Pierre Bourdieu (b. 1930) is one of the greatest French sociologists of our time. His professional biography took shape as a gradual ascent to the heights of the sociological Olympus, to his wide recognition by the scientific community and the formation of a separate sociological movement called the “Bourdieu school.”
Having graduated from the Higher Pedagogical School (Ecole normale supérieure) in 1955 with a degree in philosophy (Bourdieu’s teachers were Althusser and Foucault), he began teaching philosophy at the Lyceum of the small town of Moulins, but in 1958 he left for Algeria, where he continued his teaching work and began research as a sociologist. His first published sociological works were dedicated to Algeria, Algerian workers and small entrepreneurs: “Sociology of Algeria” (1961), “Labor and Workers in Algeria” (1964). This was followed by a move first to Lille and then to Paris, where in 1964 Bourdieu became research director at the Ecole pratique de hautes études. In 1975, he founded and headed the Center for European Sociology, which has extensive international scientific contacts and programs, as well as the journal Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, which is currently, along with French sociological journal (“Revue française de sociologie”), one of the leading sociological journals in France.
The most important stage in the recognition of Pierre Bourdieu's merits was his election in 1981 as a full member of the French Academy and his receipt of the honorary post of head of the department of sociology at the Collège de France. Currently, Bourdieu is the author of 26 monographs and many dozens of articles published in major scientific journals in France and other countries. His works are translated into all European languages and have a wide resonance in the international scientific community.
General characteristics of the sociological concept of P. Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu's sociology is deeply critical and reflexive. His dialectical and sometimes paradoxical thinking is aimed at criticizing not only the social or political reality of the period he is experiencing, but also at sociology itself as a tool for understanding the social world. That is why the sociology of sociology occupies a large place in Bourdieu’s works. Starting with his first books: “Sociology of Algeria” (“Sociologie de l"Algérie”) (1961) “Pedagogical attitude and communication” (“Rappof pédagogique et communication”) (1965), “The craft of a sociologist” (“Le Métier de sociologue” ") (1968) and ending with one and the last - "Responses" ("Réponses") (1992), Pierre Bourdieu constantly analyzes the ontological and social status of sociology in modern society, freedom and predetermination in the choice of subject and object of research, independence and political engagement sociologists.
Drawing the attention of sociologists to the need to apply sociological analysis to sociology itself as one of the areas of the social universe, subject to the same laws as any other area, Bourdieu notes that the activity of a sociologist is directed not only by the goals of knowledge, but also by the struggle for his own position in the scientific environment. “A significant part of sociological orthodox work,” he writes, “owes its immediate social success to the fact that it responded to the dominant order, often amounting to an order for instruments of rationalization of control and domination or to an order for the “scientific” legitimation of the spontaneous sociology of the dominant.”
Bourdieu is characterized by a deep disregard for interdisciplinary divisions, which impose limitations on both the subject of research and the methods used. His research combines approaches and techniques from the fields of anthropology, history, linguistics, political science, philosophy, aesthetics, which he fruitfully applies to the study of such diverse sociological objects as: the peasantry, art, unemployment, the education system, law, science, literature, marriage -kinship unions, classes, religion, politics, sports, language, housing, intellectuals and the state “elite”, etc.
When the line is drawn between empirical and theoretical sociology, it is usually said that empirical sociology studies real facts and phenomena interpreted within the framework of an abstract model, which is theoretical sociology.
Empirical sociology, based on specific data, is a priori integrated into the social reality it observes, while theoretical sociology in its reasoning tries to take a certain objective “super-reflexive” position, located, as it were, above society. This division between empirical and theoretical sociology is absolutely inapplicable to the work of Bourdieu. Rejecting the “impractical”, non-socially involved strategy of theoretical research as “observation of the observer,” the author builds his work as a person whose interests are invested in the reality he studies. Therefore, the main thing for Bourdieu is to record the result produced by the situation of observation on the observation itself. This marks a decisive break with the tradition that the theorist has “nothing to do with social reality except explain it.”
Departure from such a “uninvested in social life” research strategy means, firstly, the explication of the fact that a sociologist cannot occupy some unique, dedicated position from which he “sees everything” and whose entire interest is reduced only to sociological explanation; secondly, the sociologist must move from an external (theoretical) and disinterested understanding of the practice of agents to a practical and directly interested understanding.
“The sociologist opposes the doxosophist by questioning things that seem obvious... This deeply shocks the doxosophist, who sees political bias in the fact of a refusal to submit, deeply political, expressed in the unconscious acceptance of commonplaces in the Aristotelian sense of the word: concepts or theses with which to argue , but about which they do not argue.”
The logic of Bourdieu's research is fundamentally opposed to pure theorizing: as a “practical” sociologist and social critic, he advocates practical thought as opposed to “pure” thought or “theoretical theory.” He repeatedly emphasizes in his books that theoretical definitions have no value in themselves unless they can be made to work in empirical research.
Dialectics of a social agent
By introducing the agent as opposed to the subject and the individual, Bourdieu seeks to disassociate himself from the structuralist and phenomenological approaches to the study of social reality. He emphasizes that the concept of “subject” is used in widespread ideas about “models”, “structures”, “rules”, when the researcher seems to take an objectivist point of view, seeing in the subject a puppet controlled by the structure, and depriving him of his own activity . In this case, the subject is seen as one who implements a conscious, purposeful practice, obeying a certain rule. Bourdieu’s agents “are not automata, fine-tuned like clockwork in accordance with mechanical laws that are unknown to them.” Agents implement strategies - unique systems of practice, driven by a goal, but not consciously directed by this goal. Bourdieu proposes as a basis for explaining the practice of agents not a theoretical concept constructed in order to present this practice as “reasonable” or, even worse, “rational”, but describes the very logic of practice through such phenomena as practical feeling, habitus, strategies behavior.
One of the basic concepts of the sociological concept of Pierre Bourdieu is the concept of habitus, which allows him to overcome the limitations and superficiality of the structural approach and the excessive psychologism of the phenomenological one. Habitus is a system of dispositions that generates and structures the agent's practice and representations. It allows the agent to spontaneously navigate the social space and react more or less adequately to events and situations. Behind this lies a huge amount of work on education and upbringing in the process of socialization of the individual, on his assimilation of not only explicit, but also implicit principles of behavior in certain life situations. The internalization of such life experience, often remaining unconscious, leads to the formation of the agent’s readiness and inclination to react, speak, feel, think in a certain way - in one way and not in another. Habitus, therefore, “is a product of the characterological structures of a certain class of conditions of existence, i.e., economic and social necessity and family ties, or, more precisely, purely family manifestations of this external necessity (in the form of the division of labor between the sexes, surrounding objects, type of consumption, relationships between parents, prohibitions, worries, moral lessons, conflicts, taste, etc.).”
Habitus, according to Bourdieu, is at the same time the generative principle according to which practice is objectively classified, and the principle of classification of practices in the representations of agents. The relationship between these two processes determines the type of habitus: the ability to produce a certain type of practice, classify surrounding objects and facts, evaluate various practices and their products (what is usually called taste), which also finds expression in the space of agents’ lifestyles.
The connection that is established in reality between a certain set of economic and social conditions (the volume and structure of capital available to the agent) and the characteristics of the position occupied by the agent (the corresponding space of lifestyles) crystallizes into a special type of habitus and makes it possible to make meaningful both the practices themselves and and judgments about them.
The dual nature of social space and social positions
Bourdieu sees the main task of sociology in identifying the most deeply hidden structures of various social environments that make up the social universe, as well as the mechanisms that serve its reproduction and change. The peculiarity of this universe is that the structures that form it “lead a double life.” They exist in two forms: firstly, as a “first-order reality”, given through the distribution of material resources and means of appropriating socially prestigious goods and values (“types of capital” according to Bourdieu); Secondly, as a “second-order reality”, they exist in ideas, in patterns of thinking and behavior, that is, as a symbolic matrix of practical activity, behavior, thinking, emotional assessments and judgments of social agents.
Bourdieu writes: “First of all, sociology is a social topology. Thus, it is possible to depict the social world in the form of a multidimensional space, built according to the principles of differentiation and distribution, formed by a set of active properties in the universe under consideration, i.e., properties capable of giving its owner strength and power in this universe. Agents and groups of agents are thus defined by their relative positions in this space. Each of them is placed in a position and in classes defined in relation to neighboring positions (i.e., in a certain region of a given space), and one cannot actually occupy two opposite regions in space, even if mentally it is possible.
Speaking about the position of agents in space, Pierre Bourdieu emphasizes the aspect that social and physical spaces cannot be considered in a “pure form”: only as social or only as physical: “... Social division, objectified in physical space, functions simultaneously as a principle of vision and divisions as a category of perception and evaluation, in short, as a mental structure.” Social space is therefore not some kind of “theoretically formed emptiness” in which the coordinates of agents are indicated, but a physically embodied social classification: agents “occupy” a certain space, and the distance between their positions is also not only social, but also physical space.
In order to understand what is “between” agents occupying different positions in social space, it is necessary to “move away” from the usual consideration of the “social subject” and turn to what makes a position in space independent of a specific individual. Here we should once again emphasize Bourdieu’s use of the concept of “agent,” which primarily reflects such quality of an individual as activity and the ability to act, to be the bearer of practices of a certain type and to implement strategies aimed at maintaining or changing one’s position in social space.
Consequently, we can say, on the one hand, that the totality of positions in social space (more precisely, in each specific field) is constituted by practices, and on the other hand, that practices are what “is” between agents. The space of practices, therefore, is also objectively, like the space of agents. Social space, as it were, reunites both of these spaces - agents and practices - with their constant and active interaction
Thus, society as a “first-order reality” is considered in the aspect of social physics as an external objective structure, the nodes and compositions of which can be observed, measured, and “mapped.” The subjective point of view of society as a “second-order reality” assumes that the social world is “a contingent and time-extended activity of authorized social agents who continuously construct the social world through the practical organization of everyday life.”
Speaking about social space as a “space of the second order”, Bourdieu emphasizes that it is not only the “realization of social division”, understood as a set of positions, but also the space of “vision of this division”, vision and division, and also not only the occupation of a certain position in space (field) - position, but also the development of a certain (political) position - prize de position. “Social space is thus inscribed simultaneously in the objectivity of spatial structures and in subjective structures, which are partly a product of the incorporation of objectified structures.”
The opposition between objectivism and subjectivism, mechanism and goal-setting, structural necessity and individual actions is, according to Bourdieu, false, since these pairs of terms are not so much opposed as they complement each other in social practice. Overcoming this false antinomy, Bourdieu proposes social praxeology for the analysis of social reality, which combines structural and constructivist (phenomenological) approaches. Thus, on the one hand, he distances himself from everyday ideas in order to build objective structures (position space) and establish the distribution of various types of capital, through which external necessity is constituted, influencing interactions and the perceptions of agents occupying given positions. On the other hand, he introduces the direct experience of agents in order to identify categories of perception and evaluation (dispositions) that “from the inside” structure the agent’s behavior and his ideas about the position he occupies.
Constitution of social fields and their basic properties
Social space includes a number of fields, and an agent can occupy positions in several of them simultaneously (these positions are in a relationship of homology with each other). A field, according to Bourdieu, is a specific system of objective connections between various positions in alliance or conflict, competition or cooperation, determined socially and largely independent of the physical existence of the individuals who occupy these positions.
When considered synchronously, fields represent structured position spaces that determine the basic properties of the fields. analyzing such different fields as, for example, the field of politics, the field of economics, the field of religion, Pierre Bourda; reveals invariant patterns of their constitution and functioning: autonomization, determination of the “stakes” of the game and specific interests that are irreducible to the “stakes” and interests characteristic of other fields, the struggle to establish an internal division of the field into classes of positions (dominant and dominated) and social ideas about the legitimacy of this particular division, etc. Each category of interests contains indifference to other interests, to other investments of capital, which will be assessed in another field as meaningless. In order for the field to function, it is necessary that the stakes in the game and the people themselves be ready to play this game, have a habitus that includes knowledge and recognition of the laws inherent in the game.
Field structure is a state of power relations between agents or institutions involved in a struggle, where the distribution of specific capital accumulated during previous struggles governs future strategies. This structure, which is represented, in principle, by strategies aimed at its transformation, is itself at stake: the field is a place of struggle that has at stake the monopoly of legitimate violence that characterizes the field in question, that is, ultimately the preservation or change of the distribution of specific capital.
Pierre Bourdieu gives an answer to the frequently asked question about the connection and difference between “field” and “apparatus” in the sense of Althusser or “system” in Luhmann. Emphasizing the essential difference between the “field” and the “apparatus,” the author insists on two aspects: historicism and struggle. “I am very opposed to the apparatus, which for me is the Trojan horse of the worst functionalism: the apparatus is an infernal machine, programmed to achieve certain goals. The education system, the state, the church, political parties, trade unions are not apparatuses, but fields. In the field, agents and institutions fight in accordance with the patterns and rules formulated in this game space (and, in some situations, fight for these rules themselves) with different strengths and therefore different probability of success in order to capture the specific benefits that are the goals in this game . Those who dominate a given field are in a position where they can make it function in their favor, but must always count on resistance, counter-demands, claims, “political” or not, from those in a subordinate position.”
Of course, in certain historical conditions, which must be studied empirically, the field can begin to function as an apparatus: totalitarian institutions (exile, prison, concentration camp) or dictatorial states have made many attempts to achieve this. Thus, the devices represent an extreme case, something that can be considered a pathological state of the field.
As for systems theory, here one can find some superficial similarities with field theory. One could easily translate the concepts of “self-referentiality” or “self-organization” as what P. Bourdieu understands by the concept of autonomy; in these two cases the process of differentiation and autonomization really plays a major role. But the differences between these two theories are nevertheless radical, first of all, the concept of a field excludes functionalism and organicism: since the products of a given field can be systematic without being products of a system and, in particular, one that is characterized by general functions and internal coherence. If it is true that the occupied positions entering the space of possibility can be considered as a system, then they nevertheless form a system of differences, delimiting and antagonistic distinctions, developing not in accordance with their own internal movement (as the principle of self-referentiality implies), but through internal conflicts with field of production. The field is a place of relations of forces - and not just meaning - and struggle aimed at transforming these relations and, as a consequence, it is a place of continuous change. The coherence that can be observed in a certain state of the field, its external manifestation as an orientation towards one specific function (for example, in the case of the Grandes Ecoles in France - the reproduction of the structure of the field of power) are products of conflict and competition, and not a certain self-development immanent in the structure.
Another important difference is that the field has no constituent parts. Each subfield has its own logic, its own rules, its own specific patterns, and each stage of dividing the field causes a real qualitative leap (as, for example, when one moves from the level of the field of politics as a whole to the subfield of international state politics). Each field constitutes a potentially open space of play, the limitations of which are dynamic boundaries that are stakes in the struggle within this field itself. In other words, for a more complete understanding of what separates the concepts “field” and “system”, it is necessary to consider them in action and compare them based on the empirical objects they produce.
In his theory of field economics, Bourdieu notes the need to always identify those specific forms in which the most general concepts and mechanisms (capital, investment, interest, etc.) appear in various fields and thus avoid any reductionism, but , especially economic reductionism, which recognizes only material interests and the desire to maximize monetary gain.
The question of politics and analysis of the political field
The works of Bourdieu collected in this book regarding his analysis of politics respond not to the immediate need to assess the balance of political forces, but to the fundamental need to obtain a sociological tool for analyzing politics as a specific social reality. Bourdieu does not study parties and political movements or real politicians - the reader will not find this in the book - but the social mechanism of the formation of political parties and political opinions, one of which is delegation. He views the political field as a market in which there is production, demand and supply of a special kind of product - political parties, programs, opinions, positions. Applying the general concept of the structure and functioning of the social field, Pierre Bourdieu consistently examines the specific principles of distribution in the political field of dominant and dominated positions, power, as well as the mechanisms of legitimate violence and the imposition of a certain vision of the distribution of political forces and, more broadly, the division of social space.
As a sociologist, Bourdieu regularly turned to the study of political subjects, which also follows from the works published in this book - they date from different years, but as a citizen he always eschewed politics and never joined any party. However, recently, especially after the Gulf War, Bourdieu began to advocate the active role of the sociologist in the political process, for the need to analyze and debunk contemporary politics, without leaving the field of production of the political product to politicians alone, in order to avoid the symbolic, and direct manipulation, imposition of certain (dominant) points of view. “Everything happens,” writes Bourdieu, “as if the more and more inexorable censorship of the scientific world, more and more concerned with its autonomy (real or apparent), imposed itself more and more harshly on researchers who, in order to deserve the title of scientist had to be killed by the politician in himself, thereby yielding the utopian function to the less scrupulous and less competent of his brothers, or to politicians or journalists.” And he adds: “...I believe that nothing justifies this scientistic renunciation, which destroys political convictions, and that the moment has come when scientists are absolutely obliged to intervene in politics... with all the authority and right that membership in the autonomous universe of science gives.”
Bourdieu views the field of politics in a completely different way than has now become accepted in our press: that is, not as something given objectively and independently of us, something to which we can react in some way, but cannot change (in the first place because there is “no alternative” to this [Perestroika, Yeltsin, Market, Reform, etc.]). For him, the field of politics is a condition and a constantly produced and institutionalized result of political practice.
In line with the holistic concept of the field, the analysis of the struggle waged by agents in the political field is also an analysis of the forces aimed at preserving or changing the existing socio-political structure and at legitimizing the power dominant in the political field. Bourdieu shows that the main stake in the political game is not only and also not so much the monopoly of the use of objectified resources of political power (finance, law, army, etc.), but the monopoly of production; and the dissemination of political ideas and opinions: they are the ones who have the “mobilizing” force that gives life to political parties and ruling groups.
If we consider the integration of an agent into political practice as a conscious activity, then it must be explained either in terms that describe the consciousness of the subject, or in terms of a political position, i.e., from two fundamentally different mechanisms for generating acts of political practice. On the one hand, part of political actions the subject is determined by reflection, rational “projects for the future”, etc., and on the other hand, by the ability to spontaneously perceive, evaluate and act within the framework of existing social forms. We can say that if the political practice of the subject is regulated by his consciousness, then the agent's political strategy represents the realization of the necessity inherent in the political situation. The agent’s political strategy is not the result of a conscious desire based on knowledge, but at the same time it is not a continuation of external coercion: it would be wrong to reduce the agent’s subjectivity only to the internalized form of relations in the political field or to legitimate violence. However, in order for an agent, objectifying his subjectivity in political action, to achieve results, he must have certain capital - specific knowledge and skills, recognized status, “authority”, connections, etc.
According to Bourdieu, the study of the political field must necessarily include consideration of the conditions of access to political practice and its implementation. The field of politics is shaped by differences in the active characteristics of agents, which give their owners power in the field (the ability to act effectively) and are, in fact, types of power in this field. Each political position is described by specific combinations of these characteristics and is determined by relationships with other positions. Everything in the field of politics - positions, agents, institutions, policy statements, comments, manifestations, etc. - can be understood exclusively through correlation, comparison and contrast, through the analysis of the struggle to redefine the rules of the internal division of the field.
Concluding this brief introduction, I would like to quote the words of Bourdieu addressed to sociologists: “...I would like sociologists to be always and in everything at the height of the enormous historical responsibility that has fallen to their share, and that they would always involve in their actions not only its moral authority, but also its intellectual competence. Following Karl Kraus, I want to say that “I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils.” And if I completely refuse to forgive the sins of “irresponsibility” of intellectuals, then I am even less inclined to do this in relation to “responsible” intellectuals, “polymorphic” and “polygraphic”, who are in between two administrative councils, three cocktails with the participation of the press and With several appearances on television, a new publication is issued every year.”
It was shown above that E. Giddens, in his unifying concept, moved from the subject of action to the social structure. At the same time, his French colleague P. Bourdieu carried out the path of theoretical synthesis in the opposite direction, moving in his theoretical analysis from social structure to the active subject of action (to the agent).
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) is one of the leading French sociologists of the last third of the 20th century. His first sociological works were written during the Algerian period of his life and work. These are “Sociology in Algeria” (1961) and “Labor and Workers in Algeria” (1964). After moving to France, Bourdieu became research director at the École Supérieure Practical de la Recherche, and then founded the Center for European Sociology. In 1981 he was elected a full member of the French Academy and received an honorary post as head of the department of sociology at the College de France: He was also the editor-in-chief of one of the leading sociological journals in France and the director of a book publishing house. Bourdieu wrote 35 monographs and published hundreds of articles in the most serious sociological publications in the world. Among the major works are “Pedagogical Attitude and Communication” (1965), “The Craft of a Sociologist” (1968), “Reproduction” (1970), “Difference” (1980), “Practical Meaning” (1980), “Speaking Things” (1987 ), “Answers” (1992), “The Poverty of the World” (1993), “Practical Reason. Towards a Theory of Action” (1994), “The Science of Science and Reflectivity” (2001), etc. Several works by Bourdieu have been published in Russian, including “The Sociology of Politics” (1993) and “Principles” (1994), to which we will refer repeatedly in the future.
The range of scientific interests of the French sociologist was unusually wide. Among the problems that concerned him were social reproduction, problems of education, students, emigrants, the unemployed, workers, peasants, youth, state, government, politics, media, literature, social science, etc. He participated in many sociological studies and political actions, thereby demonstrating an example of a scientist for whom theory and practice are not separated from each other by a “Chinese wall.”
Basic provisions of the theory of social space
Having put one of the theories (of social space) created by Bourdieu in the title of the section, we must realize that it is closely connected with his other theories - the social field, habitus, practice, capital. This is all the more important to understand because in the domestic literature devoted to the analysis of his work, some authors consider genetic structuralism, the sociology of symbolic forms, the concept of habitus, the concept of field, etc. as his theories. Read more about them and the central concepts underlying them. will also be said. By putting forward the most general theory of social space, we thus strive to consider through its prism all other concepts (concepts) characterized by Bourdieu.
The concept of social space is for the French scientist one of the key ones in sociological science, which appears in his interpretation as social topology. In its most general form, social space “is a collection of agents endowed with various and systematically interrelated properties...” [Bourdieu. 1994. P. 195]. At the same time, social space is the connections and interactions that are established between people (agents) and social groups. According to the sociologist, “social space is designed in such a way that agents occupying similar or neighboring positions are in similar conditions, are subject to similar conditions and have every chance of having similar dispositions and interests, and therefore producing similar practices” [Ibid. pp. 188-189].
Like other theoretical concepts that Bourdieu uses, the category of social space is not new. However, the sociologist brings additional “breath” into the “life” of this concept, correlating social, physical and geographical spaces. Although they are closely related and even intertwined, they differ from each other. “The space in which we live and which we cognize,” he writes, “is socially designated and constructed. Physical space cannot be thought of in this quality other than through abstraction (physical geography), i.e., completely ignoring everything to which it owes, being inhabited and appropriated. In other words, physical space is a social construction and a projection of social space, a social structure in an objectified state..." [Ibid. P. 39-40].
For the French sociologist, social space appears initially as an abstract space. It becomes concrete when it is constituted by an ensemble of subspaces or fields. Social space includes fields that act as systems of objective connections between various positions (for example, the state, church, political parties, education system, etc.). Bourdieu identifies a variety of fields: economic, political, religious, etc. These fields are structured spaces of positions that determine the basic properties of the zeros themselves.
Studying various types of fields in the structure of social space, Bourdieu attaches particular importance to the field of economic production. He points out: “In reality, social space is a multidimensional, open ensemble of relatively autonomous fields, that is, subordinate to a greater or lesser extent, firmly and directly in their functioning and in their change to the zero of economic production: within each subspace, those who occupy a dominant position and those who occupy a subordinate position are constantly involved in various kinds of struggle..." [Ibid. P. 82].
The French sociologist considers social space, first of all, as a means (or method) for the implementation of social differentiation (division), which acts as a set of social positions occupied by agents. But it is, at the same time, a vision of this differentiation (division). Bourdieu writes that “it is possible to depict” the social world in the form of a multidimensional space, built according to the principles of differentiation and distribution, formed by the totality of active properties in the universe under consideration, i.e. properties that can give its owner strength and power in this universe. Agents and groups of agents are thus defined by their relative positions in this space. Each of them is placed in a position and in classes defined in relation to neighboring positions (i.e. in a certain region of a given space), and it is impossible to actually occupy two opposite regions in space, even if it is mentally possible" [Ibid. P. 55-56].
The structure of social space and subspaces - fields includes three groups of capital: economic, cultural, social capital. Economic capital is resources of an economic nature (goods and money in the first place). Cultural capital is resources of a cultural nature (primarily various types of education and the cultural level of individuals). Social capital is the resources associated with belonging to a particular social community (mainly connections that can be used by an individual through its members). The distribution of various types of capital in a society also characterizes its social space. Hence, Bourdieu poses the problem of power over capital, which means the same thing as power over social space.
The concept of social space allows him to overcome, as he believes, the one-sidedness of objectivism and subjectivism, structuralism and constructivism, while using all these theoretical directions to explain social processes and how their perception occurs. In his work “Social Space and Symbolic Power” (based on the text of a lecture given in 1986), the sociologist emphasizes, with a view to overcoming the one-sidedness of objectivism and subjectivism, that the objective structures constructed by the sociologist in the process of detaching from the subjective representations of agents lie at the basis of the latter, they must be learned in the process of everyday struggle aimed at transforming or preserving objective structures. In another work he writes. “Social space... is inscribed simultaneously in the objectivity of spatial structures and in subjective structures, which are partly a product of the incorporation of objectified structures” [Ibid. P. 38].
As for the second pair - structuralism and constructivism - and overcoming the one-sidedness of each of them, here he also speaks out no less clearly: “With the help of structuralism I want to say that in the social world itself, and not just in symbolism, language, myths and etc. there are objective structures, independent of the consciousness and will of agents, capable of directing or suppressing their practices or ideas.With the help of constructivism, I want to show that there is a social genesis, on the one hand, of patterns of perception, thinking and action that are integral parts of what I call habitus, and on the other hand, of social structures and, in particular, of what I call fields or groups and what are usually called social classes" [Bourdieu. 1994. pp. 181-182].
Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu(1930-2002) - modern French sociologist. Bourdieu calls his teaching a “philosophy of action” because the concept of action is central to it.
The central problem for Bourdieu is the relationship between cognition and action, which in research becomes the relationship between subject and object. He believes that all attempts at direct understanding mean the absolute position of the observer's I and that objectification through structural analysis brings the alien closer, although outwardly it moves away. The goal of cognition for Bourdieu is understanding through objectification. Thus, the pre-logical logic of practical actions, for example rituals, cannot be understood by “getting used to” by an observer burdened with rational logic, but will become more “tangible” with distancing and objectification.
Next to the phenomenological and objectivist methods of theoretical knowledge of the social world, he places praxeological knowledge. Its goal is not to discover objective structures as such, but “structured structures that are capable of acting as structuring structures.” The concept of “double structuring” is the basis of Bourdieu’s sociology, the essence of which is that social reality is structured, firstly, by social relations, which are objectified in the distribution of various capitals, both material and intangible, and, secondly, by people’s ideas about social structures and the surrounding world as a whole, which have a reverse impact on the primary structuring.
The concept of practice put forward by Bourdieu is determined by the dialectic of objective structures and deeply internalized structures (“rootedness” in culture), and deeply internalized structures cannot be fully explained on the basis of objective structures, but, conversely, objective structures cannot be deduced from the intentions of those acting in them.
Action in Bourdieu is not determined directly by economic conditions. The actions of actors, according to Bourdieu, are motivated by interests, but the concept of interest itself is complex and ambiguous. It can be understood broadly - as an indication that any final goal of an action can be considered as an interest if the actor pursues it to the detriment of someone else's interests. A narrower understanding of interest refers to the concepts of prestige, wealth or power. Bourdieu prefers this interpretation. For Bourdieu, the concept of “interest” denotes the desire for dominance, and he represents social life as a constant struggle for dominance over others. He is convinced of the unconscious nature of the drive to dominate, although he gives many examples of “strategies” for the movement towards dominance that look like purposeful and conscious actions (for example, the desire to invest in “educational capital” in order to ultimately receive economic profit).
The specificity of the analysis of the desire for domination in Bourdieu is the description of the types and forms of its implementation. To do this, he introduces two concepts - economic capital and cultural capital. The first of these concepts is straightforward: the rich are omnipotent. Giving culture the status of capital means that culture, like economic capital, brings benefits that are not limited to economic enrichment, even if this also occurs (for example, the concept of “profitability of a diploma”). Culture is, according to Bourdieu's definition, “symbolic capital”.
He sees economic conditions more as a “privilege” that allows the rich to do what remains inaccessible to the masses, who therefore feel deprived. Bourdieu speaks of the doubling of goods through their symbolic existence along with their economic existence (similar to the “doubling of the world” through concepts). In modern society, the ruling class dominates thanks not only to economic capital, but also symbolic capital; According to Bourdieu, intellectuals, along with entrepreneurs, also belong to the ruling class. Signs of distinction (eg titles, clothing, language), through the conceptual unification of “marked” ones, likewise create differences between groups. The day of the dominant symbolic capital represents the capital of trust, credit. Symbolic capital, like economic capital, gives power: “The power to effect the recognition of power.”
There are scientists whose work is very difficult to limit within the rigid framework of a certain theoretical direction. Among such scientists, of course, is the outstanding French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (born in 1930), who created a special sociological “Bourdieu school.” Bourdieu's research is actually interdisciplinary in nature, which is facilitated by the fundamental philosophical education he received (Bourdieu's teachers were L. Althusser and M. Foucault). Bourdieu's sociological concept integrates theoretical and empirical sociology. He advocates practical thought as opposed to abstract “objective” theorizing, criticizes the claims of some sociologists to take a special position “above the fray” and from there give a theoretical explanation of real social processes. It is no coincidence that one of Bourdieu’s main works was entitled “Practical Meaning.” Bourdieu's integrated approach requires the introduction of the concept of “agent” instead of “subject” or “individual”. Thus, Bourdieu emphasizes the activity and independence of agents who “are not automata, fine-tuned like clockwork in accordance with the laws of mechanics that are unknown to them.” Agents choose life strategies in accordance with certain goals, but not guided by someone else's will. The central concept of P. Bourdieu’s sociology is the so-called habitus - “systems of stable and transferable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles generating and organizing practices and ideas that can be objectively adapted to their purpose, however, they do not imply a conscious focus on it and the indispensable mastery of the necessary operations to achieve it.”
Sociology of politics
Of course, this definition cannot be called easy (the above excerpt gives a good idea of P. Bourdieu’s style). The most important achievement of P. Bourdieu is his theory of social space. According to Bourdieu, “above all, sociology is a social topology. Thus, it is possible to depict the social world in the form of a multidimensional space, built according to the principles of differentiation and distribution, formed by the totality of active properties in the universe under consideration, that is, properties that can give its owner strength and power in this universe. Agents and groups of agents are thus defined by their relative positions in this space.” In turn, social space can be divided into various fields: political, economic, academic, etc. The total social capital that an individual has is made up of his capital in various fields. At the same time, social capital is capable of conversion from one form to another, for example, a graduate of a prestigious university easily finds a well-paid job, and a successful entrepreneur can ensure his election as a deputy. P. Bourdieu devotes great influence to the political applications of his theory, as well as to issues of “sociology”, professional qualities and civic position of sociologists: “I would like sociologists to always and in everything rise to the occasion of the enormous historical responsibility that has fallen to their lot, and that they always bring to bear in their actions not only their moral authority, but also their intellectual competence.”
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS
BELARUSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology of politics by Pierre Bourdieu
Course work
2nd year students
sociology department
correspondence courses
Anishchenko Yu.Yu.
Scientific adviser:
Candidate of Philosophy
Associate Professor Grishchenko Zhanna Mikhailovna
MINSK 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction. Positioning of Pierre Bourdieu in modern sociology
Chapter 1. Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of politics is an independent sociological discipline
1.1 Basic methodological criteria for the formation of an independent sociological discipline
1.2 Subject, object and categorical apparatus of the sociology of politics
1.3 Subject, object and categorical apparatus of the sociology of politics by Pierre Bourdieu
Political patterns of Pierre Bourdieu
2.1. Delegation and political fetishism
2. 2 Public opinion doesn't exist
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction. Positioning of Pierre Bourdieu in modern
sociology
Pierre Bourdieu - French sociologist, philosopher, cultural scientist - is undoubtedly one of the most significant figures of modern sociology. He was born in a village on the border with Spain, in the family of a postal official. After graduating from the Higher Pedagogical School in 1955, he taught philosophy at the Moulins Lyceum, and in 1958 he left for Algeria, where he continued teaching and began sociological research. From Algeria he moved to Lille and then to Paris, where in 1964 he became director-researcher at the École Practical Supérieure de la Recherche. In 1975, he founded and headed the Center for European Sociology, as well as the journal Scientific Works in the Social Sciences, which, along with the French Sociological Journal, is considered the leading sociological publication in France. In 1981, he was elected a full member of the French Academy and became head of the department of sociology at the College de France. His life is an attempt to combine the career of a sociologist and a practical intellectual.
His work evolved from philosophy to anthropology and then to sociology. The central ideas of his theoretical concept are social space, field, cultural and social capital, habitus. The ethical side of the teaching and the desire to build a fair society based on republican values are important. Many scientists note Bourdieu's enormous contribution to understanding society. Bourdieu is characterized by a deep disregard for interdisciplinary divisions, which impose limitations on the subject of research and on the methods used. His research combines approaches and techniques from the fields of anthropology, history, linguistics, political science, philosophy, aesthetics, which he applies to the study of such diverse sociological objects as: the peasantry, art, unemployment, the education system, law, science, literature, marriage kinship alliances, classes, religion, politics, sports, language, housing, intellectuals and the state “elite”.
The sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu is built around three main categories: “field” - “capital” - “habitus”; and includes many interrelated concepts that make it possible to address the analysis of a wide variety of social phenomena. The origin and formation of this approach, called “genetic structuralism,” should be considered in the context of the intellectual and social situation in France, which determined the possibilities for the development of Pierre Bourdieu as a scientist. During his student years, philosophy first reigned supreme in the social sciences, and then anthropology gained the greatest authority. Despite the fact that it was in France that sociology first became a university discipline and had a strong academic tradition, it was not well developed as a course of study at that time and was considered a low-prestige specialization. P. Bourdieu explains his choice in favor of sociology by the desire for seriousness and rigor, the desire to solve not abstract cognitive problems, but to analyze a really existing society and its real problems using the means of social sciences. P. Bourdieu’s departure from philosophy was influenced, among other things, by the works of M. Merleau-Ponty “Humanism and Terror” (1947) and “Adventures of Dialectics” (1955), in which an attempt was made to apply universal philosophical categories to the analysis of modern political phenomena.
In the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, three directions became most widespread in French philosophy: phenomenological-existentialism, structuralism and Marxism. Many sociologists find the sources of Bourdieu's inspiration in the works of K. Marx, M. Weber, E. Durkheim and E. Cassirer. Bourdieu was interested in many philosophical and sociological movements of the 20th century, but none completely satisfied him. In the book “Pascal's Reflections,” he consistently revealed his attitude to modern trends in philosophy and sociology, described the intellectual atmosphere in France in the middle of the 20th century, analyzed the similarities and differences of his position with the views of L. Althusser, L. Wittgenstein, G. Garfinkel, I. Hoffman, J. Deleuze, E. Cassirer, C. Levi-Strauss, T. Parsons, J.-P. Sartre, M. Foucault, J. Habermas and others. Deep assimilation, rupture and overcoming are the main mechanisms that led Pierre Bourdieu to the formation of his own “synthetic” direction, later called “genetic structuralism”. “With the help of structuralism, I want to say that in the social world itself, and not just in symbolism, language, myths, etc., there are objective structures that are independent of the consciousness and will of agents, capable of directing and suppressing their practices and ideas. With the help of constructivism I want to show that there is a social genesis, on the one hand, of patterns of perception, thought and action, which are constituent parts of what I call fields or groups, and what are usually called social classes.
The works of Pierre Bourdieu - 26 monographs and dozens of articles on the methodology of social cognition, stratification of society, sociology of power and politics, education, art and mass culture, ethnographic research - have been translated into all European languages. In terms of the power of influence, Pierre Bourdieu is compared with J.P. Sartre is considered the greatest sociologist of our time.
Chapter 1. Sociology of politics by Pierre Bourdieu – independent
sociological discipline
1.1 Main methodological criteria for formation
independent sociological discipline
Special sociological disciplines are theories that are theoretical generalizations that explain the qualitative specifics of the development and functioning of a variety of social phenomena. Each special sociological theory has its own object and subject of research, its own approach to the study of this subject.
The establishment and formation of an independent sociological discipline, a special theory, means:
— discovery, formulation of specific patterns of development and functioning of a group of homogeneous phenomena and processes;
— discovery of social mechanisms for the functioning of these phenomena and processes;
- development for the object under study (phenomenon, process, group, etc.) of its own system of categorical-conceptual apparatus, a system that does not contradict the laws of development and functioning of the object as part of the whole.
Special theories are characterized by a high level of abstraction and allow one to consider the same object, one or another social community from a certain angle of view, to highlight one or another “section” of the object being studied, its “level”, “side” of interest to the sociologist.
Special sociological disciplines are characterized by:
a) establishing objective relationships between the subject area being studied and the integrity of the social system in the past, present and future;
b) identification of specific internal connections and patterns characteristic of a given subject area.
Independent disciplines are characterized by broad interdisciplinary connections with other branches of social science and other sciences. They are focused on managing and planning social processes, usually in the short term and in special, private areas of public life. Sociology of group behavior, social mobility, sociology of family, politics, sports, labor, economics and so on - each of the identified varieties of sociological knowledge has its own layer of theoretical and empirical research. Therefore, each discipline has its own theoretical basis and its own empirical material, corresponding to a certain region, collected and processed according to a certain methodology.
Thus, an independent sociological discipline is a concept that explains the functioning and development of private social processes; an area of sociological knowledge whose subject is the study of relatively independent spheres of social life of certain types of social activity and social communities, the patterns of their development and functioning.
1.2 Subject, object and categorical apparatus of sociology
politicians
For sociology, politics as an independent sociological discipline has its own subject, object and conceptual-categorical apparatus.
Bourdieu's sociological concept
The sociology of politics is characterized by a focus on the study of power, analysis of political processes from the standpoint of their perception and reflection in the consciousness and behavior of people. Zh. T. Toshchenko expressed this approach in “Political Sociology” as follows: how deeply, seriously, thoroughly people perceive political processes, how they relate to them and how much they intend to promote or resist them - gives the sociology of politics qualitative certainty and distinguishes it from other political sciences.
CONCEPTS OF HABITUS P. BOURDIE
V.A. Mikhailova(MSU named after A. A. Kuleshov)
Scientific hands. S.N. Likhacheva ,
Ph.D. sociol. Sciences, Associate Professor
The concept of habitus by P. Bourdieu is aimed at overcoming the one-sidedness and reductionism of rationalism and mechanism, objectivism and subjectivism. The dialectical view of the world he proposes, realized through a number of logically related concepts - habitus, social space, structures, practice - has many attractive aspects. In addition, it is quite effectively implemented in empirical research. In his “strategy of synthesis,” P. Bourdieu proceeds from the social structure, moving in the direction of the subject of action, which brings his approach closer to the theory of structuration of E. Giddens, created from the point of view of the opposite perspective.
One of the basic concepts of the sociological concept of Pierre Bourdieu is the concept of habitus, which allows him to overcome the limitations and superficiality of the structural approach and the excessive psychologism of the phenomenological . Habit(habitus) - systems of strong acquired dispositions, structured structures intended to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles that generate and organize practices and ideas that are objectively adapted to achieve certain results, but do not imply conscious purpose these results do not require special skill. Simply put, habitus is a system of dispositions that gives rise to and structures the agent's practice and representations. Agents according to P. Bourdieu, “they are not automata, debugged like clocks in accordance with the laws of mechanics, which are unknown to them.” Agents implement strategies—original systems of practice driven by a goal, but not consciously directed by that goal. P. Bourdieu proposes, as a basis for explaining the practice of agents, not a theoretical concept constructed in order to present this practice as “reasonable” or, even worse, “rational”, but describes the very logic of practice through such phenomena as practical feeling, habitus , behavior strategies.
Habitus is formed gradually and step by step in the process of socialization of the individual. At first, we can talk about the formation of a primary habitus in the family, then a secondary one in the process of implementing school education. Then, more and more new structures are included in the process of personality formation, and this means the emergence of other forms of habitus. The number of dispositions (predispositions) of a person increases, the quality of habitus becomes more complex.
Being the product of some type of objective regularity, habitus tends to give rise to “reasonable”, “generally accepted” manners of behavior (and only these) that are possible within the limits of such regularity and which are most likely to be positively sanctioned, since they are objectively adapted to the logic characteristic of a particular fields of activity, the objective future of which they anticipate. At the same time, it usually excludes all “extremes,” that is, all those actions that would be negatively sanctioned because they are incompatible with objective conditions. Behind this lies a huge amount of work on education and upbringing in the process of socialization of the individual, on his assimilation of not only explicitly expressed, but also unexpressed, implied principles of behavior in certain life situations. The internalization of such life experience, often remaining unconscious, leads to the formation of the agent’s readiness and inclination to react, speak, feel, think in a certain way - in one way and not in another. Habitus, thus, “is a product of the characterological structures of a certain class of conditions of existence, i.e.: economic and social necessity and family ties or, more precisely, purely family manifestations of this external necessity (in the form of the division of labor between the sexes, surrounding objects, type of consumption , relationships between parents, prohibitions, worries, moral lessons, conflicts, taste, etc.
Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu
P.)".
In the given characteristics of habitus, P. Bourier often uses the concept of practice. It, like many categories used by the French sociologist, has several aspects and meanings. Practices- this is the content and result of the activities of agents. This refers to the social actions themselves, and the communications that arise between agents in connection with these actions, and the social forms “created” by practices. But not only. Practices, as P. Bourdieu often emphasized, are the implementation of social structures. The latter are the main reasons for the practices. Thus, practices implement a kind of double structuring of social reality: first as a source of habitus, through it - a system of ideas, then - being its result - the very structure of real relations.
According to P. Bourdieu, a feature of society is that the structures that form it exist in two forms: firstly, as a “reality of the first order”, given through the distribution of material resources and means of appropriating socially prestigious goods and values (“types of capital” according to P. Bourdieu); secondly, as a “second-order reality” that exists in ideas, in patterns of thinking and behavior, as a symbolic matrix of practical activity, behavior, thinking, emotional assessments and judgments of social agents. Thus, it is important to understand the relationship between physical and social space in the philosophy of P. Bourdieu.
Society as a “first-order reality” is considered in the aspect of social physics as an external objective structure, the nodes and articulations of which can be observed, measured, and “mapped.” The subjective view of society as a “second-order reality” assumes that the social world is “a contingent and time-extended activity of empowered social agents who continuously construct the social world through the practical organization of everyday life.” P. Bourdieu proposes social praxeology for the analysis of social reality, which combines structural and constructivist (phenomenological) approaches. Thus, on the one hand, he distances himself from everyday ideas in order to build objective structures (space of positions) and establish the distribution of various types of capital, through which external necessity is constituted, influencing interactions and the ideas of agents occupying these positions. On the other hand, he introduces the direct experience of agents in order to identify categories of unconscious perception and evaluation (dispositions), which “from the inside” structure the agent’s behavior and his ideas about the position he occupies.
Social space includes several fields, and an agent can occupy positions in several of them simultaneously (these positions are in a relationship of homology with each other).
A field, according to P. Bourdieu, is a specific system of objective connections between various positions in alliance or conflict, competition or cooperation, determined socially and largely independent of the physical existence of the individuals who occupy these positions.
Field structure is a state of power relations between agents or institutions involved in a struggle, where the distribution of specific capital accumulated during previous struggles governs future strategies. This structure, which is represented by strategies aimed at its transformation, is itself at stake: the field is a place of struggle that has at stake the monopoly of legitimate violence that characterizes the field in question, that is, ultimately the preservation or change of the distribution of specific capital.
Bibliography:
- Gromov, I.A. Western theoretical sociology /I.A. Gromov, A.Yu. Matskevich; edited by I.A. Gromov.-St. Petersburg, 1996.- 296 p.
- Gronas, M. “Pure look” and the view of the practitioner: Pierre Bourdieu on culture / M. Gornas.-NFO - 2000- No. 45.- 6-21 p.
- Zborovsky, G.E. History of sociology / G.E. Zborovsky.-Moscow: Eksmo, 2004.-608 p.
- Mauger, J. Sociological engagement // Poetics and politics. Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociology and Philosophy of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology, 1999. - 124 p.
Coursework in the discipline
"History of Sociology"
THEORY OF SOCIAL SPACE, FIELD AND HABITUS
P. BOURDIE
Introduction
1. Ideological and theoretical origins of Bourdieu’s structuralist constructivism
2. Main features of the theory of social space by P. Bourdieu
Conclusion
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
The teachings of the outstanding French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu are of great importance for understanding the characteristics of social space. Many scientists note Bourdieu's enormous contribution to understanding society. Bourdieu is characterized by a deep disregard for interdisciplinary divisions, which impose limitations on the subject of research and on the methods used. His research combines approaches and techniques from the fields of anthropology, history, linguistics, political science, philosophy, and aesthetics, which he fruitfully applies to the study of various sociological objects.
The purpose of this work is to analyze and reveal the understanding of society in Bourdieu’s sociology. The objectives are:
1. Determine the origins of Bourdieu’s structuralist constructivism.
2. Reveal the main features of P. Bourdieu’s theory of social space
3. Consider the content of P. Bourdieu’s concept of field and habitus.
The object of this course work is Bourdieu’s structuralist constructivism, the subject is Bourdieu’s theory of social space, field and habitus.
The theoretical main course work was based on the research of domestic and foreign scientists: Kravchenko S.A., Ritzer J., Shmatko N.A. Translated books and articles by Bourdieu were used as primary sources.
When writing the work, a specific historical approach was used; logical and historical methods.
1. IDEAL AND THEORETICAL SOURCES OF BOURDIEUR’S STRUCTURALIST CONSTRUCTIVISM
P. Bourdieu began his creative activity in the 60s of the last century. At that time, the views of K. Marx were very popular, which influenced the nature of his work. However, subsequently he moves away from the theoretical and methodological tools of Marxism and turns to sociologists who studied everyday social experience mainly through the prism of phenomenology. These are scientists such as E. Husserl, A. Schutz, M.
Pierre Bourdieu
Heidegger and others. The content of Bourdieu's works was greatly influenced by structuralists - C. Lévi-Strauss, L. Althusser and others. As a result, Bourdieu began to develop an integral theory, which included the achievements of both phenomenology and structuralism. Structuralism, based on the ideas of not only the linguist F. de Saussure, but also the greatest classic of sociology, E. Durkheim, still remains an essential feature of French social theorizing. P. Bourdieu’s desire to critically analyze and overcome the “monopolism of the object” inherent in structuralism, his attention to the subject and action, manifested in the intention to create a synthetic concept of subject and object, nevertheless has a strong structuralist “coloring”. His direction of synthesis is closely related to structuralist and poststructuralist quests in the field of social sciences.P. Bourdieu proposed using two fundamental approaches simultaneously when studying social realities. The first is structuralism, which he implements in the form of the principle of double structuring of social reality: a) in the social system there are objective structures independent of the consciousness and will of people that are capable of stimulating certain actions and aspirations of people; b) the structures themselves are created by the social practices of agents.
The second is constructivism, which assumes that people's actions, conditioned by life experience, the process of socialization and acquired predispositions to act in one way or another, are a kind of matrices of social action that “form the social agent as a truly practical operator of constructing objects.” These methodological approaches, according to Bourdieu, make it possible to establish cause-and-effect relationships between social phenomena in conditions of uneven distribution of social realities in space and time. Thus, social relations are distributed unevenly. In a certain place and at a specific time they can be very intense and vice versa. Likewise, agents enter into social relationships unevenly. Finally, people have uneven access to capital, which also affects the nature of their social actions. Pierre Bourdieu's theory arose from the desire to overcome what the author considers to be a false opposition between objectivism and subjectivism, or, as he puts it, “the absurd enmity between the individual and society.” . As Bourdieu writes, “the most fundamental stimulus guiding my creativity was to overcome the opposition objectivism/subjectivism.” He includes Durkheim with his study of social facts, the structuralism of Saussure, Lévi-Strauss and structural Marxism in the objectivist camp. He criticizes these approaches for the fact that they take exclusively objective structures as the main subject of their consideration. In doing so, they ignore the process of social construction by which actors perceive, think and create these structures, and then act on this basis. Objectivists do not take into account either the agency or the role of social agents. Bourdieu prefers a structuralist approach that does not lose sight of the agent. “I sought to bring back the real actors that had disappeared from Lévi-Strauss and other structuralists, especially Althusser.” This goal forces him to turn to the subjectivist direction, which was dominated by Sartre’s existentialism during his student years. In addition, he considers Schutz's phenomenology, Blumer's symbolic interactionism, and Garfinkel's ethnomethodology as examples of subjectivism, since real theories study how social agents think about, explain, or represent the social world. At the same time, these directions ignore the objective structures within which these processes take place. Bourdieu believes that these theories focus on activity and ignore structure. Instead of sticking to one of these approaches, Bourdieu explores the dialectical relationship between objective structures and subjective phenomena. Although Bourdieu strives to combine structuralism and constructivism, and he partially succeeds in this, there is a bias in his work in the direction of structuralism. It is for this reason that he (along with Foucault and others) is considered a poststructuralist. His work has more of structuralism than constructivism. Unlike the approach of most other theorists (e.g., phenomenologists, symbolic interactionists), Bourdieu's constructivism does not take into account subjectivity and intentionality. He does believe it is important to include in his sociology issues of how people perceive and construct the social world based on their position in social space. However, in the social world, perception and construction are both stimulated and constrained by structures.
social space Bourdieu's structuralism
2. MAIN FEATURES OF P. BOURDIE’S THEORY OF SOCIAL SPACE
Social reality, according to P. Bourdieu, is “social space”. This concept in itself is far from new. In a conceptually expanded form, it has been found since the beginning of the 20th century. The novelty of P. Bourdieu's approach lies in determining the relationship between social and physical space, as well as in describing the internal structure of the first. Physical space is closely connected with social space; it is its reflection, an expression of social space outside. In perception they are difficult to distinguish. Social space is not some given coordinate system relative to which existing social subjects are located - it is at the same time the location of these subjects in real space. The distance between subjects in social space is not only social, but also physical. The close intertwining of social and physical spaces, however, does not imply that their relationships are unambiguous. Social space appears to us simultaneously in the totality of its “symbolic” and “physical” dimensions.
The duality of social space, its simultaneous representation both in the “purely” social and in the physical plane, presupposes the duality of the structures that organize the social universe. The essence of the concept of “double structuring” is that social reality is structured, firstly, from the side (existing objectively, i.e., independent of the consciousness and will of agents) of social relations, which are objectified in the distribution of various capitals, both material and of an intangible nature, and, secondly, on the part of people’s ideas about social structures and the world around them as a whole, which have a reverse impact on the primary structuring. The concept of double structuring includes a set of ideas that reflect the genesis and structure of social reality. What refers to genesis is the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships in social reality: there are objective (independent of the will and consciousness of people) structures that decisively influence the practices, perception and thinking of individuals; it is social structures that are the “ultimate causes” of the practices and beliefs of Individual and collective agents, which these structures can suppress or stimulate. On the other hand, agents are inherently active; they are sources of continuous causal influences on social reality. So, social structures determine the practices and perceptions of agents, but agents produce practices and thereby reproduce or transform structures. For P. Bourdieu, these two aspects of the genesis of social reality are by no means equivalent and not side by side. He does not limit himself to stating that both of these aspects are in a “dialectical connection,” but points to their hierarchy. The conditioning of the practices and ideas of agents by social structures is realized through their production and reproduction by these agents. Due to the fact that they cannot carry out their practices outside and independently of the social structures predetermined by them, which are necessary conditions and prerequisites for any practices, agents are able to act exclusively “within” already existing social relations and thereby always only reproduce or transform them .
Speaking about the active role of agents in the reproduction/production of social reality, P. Bourdieu emphasizes that it is impossible without incorporated structures - practical schemes that are a product of the interiorization of objective social structures. It follows that the subjective structuring of social reality is a subordinate element of the structuring of the objective. The second aspect of the double structuring of social reality is structural. It consists in the fact that everything in social reality is structured. First, social relations are unevenly distributed in space and time. Secondly, agents are unevenly distributed between social structures - not all (individual and collective) agents take part in the same social relations at the same time. Thirdly, the objectifications of social relations, which P. Bourdieu calls capitals, are also unevenly distributed among (individual and collective) agents. Fourthly, incorporated social relations, which include: dispositions, social ideas, practical schemes, are distributed extremely unevenly. Agents, based on their practical schemes (i.e., internalized social relations), structure social reality in different ways. The structure of subjective structuring, manifested through the distribution of various types of this structuring between agents, is homologous to the structure of objective structuring, since the decisive role in subjective structuring is played by internalized objective structures: practical schemes adapt to the position of the agent, if only because their content is determined by the previous social struggle and therefore, albeit in a transformed form, it reflects the configuration of social forces. P. Bourdieu's assertion that all social relations are in turn structured leads him to the formation of the concept of “field”, understood as a relatively closed and autonomous system of social relations. The field emerges as a consequence of the progressive social division of forces. The structure of social space thus appears in a wide variety of contexts as spatial oppositions of inhabited (or appropriated) space, functioning as a kind of spontaneous metaphor for social space. In a hierarchically organized society, there is no space that would not be hierarchized and would not express hierarchies and social distances in a more or less deformed, and most importantly, in a disguised form due to the action of naturalization, which causes a stable attribution of social realities to the physical world. Distinctions made through social logic may thus seem to be born out of the nature of things (just think of the idea of “natural boundaries”).
Pierre Bourdieu(1930-2002) - French sociologist, philosopher, cultural scientist, author "philosophy of action". Sociology for him represented social typology. The central ideas of his theoretical concept are social space, field, cultural and social capital, habitus. In his opinion, the place and role of the agent in this space determines economic capital, which can appear in different forms as cultural and social capital and symbolic capital, usually called prestige, reputation, name and so on.
According to the theory of P. Bourdieu, it is not so much a structure as the result of the active actions of “agents” or “actors” of the process. Actor - this is the subject with immanent internal activity. The set of such actors is mass, or that which can be given shape and is given shape by leaders, the state, parties, bosses, etc. The introduction of the “actor” (or, as a variant of the “agent”, action), according to Bourdieu, emphasizes the modern role and new understanding of the masses, which, through their activities, influence the outcome of social change.
Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu(1930-2002) - modern French sociologist. Bourdieu calls his teaching a “philosophy of action” because the concept of action is central to it.
The central problem for Bourdieu is the relationship between cognition and action, which in research becomes the relationship between subject and object. He believes that all attempts at direct understanding mean the absolute position of the observer's I and that objectification through structural analysis brings the alien closer, although outwardly it moves away. The goal of cognition for Bourdieu is understanding through objectification. Thus, the pre-logical logic of practical actions, for example rituals, cannot be understood by “getting used to” by an observer burdened with rational logic, but will become more “tangible” with distancing and objectification.
Next to the phenomenological and objectivist methods of theoretical knowledge of the social world, he places praxeological knowledge. Its goal is not to discover objective structures as such, but “structured structures that are capable of acting as structuring structures.” The concept of “double structuring” is the basis of Bourdieu’s sociology, the essence of which is that social reality is structured, firstly, by social relations, which are objectified in the distribution of various capitals, both material and intangible, and, secondly, by people’s ideas about social structures and the surrounding world as a whole, which have a reverse impact on the primary structuring.
The concept of practice put forward by Bourdieu is determined by the dialectic of objective structures and deeply internalized structures (“rootedness” in culture), and deeply internalized structures cannot be fully explained on the basis of objective structures, but, conversely, objective structures cannot be deduced from the intentions of those acting in them.
Action in Bourdieu is not determined directly by economic conditions. The actions of actors, according to Bourdieu, are motivated by interests, but the concept of interest itself is complex and ambiguous. It can be understood broadly - as an indication that any final goal of an action can be considered an interest if the actor pursues it to the detriment of someone else's interests. A narrower understanding of interest refers to the concepts of prestige, wealth or power. Bourdieu prefers this interpretation. For Bourdieu, the concept of “interest” denotes the desire for dominance, and he represents social life as a constant struggle for dominance over others. He is convinced of the unconscious nature of the drive to dominate, although he gives many examples of “strategies” for the movement towards dominance that look like purposeful and conscious actions (for example, the desire to invest in “educational capital” in order to ultimately receive economic profit).
The specificity of the analysis of the desire for domination in Bourdieu is the description of the types and forms of its implementation. To do this, he introduces two concepts - economic capital and cultural capital. The first of these concepts is straightforward: the rich are omnipotent. Giving culture the status of capital means that culture, like economic capital, brings benefits that are not limited to economic enrichment, even if this also occurs (for example, the concept of “profitability of a diploma”). Culture is, according to Bourdieu’s definition, “symbolic capital.”
He sees economic conditions more as a “privilege” that allows the rich to do what remains inaccessible to the masses, who therefore feel deprived. Bourdieu speaks of the doubling of goods through their symbolic existence along with their economic existence (similar to the “doubling of the world” through concepts). In modern society, the ruling class dominates thanks not only to economic capital, but also symbolic capital; According to Bourdieu, intellectuals, along with entrepreneurs, also belong to the ruling class. Signs of distinction (eg titles, clothing, language), through the conceptual unification of “marked” ones, likewise create differences between groups. The day of the dominant symbolic capital represents the capital of trust, credit. Symbolic capital, like economic capital, gives power: “The power to effect the recognition of power.”
Bourdieu's sociological concept
There are scientists whose work is very difficult to limit within the rigid framework of a certain theoretical direction. Among such scientists, of course, is the outstanding French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (born in 1930), who created a special sociological “Bourdieu school.” Bourdieu's research is actually interdisciplinary in nature, which is facilitated by the fundamental philosophical education he received (Bourdieu's teachers were L. Althusser and M. Foucault).
Bourdieu's sociological concept integrates theoretical and empirical sociology. He advocates practical thought as opposed to abstract “objective” theorizing, criticizes the claims of some sociologists to take a special position “above the fray” and from there give a theoretical explanation of real social processes. It is no coincidence that one of Bourdieu’s main works was entitled “Practical Meaning.”
Bourdieu's integrated approach requires the introduction of the concept of “agent” instead of “subject” or “individual”. Thus, Bourdieu emphasizes the activity and independence of agents who “are not automata, fine-tuned like clockwork in accordance with the laws of mechanics that are unknown to them.” Agents choose life strategies in accordance with certain goals, but not guided by someone else's will.
The central concept of P. Bourdieu’s sociology is the so-called habitus - “systems of stable and transferable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles generating and organizing practices and ideas that can be objectively adapted to their purpose, however, they do not imply a conscious focus on it and the indispensable mastery of the necessary operations to achieve it.” Of course, this definition cannot be called easy (the above excerpt gives a good idea of P. Bourdieu’s style).
The most important achievement of P. Bourdieu is his theory of social space. According to Bourdieu, “above all, sociology is a social topology. Thus, it is possible to depict the social world in the form of a multidimensional space, built according to the principles of differentiation and distribution, formed by the totality of active properties in the universe under consideration, that is, properties that can give its owner strength and power in this universe. Agents and groups of agents are thus defined by their relative positions in this space.”
In turn, social space can be divided into various fields: political, economic, academic, etc. The total social capital that an individual has is made up of his capital in various fields. At the same time, social capital is capable of conversion from one form to another, for example, a graduate of a prestigious university easily finds a well-paid job, and a successful entrepreneur can ensure his election as a deputy.
P. Bourdieu devotes great influence to the political applications of his theory, as well as to issues of “sociology”, professional qualities and civic position of sociologists: “I would like sociologists to always and in everything rise to the occasion of the enormous historical responsibility that has fallen to their lot, and that they always bring to bear in their actions not only their moral authority, but also their intellectual competence.”
BOURDIER, PIERRE(Bourdieu, Pierre) (b. 1930), French sociologist and social philosopher. Born on August 1, 1930 in Denzin (department of the Atlantic Pyrenees). In 1955 he graduated from the Higher Pedagogical School (Ecole normale superieure) in Paris with a degree in philosophy. Bourdieu studied with Althusser and Foucault.
For some time he taught philosophy at the Lyceum of Moulins. In 1958 he left to work in Algeria, where he continued teaching and began his sociological research. His first works were published here: Sociology of Algeria (1961), Labor and workers in Algeria(1964). In 1964 he returned to Paris, where he took up the post of director of the Higher Practical Research School (Ecole pratique des hautes etudes). In 1975, he founded the Center for European Sociology and the authoritative journal “Scientific Works in the Social Sciences” (“Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales”). In 1981 he was elected a full member of the French Academy.
Bourdieu's scientific works have been translated into all European languages.
The theory of sociality, which Bourdieu developed in the course of his ethnological studies, seeks to explain the emergence of meaning based on the structures of practice itself, while bypassing the study of its genesis in objectivist or intellectualist categories. By its very structure, such a theory of practice reflects the effect of alienation that it produces, objectifying practice and contrasting theoretical reflection about practice with its direct experience. The term “habitus” introduced by Bourdieu describes the embodiment of cultural and social norms in the bodily schemas of the subject. Being the result of accumulated experience, habitus structures the expectations and ways of seeing that the subject develops to master the situations that arise in the process of his activity. Social and symbolic structures are inextricably linked to each other, since the world is always a world interpreted in cultural terms.
The meaning that a given subject has in mind connects the actor with his action, and therefore has a constitutive significance for symbolically structured opinions about the social world, but the phenomenological or hermeneutic clarification of this world does not yet explain the logic of the differences between forms of action and forms of perception, characteristic of one or another social “actor”. Therefore, theorists come closer to understanding the logic of practice when they (a) systematically analyze the experiences, perceptions and actions of actors using the tools of empirical social research, (b) relate structural typology to constructed fields of material conditions of life, and, finally, (c) establish a system of relationships between the structures of objective life relations and subjective patterns of action, on the one hand, and the patterns of expectations and interpretations that the actors have, on the other hand. This understanding is achieved through an initial suspension of judgment ("epoch") regarding direct life experience. This understanding goes beyond the capabilities of the hermeneutic reconstruction of meaning, since it is based on a comparative analysis of the relationships between objective and subjective, material and symbolic structures. Thus, a model arises that connects the structures of life relationships, forms of activity and patterns of perception subordinated to a single logic; all these structures merge into a single constructed totality of social space.
In the fundamental work Discrimination. Social criticism of judgment (La Distinction. Critique social du jugement, 1979) Bourdieu applies the described methodology to the development of a theory of modern society. In this theory, social inequality is explained on the basis of material and symbolic differences in life and experience - differences that are reflected in the expectations of the future characteristic of certain classes and the corresponding strategies of reproduction of social actors; differences that manifest themselves in constant competition between social groups and determine the dynamics of the social world. In constructing this model, Bourdieu uses the concept of capital, which he borrows from Marx, although he does not share his dialectical understanding of history. Unlike Marx, Bourdieu is skeptical of the objectivist approach, whose supporters believe in the resolution of social contradictions by the very development of society; this belief, according to Bourdieu, leads to a limited concept of politics. The theory of practice he proposes aims to link scientific analysis with awareness of the possibilities of political action.
Any way of seeing the social world indicates the position in social space occupied by the observer. Therefore, every vision inevitably bears the imprint of perspective and specificity. And yet, scientific objectification is able to create a model of social space and the logic of its reproduction. The theory of social space has, to a certain extent, educational potential, since, thanks to it, implicit premises become explicit, and social differences are firmly linked to the belief in their legitimacy. Therefore, the task of intellectuals is to identify these relationships and return to those who are deprived of political speech the power of speech - a power that can lead to changes in the symbolic construction of reality and, thereby, to a change in real action. Serving this purpose explains Bourdieu's numerous speeches on topical political, social, economic and cultural issues.
Other publications of the scientist - Practical meaning (Le Sens pratique, 1980), Sociological issues (Questions de sociologie, 1980), Homo academicus (Homo academicus, 1984).