneous sociology 315 214, 216, 224–7, 235, 238–40,
twentieth–century sociology 248 242–3, 250, 285–6, 294, 297,
Weber’s sociology 55, 114, 116, 138, 307–9, 311, 321, 325, 330, 332,
228, 230, 242, 393 334, 338–40, 349, 358, 362, 391
Weberian sociology 378 strategy / strategies 14–15, 17, 30, 38, 40,
Western European sociology xiv 69, 85, 98, 103, 130–1, 152, 163,
Sociology in Question (Bourdieu) 31, 108, 181, 208, 226, 229, 240, 286, 341,
141, 344, 364 343, 350, 399
solidarity xv, xxix, 36, 50, 83, 97, 219, structuralism iv–vi, 1–3, 6–11, 30–1, 33,
223, 228, 231, 309 40, 55, 70, 72, 81, 116, 206, 248,
Sorbonne ix, 112, 302–3, 309, 321 279, 367
space: anthropological structuralism 206, 229,
collective spaces 395 367
conceptual space 205 authentic structuralism 82
geometrical space 7 Bourdieu’s structuralism 65–6, 68, 70,
lived space 69 72–3, 77, 79, 81, 85–6, 88, 374
436 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

Bourdieusian structuralism 81, 266 systemic 52, 179–80, 186–7, 190–2,

constructivist structuralism 8, 248–9, 194–5, 198, 210, 213, 312, 369,
255, 266, 367 387–8, 408
critical structuralism 70, 266 systems theory xv, 22, 369
critique of structuralism 313
generative structuralism 202 taste x, xxiii, xxv, xxviii, 3, 13, 26–8,
genetic structuralism 247–51, 253, 31, 52, 95, 99–105, 107, 125–36,
255, 257, 259–61, 265–6, 268, 367, 139–40, 142, 147, 155, 162, 164,
372–3 171, 182, 200, 219, 236–37, 244,
Lévi-Straussian structuralism 68 325, 338, 344, 373, 380, 381–3, 394
(objectivist) structuralism 10 temporalisation xxvii, 347, 349, 354,
semiotic structuralism vi, 271–3, 279, 355–8, 360–1, 405, 408
290, 397 temporality 86–9, 349–51, 358, 363, 407
structuralism of practice v, 59, 65–6, experiences of temporality 41
68, 70, 72–3, 77, 79, 81, 84–6, 88, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on
373–4 Art and Literature (Bourdieu) 55, 151,
structuralist xx, 1–2, 5–7, 9, 11, 72, 171, 201
116–17, 162, 208, 231–2, 248, 252, The Logic of Practice (Bourdieu) xviii, 3, 31,
256, 258, 260, 266, 277, 279, 283, 77, 105, 108, 141, 171, 249, 298
295–6, 393–4, 397 The Love of Art: European Museums and
struggle(s) v, xvi, xxvi, 3, 14–15, 20, 22–3, their Public (Bourdieu, Darbel, and
25, 35, 45, 51, 66, 95, 100, 104–5, Schnapper) 102, 108, 141
113–14, 119, 122–3, 125–6, 129, The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger
131, 133–4, 138, 151–2, 154, 161, (Bourdieu) xix, xxviii, 108, 141
166, 169, 172, 180–1, 183–4, 192, The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the
194, 196–8, 203–18, 220–1, 224, Literary Field (Bourdieu) 31, 55, 108,
230–3, 241, 286, 303, 305, 333, 171, 344
337–40, 343, 368, 370–1, 378–81, The Social Structures of the Economy
385, 387–90, 392, 396, 398, 409 (Bourdieu) 353, 360, 362, 364
social struggle(s) xxv, 15, 38, 103, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of
194–5, 204–5, 207, 209–10, Power (Bourdieu) 55, 108, 325
212–15, 217–18, 229, 252, 265, The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in
297, 369, 382, 388–90 Contemporary Society (Bourdieu et al.)
subject(s): xxvii, 4, 31, 56, 108, 141, 219, 344,
human subject(s) 175, 182, 187, 364
189–90, 202, 396 theoreticism 63, 75, 95, 375–6
subjectivism / subjectivist 10, 38–9, 40, time:
65, 71, 75, 248, 368, 374, 394 Bourdieu’s conception of time 354
subjectivity xvi, xxvi, xxix, 82, 140, 190, categories and experience of time 351
204, 210, 239, 250–1, 257–60, 263, clock time 356–61, 363, 408
299, 368, 370, 377, 379, 381–2, empty time 45
384, 387, 390, 392, 394–7 events in time 350, 345–5, 361
superstructure: see base and superstructure experience of time 351–2
superstructural 389 formative time xxv
symbolic capital: see capital labour time 347
symbolic interactionism xiv, 9, 68 labour–time 39
symbolic violence 17, 25, 35, 43, 53, 96, leisure time 28
101, 195, 201, 212–13, 229, 342 mealtime experience 27
Index of Subjects 437

models of time 351 Ukraine 224

‘money is time’ xxvii, 358, 408 unconscious 5, 14, 23, 27, 43, 79–81,
normative account of time 349 100–1, 128, 130, 135, 148, 151,
‘open time’ 45 170, 206, 208, 250–2, 256–8,
operation of time 77 261–4, 267, 287, 289, 291, 293,
politicisation of time xxvii 331, 352, 354, 395–6
politics of time 350 universalism 42, 50, 53, 242, 310, 333, 338
positioning of time 350 universalist 280, 283, 368
restructuring of time 349, 361–2, 406 universalistic 43
reworking of time 349 universality xxii, 134, 178–9, 191, 196,
senses of time 45 332, 337, 339, 341, 381
sequence of time 354 university / universities vii–viii, ix–xi,
sociological account of time 351 xvii–xviii, 2–3, 18–9, 35, 45, 123,
sociology of time xx, xxii, 405 129, 139, 151, 301–5, 312, 315,
time and society xxvii, 356, 360, 408 317, 319–23, 333, 362
time and space 147 utilitarian 11–16, 19–21, 203–6, 208, 213,
time boundary 351 368, 370, 388
time in the making 351, 407 utopia 44–6, 56, 143, 197, 339
‘time is money’ xxvii, 356, 360, 408 utopian xv, 339
time structure 351 utopianism 37, 373
time–to–come 353
time yet–to–come 353 validity claims 279–82, 294, 398
units of time 347–357 value vii, ix, xviii, 5, 9, 34, 37, 43, 51–2,
totalitarian 118, 195, 307–9, 321; see also 76, 79, 88, 92, 134, 136–7, 139–40,
totalitarianism 157, 174, 178–80, 184, 189–91,
totalitarianism 192, 198, 303, 307–8, 313 193–4, 198, 204–5, 207, 210–11,
transcendence viii, 94, 175, 180, 186, 188, 217, 219, 226–7, 229, 233, 236,
190, 196, 281 250, 272, 278, 280, 283–4, 289,
transcendental 51, 57, 71, 94, 97, 120, 291–2, 294, 296–7, 306, 311, 316,
155, 174–5, 254, 259–60, 277, 320, 332–4, 340, 343, 348, 350,
292–3, 307, 313, 326, 331, 341, 358–9, 361, 364, 383, 386, 390,
368, 372–3, 381, 386 398–400, 404
transcendentalism xxi, 307, 404 Vietnam xvi, 224
transcendentality 381
transformation xxv, 35, 48–50, 52, 60–1, Weberian xv, xxi, 34, 51, 102, 111, 120,
63, 66, 78, 83, 98, 157, 162–4, 314, 377–8, 392, 400, 402
170, 173–7, 183, 192–3, 197–8, Wittgensteinian 132, 276, 279
210, 223–4, 226, 233–5, 240, 245, working class 34, 36, 42, 51, 53, 57, 104,
261–2, 273, 277, 279, 285, 359, 158–9, 170, 224, 259, 262, 315–16,
362, 364–5, 379, 384–8, 392, 394, 326; see also social class
401, 406–8 world:
trust 24, 298 academic world 122, 329
truth 17, 48, 50, 95, 98, 121–2, 129–32, cultural world 179–80, 182, 261
136, 138, 141, 186, 223, 279, 280, disenchanted world 226, 391
282, 284, 290, 296, 298, 307, 322, enchanted world 391
331, 337–8, 342, 344, 378, 381–2, human world
404 natural world 92
truth claims 280, 404 political world 122
438 THE LEGACY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU

pre–subjective world 263 world of meaning 295

scientific world 54, 310, 373 world of science 12
social world 7, 11, 15, 22, 25, 41, world of social science 378
65, 71, 77–8, 82, 86, 93, 98, 132, world of society 396
147–9, 181, 215, 248, 251, 255, world of sport 147, 149, 162
260, 262–3, 267, 283, 287, 295, world of surface 185
352, 363, 372, 375, 377, 379–80, world of the mundane 105
382–3, 401–2, 406–7 world of work 13
subjective world 39, 191, 263, 375
world of logic 37 Yugoslavia 224, 312