contemporary theory social science

1 1 6 I C H A P T E R F I V E

interestedness, and restraint. " On a still more general level, the term designates a "durable and generalized disposition that suffuses a person's action throughout an entire domain of life or, in the extreme instance, throughout all of life" (Carnic I 9 86 : 1 046). Bourdieu's concept of habitus represents, in part, an effort to revive the idea of habit in the broader and classical sense of the term.29

29, Camic's analysis demonstrates that this expanded notion of habit was abandoned by American sociology dur,i n g the early decades of the twentieth century. A very restricted defi­ nition came to be accepted and relegated to the lie l d of psychology i n a n effort to establish the discipline of sociolo!,'Y as distinct from psychology, Bourd i eu's concept of h a b i m s also i l l ustrates his refusal to accept the institutionalized d i vision of intellectual labor between con­ temporary sociology a n d psychology.

•

,

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

, i , i

, , ,

F IEL DS OF S T RUG G L E

F OR P OW ER

"Field" (champ) is a key spatial metaphor in Bourdieu's sociology. Field defines the structure of the social setting in which habitus operates. Bourdieu defines a fi eld as

a network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions. These posi­ tions are objectively defined, in their exi,,stence and i n the determinations they im­ pose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential simation (sitw) in the structure of the 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 th eir objective relation to other positions (domination, subordina­ tion, homology, etc.). (Bourdiell and Wacqllant 1 99 2 : 97)

Fields denote arenas of production, circulation, and appropriation of goods, services, knowledge, or status, and the competitive positions held by actors in their struggle to accumulate and monopolize these different kinds of capital. Fields may be thought of as structured spaces that are organized around specific types of capital or combinations of capital . ' For example , Bourdieu speaks o f the "intellectual field" to designate that matrix of insti­ tuti o n s , orga n i z;l t i o n s , a n d m a rkets in which symbolic producers, such as :Htists, w r i ters, a n d : l e: l d ' l i l i e s , c( ) m pete for sym b o l i c capital. Even science i tse l f \'I l l; s e l f- p rC H' i : l i l l l l ' d i l i g' i l l 's t c x ) ! r 'ssi ( ) n ( ) f o h j ectivity i s produced

I , 1 \ ' l I l l 'c i i ( , 1 1 ( I ,) �C' '' ' : I \ � C ' I ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' " d l i l l 1 1 1 ' 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 " " 1 I 1 'l ' I' I : , i l l o I i s l r i h l l l i C l I l 5 1 I ' l I l ' l 1 1 1'1' C it' ' " 1 1 1 1 ' I, i l l . ! C l I " I I I " I I 1 I. "

I I I

1 1 8 1 C H A P T E R S I X

within the framework of a field (Bourdieu 1 9 7 5b). Other field applications by Bourdieu include studies of social-class lifestyles (Bourdieu 1 9 84a), higher education institutions (Bourdieu 1 9 88b, 1 989c), religion (Bourdieu and de Saint Martin 1 9 8 2 ) , literature (Bourdieu 1 98 3 a , 1 9 88a), and housing policy (Bourdieu 1 99ob).

I begin this chapter with an examination of the origins and metatheo­ retical objectives of Bourdieu's field analytical perspective. I will then iden­ tify several structural features that characterize Bourdieu's fields and their interrelations, and consider the "field of power," which is the principal stratifying force i n Bourdieu's analysis of contemporary societies. Finally, I will show how Bourdieu relates his key concepts of habitus, capital, and field to formulate his general science of practices.

Origins of the Concept

The concept of field appears more recently i n Bourdieu's work than does habitus. The fiel d analytical method Bourdieu develops represents a gradual shift in his work that occured during the 1 9 70S and '80S. His debates i n the '60S with Marxism and structuralism, when he developed his concepts of cultural capital, habitus, strategies, and practices, gave way gradually to an increasing concern with fields. While the early concerns stemming from his philosophical training, his reading of classical sociology, and his field­ work i n Algeria persist, the concept of field receives proportionally more conceptual development and empirical application in more recent work.2 The concept emerged from the conjuncture in the late 1 9605 of Bourdieu's research in the sociology of art with his reading of Weber's sociology of religion (Bourdieu 1 9 8 7 b : 3 3 ) ' Bourdieu ( 1 9 7 I a , I 9 7 I C, 1 98 5 d , 1 99 2 : 2 60) first applied the concept to the French intellectual and artistic worlds as a means to call attention to the specific i nterests governing those cultural worlds.l

Field as Metathe01Y

As is the case with all of his concepts, the concept of field reflects the meta­ theoretical dimension of Bourdieu's thought. Bourdieu sees it as an "open concept" designed to correct for the various forms of subjectivism and ob-

2 . The concept is hardly mentioned i n Outline Ofrt Tbeo1J' of Pmdi({' ( Bo l i rd i c l i I <) 77c) h u t assumes a prominent analytical role in Tbe Logic ofPmctice r 1 9801 ( Bo l i rd i c l i I <)<Joh), t wo works that treat his Algerian fieldwork.

3 . The term itsel f is nor ncw r o t hc Frcllt'h i l l l cl lccl l I: 1 i lI'orld, s i l l (,l' i l W:lS C l l I l 'loycd hy horh I ' h c n ol l l cl I o l og i s t s ( M er le :1 1 I I 'I Il n y I 'l' l :' I (' } ) :1 1 1 . 1 t ' x i ,' I e ' 1 I 1 i : l i i ' I ', (. ": l rI rl' I 'l" , : H 7 ) ,

F I E l D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R 1 1 1 9

j ectivism he criticizes i n other prevailing ways of conceptualizing the rela­ tionship between social and cultural structures and practices.4

The concept of field is first of all a corrective against positivism. Fields are conceptual constructions based upon the relational mode of reasoning. "To think i n terms of field is to think relationally, " Bourdieu stresses (Bour­ dieu and Wacquant 1 9 9 2 : 96) .5 They illustrate Bourdieu's relational logic by encouraging the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations that shape action rather than properties given i n commonsense categories. By speaking of fields rather than of populations, groups, organizations, or i nstitutions, Bourdieu wants to draw attention to the latent patterns of i n­ terest and struggle that shape the existence of these empirical realities. Posi­ tivist conceptions of social location, such as "milieu, " "context," or even "social background" fail to highlight sufficiently tl1e conflictual character of social life.

Second, the concept of field i s a conduit for Bourdieu's polemic against class reductionism and vulgar materialism. As we shall see i n chapter 7, Bourdieu does hold a class perspective of modern societies. But the effects of class background, milieu, or context on individual behavior are never direct for Bourdieu; rather, they are always mediated through the structure of fields .

Third, the concept of field i s designed to reject idealist i nterpretations of cultural practices. Field a nalysis calls attention to the social conditions of struggle that shape cultural production. Even the seemingly most neutral or ivory-tower cultural practices are, according to Bourdieu, embedded i n systems of social as well as intellectual distinctions.r. I n these three ways, the concept of field embodies Bourdieu's metatheoretical agenda for sociology.

Beyond Markets and Institutions

Clearly Bourdieu's use of the term differs significantly from its more com­ mon use i n designating an academic discipline or substantive area of in-

4. Indeed, he suggests that i t "offers a coherent system of recurrent questions that saves us from the theoretical vacuum of positivist empiricism and from the empirical void of theoret­ icist discourse" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992 : 1 10). For Bourdieu, "the chief merit of the notion of field, . . . is that it a l l ows us to transcend a whole series of methodological and theoretical a n t inom ics" (qllotcd i n Wacquant 1 989:41). The oppositions he cites include those :llready discllsscd i l l ('h:lpl '1' \ .

S . BourdiclI i l l l i i l ': I I l" 1 1 I : 1 I l i , ' l d s :lrl' 1 0 hc rhollg-ht o f as a "pcllse-bcte, a memory-jogger" to rCI l l i n d rcsc : l rt ' I I ,'rs t < , " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 , · l i l l i , 1 1 I 1I 1 1 y " ( 1 I, , " rd i cl l a n d \Nacq l l:lIlr 1 <)<) 1 : 2 2 H).

(" B " l l r d i c i l ( 1 '1'1 1 . 1 : '1 ) , I I I Ii I i i", 1 ' 1 1 l 1 l '11 I 1 1 I '" "'YI I I ] ,, ,l i ,' S I l'l 1t'l l l r: l i i s I l l , " l i k c t l I:1t of S : l l l SS l l l'C : l l I d Levi S l r:I I IN'" I , " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 t i ll' " " " " 1 1 1 1 1 1 d l i i l ' I l ' I I I 'l ' I I I t i l l ' rl':l i l l l "f d isl'I I l l rSI' W i t l l l l l l l : l i s" n ll l l l i l l i l l/\ I I I" '11 1, ' 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I Ii ll l' l 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 d I I I I ' I I' " I I I1 I I I I l ' I I I 1 I 1 I I : " 1I 1't' I ' I ' I II I I II'l' I l .

,

1 2 0 I C H A P T E R S I X

vestigation. Moreover, though he uses the terms field and market inter­ changeably, Bourdieu's concept should not be fully assimilated with the neo-classical idea of market. Rather, the concept suggests force field, wherein the distribution of capital in the market reflects a hierarchical set of power relations among the competing individuals, groups, and organiza­ tions. Field is a more inclusive concept than market; as a spatial metaphor it suggests rank and hierarchy as well as exchange relations between buyers and sellers. Interactions among actors within fields are shaped by their rela­ tive location in the hierarchy of positions.

Field analysis calls attention to the institutional aspects of individual and group action. In a sense, it represents Bourdieu's version of institutional analysis. Yet, Bourdieu ( 1 99 1 d : 1 9) sees the image of "field" as superior to that of "institution" for two reasons: first, he wants to emphasize the con­ flictual character of social life whereas the idea of institution suggests con­ sensus; second, he wants a concept that can cover social worlds where practices are only weakly institutionalized and boundaries are not well established.7 Some of the fields that Bourdieu analyses, such as education, do consist of clusters of patterned activities centered around basic social functions. But his concept of field designates arenas of struggle rather than fundamental functions thought to be vital for social life (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 992 : 1 03 ) . His framework goes beyond the traditional function­ alist conception of institutions.s

Since there is a bewildering array of uses of the terms institution and institutionalization in sociology, it is not surprising to find confusion in Bourdieu's conceptual language. Though a field can designate what is often thought of as an institution, such as the "field" of law, fields are not concep­ tually equated with institutions. Fields can be inter- or intra-institutional in scope; they can span institutions, which may represent positions within fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 992 : 2 3 2 ). Bourdieu does not confine his attention to particular arenas of agents and activities, such as the family, education, religion, or law, commonly identified as insti tutions in the func­ tionalist tradition of sociology. Nor does he devote much attention to those poli tical units, such as legislatures or constitutions, commonly treated as insti tutions in scholarship by political scientists and historians. Yet, many

7 . Bourdieu ( I 99 I d : I S) says that one of the key properties of fields is their degree of i nstitu­ tionalization, He talks about the degree of codification to express t h i s ch:l ract'l:r i s t i c. Thl: fil:ld of cultural production, particularly of artists and writ ers, Ii II' eX:l I 1 1 I 'ic, i s l'Ollsi d l:ra h l y icss codified or institutionalized than the l I n i v e rs i t y l i d d , s i l ln; : l t l l l i��i"" I " l hl' I l I l i vers i l y i s I l l or l ' strictly govern ed than it i s to t h e l i d d or l i l era l l l \'(' ,

H . N O l l et heicss, I \o l l rd i e l l docs Sl rl'SS t i ll' 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 '1 1 1 11 1 " 1 1' 1 " ,/,, l l 'I "'" d l l l' l i l ll l 1 ..1' l i l'ld ,

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 2 1

of Bourdieu's ideas find affinity with key themes in neoinstitutional theory, as Powell and DiMaggio ( 1 99 1 : 2 5 - 2 6) point out.9

If Bourdieu has designed his concept in opposition to consensual views of the social world, he also sees his concept as distinct from views that stress total domination. Bourdieu's fields are fields of st1"Uggle rather than "total institutions" (Goffman), "ideological state apparati" (A1thusser) or orders of " discipline" (Foucault). t o Fields are sites of resistance as well as domina­ tion, one being relationally linked to the other. Yet, as we will see, fields capture struggle within the logic of reproduction; they seldom become sites of social transformation.

The boundaries between fields are not sharply drawn by Bourdieu. He declares that "one of the major points of contention i n the literary or artistic field is the definition of the limits of the fiel ds" (Bourdieu 1 9 8 7 b: I 74). Any effort to establish precise boundaries between fields, Bourdieu argues, de­ rives from a "positivist vision" rather than the more compelling "relational" view of the social world, for boundaries are themselves objects of struggl e. This way of looking at fields reflects Bourdieu's relational logic: since in his view social identity is fundmentally referential and oppositional, Bour­ dieu uses the concept of field to define the broadest possible range of factors that shape behavior rather than delimit a precise area of activity.

One of the advantages of a field perspective is to encourage social scien­ tists not to narrow prematurely the range of their investigation. To illus­ trate, recent reorientations in the sociology of organizations have consider­ ably enriched organizational theory and our understanding of organizations by refusing to isolate the "environment" from the "internal" structures and processes of organizations. Indeed, DiMaggio and Powell ( 1 9 8 3) draw ex­ plicitly from Bourdieu's concept of field in their programmatic statement calling for emphasis upon interorganizational contexts.

9. Some critics (e.g., Lamont 1 98 9 : 7 8 2) have suggested that Bourdieu's view of actors as investors in various types of capita l lacks a broader institutional perspective, This criticism seems based on the early formulations of his theory of practice and his analyses of the effects of cultural capital on educational attainment. Yet Bourdieu has consistently maintained that practices derive from the imenectiol1 of habitus with structures, though his exploration of struc­ tures did not begin until the early ' 70S, when he developed his concept of field. vVhile i t is true that he has given very limited attention to certain institutional arenas, such as the state, h i s level of analysis has consistently been one that attempts to guard against reduction of individuals, groups, or organizations to individualistic forms of agency.

1 0. The princi pa l di fference between Bourdieu's concept of field and Althusser's concept of " id eologi ca l SI':II'e appa r:II'us" i s that field designates an arena of struggle where there i s resist' a l l ce 1' 0 I he dOl l l i l l : l l 1 l power ( I \ o l l n l i e u a n d Wacqua n t f 992 : T 02), (Bourdieu admits that " l I l 1der cert a i l 1 h i � l " r i l ' : 1 I l '1 I 1 " l i l i " I 1 S , . , a lil:ld I l l a y start to fUllction a s a n apparatus," if the d"1 1 1 i l l ll l l i IIrl' 1 1 1 , 1 " I " , '1 1 1,,1 , , ' I I " " l i " I ' I " : 1 1 1 I hl' resi S l a l l Cl: of !' Il l! s l i hon l i ll l1l'l: . ) ,

B I I I I I'd i l ' 1 1 Sl'l" I I I'/ II' " I I, 11'/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' d I I I \ ' I 1 ' 1 1 1 I I', 1 1 1 1 10'' ' 1 11': 1 1 I I I 's I he�ry " I' . 1 0 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 JOIl i l l I hili h i s I'r:l l I 1e­ "'' '1'1, : 1 1 1""" , 1, ,1' 1 1 ",1 '/ 1 1 1 1 1, ', ' 11,1 ,, ' 1 1 ' 11'/ d ll i l , d 1', II " '!I I I I I 0 1 "" , 1 1 , ,1 ( J I, ,"rdil'l l 1 l d \ VlIl't j l l :l I l 1 I I)') .' : 1 (' 7 ) ,

1 2 2 I C H A P T E R S I X

Bourdieu uses his field concept effectively to show how boundary questions can function as instruments of struggle, particularly i n his analy­ sis of intellectuals (see below, chapter 9). Bourdieu's concern for the boundary problem seems h elpful in two respects: first, the very definition of the scope of a research project is not exempt from instimtional and pro­ fessional pressures that can orient research in one direction rather than in another; and second, including or excluding particular components in an investigation can produce symbolic effects that limit one' s degree of objec-

• • tlVlty.

Yet, in refusing to establish boundaries Bourdieu gives his concept an excessively generous application. Like his types of capital, fields tend to proliferate. I I Subfields appear as well. And, as in the case of capital, concep­ tual inflation leads to its devaluation. Further, there is an lUlresolved and uneasy tension between the priority Bourdieu gives to the internal analysis of fields and his emphasis on boundaries as contested terrain. Finally, the boundary question points to a deeper unresolved problem in Bourdieu's sociology, namely, sociological explanation. If boundaries are themselves the objects of struggle, what hope i s there for the sociologist to be able to describe those conflicts in a nonpartisan way? In his effort to discredit positivism by raising social conflict and its ensuing relativism to the stams of epistemological privilege, Bourdieu li mits drastically chances for the ob­ server to gain an objective grasp of the social world. Indeed, such chances may simply be lost. This is an important and unresolved problem in Bour­ dieu's approach, and one h e attempts to address by calling for a reflexive practice of sociology.

Structural Properties of Fields

Bourdieu ( I 99 3 d : 7 2 ) speaks of the "invariant laws" or "universal mecha­ nisms" that are strucmral properties characteristic of all fields. First, fields are arenas of struggl e for control over valued resources. Recall from chapter 4 that Bourdieu ( I 989C: 3 7 S) concepmalizes resources as forms of capital when they become the object of struggle and function as a "social relation of power." Field struggle centers around particular forms of capital: economic, cululral, scientific, or religious. Cultural capital, for example, is the key property in the intellectual field, whereas economic capital is the key prop­ erty in the business world. Scientists compete for scientific capital in th e

1 1 . Bourdieu admits that there are as many fields as their :11"(; i n terests. I ':ach olle has a specific illusio (Bourdiell and Wacqllanr I YY 2 : 1 1 7 ) , I I I his S i l l i l y 0 1 ' l i fe s t y l es, B O l i rd i c l l ( 1 984a: 2 2 6) writes that there a rc "as 1 1 I :1 1 l y l i e l d s . . 1 ' I ' r c f 'c r C I H 'l' :" I h crl' ; l IT l i l' l d s 0 1 ' s l y l i s l i c

' I I " !lOSSI I CS,

,

F i E l D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 2 3

field of science. There are, therefore, as many fields as there are forms of capital.

Actors also struggle over the very definitions of what are to be consid­ ered the most valued resources in fields. This is particularly true in cultural fields, where style and knowledge change rapidly. In other words, fields are arenas of struggle for legitimation: in Bourdieu's language, for the right to monopolize the exercise of "symbolic violence. "

Bourdieu's most striking field analyses are his studies of artists, writers, and teachers, where differences in artistic styles and ideas are viewed as strategies in the struggle for intellectual recognition. These strategies are in turn strongly dependent on the instruments and rules of conflict available in the various culmral field s . 1 1

Second, fields mee st1�uctured spaces of dominant and subordinate positions based on types and amount.l· of capital. Bourdieu stresses time and again that positions in fields are determined by the unequal distribution of relevant capitals rather than by the personal attributes of their occupants . 1 J Fields are to be viewed as systems in which each particular element (instimtion, organization, group, or individual) derives its distinctive properties from its relationship to all other elements . 1 4 For example, Bourdieu ( I 9 7 I C: I 6 I ) writes that the intellectual field, which

cannot be reduced to a simple aggregate of isolated agents or to the sum of elements merely juxtaposed is, like a magnetic field, made up of a system of power lines. I n other words, the constituting agents or system of agents may be described as so many forces which, by their existence, opposition or combination, determine its specific structure at a given moment in time. In return, each of these is defined by its particular position within this field from which i t derives positional properties which cannot be assimilated to intrinsic properties. I i

1 2 . Murphy ( 1 988) draws explicitly from Bourdieu's concept to analyze Parkin's ( 1 979) various formulations of closure theory. Camic (1 986), who does rely on Bourdieu's concept, carries out i n many ways a field analysis in his seminal discussion of why the classical notion of "habit" was expunged during the twentieth century from the active list of concepts in American sociology. Fritz Ringer ( 1 992) draws on Bourdieu's concept for a comparative analysis of Ger­ man and French intellectual history.

1 3 . This strong structuralist postulate is relaxed somewhat when Bourdieu argues that posi­ tions in fields can to some extent be shaped by the habitus that actors bring with them (Bour­ d i e u a nd Bol ta nski 1 97 5 ) .

1 4. Th i s d i rect l y reflects Bnurdieu's metatheoretical principle of relationality, which he appropriates I'r( 1 1 1 1 S : l I l��III'I" S sl l ' I l e t' l I ra l linguistics,

I " l \ o l ll'd i " l l ' S l i " l d I 'l'I'SI " " 'l i v l ' is s i l l l i l a r i n W:lyS to Kurt Lewin's ( 1 95 1 ) fiel d theory; in­ d ee ; l , I \ I I l I l' d i " 1 I 1'( ' 1 <'1 ' ( ' 1 1 ( " ", 1 , ( ' 11' 1 1 1 i l l h i s c:I1'ly work. F i e l d t heory considers i nd i v i d l l a l hell :l vior I I I I " , I I . .. I ' rl l( I I I 1 ' I " I t i l l ' 1 1 , " " , " I , , , , ( , ( , i l l ' l ' i l i g i l i g o i l t h l' i l i d i v i d l l : 1 I I'ro l l ' 1 I 1 1 1t:rs i l l I I II' l i c l d , : " 1 : 1 1 "1 1 " " ' I . . t i l l ' l i ll i , ' , I i , I \ , 0 1 II 1 , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 ] ', , 1 1 II, i l r i ,,( , , ' h l' l � , , 1 '1' " I l l e r ] ,: l I l s ,

1 2 4 I C H A P T E R S I X

Fields are "tightly coupled " 1 6 relational configurations where change in one position shifts the boundaries among all other positions.

Field struggle pits those in dominant positions against those in subordi­ nate positions. The struggle for position in fields opposes those who are able to exercise some degree of monopoly power over the definition and distribution of capital and others who attempt to usurp the advantages. In general, B ourdieu sees this opposition occurring between the established agents and the new arrivals in fields. Established agents tend to pursue conservation strategies while challengers opt for subversive strategies. Drawing from Weber's description of the opposition between priests and prophets, Bourdieu ( 1 98 7 d , 1 99 1 b) depicts this conflict in terms of those who defend " orthodoxy" against those who advocate "heresy." For Bour­ dieu ( 1 99 2 : 2 89), this fundamental structure of conflict is paradigmatic not only in the religious field but in all cultural fields . The orthodox/heterodox opposition is a struggle for the

monopoly of cul tural legitimacy and th e right to withhold and confer this consecra­ tion in the name of fundamentally opposed principles: the personal authority called for by the creator and the i nstitutional authority favoured by the teacher. (BOLlI'dieu 1 9 7 I C: I 78)

Bourdieu sees an analogous opposition in intellectual fields, particu­ larly in academia, between the " curators of culture" and the "creators of culture," between those who reproduce and transmit legitimate bodies of knowledge and those who invent new forms of knowledge. In his study of the Parisian university faculty, Bourdieu ( 1 988b) finds this fundamental opposition between teachers and researchers, or between professors and independent intellectuals.

Crucial for Bourdieu's field analysis is that the two opposing strategies are dialectically related; one generates the other. Orthodoxies call into exis­ tence their heterodox reversals by the logic of distinction that operates in cultural fields. 1 7 Challengers oblige the old guard to mount a defense of its privileges; that defense, then, becomes grounds for subversion.

1 6. The expression comes from organizational sociology and indicates close linkages between various components of an org'anizational system. In tightly coupled systems, sectoral disturbance reverberates throughout the system. Though Bourdieu does not see himself as a systems theorist, there are nonetheless certain systemic concepts in his sociology and field is one of them.

1 7 . This symbiotic relationship between orthodox and heterodox views brings to mind Mannheim's ( 1 9 5 5) analysis of how ideological and utopian visions of t h e soc i a l world, t h o l l g-h radically opposed in their posture toward the status q u o , ncvcrthek:ss 1 'l!C O I l l C l o c k c d i l l i o :1 pattern of complex exchnnge of critiques, each to :1 1 1 : l J l p r c c i : l h l . c x l C I I I o I C I T i l l i I l i I I !; r h e ol l l l: r .

Williams and Demerath ( T 9 9 T ) identi fy :l s i I l l i 1 :1 I ' d y l l :1 I 1 1 i . · i I I I l I , i I ' s l l l l l )' " I" I'd i I � i c I I I :l I l d I " ,I i I i e : 1 I process in a n A I l l Cric:l1l ciry. Thcy s h l lw I I I I W I I Ig-i . . : l l l y i l l l " l I l 1 l J " l l i l . I . , 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ", . ,1 " i v i l n ' l i g i t i l l : 1 1 1 . 1 s c p :l r:n i o l l oj" . . h m d l : 1 I l t ! S I : I I ,· ( " : 1 1 1 " ",',x i S I : l I l d : 1 ( " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' " ' · l n d . J , · " " 1 1 , , 1 • • 0 1 1 1 1 ' 1 I I . 1 " , l i l i c · : t l l ' r:I I · 1 i n ' .

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 2 5

Bourdieu in fact speaks of three different types of field strategies: conse1'­ vation, succession, and subversion. Conservation strategies tend to be pursued by those who hold dominant positions and enjoy seniority in the field. Strat­ egies of succession are attempts to gain access to dominant positions in a field and are generally pursued by the new entrants. Finally, strategies of subversion are pursued by those who expect to gain little from the dominant groups. These strategies take the form of a more or less radical rupture with the dominant group by challenging its legitimacy to define the standards of the field. I H

Third, fields impose on actors .,pecific forms of struggle. Both the dominant establishment and the subordinate challengers, both orthodox and hetero­ dox views, share a tacit acceptance that the field of struggle is worth pursu­ ing in the first place. Bourdieu refers to this deep structure of fields as the doxa, for it represents a tacit, fundamental agreement on the stakes of strug­ gle between those advocating heterodoxy and those holding to orthodoxy. 1 9 Challengers and incumbents share a common interest in preserving the field itself, even if they are sharply divided on how it is to be controlled. Every field presupposes and produces a particular type of illusio, which Bourdieu defines as a belief or acceptance of the worth of the game of a field.20 In the sociology of religion, for examp le, contemporary debates oc­ cur over trends and types of religious practices, but all assume including proponents of secularization that religion is worth talking about in the first place.

Entry into a field requires the tacit acceptance of the rules of the game, meaning that specific forms of struggle are legitimated whereas others are excluded.2 1 Thus, entry into professional fields limits struggle to the forms and terms of what is considered legitimate professional procedure. Personal insults and physical violence, for example, are excluded as unprofessional

1 8 . Bourdieu compares the structure of a field to that of a poker game where the pile of chips reflects the unequal distributions of capitals that both summarize the results of previous struggles and orient strategies for the future (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 :98-99).

1 9 . The idea of the doxa resonates with Durkheim's concept of the "collective conscious­ ness." A crucial d i fference is that doxll is field specific rather than the representation of a tacit system of understandings for the entire society.

20. Bourdieu's basic point, as we have seen in his economy of practices, is that behavior in fields is interest driven. Bourdieu wants to stress that actors, regardless of their positions, are complicit i n acccpti n g- the rules of the game i n which they play. Moreover, he stresses that this a c cc p r : l l l ee g-o ·s I l l l a e k l l o w l e dged, or "misrecognized," for the most part (Bourdieu 1 <)<) l d : z z , - 1. 5 ) .

2 1 . I \ o l l rd i c i l 1 1 .' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' ( " 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1I , i /. C ·' 1 1 1 : 1 1 " l I l r: l I I I S 1 0 :1 l i d d , l i k c opposing p l a yers i n a cnrd g-:I I I I C , 1 1 I 1 rs l l ( " I I I < " ',11 1 1 1 1 ' I C 'II'II I C h 1 I 1 1 c 1 I , . J I"", 1 1 1 1 ' ' = 1 1 1 1 , ' n d es ", h i k L"I I I 1 I PC l i l i g- I O hest I h c i r O p J lO­ l I e l l l s . A I ' , l l I n 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 I I I ' " 1 1 " '1>"", 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 ' " I I ' o I f1 " c , l" I I I < " n d , · , r( " J l ITSl " I I I S : l 1 "1 I r1 1 1 " j " n d l l l r: 1 I " :l l ' i l :1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i , 1 I I I " ' 1 l l 1 d l l' ,, 1 1 1 1 1 1 . , 1 , 1 1 1 1 , " 1 1 I I ' " 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I i "/\ 1 " 1 1 1 1 < " " ,

1 2 6 I C H A P T E R S I X

forms of conflictY But challenging the degree of obj ectivity in an opposing viewpoint is fai r play.

Field analysis, therefore, directs the researcher's attention to a level of analysis capable of revealing the integrating logic of competition between opposing viewpoints. It encourages the researcher to seek out sources of conflict in a given domain, relate that conflict to the broader areas of class and power, and identify underlying shared assumptions by opposing parties.

For fields to operate there must be agents with the appropriate habitus to make them capable and willing to invest in particular fi eidsY New arriv­ als to fields must pay the price of an initial investment for entry, which involves recognition of the value of the game and the practical knowledge of how to play it.24

One important consequence of the competitive logic of fields and their doxa is that they help create the conditions for the "misrecognition" of power relations and thereby contribute to the maintenance of the social order. Actors misrecognize the arbitrary character of their social worlds when they take for granted the definition of rewards and of ways of obtaining them as given by fields. 25 An unintentional consequence of engag­ ing in field competition is that actors, though they may contest the legiti­ macy of rewards given by fields, nonetheless reproduce the structure of fields.

Fourth, fields aTe structured to a significant extent by their own internal mechanisms of development and thus hold some degree of autonomy from the external environment. Bourdieu speaks of the "relative autonomy" of fields to convey the dual character of their interconnectedness with and indepen­ dence from external factorsY' Bourdieu uses the language of relative auton-

2 2 , Wri ti n g a bout the juridical field, Eourdieu ( 1 98 7 C : 8 3 1 ) states that entry "implies the tacit acceptance of the field's fundamental law" and that " to join the game, to agree to play the game, to accept the l a w for the resolution of the conHict, is tacitly to adopt a mode of expression and discussion implying the renunciation of physical violence and of elementary forms of symbolic violence, such as insults."

2 3 , An important research issue that has not yet received sufficient treatment in Eourdieu's work is identifying the types of habitus that attract individuals to particular fields, More broadly, and outside of Eourdieu's conceptual language, the issue i s one of trying to under­ stand the connection between "character and social structure" (Gerth and Mills 1 9(4)'

24, Eourdieu argues that tl10se in subordinate positions are tl1ere because they have not fully mastered the rules of the game,

2 5 , A corollary to this i s iliat actors situated outside of specific fields can grasp a cle 'l r perception of the interests or capitals struggled over in those fields, This evokes 1 3 o u rd i c u 's longstanding concern regarding the status of sociologi ca l i nsight as a n "outsid er" v i e w , yet one iliat must accommodate insider perceptions i n ol'< l <:r 1'0 :I v o i d prod l lc i n g :1 1 1 ohjcl,t i v i s t account o f the SOCi'l l world,

.

20, A l th u ss!.!r i s g'l:m:r:l l l y Cl"c d i t ed w i t h t i l l: i d l ':1 < I I' t i l t ' l't' I 'l l i Vt' 11 1 1 1 ( 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 )' I I I' I he t ' l d l l l l':d i n st'a n ce I'rol l l Cl't lll < ll l l i , ' d l ' l l'l'l l l i l l : 1 I i t I l l ., Bfllll'di t ' l l " I t 'I I'I '" 11' 1 1 1 , 1\ 1 1 1 , 1 1 ',''' ' 1 I I I I ' " 1 ' 1 " ' S i l i , 'I I I " , ' I '

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R 1 1 2 7

omy, particularly in his early work on education, to argue that relations between culture and society are complex and mediated, and that the tradi­ tional categories of "culture" and "society" are not adequate for describing the increasingly central and complex role that symbolic goods and processes play in the exercise of power i n modern societies, The accumulation of educational credentials, and symbolic goods more generally, cannot be fully explained, he argues, in terms of underlying material interests, While the different forms of capital are under certain conditions interchangeable, they are not reducible one to the other.

Culture is a distinct form of power that functions like capital, but with its own specific laws of exercise. Yet, its autonomy is relative, since i t is often exchanged for economic capital or positional power i n organizations, Historically, Bourdieu sees cultural fields progressively developing and gaining autonomy from the political and economic fieldsY The driving force of this autonomous development, which he draws from Weber's soci­ ology of religion, is the rise of corps of specialists who are progressively able to develop, transmit, and control their own particular status culture. Thus, fields develop their own organizational and professional interests, which may deviate significantly from external interests, Witl1 growing au­ tonomy comes the capacity to retranslate and reinterpret external demands, This capacity varies historically and by type of field,

The relative autonomy of the literary field, for example, suggests that this cultural arena is polarized by two opposing principles of organization. On the one hand, there is the tendency toward autonomy where peer refer­ ence and review assumes priority. At the extreme, this results in "art for art's sake . " On the other hand is the tendency away from autonomy, where legitimacy and reference are sought outside the field in forms such as book sales, public appearances, honors, etc. (Bourdieu 1 99 I d: I 2).

Bourdieu associates the autonomy of fi elds with his concept of symbolic power. As cultural fields grow in autonomy from political and economic power they gain in symbolic power, that is, i n their capacity to legitimate existing social arrangements (Bourdieu and Passeron 1 9 7 7 : I 2 ). Conse­ quently, fields elicit assent to existing social arrangements and thereby con­ tribute to their reproduction to the extent that they engage actors in field

t h"dox ,\11 :1 rx i Sl' v i I;WS " f l ' I d I I I I'C : l I l t I i I S i I l sl' i 1'III'i O i l S : I S mere reHecti ons o f underlying economic i l l i'r:l s t I'l I L'I I I I'C. 1 1 1 1 1 B I I I I I't l i l' l l \ 1 111' 1 1 I I l 1dl'I'S I :l l I d i l lg " i ' t h l; rel:ll'ivc :lutonomy o f cll l tllral fields pro] ,:, ] ,ly I IW l ' S I I II ' \ ' ( ' I I ) I Vr l l l ' 1 ' t l l I I l l I I I 1\ l I I I I I SSl' l'.

1 7 , I I t - w ri l l ' s t l l I l l " I I II ' 1 '1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t i ll ' 11 1 1 1 '1 \ I II 1 1 I 1 \ ' l I t 't ' i l l:' ] W i l h i l l I h l' L ' l d l l l r: d l i d d . kvel ­ " I 'n l ill "/I/III,l/li'"1 I t I 1 1 1 11 1 1" ' 1 11 1 1 , 1 " \ )1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 '11 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 " " I I I ! I I 1 1 1 I ' I ' I IlI l l i s l l I S w i l i l i l l I I I<' ( 'I d l l lr:' ] l i t · l o I " { I I I I I I I' , I " ' I I I I)t) l o I , \ \ 1 ,

1 2 8 I C H A P T E R S I X

autonomy.28 The educational system is one example of a cultural field ob­ taining considerable autonomy as a result of its capacity to control the re­ cruitment, socialization, and careers of actors, and to impose its own spe­ cific ideology.

A fundamental methodological principle flows from the posited relative autonomy of fields, namely, the priority given to the imemal analysis of fields. Bourdieu argues that external influences are always retranslated into the internal logic of fields. External sources of influence are always medi­ ated through the structure and dynamic of fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 : 1 05).29 The class background of the artist, for example, does not in­ fluence the work of art directly. Rather, the effects of class intersect with the patterns of field hierarchy and conflict where the artist is situated (Bourdieu 1 9 84C:6).

In his analyses of changes in French education, Bourdieu repeatedly argues for beginning with an internal analysis of the educational system (Bourdieu and Passeron 1 9 7 7h; Bourdieu 1 9 88a). External factors, such as demographic expansion, are always retranslated into the terms of the inter­ nal logic of the educational field.JO Contradictions are examined largely from tlle standpoint of the internal logic of the field. His work thus far has aclmowledged but not stressed the importance of interfield contradictions.

The priority that Bourdieu accords to the internal analysis of cultural fields reflects three central influences on his thinking: structuralism, his early struggle with Althusserian Marxism, and the substantive areas of his work. The structuralist method stresses internal patterns of systems rather than their origins or connections to external factors. Internal analysis stands as a methodological corrective to Althusser's focus on the logical status of culture within the superstructurelinfrastructure dichotomy rather than as an inducement to research into the specific practices of cultural institutions.

2 8 . In other words, competitive arenas of practices contribute to the reproduction of the socia 1 order as they become more d i fferentiated and autonomous from external influence and capable of capturing agents within their own competitive hi erarchies of distinction. In a rough analogy to Durkheim's view o f the paradox i n organic solidarity where increased specialization and individualism from the growing division of labor actually generate a new basis for social solidarity, Bourdieu sees in the differentiation and development of relatively autonomous so­ cial and cultural fields new mechanisms for social reproduction of society.

2 9 . Though Bourdieu argues that field analysis requires analyzing change by giving priority to internal structures and dynamics of fields, he does nonetheless consider that "the struggles that take place within fields, such as the literary field, always depend, in their olltcome, hnppy or unhappy, on the correspondence they can maintain with externnl struggles" ( l 3 o l l n l i .., 1 1 1 9 9 i d ' 3 3)'

30. One methodological implication th:l(- B l l l i n l i l : 1 I d r; l w s '-1'0 1 1 1 l l i i s I 'os i l i o l l i s 1 0 n:jCl'1 I l l<: technique o f regression n n n lysis, w h .., r .., a s i a l i s l i c: d d i s l i l l l ' l i l l l l , '11 1 1 I .. . 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 , · I " ' I W I " ' I I d i rc c ' l :111<1 i l l d i r..,cl .., fke l s , F o r l I 1 1md i c l I ( I , ) H ' I, I .' ) , I I i 1 ' 1 '" II I'" 1 1 1 1 e l i r " " 1 " 1 1 " , ' 1 '1 , I : \' 1 ' 1 \ ' 1 h i l i l ', i s I l l e d i a l ,'d ..

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 2 9

And this methodological principle seems to be an appropriate response for the French system of secondary and higher education which historically has obtained considerable autonomy from outside factors. Nevertheless, at times Bourdieu's work becomes concentrated on the internal analysis of fields, leading one to lose sight of how fields are connected into broader structural patterns. Bourdieu's analysis of the French intellectual field in­ sightfully demonstrates how intellectual positions are shaped by the strug­ gle for intellectual recognition. But they are shaped by more than just professional competition, which Bourdieu acknowledges, but tends to downplay in order to score his methodological point.

Bourdieu finds that the factor analytical technique of "correspondence analysis," described in chapter 3 , fits well with the theoretical concerns he invests in the concept of field. Both the concept of field and correspondence analysis permit Bourdieu to situate individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions in terms of multiple axes of differentiation. This helps convey the conflict character of the social world and guards against presenting so­ cial hierarchies abstracted from their relations of opposition and proximity. Compared to linear modeling, field analysis shifts attention away from the particularistic characteristics of individuals and groups and toward the struggles and dynamics of arenas of social life that shape their behavior. Bourdieu ( 1 9 8 8 b : 1 7) rejects single-dimensional scales and cumulative in­ dices that locate individuals and groups by position in social structure

. in

favor of multidimensional analysis, as a way of calling attention to the con­ flict dimension of social life and guarding against objectivism.

Field Homologies

Bourdieu conceptualizes the relations among relatively autonomous fields

in terms of "structural and functional homologies," which he defines as " a

resemblance within a difference" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 992 : 1 05 -6).

Fields are homologous to the extent that they develop isomorphic proper­

ties, such as positions of dominance and subordination, strategies of exclu­

sion and usurpation, and mechanisms of reproduction and change. And,

Bourdieu stresses, "every one of these characteristics takes a specific, irre­

ducible form in each field . " In his early work on French education (Bour­

dieu and Passeron I 97 7 : 6 3 -64, I 94-2 00), Bourdieu emphasized the

"structural a n d fu ncti o n a l " homology between French education and the

l l 1 l: d i l: v a l C 1 d l ( ) I i c C h u rch : l i k e the Church, schools not only transmit

k n o w b l ge ; 1 1 ) ( 1 s k i l l s 1 1 1 1 1 ; i 1 S ( ) re p ro d uce t h c m s e l ve s by m o n opol i z i n g t h e

s d ' l ' I i o l l ; 1 1 1 < 1 I l ' ;I i l l i l l g " i" I h v i r O W I 1 I ';l( i t.: rs h i p . M o rl:ovn, schoo l s p l: r fo n n ; I 1 H l t h n l ; l t l ' l 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' " I' l ' p l ' l lI h l l ' i l l /-!,' sl lc i a l l ' l a ss r ' 1 : l l i l l l 1 s hy k g i t i 1 1 1 ; l l i 1 1 g

1 3 0 I C H A P T E R S I X

the unequal distribution of cultural capital. In Distinction ( 1 984a), Bourdieu describes a structural and functional homology relating the Parisian theater scene and fractions of the dominant class, writing that "the social character­ istics of the audiences of the different Paris theaters . . . [are] perfectly congruent [with tlle] characteristics of the authors performed . . . , the works, and the theatrical businesses themselves."

Homology is also depicted in terms of "structures of opposition" in lifestyles that correspond to structures of opposition in the class structure. The opposition between "rare" practices and "vulgar" practices in culture corresponds to the main opposition in social space between those classes with considerable "overall capital value" and tl10se with little (Bourdieu I 984a: 1 7 S -76). In La Noblesse d'Etat ( I 989C: 3 7 3 ) Bourdieu finds a "struc­ tural homology" between the field of power and elite higher education in­ stitutions in France. There, he observes that "the correspondence is more or less perfect" between the relative locations of French occupational groups and French schools i n terms of their respective amounts of eco­ nomic capital and cultural capital. In his analysis of the juridical field, B our­ dieu ( 1 98 7 c: 8 2 z) argues that a "structural correspondence" between the field of law and the field of social classes finds expression in the relations between lawyers and their clients. The position of lawyers in their profes­ sional hierarchy corresponds to the position their clients occupy in the so­ cial hierarchy.J ' Thus, homology of position among individuals and groups in different fields means that those who find themselves in dominated posi­ tions in tlle struggle for legitimation in one field tend also to find them­ selves in subordinate positions in other fields. Finally, there are also homol­ ogies in strategies. Consumers in subordinate social-class positions tend to select products produced by producers in subordinate positions within the field of cultural production. Thus, a relation of structural homology obtains between the various categories of cultural producers and consumers ac­ cording to their respective positions in the separate fields of struggle (Bour­ dieu 1 984c).

For Bourdieu, field analysis differs from a market approach to consumer practices. Though Bourdieu superficially resembles a growing number of social scientists who use economic imagery in their analytical language (Warner 1 9 9 3 : l O S I ) , he does not work within a rational choice framework. Field analysis does not analyze cultural consumption in terms of a supply­ demand function. Cultural tastes are not simply imposed by cultural pro-

3 1 . Bourdieu (1 987C:8 50) writes that " t hose w h o OtT l l l 'Y i l l i"crior pos i l i o n s i l l I h t: l i cl d ( : I S for example i n social wel fa n: I:1w) l e l l d 1' 0 work w i i l l : I d i l' I I l , ' 1 e , 'ol l l l " ,s('d o r s, , ( ' i : d i l l li ' ri"rs who t h erehy i I H ' I'I.!:lst: i ll(; i l l r, ' r i " r i l Y " I ' I h L'sl' I " . . , i l i l ll l',, "

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 3 1

ducers on unwitting consumers; neither do cultural tastes stem from cul­ tural producers attempting to respond directly to patterns of consumer demand. Field analysis posits tllat the relation of supply and demand, of artists and their public, and more generally, of the field of cultural produc­ tion and the field of social classes, is mediated by field structures and pro­ cesses. Producers struggle within the fiel d of cultural production and their cultural products reflect more their respective positions of dominance or subordination in that struggle than they do the demands of consumers. J 2 Consumers, in turn, select from these cultural products according to their own positions of dominance or subordination within the struggle for dis­ tinction among the social classes. Thus a relation of "structural homology" rather than one of conscious adjustment is established between the various categories of cultural producers and the various categories of consumers according to their respective positions in the separate fields of struggle. Bourdieu writes that

The logic of objective competition at the core of the field of cultural production leads each of the categories of producers to offer, without any conscious search for adjustment, products that are adjusted to the preferences of the consumers who occupy homologous positions within the field of power. ( 1 984C: 1 4)

Bourdieu holds that a symbolic isomorphism parallels the structural isomorphism among fields,lJ and that the cardinal semantic oppositions, such as high/low, light/heavy, and refined/ crude, in cultural fields function to reinforce analogous social distinctions. He contends that

the categories of perception and appreciation (e.g. obscure/ clear or easy, deep/light, original/banal, etc.) which function in the world of art are oppositions that are almost universally applicable and are based, in the last analysis, through the opposi­ tion between rarity and divulgation or vulgarizatiou, uniqueness and multiplicity, quality and quantity, on the social opposition between the "elite" and the "masses," between "elite" (or "quality") products and "mass" products, (Bourdieu 1 980b: 1 5 7)

An example from his research is the light/heavy opposition that he observes functioning in the education field to simultaneously produce a "social dis­ crimination" in terms of the field of social classes (Bourdieu 1 989C: 3 8 S),

3 2 , An cX:l I l l l ' k or I'csc:I l'ch in the U n i ted States that illustrates this point is Peterson's ( l yH s ) s l' l I d y s l lO w i l l g l i t : l l l i l t : l ' : l l ' y I ' rt H i t lcr i on i s s h a ped more by the constraints of the publish­ i l l g' i l ld usl l'Y I h : l l l 1 0) ' 1 '1', ,, 1 1 , , " ' 1' l 'I I I I S l I l l l l ' l' I U :I l'kct I'ci:nions,

, u , The " " h j n ' l i l'l ' 1 1I 1 ', j ,, " 1 , , 1' t i l ( ' i':c o I I I I I l 'l ' h i s l l l i l l s), l I I l ool i c OPPOSi l i olls i s t h c isolllorph i s l l l i l l SI I ' I I I ' I I I I'I1 I " 1 ' 1 " " ,i l i ' > l I ' , 1 1 I t i l l ' I' , . i l l l l ll ' , 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1 ' 1 " '1 U I' l ' I Ir d i l fl'l" ' l l l I ), I " 'S " I ' ( , : l l ' i l :t i :I('I'OSS t l i l fl 'l'­ ( ' I l l l i , ' l e I, ( 1 11 1 1 1 1' . 1 1 < ' 1 1 I IlfI'll 1 I1 1 I

1 3 2 I C H A P T E R S I X

Teacher evaluations of students' written work that differentiates writing styles in opposing terms, such as elegant/labored, simultaneously discrimi­ nates between students with different amounts of cultural capital.

Bourdieu sometimes identifies homologies within fields. For example, within cultural fields he posits " a homology . . . between the space of posi­ tions within the field of production and the space of works defined in terms of their strictly symbolic content, notably their form" (Bourdieu I 988a: 544). The conceptual terminology of field and social space often interweave in Bourdieu's account without clear distinction. At other times fields suddenly become differentiated into subfields (Bourdieu 1 99 I C : 2 30)' In general, he thinks of the space of field positions in terms of the distributions of different types of capitals. The space of works includes all the stylistic features that differentiates works.

Thus, Bourdieu uses the language of homology to explain the effects of class relations on various cultural domains (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 : 1 06) . Struggles in one field have homologous effects (never direct ones) in other fields.H Bourdieu ( 1 980b: 1 47) writes that "through the logic of homologies, the practices and works of the agents in a specialized, rela­ tively autonomous field of production are necessarily overdete1�mined; the functions they fulfill in the internal struggles are inevitably accompanied by external functions, which are conferred on them in the symbolic strug­ gles among the fractions of the dominant class and, in the long run at least, among the classes . " Struggles in cultural fields produce cultural distinctions that are simultaneously social distinctions. They create social in groups and outgroups as well as schools of thought or style. For Bourdieu, the opposi­ tion "between orthodoxy and heterodoxy" in the cultural field finds homol­ ogy in the struggle for "maintenance or subversion of the symbolic order" in the field of social classes. Struggle in the cultural field produces " euphe­ mized forms of ideological struggles between the social classes" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 : 1 06) . Field homologies reinforce patterns of conflict across different fields. The general overall effect is the reproduction of com­ mon patterns of hierarchy and conflict from one field to another.

Bourdieu thus draws different kinds of analogies between fields. Some point to an underlying function of social reproduction. Others point to

34. The emphasis Bourdieu places on the dynamics of struggles within fields tends to over­ shadow other important processes that can occur, For example, in their exa m i n a ti o l l of orga n i ­ zational fields, DiiVlaggio and Powell ( 1 9 9 1 :67) find processes o f i l l l i t ;l I- i o l l :l nd profess i c l I 1 : 1 I i ­ zation as well as coercion and competition , B O l l rd i e l l , however, sp ' a k s v i rt u a lly : l i lV:lyS I l l' competitive struggle. Yet, i somorphism c a l l e i l l erg-e I h rl l l l g' h I I t 1 I l ' !' i l i s l i l l i l i o l l : 1 i P " " " c'sscs :IS well as competiti oll,

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 3 3

isomorphic patterns of hierarchy in positions and strategies of agents.35 As a conceptual strategy, Bourdieu's idea of homologous relations between fields is directed against an instmmental view of interfield relations .J6 It re­ states the key theme found in his theory of action and the concept of habitus that social structures are not the aggregate result of conscious, rational cal­ culation. Nor do they refer to patterns of interaction or mutual awareness. There can be, according to Bourdieu, an "objective orchestration" of the fields of cultural production and social classes without thinking of their connection in terms of some "conscious adjustment" to consumer demand. Rather, the "quasi-miraculous correspondence prevailing at every moment between the products offered by a field of production and the field of so­ cially produced tastes" stems from the " functional and structural homol­ ogy" between fields rather than from some expression of instrumental de­ sign. Bourdieu ( 1 984a : 2 3 3 - 34) writes of this relationship in discussing the social-class basis of tastes in the following way:

The logic of the function i n g of the fields of cultural-goods production, together with the distinction strategies which determine their dynamics, cause the pro­ ducts of their functioning, be they fashion designs or novels, to be predisposed to function d i fferentially, as means of distinction, first between the class fractions and then between the classes. The producers can be totally in volved and absorbed i n their struggles with other producers, convinced that only specific artistic interests are at stake and that they are otherwise totally disinterested, while remai ning un­ aware of the social functions they fulfill, in the long run, for a particular audience, and without ever ceasing to respond to th e expectati ons of a particular class or class fraction.

3 5 , There is a certain affinity between Bourdieu's search for hmctional and structural ho­ mologies and Merton's concept of " functional equivalents." Neither advocates a form of func­ tional analysis that posits a series of system needs that are indispensable for system survival . Rather, both focus attention on the "1'anKc of possible variation in the items which can . _ . subserve a .functional requirement" (Merton 1 96 8 : J 06). Like Merton, Bourdieu is interested in the idea of equivalent positions in differing settings, But for BOlll'dieu the question of posi­ tionality in different settings leads to a more fundamental issue, namely, whether the strucmre of class relations is reproduced. Forms of class differentiation may change, but the idea of strucmral and functional homology is compatible with the cl a i m that changes in form are not incompatible with underlying strucmral continuity in class relations.

3 6 , In his analysis of fields of cultural production and their relationship to the class struc­ ture, Bourdieu ( J 98ob: I47) explains the empirical observation of a close connection between the " artist's position i n the fi e l d of production and the position of his audience in the field o f the classes a n d c i : 1 S S rr: l e l i O l l s" :IS :1 "structural and hmctional homology" rather than the "prod u cl- 01' : 1 e O l l S l ' i l " I S C l i l ' I I I : l t i l l l l . " ' I 'i t e o l l e exception BOllI'dieu ( I 99 1 d: 3 I) mentions is the secl o r o r t l a: l i c i t ! I l l' ( ' I i i I I I l' I I I P I' I Id l l l ' l i l l l l l i t : l 1 i s I I I I IS I cl osel y :lssoci:lted wi th the field of power a l l d i s I I I I 1S I I I I' i , ' l l l . . d 1 1 1 " ' " 1 . 1 i l I I ' I ' 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I ' I' I ' l \ t i i l l l l i l l l l I I r l ' l t i l l l l'c, l l e re B O l l r c i i e l l seel l l s pre pa red t e l 1'('( " I 'g l l i /,t, : :1 , ', ! 't ' , I I (' 1 I' l d " h l l 1 1 1 1 1'11 H I i Pj 'd l l l l l ' H l / l l l j-!, '

•

1 3 4 I C H A P T E R S I X

Thus, the connections between fields, like the oppositions within fields, stem from structural factors, not the intentions of actors.

Bourdieu's field analytic perspective, then, is intimately connected to his conception of class legitimation. The idea of field autonomy, mediation, and homology ties in with his theOlY of symbolic power and violence. It builds on the idea that legitimation of social class inequality is not the prod­ uct of conscious intention but stems from a structural correspondence be­ tween different fields. Class distinctions become translated into euphe­ mized forms specific to other fields. Actors unwittingly reproduce or change those class di stinctions sim ply by pursuing their own strategies within the sets of constraints and opportun i ties avai lable to them. When cultural producers pursue their own specific interests in fields, they unwit­ tingly produce homologous effects in the social class structure .!7 Most im­ portantly, intellectuals of various kinds play a key role in that process. By competing in cultural fi elds, intellectua .ls help to legitimate the dominant cultural order and reproduce the class structure. In serving the interests of their particular fields, intellectuals alm serve the interests of the class structure.

Though Bourdieu's homologies between fields are structural and func­ tional, they are not intended to suggest objective properties independent of the practices of agents. Indeed, in the final analysis Bourdieu fa lls back on the concept of habitus to explain homology among fields. It is because of habitus that actors display similar dispositions across a broad range of domains. Habitus i s " the unifying principle of practices in different do­ mains" (Bourdieu 1 9 7 7c : 8 3 ) . 18 Field analysis, then, does not imply a kind of objectivism that would separate tl1e function of a particular domain from the practice of individuals and groups. It is the practical logic of habitus that makes the underlying connection across fields. Hence, habitus is "the real principle of the structural homologies or relations of transformation objectively established between [fields]" (Bourdieu 1 9 7 7 c : 8 3 -84).

Bourdieu claims he does not think of the ensemble of fields and their functional and structural homologies as constituting a unified social sys-

3 7 . Indeed, he suggests this process is most successful when it is not a direct, conscious objective. In a study of French Catholic bishops, Bourdieu attributes the effectiveness o f COI l l ­ munication and interaction styles between clergy and laity to their "affi nity of h a hitus" nl t her than to conscious design (Bourdieu and de Saint Martin 1 98 2 '43)'

3 8 . Habitus and the related composition of capi m l h e l p Bou n l i e l l e x p b i l l I h e sense "I" " I"ien ­ tations that a(:tors assume within fields. They h e l p a ns\\' 'I" s l I("h ' i "l'SI i , > 1 l S : I S "do aCl ors : l l l l ' l l I p l risky bold ventures or settle for s:II'e, seClire s l r: l I l'gil's?" or "d" :1 < ' 1 , , ,·, 1 l l :l I l i k- s l 1 1 I", IL-s l ), "I' au d a ci ty in th e i I" I ' raci ices)" 1 \ " II n I i c II ( I ')I) I d: I (, ) ' " /1 I l' " I ' I I I " I ,, " ,1 1 " I" i , ' I l l i I I g 1 ':1 1 1 <" I ' l l S , 0 1 h: d ,i ('IIS el l l hel l ' S i l l l :I I " :1,'I "rs i l l : 1 I 1:d"I\' II l I S I '"" i l i , , " " ," ' 1 "'1 '1 d i l l " I t ' 1 I 1 I w l d " ,I', 11',, 1 1 .

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 3 5

tem.J9 Though he stresses the doxa dimension of field participation, h e re­ sists positing the existence of a kind of Parsonian shared normative o1'"der at the societal leveL Since fields vary historically in their degree of autonomy from the economy, the pol i ty, and class structure, Bourdieu claims that one cannot establish a universal classification system connecting the various fields. While recognizing them as arenas of struggle, Bourdieu does not, for example, root them i n a deeper transhistorical process, such as capitalist development.

But i n his zeal to distinguish his work from grand social theory i n the tradition of Parsons and Althusser, Bourdieu downplays the systemic char­ acter of his own thought and work. As fields gain in autonomy they develop the systemic properties that I identified in the last section. Moreover, Bour­ dieu does make two general claims that represent broad historical trends: the increasing autonomy of cultural fields from the economy and polity and the ultimate dominance of the economic field. In addition, he applies field analysis only to differentiated societies. He did not use i t in his studies of Algerian or French peasants nor does he appear to advocate its use for the s tudy of such societies.

This underscores a tension in the complex rela tionship between habitus and field. While he wants to identify the " i nvariant laws" of fields and their interrelations, he resists conceptual claims that represent tl1e kind of objec­ tivist theorizing he denounces. Ultimately, his conceptual strategy falls back on habitus as the fundamental source for homologous connections among fields. As a result, the distinctiveness of the concept of field is thrown into doubt.

The idea of structural homology represents an important methodologi­ cal and at times explanatory principle i n Bourdieu's field analysis. Bourdieu employs the idea with great versatility and imagination. Yet the conceptual power of this principle may be less than would first appear. Homology in terms of just what? Though Bourdieu rejects functionalist theory but re­ tains the idea of social functions i n h i s work, the functionalist implications for fields of structural homology need clarification. Furthermore, if one were to grant that structural homology exists between individuals or groups across different fields, we still need to know the social process through which this "objective" alliance or opposition obtains, I will examine i n chapter 9 how Bourdi e Ll (BoLlrd i eu 1 99 I C: 2 4S) uses the idea to explain the capacity fo r p o l i ti ca l a l l i a n ce h c t w e c n i n te l l ectu a l s and workers, Both intellectuals

.1'). I n " I Il l l r"sl i l l/\ h i s I r" " I 1 '",, , r k I " S I I " I I I ' l l I r: d i ' l M :1 l"x isl l'I II lCel'ilS :l i lo l l t t h e : I r t i cu l a tioll I I I" I h l' v a r i , ,"s i l l'! I :I I " " " I I I II ',O I, 'lId " " 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 1 1 , 1 I" " I'd i " 1 I . 1 " " 1:1 1'1'" " I 1 1('li,'vc i l ldccd t h:ll I he re :l l"l' I/O 'rlllll'h /\ (tJrJt' /IIII'\ 11/ ,h,' 1 11/111111111 /1,' 1 1 1 ' 1'1'11 /11" '/1 , t l n l l \\ " 1 1 1 1 1 0.,1 i ' lvl'sl i g a l t' (.':H'h h i s t l lril'al , ' a , , ' " ' l lill'll l (' I I''' ( I I, 0 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 ' 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 \ I ' ll' ' 1 " 1 1 " 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I I " I I

1 3 6 I C H A P T E R S I X

and workers find themselves in subordinate positions, though in different fields. Yet it is likely that many different groups occupy homologous field positions without forming alliances. What are the processes as well as re­ sources that help us understand why some groups but not others form stra­ tegic linkages?40 Bourdieu's notion of structural homology unfortunately stops short of shedding light on this important question. Indeed, all too often it tends to act as a form of explanation that finds sufficiency in its own right. In this way, explanation by homology becomes a form of "structural mystification." While structural location may indeed help explain the recip­ rocal relationship between groups, a fuller understanding of such connec­ tions must be sought in factors such as status group co-membership, net­ work ties, and common world views. What is needed in addition is a politics of collective mobilization.

The Field of Power: Economic Capital versus Cultural Capital

The principal field in Bourdieu's work is the field of pOW CT. He puts this concept to two distinct but overlapping uses. On the one hand, it functions as sort of "meta-field" that operates as an organizing principle of differenti­ ation and struggle throughout all fields. This is the most important usage. O n the other hand, the field of power can designate for Bourdieu the domi- nant social class.41 ,

Bourdieu considers conflict to be the fundamental dynamic of all social life. At the heart of all social arrangements is the struggle for power. One of Bourdieu's key claims is that this struggle is carried out over symbolic as well as material resources. Moreover, i t is Bourdieu's fundamental claim that cultural resources, such as education credentials, have come to function as a kind of capital, and thereby have become a new and distinct source of differentiation in modern societies. Indeed, according to Bourdieu ( I 989C: 3 7 3 -8 5), two major competing principles of social hierarchy what Bour­ dieu calls a "chiasmatic structure" shape the struggle for power in modern industrial societies: the distribution of economic capital (wealth, income, and

40. This question is important since Bourdieu ( 1 99 I d: r 8) remarks that the structural ho­ mology of fields is something quite different from networks that chmmel flows of informatio n among specific actors.

4 1 . Bourdieu prefers "field of power" to "dominant class," "ruling class" or " e l i te " to signal that the term is a relational construct rather than a designator for a speci fic pop ulation ( R o l l r­ dieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 :76; Wacquant 1 99 3 b : 2 O- 2 1 ) . I-I e sces r h i s l e rmi nological ehoice a s a means of guarding against a "realist concepr desig'n:lring' :1 1 1 :1('1 1 1 : 1 1 I '0 1 ' 1 1 I : l l i o l l or h o l d e rs or this tangible reality th:lt we call power" ( l 3 o u rd i e l l :l I l l l W:ll'' I I I : 1 1 l 1 I . )' ) : : } } . ) ) , Fe l l ' c i isnlssioll of thi s second usage of thc cone ' 1 '1' i l l l !o l l rc l i " I I 'S : 1 I 1 : 1 1 ys i , I I !' · .. .. . iill '. 1 1 ' 1 1 1 i l i(':l 1 i l l i l . S . . . . 1 " · 1 , ,,1'. c h a p i n 7 .

, .

F i E l D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 3 7

property), which Bourdieu calls the "dominant principle of hierarchy," and the distribution of cultuTal capital (knowledge, culture, and educational cre­ dentials), which Bourdieu calls the "second principle of hierarchy." This fundamental opposition between cultural capital and economic capital de­ lineates Bourdieu's field of power.42

Individuals, families, groups, and organizations, in Bourdieu's analysis, tend to draw disproportionately from either cultural or economic resources in their struggle to maintain and enhance their positions in the social order. In the case of France, Bourdieu sees the field of power emerging in the late nineteenth century as the opposition between "artists" and "bourgeois" (Bourdieu 1 9 89c; Wacquant 1 99 3 b : 2 2 - 2 3) . Yet, for B ourdieu ( I 984a: I I 5 , 1 2 3 ) this is the fundamental opposition that structures most cultural, politi­ cal, and social conflict i n all the advanced societiesY

Much of Bourdieu's work is devoted to examining the various forms the opposition between economic and cultural capital can assume. The dis­ tinctive lifestyles and political preferences of individuals and groups in­ deed almost all of their practices can be understood largely in terms of their distribution according to these two opposing types of capital.44 As a general rule, Bourdieu finds that the greater the difference in asset structure of these two types of capital, the more likely i t is that i ndividuals and groups will be opposed in their power struggle for domination.

The fundamental cultural capital/economic capital opposition delin­ eates as well other arenas of struggle organized around different forms and combinations of capital. Bourdieu ( I 9 89C: 3 8 I ) argues that the chiasmatic structure of economic capital and cultural capital distributes and ranks all

42 . A recent definition by Bonrdieu ( 1 99 2 : 2 29-30) defines the field of power as "the rela­ tions of force that obtain between the social positions which guarantee their occupants a quan­ tum of social force, or of capital, such that they are able to enter into the struggles over the monopoly o f power, of which struggles over the defi n i tion of the legitimate form of power are a crucial dimension."

4 3 . He i n fact sees the field of power as a "transhistorical" structure whose existence predates the rise of modern industrial societies. At its most general level, this chiasmatic structure represents the "fundamental opposition of the division of labour of domination" across all societies that occurs "between temporal and spiritual powers (Wacquan t I 993b: 24)·

44. BOllrdi e u ( 1 984a: I 24) does note that factors like geographical region can also play a role i n determi n i n g how i n d i v i d u a l s a n d groups are distributed in terms of economic and cspeci:l l l y c u l w r:1 i l':l l ' i t : l ! . Those si t u : I I'cd ncar c u l tural centers, such as Paris or New York, have c I J i l 1 J r:1 i r 'Sl l u ru:s I I I I Irl' rC:l d i l y : l v :l i l : 1 i ,!c l i , r :ll'C l I l l l l 1 i:ni o n . T n the C:lse of France, Bour-, c l i<.:u l l C l l cs t he "1 'I 'C lsi l i " I I I It ' I W 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 " I I f( i l l " " I'S i l i i d I 'riv:I \ c' SlTI C l r c x c c l l tives :lnd between i n c l u s ­ I l' i : 1 i : l l I d " I I I I I I I I " I'l ' i : 1 i < ' 1 1 1 1 '11 1)," 1'4 i l l 1 " I ' I I · . • e I c l i l l r " ' , I I " " i l l " l 'l I l I l I l l l i e : l I l t ! l ' I J i l u r: 1 i l':l l ' i t a l I' h a l' S l l ' l l I i l l 1 ': 1 1 ' 1 I rc l i l l I h.· 1 11 " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l it ' 1l'" ,"" I I I I I ' c l w i l h I : I I '/:,l ' l i rl i ls in l h c Paris r "l : i ' 1 I 1 ", I IlT I ' " '' 1 I 1 l ' 1 11 1 1 1 ' 1 II' " I i, I I I '" 1 1 1 0 1 1 " 1 1 1 ' 1 ' ''' I I I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 , I I I "'· I ' " ·' ....

1 3 8 I C H A P T E R S I X

other fields of struggle (e .g., economic, administrative, university, artistic, scientific, religious, intellectual). Figure I illustrates how Bourdieu ( I 9 8 3 a: 3 I 9, I 984a: 1 2 8 - 2 9) maps the field of power relative to class structure and to the literary and artistic fields. At the most general level, Bourdieu depicts the field of social classes (rectangle I ) as a two-dimensional space structured around the axes of volume and type of capital. The vertical axis measures the total volume of capital and the horizontal axis measures relative amOlmts of economic and cultural capital. The field of power (rectangle 2 ) is situated above the X-axis, in that portion of the social space with the greatest volume of capital, and is itself internally differentiated according to the poles of economic and cultural capital. Within the field of power the literary and artistic field (rectangle 3) is situated relatively nearer the pole of cultural power in the upper left quadrant of figure I (positions with considerable total capital but a negative ratio of economic to cultural capital). It thus occupies a "dominated position" within the field of power but a "dominant position" within the broader field of class rela­ tions. Finally, the literary and artistic field is itself internally differentiated by the economic/cultural capital opposition pitting the more commercial­ ized art forms against those destined for peer consumption (Bourdieu I 9 8 3 3 : 3 2 °)'

Fields vary, then, in terms of their respective proximity to the compet­ ing poles in the field of power. At one end stands the economic field, where economic capital predominates. At the opposite end lies the artistic field centered around cultural capital. The administrative and university fields occupy intermediary positions, with the administrative being situated closer to the economic and the university closer to the artistic.45 The juridical field, Bourdieu (I 9 8 7 c : 8 5 I ) observes, obtains less autonomy than the artis­ tic and scientific fields, since it is more closely tied to the political field.

45. Until very recently Bourdieu has said little about his conception of the state. In recent work (Bourdieu 1 989C : 3 7 1 - 5 5 9 , 1 99 3 a; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 992 : I I I - 1 5) he sug­ gests that with the rise of the bureaucratic state there emerges a new form o f capital, "statist capital , " which is the object of struggle witllin the field of power. \Vhereas earlier conceptual­ izations of the field of power focused on economic capital and cultural capital, Bourdieu's more recent thinking appears now to include tllis otller power resource. Statist capital i s a form of power over the different fields and different types of capital that circulate within them. It functions as a kind of "meta-capital," in mat it exercises power over other forms o f capital and particularly over their exchange rate. This new capital derives from the g;row i n g­ concentration of various fields in the state. H e writes, " i t follows that t h e construction o f 1"1 1 • state goes hand in hand with me constitution of the fi eld o f power l l l 1 t i e rstood :IS 1" I 1 C sp:lce of play in which holders of various forms o f c a p i t:l l s t r t l gg k ill /lIIl "limltll" f or power ovcr I h l ' state, that is, over the statist c:l p i t a l t h :l!" gra n l s pCIIl'l:r I I V l ' r I h l ' t i i I Y l ' r ( , 1 I 1 5 I 'l .. . i l ' s " f ( ,; l l ' i l a l a l , , 1 over their reproduction ( v i a t h e sl' hool S)'S I l ' 1 I 1 i l l p : l l " l i ( , l l l n r ) " ( I I I I l I r d i " 1 1 : 1 1 , , 1 \ V : I ( ' ' 1 I 1 : 1 I 1 1 " ) ' ) � : 1 1 4- 1 5 ),

•

F I E l O S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 3 9

F I G U R E I

E C - I C C + - - -

NOTE

I

TOTAL V O L U M E O F CAPITAL (+) , , I I ,

------ +-----'j------------- 2

,.---- + ----, 3

, , , , , , , , , , ------ - -

----,------------ , ,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

, , TOTAL VO L U M E O F CAl'ITAL (-)

KEY

E C + I C C - - - -

Rectangles represent Hrrays of positions on Cartesian coordinates where the Y-axis measures the total volume of economic and

culnrral capital and the X-axis measures the ratio of economic to culnrral capital

T , Social Space or Field of Socia l C lasses z . Field of Power

3 , Artistic Field EC ; Economic Capital c c ; Cultural Capital

This means that art and science are less dependent upon the economy and polity than is law for rewarding careers and developing symbolic systems. The religious field is situated near the artistic field since i t too organizes around a struggle for noneconomic legitimation. The j ournalistic field, in contrast, is the most dependent upon the administrative and political cir­ cles .4(, Th us, cu l tu ra l fi e l d s va ry in their degree of autonomy from economic

4.fi , See 1 I ' l I l 1'1 l i " ' 1 " )'/" ' I 'h , ' r l ' i s ' 1 l I l l l ' l h " iess S i l i l l e I Iverl:lp i n BOl l rcli eu 's conceptmll tenni- 1 1 0 1 1 Ig)" w h i . . ! , 1 1 1 : 1 )' " d ieT I 1 1 " ' / \ " i l l d i l 'i ' l'I' l " 1 1 t " " l 1 l ' .� I S , \l V e l i n d , Ii , r eX:l I l 1 ple , : I t o n e poi nt he spcc i l i c 5 I h : l I ·" I '"l i l i , · :t l l i .

. I . I ' 1 '1 ' 1 , " " . I I I " 1 " " ' 1 1 1 1 ' " 1 1 ,, 1 '" l i l i , , :tl i ' l ' l i l l i l i o l 1 s : l l l d :In or, ('cl1:l 1 1 1 p 1 ' " l i l i ' l I l " ' ) 111111 1111'11 I I I 1 1 1 1 ' II' h " I , ' 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 , 0 1 1 '" 11" " ' 1 ' 1 ,, 1 ' " 1 1 " I I I 1 " , l i l i , " :1 1 1 1 1 51 1( ' i " l ), ( ' ( ' h :l I 1 1 p t i l l 1 " ' " l' l I i r ' ) " ( 1 1 , , " ,' d i , ' " 1 1 )101" " ' I ' ) . ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' "1 1.1 " " . I d i ' , 1

1 4 0 I C H A P T E R S I X

and political authorityY A central objective of Bourdieu's sociology consists of situating fields of cultural activity relative to the field of power.48

Each field is internally differentiated by a "homologous structure" of an economically dominant and culturally dominated pole and a culturally dominant and economically dominated pole (Bourdieu 1 9 89C: 3 8 3 ) . Bour­ dieu's field analytic approach to the study of the social world consists of identifying the various forms that this oppositional structure takes in spe­ ci fic arenas of struggle. His is a structuralist analysis that searches for trans­ formations of this deep structure of all social and political conflict. For example, even within the economic field Bourdieu ( 1 989C: 3 8 3 ; Bourdieu and de Saint Martin 1 97 8) finds that one can identify a fundamental opposi­ tion between two groups: ( I ) technocratic big business leaders, whose train­ ing, careers and firms are closely connected to public sector institutions, and ( 2 ) owners of large family firms that operate primarily in the private sphere. The former are inheritors of cultural capital and accumulators of scholastic capital whereas the latter are inheritors primarily of economic capita1.4� This same opposition occurs at the level of the large corporation where it i n fact is the basis of the classic struggle over manager or owner control (Bourdieu and de S aint Martin 1 97 8 : 5 8). And in the university field, Bourdieu finds the economic capital/cultural capital opposition taking on the form of the familiar tension between teaching and research.

The chiasmatic structure of economic capital and cultural capital func­ tions, therefore, both as the bedrock of Bourdieu's field analysis and his approach to the topic of social stratification. It is an organizing principle both between and within fields. As we will see in chapter 7 , it also functions as an organizing principle of the social class structure.

. Toward a General Science of Practices: A Research Program

Having presented Bourdieu's key concepts of habitus, capital, and field, I will now summarize the overall conceptual framework of his general science of practices and its methodological agenda. If the dispositions of habitus

47. Bourdieu sees this variation as both historical and societal. Cultural fields vary in their autonomy from economic and political power in different historical periods and across d i ffer­ ent societies. He suggests that the variation can depend on two factors: ( 1 ) on the value ac­ corded to works of art by the various fractions of the dominant class, and (z) on the "produc­ tion and reproduction of economic capital" (Bourdieu 1 9 8 3 a : 3 z 2).

48. For example, La Noblesse d'Etat gives Bourdieu's analysis of the relations hetween t h e field of power and the fIl'andes ecoles. His 1 98 2 study with M O l l i q l l e de S a i n t· M l l rt i n of t i l · French Catholic bishops situates them relative to the I i · l e l of I ,, )wn.

49. Bourdiell indicates that si nce t ilt; husi ness l l< ll l rf(co i s i < , i , i l l l 'I'( ' a ,i l l l � l l' 1 1 ( ,' J l l i r i l l l� n i l t l l r a l capital, this traditional OpJ losi l ion i s :nten l l :l I i l l f( 1 0 501 1 1 1 ' . 1 "1.\1'1 ' " ( 1 I o l l r , I I " 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 . I , ' S:l i l ll M :I I'l i l l I <J 7 X ) .

F I E L D S O F S T R U G G L E F O R P O W E R I 1 4 1

are the product of class-specific conditions of primary socialization, the action they generate is not, however, a direct expression of this prior class socialization and the accumulation of specific forms of capital i t provides. Rather, action is the product of class dispositions intenecting with the dy­ namics and structures of particular fields. Practices occur when habitus en­ counters those competitive arenas called fields, and action reflects the struc­ ture of that encounter. The relationship is dialectical, and includes an important temporal dimension. Bourdieu's sociological analysis therefore calls for constructing both the structure of the relevant field and the class habitus of the agents involve d. In Distinction ( 1 984a : l o l ) , Bourdieu offers the foIlowing equation as a summary formula of his model:

[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice.

Bourdieu's complete model of practices conceptualizes action as the outcome of a relationship between habitus, capital, and field. 50 He warns that practices cannot be "deduced either from the present conditions which may seem to have provoked them or from the past conditions which have produced the habitus . . . [but from their] interrelationship" (Bourdieu 1 99oh: 5 6) ." Practices are not to be reduced to either habitus or field but

50. The formula makes it clear that Bourdieu resists reducing practice to the independent effects of either habitus, capital, or field. It is their combination that produces practices. Unfor­ tlmately, the formula confuses more than clarifies the exact relationship among the terms. Are habitus and capital interactive terms whereas field i s additive? Or does the formula simply recommend that every empirical inquiry take into account all of these factors?

In Bourdieu's early work, his theory of practice focuses essentially on habitus. It is made to do practically all of the conceptual work. As h e develops the concept of field, however, his theory of practice increasingly becomes one corresponding to the formula. From the outset, i t was clear that habitlls alone was not the sole source of practices but rather a sort of triggering and mediating force. Practices emerged not simply from habitus but from the intersection be­ tween habitus and the objective structures of sitllations. Still, i t was habitus that seemed to be the driving force as Bourdieu ( I 9 7 7C : 7 8) suggests when he writes "in practice, it �s the habitus, . . . which accomplishes practically the relating of these two systems of relations, in and through the production of practice. " Just what habitus intersects with to produce practices does not receive extensive theorization until Bourdieu develops the concept o f field. We are told, for example, that practices emerge out o f a "dialectical relationship" between habitlls and a n "objective event" (8 2 - 8 3 ) . He also writes of the "conjuncture" to specify the conditions i n which habitus is operating to produce practices. We know that what habitus encounters are "objective structures," "systems of relations," "events," "conjunctures," but we are given l i ttle theoretical i n sight into the exact character of these macro realities until the idea of field is developed . W i t h I h e cOllcept of liel< 1 , we sec i ncreasing evidence of Bourdieu's fundamental eLl i l ll t h ; l t t he sOl· i : l 1 w o r l d i s sl rl lt ' l l i red hy Jlol:lrities. Yet, i t i s h a bi tus that creates the homolo­ gies of I 'r:lel iccs a !TosS . I i I'i'c rl' I I I l i d d s . So w l i i I t : t l i e t ie v d 0l ' l l l e n t of the concept o f field gives I l C W i l l s ig·1 I 1 i l l l t l h t lw I l t l l l r d i " 1 I t l l i l l !; " , d , o l l l I I l i l t '1'' ' S l rl l t ' l l I rl'S, t h e cel l t T;d cOllcept of h l l h i tus l't l l l l i l l l ll'S i l· ,t l l I l l ' w I O : I I k·.·. " I ·. i 1 , I \, I t l l it ' t i ll ' \ " 'I l l l':d l ' i l l :I I' o f 1 I ' " l rt i i c l I 's " o l l eept l l : i 1 edi l i c e .

'i I . Tt l ' · I l l p l l l l .. i , , · t i l l ' 1 " '1 1 1 1 t l i l l i I I I ' t l l l l d " j , I I 1 ,, ", ' 1 1 <" '" i I · . " " I 1 ' r g i l l l � fro I I I t i l l ' l ' I I I ' o l l l l l c r 1 11 ' 1 11" " ' 1 1 l " d ' " I 1 ·. 11 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ' 1 . 1·" I I t l I I I I 1 1 , , " 1 1 ' / ' / 1 1 1 j l t ) .. l i t ' .. ,,,,,, t l i l i l I I I I I I '. 1 1 " " I . . J " n l l · l i . . . ·, t l t I 1 1 1 11

1 4 2 I C H A P T E R S I X

grow out of the "interrelationship" established at each point in time by the sets of relations represented by both. In chapter 8, I will critically assess that relationship in discussing how Bourdieu deals with the problem of social change.

Bourdieu ( 1 9 84C : 5-6, 1 9 8 7 b : q6; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1 99 2 : 1 04- 5) indicates that his approach to the study of intellectual and artistic works consists of three necessary step. ( I ) Research must relate the particular field of practices to the broader field of power. This first step illustrates the commanding place that stratification and power have in Bourdieu's sociol­ ogy. In the case of artists and writers, we find the literary field embedded within the field of power where it occupies a dominated position (Bourdieu 1 98 3 a) . The legal field, in contrast, is situated much closer to the dominant pole of power. (2 ) Research should identify the structure of obj ective rela­ tions between the opposing positions occupied by individuals or groups as they compete for intellectual or artistic legitimation. What are the forms of economic and cultural capital that are specific to the field under investi­ gation? How are they distributed relative to other forms of capital? This means identifying the dominant and subordinate positions for all the partic­ ipants in the field. And (3) research must analyze the class habitus brought by agents to their respective positions and the social trajectory they pursue within the field of struggle.

These three analytical steps might be said to constitute the general research method in Bourdieu's sociology. The analysis of practices involves the construction of the fields where they occur and the habitus of the agents brought to those fields. The next chapters will examine Bourdieu's field analysis in three key areas of substantive concern in his work: social-class structure, the system of higher education, and intellectuals in France.

mechanically flow from the various forms of capital held by agents. Such a view is precisely what he criticizes as characterizing the status-attainment research tradition. Nevertheless, Bourdieu ( I 99 I d : I 6- 1 7) himself relies heavily on his concepts of capital and habitus in ex­ plaining the style of investment strategies that agents employ in various fields.

· • • • • • , , , , , , , , , , , ,

S OCIA L C L A S SE S A N D THE

S T RUG G L E F OR P OW E R

Perhaps Bourdieu's greatest inspiration for the practice of sociology is his uncanny eye for the subtle but powerful forms of social distinction. We find this talent roving widely across detailed ethnographic observations, statistical tables, literary texts, photographs, interviews, questionnaire sur­ veys, and census reports. By professional social scientific standards, Bour­ dieu's research style is unorthodox, combining as it does methods and types of data that are usually objects of specialized analysis with little cross-over. It is quintessential Bourdieu to find in a single paragraph literary and philo­ sophical references interspersed with percentages from a survey. In the view of one critic (Collins 1 98 9A6o), this style earns him the title of "the world's most successful survey researcher . " Not all, of course, would agree. In this chapter I attempt to flesh out the central features of Bourdieu's theory and method in stratification research.

A central objective of Bourdieu's work is to show how culture and social class correlate. Cultural practices, he argues, are markers of underlying class distinctions. This view sets him apart from many contemporary postmod­ ern voices (e .g., Jean Baudrillard [ 1 988a, 1 9 88b]) who stress the uncertain, con ti n ge n t a n d soci a l l y diverse character of cultural life .i Yet, he proposes to J c.: l 1 l o n stra tc.: t h i s con n ecti o n between cul ture and social class without

" B ' I l l I 'l l i l ' l I ( I I)K' I " : (I I ) i I l X i " I " "l" l I i � l � l ' l I l ' I' : l 1 : 1 " 1 ' " 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 i l l l )il'lil/r'li(J1/ :lg:l i I l S i I h � �:l l ' l i e l' I ' i : l i l l l l ,), 1 ) : l I l i , , 1 B , ' I I ( 1 1 )7 (1 : \ \ H ' I ) 1 i 1 !1 I 1 1 1 " I i ' I l ' i l ' I I I " " , ' l d l l l l l ' " 1 1 1 1 1' 1 ' d i '" i l ' : l I l ' d i l l l l l l ll l l ' l ' l l l 'l ISi i l l d l l ', l l ' i � ! 1 '-" w l t ' l I l '\"