Pierre Bourdieu

Question 2:

Is the theorist/theoretical perspective dealt with this week worthy of inclusion in a social theory unit

taught in Hawthorn, Australia in 2009?

Pierre Bourdieuʼs theoretical perspectives are distinctly academic and complex in style when compared

to the other theorists in this social theory unit. As a result of this complex style he could be difficult for

most second year sociology students to understand. Bourdieu himself in Social Space and Symbolic

Power expresses his frustration that his “system of relations will go unnoticed by the reader, despite the

use of diagrams” (1989; p.16). However, take into consideration that the social theory unit being taught in

Hawthorn is aimed at making the transition from introductory concepts to much more substantial

theories, it is evident that Bourdieu certainly fits this mould and his texts are a great way to be immersed

in deeper ideas.

With perseverance from the reader, new tools for thinking can be acquired from Bourdieuʼs work. In

specific through his concepts habitus and fields. Habitus is a “mental or cognitive structure” (ibid.) which

can explain an individual’s actions and perceptions of their world. Bourdieu’s field is a theory which

places these individuals relative to one another objectively. The positions of the actors in each field is

founded on their ownership of different types of capital, such as social capital and cultural capital.

Applying these ideas to the ever relevant idea of taste, Bourdieuʼs Distinction is an eye opener for most

as he reveals the logic behind taste (1987).

Bourdieuʼs worthiness to a social theory unit in 2009 further lies in his exhaustively thorough

epistemological approach to social theory. Through this thorough approach the reader is led to question

even the most basic of sociological assumptions and existing research - even Bourdieuʼs own work.

Richard Jenkins provides a comforting view of Bourdieuʼs writing style in his 1992 work, Pierre Bourdieu.

He states simply “He does not have to write in this fashion to say what he wants to say” (Jenkins, 1992;

Tim Pollard 6606431

p.1). Prior to this he labels the language as obscure and daunting for even professional social scientists

(ibid).

Bourdieu attempted to bridge the gap between objectivist (structuralists like Saussure, Levi-Strauss,

structural Marxists) and subjectivists like Sartre (Rizter, 2008; p.530). I found the endeavor to be

ineffective, as Bourdieu continues to use the words objective and subjective as a framework for

understanding. It would seem that instead of transcending the subjectivity/objectivity problem he so

abhors, Bourdieu simply finds objectivity to be less inadequate. Bourdieuʼs research approach is a

materialist view of social reality, interrelated physical phenomena (the body as a key element of habitus)

individual people, tangible things.

Consistently, Bourdieu attempts to integrate the empirical and theoretical through his reluctance to

theorise without research and this is a useful lesson for sociologists studying social theory in 2009. While

sometimes difficult to understand once the language is familiar to the reader and the concepts are

grasped, new platforms for understanding appear, renewing our skepticism and forcing us to ask

questions about even the most fundamentally held beliefs. This fundamental aim of sociology being

fulfilled confirms Bourdieuʼs value to a social theory unit in 2009.

Tim Pollard 6606431

References

Bourdieu, Pierre, Social Space and Symbolic Power, Sociological Theory, Vol. 7 No.1, pp14-25, 1989.

Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction, A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University Press,

London, 1987.

Jenkins, Richard, Pierre Bourdieu, Routledge, London, 1992.

Rizter, George, Sociological Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008.

Tim Pollard 6606431