bourdieu - symbolic power

8/16/2019 Bourdieu - Symbolic power

1/16


2/16

Soaology of ReligXan 996, 57:1 71-85

Bridging he Study of Culture andReligion: Pierre Bourdieu's Political

Economy of Symbolic Power*

DavidSwartzProgramnNonSProfit rganizationsYaleUniversity

This essay examines ey eatures f Pierre Bourdieu's ociology f culture n light of theirpotential ontribution o the ociology f religion. or Bourdieu, eligion an be analyzed Wssystemof symbok'c ower with propertie.s nalogous o other ultural omains, uch as art, philosophy,science, r carLsumerashion.Bourdieu's pproach o culture evelops political conomy f syrrlrlicpractices hat ncludes theo7y f sytnbolic nterests, theory f cultural apital, nd a theory fsymbok'c ower. WhlleBourdieu raws pon a variety f intellectual nfluences, hematerialism fKarl Marx nd Max Weber's ociology f rekEgionavebeenparacularly nfluential. hisessaywillfocuson how Bourdieu laborates romMarx nd Weber odevelop norigpnal nalytical rid or thestudy f culture 71d elifipons well. Particular ttention iU e gsven o Bourdieu's oncept f "field"since t is the most elevant f Bourdieu's onceptsor boi cultural ndreligious tudies nd currendythe east weUkrswn n the ociology f religion.

This essay xamines ey eatures f Pierre Bourdieu's ociology f culture nlight of their potential ontribution o the sociology f religion. ourdieu im-selfhas devoted ittle attention o the study f religion.l Yet, ignificant eatures

Earlier ersions f thispaperwerepresented t the Annual Meeting f the Associat nfor theSociology f Religion,Mianu Beach,August 993 and at the New Eng and eligious iscussion ociety,Hartford, T, April 995. I wantto give pecial hanks o RhysWAkams or helpful uggestions n all the drafts f dlis paper nd also o an anonymousreviewer or helpful omments n an earlier ersion. Direct orrespondence o David Swar>., 0 Magnolis Ave.,Newton, MA 02158. E-mail: wartChanJarda.harvard.edu.

1 Bourdieu and Martin 982) haspublished ne empirical nvestigation f religion, study f FrenchCatholic ishops, ndwritten wo heoretical rticlesn the sociology f religion Bourdieu 987c, 991a). naddition, ourdieu 1987b, 987d) as published wopublic ectures evotedO the sociology f religion. he

November 982 ssue f his ournal, ctes e a RecherchenSciencesociEs wasdevoted o various spects fFrench atholicism.WhileBourdieu ominateshesociologyfculture n France, ehashad ittle mpact n the post-World

War 1 eneration f French ociologistsf religion Dobbelaere 987).Nonetheless, necan ee growing ignsof his influence n the post-sixties eneration f French ociology f religion cholarship Hervieu-Leger1993).Bourdieu'snfluence n the sociology f religion asbeenmore triking utside f France e.g.Maduro1982).

71


3/16

2 See Bourdieu nd Wacquant 1992) or a good comprehensive ntroduction O Bourdieu's ork.

3 1 here are Durkheimian nfluences s well though hey will not be explored n this paper.

72 SOCIOLOGY F RELIGION

of his approach o the study f culture find nspiration n the materialism f KarlMarx nd particularly n MaxWeber's ociology freligion.

BOURDIEU'S OLITICAL CONOMY F SYMBOLIC OWERBourdieu roposes sociology f symbolic ower n which he addresses he

important opic of relations etween ulture, tratification, ndpower.He con-tends hat the struggle or social recognition s a fundamental imension f allsocial ife. In that struggle, ultural esources, rocesses, nd institutions oldindividuals ndgroups n competitive nd elf-perpetuating ierarchies fdomi-nation. He advances he bold claim hat all cultural ymbols nd practices,ranging rom rtistic astes, tyle n dress, nd eating habits o religion, cience,and philosophy-indeed o language tself- - embody nterests nd unction oenhance ocialdistinctions. ourdieu ocuses n how these social truggles rerefracted hrough ymbolic lassifications, ow ultural practices lace ndividualsand groups nto competitive lassand status ierarchies, owrelatively u-tonomous ields f conflict nterlock ndividuals ndgroups n struggle verval-ued resources, owactors truggle ndpursue trategies o achieve heir nterestswithin uch ields, nd how n doing o actors nwittingly eproduce he socialstratification rder. Culture, hen, s not devoid f political ontent ut rather s

r .an expresslon t It.

In his approach o culture, Bourdieu evelops political conomy f sym-bolic practices hat includes theory f symbolic nterests, theory f culturalcapital, nda theory f symbolic ower. hese are not tidy, well-delimited heo-retical rguments ut orienting hemes hat overlap nd interpenetrate. heydraw rom wide variety f intellectual nfluences ncludingMarxism, tructural-ism,and phenomonology. utas Brubaker 1985)points ut, MaxWeber s themost mportance nfluence rom he classical ociological radition n Bourdieu'swork. t is impossible o probe he full complexity f these heories r to coverthe full range of Bourdieu's onceptual nnovations n this short essay.2

Nonetheless, t is possible o show how Bourdieu raws rom Marx nd fromWeber's ociology freligion o develop sociology fcultural ractices.

TRANSCENDING IDEALISM AND MATERIALISM

At the core of Bourdieu's ntellectual roject orover hirty ears tands hecentral uestion n Western ocial hought ince Nlarx: he debate etween ul-tural dealism nd historical materialism. ourdieu's ociology epresents boldattempt o find a middle oad hat transcends he classic dealism/materialism

bipolarity yproposing materialist et non-reductive ccount f cultural ife.His hinking eginswith Marx ut drawsmore ubstantively romWeber.3


4/16

PIERRE OURDIEU'S OLITICAL CONOMY F SYMBOLIC OWER 73

Marx

Like Marx, Bourdieu mphasizes he primacy fconflict nd class-based o-

cial nequality n modern ocieties.Yet, he is sharply ritical f class eductionistaccounts f religious nd cultural ife.Bourdieu s a materialist n the sense hathe roots human onsciousness n practical ocial ife. He is also concerned ithforms f false consciousness r, in his terms, mis-recognition" f power ela-tions. He accepts he Marxian dea hat symbolic ystems ulfill ocial unctionsof domination nd reproduction f class nequality. ethe is critical f the viewof ideology hat focuses argely n the social unctions f symbolic oodsandpractices ithout howing owthey are necessary eatures or he enactment fsocla. . practlces.

While Bourdieu ccepts he Marxist laim hat religion s ideology, e resistsseparating ut the symbolic imension f social ife as separate ndderivative fthe more undamental aterial omponents f social ife. In short, e rejects heMarxist nfrastructure/superstructureonceptual istinction srooted n the clas-sic idealism/materialism ichotomy hat Bourdieu elievesmustbe transcended.Here Bourdieu arts ompany ith he structuralist arxism f LouisAlthusser( 1970), which was one of Bourdieu's mportant ntellectual eferences n the1960sand 1970s.Bourdieu haresAlthusser's asicmaterialist utlook nd hisemphasis n the relative utonomy freligion nd culture rom olitics nd eco-

nomics. till, Bourdieu's osition s not fundamentally lthusserian. nspired yMarx's irst hesis on Feuerbach, hich emphasizes he underlying nityof allsocial ife as practical ctivity, Bourdieu 1984a:467) ejects he idea hat socialexistence an be segmented nd hierarchically rganized nto distinct pheres,such as the social, he cultural, nd he economic. ather han explore he vari-ous orms f articulation fthe superstructure nd nfrastructure sAlthusseriansdo, Bourdieu rgues hat he two realms renot to be separated n the firstplace.Bourdieu eeks o write general cience f practices hat combines he materialand symbolic imensions nd hereby mphasizes he fundamental nity of sociallife. Nonetheless, ourdieu's entral oncern with he problem f relations e-tween he symbolic nd material spects f social ife and between tructure ndagency tem n part rom his early onfrontations ith this particular arxist

. .trac tton.

Weber

FromMarx,Bourdieu urns o Max Weber or he conceptual ools o elabo-rate a theory f symbolic oods nd practices hat would ranscend othclass e-ductionism nd dealism. ourdieu emarks hat t is Max Weber who, ar romopposingMarx, s is generally hought, with a spiritualist heory f history, nfact carries he materialist ode f thought nto areaswhich Marxistmaterialismeffectively bandons o spiritualism" 1990b: 7 . Bourdieu eesWeber ffering"political conomy f religion" hat brings out he full potential f the materi-alist analysis f religion without destroying he properly ymbolic haracter fthe phenomenon" 1990a:36).One central bjective f Bourdieu's ociology sto elaborate Weber's model or a political conomy f religion O all of cultural


5/16

74 SOCIOLOGY FRELIGION

and social ife. Indeed, Bourdieu eeshis sociology f culture o be of the samecharacter sthat of Weber who used"the conomicmodel o extend materialistcritique nto the realm f religion" 1990a:107). t is to be a "generalized" r"radical" aterialism, ut one that avoids he class eductionism hat Bourdieu( 1990b:17; 993:12) elieves haracterizes arxism. ourdieu elieves e hasfound n this generalized materialism way to transcend he classic deal-ism/materialism ichotomy n the social ciences.

SYMBOLIC N 115RESTS

Bourdieu's ork epresents n important laboration f MaxWeber's otionof ideal goodsand nterests Gerth nd Mills 1970:280). he idea of "religiousinterest" omes romWeber's mphasis n the "this-worldly" haracter fbehav-ior motivated yreligious elief.Weber writes hat "the most lementary ormsof behavior motivated y religious r magical actors reoriented o thisworld"( 1978:399).He goeson to stress hat "religious r magical ehavior r thinkingmust not be set apart rom he range f everyday urposive onduct, articularlysince even the ends of the religious nd magical ctions repredominantly co-nomic" Weber 1978:400). Bourdieu rgues hat by insisting n the "this-worldly" haracter f behavior motivated y religious actorsWeber rovides"way f linking he contents f mythical iscourse and even ts syntax) o the

religious nterests f those who produce t, diffuse t, and receive t" l990b:4).Thus, Weber rovides means or connecting eligious eliefs nd practices othe interests f those who produce ndadminister hem.

Bourdieu 1987c:122), owever, onsidersWeber's otion of"religious n-terest" o be "only weakly laborated" ince t limits he scopeof interest c)be"determined y the agents' onditions f existence." y contrast, Bourdieustresses hat religious nterests and symbolic nterestsmore enerally "arealsodetermined n their orm nd heir onditions fexpression ythe supply freligion and the action of the religious rofessionals." onetheless, Weber's

thinking ermits ne to construct hesystem freligious eliefs ndpractices sthe . . . transfigured xpression f the strategies fdifferent ategories f specialists ompeting or monopoly ver he administration f thegoods fsalvation nd f ie different lasses nterested n their ervices Bourdieu 991a:4).

Bourdieu xtends he idea of interest o include on-material oodsbyarguSing that all practices re fundamentally interested" hether irected owardmaterial r symbolic tems.He extends he logic of economic alculation o "allgoods, material nd symbolic,without distinction, hat present hemselves srare and worthy f being ought fter n a particular ocial ormation" 1977:178).Bourdieu ants oconstruct ageneral heory fthe economy fpractices"that will analyze allpractices" s"aimed t maximizing aterial r symbolicprofit" 1990b:209). he research rogram e proposes ouldunite what hastraditionally een thought f as economic i.e., interested nd material) ndnon-economic i.e., disinterested nd symbolic) orms f action and objects.Thus, ymbolic nterest ndmaterial nterest reviewed stwo equally bjective


6/16

4 nis is the view of action suggested y Bourdieu's oncept of"habitus."


forms of interest. Actors pursue ymbolic s well as material nterests ndexchange ne for he other under pecified onditions.

While extending he idea of interest rom material O ideal goods,Webernonetheless etains nalytical istinctions ordifferent ypes f behavior. Weber( 1978:24-25,339) nalytically istinguisheshe following ypes f action: instru-mentally ational," value-rational," affectional," nd"traditional." eber oesnot consider very nstrumental ction as economic. To be economic, ctionmust atisfy need that depends pon relatively carce resources nd a limitednumber f actions. Such distinctions isappear ltogether n Bourdieu's ork.Moreover, he idea hat action s interest-oriented s for Bourdieu fundamentalpresupposition ot a hypothesis or testing. And he does not consider whethersomepracticesmight e more elf-interested han others.

Despite he economic anguage, ourdieu eeshis generalized aterialism squite distinct rom conomism incehis perspective iewsmaterial tilitarianismas but one form f the more eneralized ursuit f interest. hus he claims o bewriting "general cience f the economy f practices" f which he "science fecc)nomic ractices s but a particular ase" of the more general program(Bourdieu 977:183). He sharply istinguishes is own economy f practicesfrom rational ctor heory. The interest-orientation f practices or Bourdieudoes not imply formal r conscious alculation f costs and benefits.Rather,practices ccur or he most part t a tacit, dispositional, ndpre-reflective evelthat reflects ast accumulation hrough arly ocialization f various dvantagesand disadvantages ssociated ith ocial lass background. e sharply ontrastshis view of action as dispositional ith the two radically pposing iews hatdepict action as flowing ither rom ational alculation r from tructural e-

Atermlnatlon.

CULTURAL CAP1TAL

The extension f WeberZs deaof religious nterest ermits ourdieu o de-

veloF) oncepts uch as "religious apital" nd "cultural apital" s irreducibleforms f power hough nterchangeable itheconomic apital. ourdieu oncep-tualizes resources s capital when hey function s a "social elation f power"( 1989:375) y becoming bjects f struggle s valued esources. ourdieu's on-cept of "religious apital" 199la:9) is close to Weber's dea of religious"qualificatic)n." t represents accumulated ymbolic abor" nd s connected othe "constitution f a religious ield"where group f religious pecialists s ableto monopolize he administration f religious oods nd ervices. eligious api-tal is a power esource ince t implies form f"objective ispossession"hrougeh

cc)nstituting "laity" ho by definition re hose without, et want, he valuedresource ontrolled y specialists. ourdieu's oncept f cultural apital overswidevariety )f esources, uchas verbal acility, eneral ultural wareness, esSthetic preferences, cientific nowledge, ndeducational redentials. ispoint s


7/16

S The argument s laidout n Bourdieu 1971h, 1980, 1991a, 991k: 63-170; nd Passcron 977:171-183).


- o suggest hat culture in the broadest enseof the term) an become powerresource.

Bourdieu husbuilds case or he irreducible haracter fcultural epresen-tations sforms fpower yextending he logicof self-interest o the non-mate-rial pherewhere e identifies restige, onor, knowledge, ndeducational re-dentials s forms f capital. According o Bourdieu, ctors ursue nvestmentstrategies n cultural oods ust as they do with economic oods. ndividuals,families, and groups an accumulate ultural as well as economic tems.Moreover, rivilege nd prestige an be transmitted ntergenerationally hroughforms f cultural apital. Families ho invest n the higher ducation f theirchildren ursue cultural orm f investment n order o maintain r enhancethe material onditions f their offspring. hus Bourdieu inds t useful o thinkofvalued on-material esources sforms f capital o the extent heycan be ac-cumulated, xchanged, nd nvested orprofits. n important ask or ociology,Bourdieu rgues, s to explore he proeluction, irculation, nd consumption fthe various orms f cultural ndeconomic apital.Under what onditions ndat what rates do these distinct orms f capital become mutually onvertibleforms fpower?

Bourdieu's oncept f cultural apital needs o be distinguished romGaryBecker's 1976) concept of"human apital." nlike human apital heorists,Bourdieu ocuses n the class-based ariation oth n the meanings nd usesof

the various ypes fcapital.Moreover, ourdieu's heory fhuman ction s sug-gested yhis concept f habitus oesnot share he anthropological ssumptionsof a rational ctor perspective. ourdieu's ctors pursue trategies ut not asconsciousmaximizers f limitedmeans o achieve esired nds.Their"choices"are acit, practical, nddispositional, eflecting he encounter etween heir ac-cumulated apital ndcorresponding ispositions rom ast ocialization nd hepresent pportunities ndconstraints ffieldswhere heyact.

Bourdieu's oncepts f symbolic nterest nd capital lsoneed O be distin-guished romAnn Swidler's 1986)"tool kit" viewofcultural ractices. hough

similar n stressing gency nd he practical eatures fculture ather han normsand values,Bourdieu s lessvoluntaristic han Swidler; estresses he group m-heddedness f individual ction.Moreover, ourdieu tresses ore han Swidlerthe power dimension f cultural esources, heir capacity O constitute ocialhierarchies.

SYMBOLIC OWER

Bourdieu raws romMaxWeber's otions fcharisma nd egitimacy o de-velopa theory fsymbolic ower.5 his heory

tresses he active oleplayed ytaken-for-granteel ssumptions n the constitution ndmaintenance fpower e-lations.LikeWeber, Bourdieu ontends hat he exercise f power equires egit-imation. ourdieu rgues hat he logtic fself-interest nderlying llpractices


8/16

6 Bourdieu rites:Symbolic apital, transformed nd thereby isguised orm of physical conomic apital, producesits proper ffect nasmuch . . as it conceals he fact that t originates n "material" orms f capitalwhich are also, n the ast analysis, he source f its effects 1977:183).


particularly hose n the cultural omain goes "mis-recognized" s a logic of"disinterest." Misrecognition"s a important oncept or Bourdieu; kin o theidea of "false onsciousness" n the Marxist radition, misrecognition enotes"denial" f the economic nd political nterests resent n a set of practices.Symbolic ractices, ourdieu hus argues, eflect attention rom he interestedcharacter f practices nd hereby ontribute o their nactment sdisinterestedpursuits. ctivities nd resources ain n symholic ower, r legitimacy, o theextent hat they become eparated romunderlying aterial nterests ndhencego misrecognized s representing isinterested orms f activities nd resources.Individuals nd groupswho are able o benefit rom he transformation f self-interest nto disinterest btain what Bourdieu alls a "symbolic apital" see1972:227-243, 977:171-83, 990b:112-21, 991b:163-170). ymbolic apital s"denied apital;"6 t disguises he underlying interested" elations o which t isrelated, iving hem egitimation. ymbolic apital s a form f power hat s notperceived s power but as legitimate emands or recognition, eference,obedience, r the services f others.

Symbolic abor

For Bourdieu, he focusbyWeber n religious roducers rovides he key orunderstanding ow relations f interest ecome ransformed nto disinterested

relations o create ymbolic apital. t is the "symbolic abor" y specialists hattransforms elations f power nto orms f disinterested onorability Bourdieu1977:171). ourdieu 1987c:122-124, 991a:5-13) ighlights s particularly n-sightfulWeber's 1978:1177-1181) nalysis f the "ethicalization" nd"system-atization" f religious eeds of the rising urban ourgeoisie s the product freligious abor by specialists. eligious abor by pecialists creates eligious n-derstandings f the particular ocial onditions f existence f specific roups.Symbolic abor produces ymbolic ower by transforming elations f interest

. .

lnto c .lslnterestec . meanlngs.

Bourdieu herefore ssigns n important ole to symbolic roducers e.g.,artists, writers, eachers, ournalists, nd clergy) n legitimating he social orderby producing ymbolic apital hrough ymbolic abor.This of course s the roleMarx ssigned o ideology, ut by stressing ymbolic abor Bourdieu ishes oemphasize hat ideology s not a given but requires ctiveconstruction. ore-over, Bourdieu ontends hat most everyday ractices-would ot be possiblewithout misrecognition f their bjective nterests. he exchange f gifts, or ex-ample, would e transformed nto a financial ransaction f there werenot somedegree f misrecognition f their objective nterests. hus ymbolic ower p-

pears s an inseparable imension f practices. houghBourdieu mploys lan-


9/16


guage f economics, is emphasis n the necessity or symbolic ower n prac-ticesdistinguishes isposition rom thoroughly tilitarian erspective.

FIELDS OF CULTURAL RODUCTlON

lf cultural, ymbolic, nd economic apital are distinct hough mutuallyconvertible orms f power, hey nonetheless ollowdistinct modes f accumulaStion and operation. s forms f cultural roduction evelop, heygenerate reSnas of struggle yspecialists or he monopoly ver heir administration. o ac-count or his dimension f his political economy f symbolic ower n moderndifferentiated ocieties,Bourdieu evelops he concept f "field" champ). ieldsdesignate renas where pecific orms f capital are produced, nvested, x-changed, ndaccumulated.

The concept of field emerges rom he conjuncture n the late 1960sbeStween Bourdieu's esearch n the sociology f art and his reading f Weber's o-ciology f religion (Bourdieu 987a:33).7 he concept s inspired yWeber's is-cussion of the relations between prlest, prophet, and sorcerer Bourdieu1990a:49).8Weber dentifies he specific ndopposing nterests f these princi-pal ypes f religious eadership nd he structures fthe "competition hich p-poses hem o one another" Bourdieu 990a:107). ourdieu 1987c; 1992:260)proposes structuralist einterpretation f Weber's nalysis y stressing ow heinteractions etween he types f religious eadership restructured ytheir opSposing nterests nd how these nterests re in turn related o broader owerstructures. ourdieu 1987c:121) onsidersWeber's nalysis estricted o an"interactionist" erspective ocused n interSpersonal r inter-subjective ela-tions among ctors.A fieldperspective, owever, ntrodllces broader erspec-tive of structural onditions hat shape he nteractions of actors hough heyarenot aware f them. Bourdieu 1971b, 1971a, 1985, 1992:260) irst applied heconcept o French rtists nd ntellectuals s a means o call attention o thespecific nterests overning hose ultural orlds.

Fieldhas become key spatial metaphor n Bourdieu's ociology f culture.Bourdieu efines field as

a network, r configuration, f objective elations etween ositions. hese positions reobjectively efined . . by their present ndpotential ituation . . in the structure f thedistribution f species f power or apital) hose ossession ommands ccess o the specificprofits hat areat stake n the ield 1992:97).

-

f In developing he concept Bourdieu 1987c) draws rimarily rom hapters VI and XV of Economy ndSociet.

8 lt also parallels Weber's deaof"life-orders," hich nspires Gerth and Mills's 1964) conceptualizationof"institutional rders."


10/16

9 Fieldmeans 'certain tructure f the distribution f a certain kind of capital" Bourdieu 993:91).

PIERRE OURDIEU'S OLITICAL CONOMY F SYNIBOLIC OWER 79

Fieldsmaybe thought f as structured paces hat are organized round pecifictypes fcapital.9 ields enote renas f production, irculation, nd appropriaStion of goods, ervices, nowledge, r status, nd he competitive ositions eldbyactors n their truggle o accumulate ndmonopolize ifferent inds f capi-tal. For example, Bourdieu peaks f the "intellectual ield" o designate hatmatrix f institutions, rganizations, nd markets n which artists nd writerscompete or he symbolic apital f legitimate ecognition or heir artistic ndliterary ork.Field s a more nclusive oncept han market; s a spatial meta-phor t suggests ank ndhierarchy swellas exchange elations etween uyersand ellers. ndeed, ourdieu's oncept f field hould ot be reduced O the neo-classic dea of market. Rather, he concept suggests force-field where hedistribution f capital eflects hierarchical et of power elations mong hecompeting ndividuals, roups, nd organizations. nteractions mong actorswithin ieldsare shaped y their relative ocation n the hierarchy f positions.Bourdieu asapplied his concept n studies f social lass ifestyles, igher du-cation nstitutions, cience, ulture, aw,and religion.

Bourdieu 1985) uses ield analysis o offer a cultural-structural nterpreta-tion of the rise of cultural markets nd he modern ntelligentsia. ield nalysisposits parallel rocess: s corps f cultural roducers merge, pecialized ndinstitutionalized ultural renas f production, irculation, nd consumption fsymbolic oods also emerge with ncreasing utonomy rom he economy ndthe polity. Bourdieu's asic esearch ypothesis n fieldanalysis sthat asculturalfields ain n autonomy rom xternal actors, he intellectual tances ssumed ythe agents ncreasingly ecome function f the posiiions ccupied ythe agentswithin hese ields.Thus, n contrast o Marxist lass nalysis, ourdieu ees ieldsas mediating elations etween ocial tructures ndcultural ife.

Stnctural ropereiesfFields

Bourdieu 1993:72) peaks f the "invariant aws" r "universal echanisms"

that are structural roperties haracteristic f all fields.First, ieldsare arenas fstruggleor control ver valued esources, r forms fcapital. ield truggle en-ters around articular orms f capital, uchas economic apital, ultural apital,scientific apital, r religious apital. Cultural apital, or example, s the keyproperty n the intellectual ield whereas conomic apital s the importantproperty n the businessworld.There are as many ields as there are capitals.Actors also struggle ver he very definitions f what are o be considered hemost valued esources n fields. This s particularly rue n cultural ieldswherestyleand knowledge apidly hange. n other words, ieldsare arenas f struggle

for egitimation: n Bourdieu's anguage, or he right o monopolize he exerciseof "symbolic iolence."Second, ields re tructured paces fdominarlt rld ubordinateositions based

on types nd amounts fcapital. ield truggle its hose n subordinate ositionsagainst hose in superordinate ositions. The struggle or position n fields


11/16


opposes hosewho are able o exercise omedegree f monopoly ower ver hedefinition nd distribution f capital gainst hose who attempt o usurp hoseadvantages. n general, Bourdieu ees this opposition ccurring etween heestablished gents and the new arrivals n fields. Drawing rom Weber's e-scription f the opposition etween riests nd prophets, ourdieu epicts hisconflict n terms of those who defend rthodoxy gainst hose who advocateheresy. or Bourdieu 1992:289), his undamental tructure f conflict s para-digmatic ot only in the religious ield but in all cultural ields.The ortho-dox/heterodox pposition s a struggle or he

monopoly f cultural egitimacy nd he right o withhold nd confer his consecration n thename of fundamentally pposed rinciples: he personal uthorlty alled or by the creator nd

the institutional uthority avoured y the teacher 1971b:178).

Bourdieu ees an analogous pposition n intellectual ields,particularly nacademe, etween he "curators f culture" nd the "creators f culture," e-tween hose who reprox;luce rld ransmit egitimate odies f knowledge ndthose who nvent new orms f knowledge. nhis study f the Parisian niversityfaculty, ourdieu 1988) inds his undamental pposition etween eachers ndresearchers, etween rofessors nd ndependent ntellectuals. n the field of re-ligion, an analogous pposition might be found between denominational d-

ministrators ndclergy, n the one hand, nd ociologists f religion nd heolo-gians, n the other hand.Crucial or Bourdieu n his field analysis s that the two opposing trategies

are dialectically elated; negenerates he other. Orthodoxies all nto existencetheir heterodox eversals y the logic of distinction hat operates n culturalfields.10 hallengers blige he old guard o mount defense f its privileges,that defense, hen, becomes rounds or ubversion.

Third, ields mpose n actors pecific orms f struggle. ntry nto a field re-quires tacit acceptance f the rules f the game, meaning hat pecific orms f

struggle re egitimated hereas thers reexcluded. oth he dominant stab-lishment nd he subordinate hallengers hare tacit acceptance hat he fieldof struggle s worth pursuing n the firstplace.Bourdieu efers o this deep truc-ture of fields s the Doxa or t represents tacit, undamental greement n thestakes f struggle etween hoseadvocating eterodoxy nd hose holding o or-thodoxy.l1 Challengers nd ncumbents hare common nterest n preserving

10 This symbiotic elationship etween rthodox nd heterodox iewsbrings o mind Mannheim's(1955)analysis f how deological ndutopian isions f the socialworld, hough adically pposed n their

posture oward he status uo, nonetheless ecome ocked nto a pattern f complex xchange f critiques,each o an appreciable xtent etermining heother.Williams nd Demerath 1991) dentify similar ynamic n their tudy f religion ndpolitics.

They how ow ogicallyncompatiblehemes f civilreligion nd eparation f church nd tate an coexistand ctually enable" ach ther npolitical ractice.

t 1 The dea f the Doxa esonates ithDurkheim's oncept f the "collective onsciousness." crucialdifference s that Doxa s field-specific ather han epresenting system ftacitunderstandingsor he entiresociety.


12/16

12Like pposing layersn card ame, oth hare common nterest n the game hough oth ompetetO winover heir pponents. ourdieuandWacquant 992:98-99)ometimes raws pon heanalogy fthecard ame to illusttate these properties f fields.At other imes he stresses hat knowledge f the rulesthemselves epresents form fcultural apital hat sunequally hared mong ontestants.

PIERRE OURDIEU'S OLITICAL CONOMY F SYMBOLIC OWER 8 1

the field tself ven f they are harply ivided n how t is to be controlled.l2 nthe sociology f religion, or example, ontemporary ebates ccur over thetrends nd significance f religious ife;all assume including he proponentsof secularization-that eligion sworth alking bout n the firstplace.Fourth, ields are structured o a significant xtent by their own nternalmechanismsf evelopmerSt and thus hold some degree f autonomy rom heexternal nvironment. he "relative utonomy" f the educational ystem, orexample, s of most nstitutionalized eligions, efers o itS capacity o controlthe recruitment, ocialization, nd careers f actors, and O impose ts ownspecific deology.More enerally, ourdieu oints o the relative utonomy fcultural ields rom conomic nd olitical fields.A scholarily iscipline uchasthe sociology f religion, or example, will reflect o some extent broaderintellectual rends. But t also has ts own particular istory nd structure hatnew arrivals eed o appropriate n order o gain recognition smembers f thefield.

Field nalysis, herefore, irects he researcher's ttention o a level of anal-ysiscapable f revealing he integrating ogicof competition etween pposingviewpoints. t encourages he researcher o seek ut sources fconflict n a givendomains elate hat conflict o the broader reas fclassand power, nd dentifyunderlying hared ssumptions y pposing parties. Fieldanalysis irects tten-tion to the task of identifying he principal oles of opposition nd theirunderlying hared ssumptionsn a particular omain.Finally, fundamental ethodological rinciple lows rom he posited elaStive autonomy ffields; amely, riority sgiven o the intemal nalysis ffields.Bourdieu rgues hat external nfluences realways retranslated"nto he inter-nal ogic of fields.External ources f influence realwaysmediated hrough hestructure nd dynamic f fields.The classbackground f the artist, or example,does not influence he work f art directly. Rather, he effects f class ntersectwith the patterns f field hierarchy nd conflict where he artist s situated(Bourdieu 984b:6).

Structural omologies

Bourdieu onceptualizes he relations mong elatively utonomous ields nterms f "structural nd unctional omologies,'t hich he defines s "a resem-blance within a difference" Bourdieu nd Wacquant 992:105-106). ields eScome homologous o the extent hat heydevelop somorphic roperties uchaspositions of dominance nd subordination, trategies f exclusion nd usurpaotion, and mechanisms f reproduction nd change. n his earlywork n French

education, ourdieu Bourdieu nd Passeron 977:63-64,194-200) tresses he"structural nd functional" omology etween French ducation nd the me


13/16


dieval Catholic Church: chools, ike he Church, ot only ransmit nowledgeand skills but also reproduce hemselves y monopolizing he selection andtraining f their own eadership. oreover, ike he Church, chools lsorepro-duce social class relations y legitimating he unequal istribution f culturalcapital.

Field nalysis or Bourdieu iffers rom market pproacho culture. houghBourdieu uperficially esembles growing umber f social cientists who useeconomic magery n their analytical anguage Warner 993:1051), e does notwork within a rational hoice ramework. ieldanalysis oes not analyze heeconomics f culture n terms fa direct ffect f demand n supply r of supplyon demand. orBourdieu, ultural astes renot simply mposed ycultural ro-ducers n unwitting onsumers; ordo cultural astes tem rom ultural roduc-ersattempting o respond irectly o patterns fconsumer emand. ield nalysisposits hat he relation etween upply nddemand, etween ultural roducersand their public, nd more generally, etween he field of cultural roductionand he field of social lasses, s mediated yfield tructures nd struggles. hus,patterns nd changes n cultural roduction re o be analyzed n tertns f thecompetitive truggle mong ultural roducers n which newcomers hallengeestablished roups or he right o definewhat re o be legitimate ultural orms.Producers trugglewithin he field of cultural roduction nd their culturalproducts eflectmore heir respective ositions f dominance r subordination

than heydo the demands f consumers.Consumerst n turn, elect rom heseproducts ccording o their own posi-tions of dominance r subordination ithin he struggle or distinction mongthe social classes.Consumers n subordinate ositions end to select productsproduced yproducers n subordinate ositions ithin he field of cultural zro-duction. Thus a relation f"structural omology" ather han one of consciousadjustment s established etween he various ategories f cultural rceducersand he various ategories f consumers ccording o their espective ositions nthe separate ields f struggle. ourdieu rites:

The ogic of objective ompetition t the coreof the ield )f ultural rc)ductioneads ach ofthe categories f producers o oKer, without nyconscious earch or adjustment, roductsthat are adjusted o the preferences f the consumers ho occupy c)mologous {sitionswiiin the ield f power 1984b:14).

I)ISCUSSION

Bourdieu rings conflict erspective o the study f religion.He stresses hepower imension n religious ifeand organization. o less han other arenas fcultural ndsocial onflict, eligion sa resource f power ver which ome n-dividuals, roups, ndorganizations eel it is important o struggle. he strugglefor he right o impose he legitimate efinition f religion sin the final analysisa political unction. Religious ower" r "religious apital," ourdieu rites,


14/16


depends n the materlal nd symbolic orceof the groups nd classes he claimants anmobilize yoffering hem oods nd ervices hat atisfy heir eligious nterests 199la:22).13

Moreover, he struggle or egitimation ithin he religious ield ends o reproSduce he relations f domination ithin he established rder 199la:31-32).How might one employ Bourdieu's erspective o study religious ield n

North America? ince ields are defined irstand oremost sarenas f struggleover the definition nd distribution f specific orms f capital, he first askwouldbe to identify elevant ointsof conflict. Forms f religious nterest ndcapital re nvolved n a great variety f contemporary ssues: heological oc-trine, onstitutional ights, axexemptions bortion, choolprayer, nd eaching

. . , . , S . . . . .anc researc ln unlversltles. or ome, e lglon S lMpOrtant ln t Rese ssues nc

for others eligion s irrelevant. Who participates n these struggles nd whatkinds f symbolic s well as material nterests uide hem? These questions ug-gest different ypesof struggle, ifferent evelsof analysis, nd different ields.They also bring nto consideration widevariety f organizations, roups, ndiSviduals, nd nstitutions. (undatie s, universities, V and radio tations, ndpolitical ction committees swell as congregations nd denominations ightbe considered. field perspective ould uggest hat ssues f doctrine, rgani-zational tructure, egal tatus, r intellectual espectability re matters f trug-gle for egitimation hat nvolve broad rray f individuals, roups, ndorgani-

zationswhopursue ifferent inds f symbolic swellas material nterests.One ruitful rea or ield analysis ould e the religious ediav fone of themain points f field analysis s to suggest hat patterns f production f religiousgoodsand services eflect more trategies f product ifferentiation mong ro-ducers ather han he direct ffects f cc)nsumer emand, hen one way of test-ing that hypvthesis ould be to study n assortment f religious ublications osee to what extent heir editorial olicies ttempt o correspond o reader e-mand r reflect competitive eferencing nddifferentiation ith other publica-

.

tlons.

Finally, popular form ,f study hat Bourdieu's ielul ramework ould sJtencourage ould e the case tudy f cvngregations} enotninations, r religiousleaders. The field analytic perspective alls for situating articular ntities,whether enotninations r congregatic)ns, ithin broader ramework f strugglec)ver he significance f religion. Local haracteristics, (rurdieu ontends, an-not be fullyunderstood ociologically ithout ituating them within his broaderperspective.

On the other hand, Bourdieu's ieldconcept resupposes strong lergy/layopposition nel s F>erhaFusess usefulwhere uch an opposition ves ot have

13 Whilc not working within lXnurtlieu's ramework, zemerath 1991) and Williams and l7)eDmer;tth( 1(}91) avc recently mployed he terms "cultural wer} "cultural rcsources," nd 4'religinux apital" n wayssimilar o lAurdicu. Speaking n thc American ontext wherc cligion csonates more as a form f authority nnational ulture han in France, Williams nd Demerath 1991 7zrc cven morc cnncernc(3 han is liurdieuwith the cffectx hat religizzn an havc on plitical mt bilization. hey shw how religiclus nd moral rgumentcan on occasi


15/16


that ormal haracter. he concept f religious ielddoesnot grasp he "religiousdimension" f social phenomena n other ocial areas uch as sports r politicswhere t is has very ittle connection o the historically onstituted eligious

traditions HervieuSLeger 993 .In conclusion, he growing nterest n relating he sociology f culture ndthe sociology f religion will find inspiration n the example et by PierreBourdieu. rawing n part rom Weber's ociology f religion, ourdieu ffers noriginal pproach o the study f culture, ne that can be applied o religion swell.This approach ivesa strong ense of agency ut within structured rame-work of particular nterests hat mediate roader ffects f social class. Just asstudents f culture re ncreasingly ooking o Bourdieu or nsights or studyingthe complex elation etween ulture nd power, o also can students f religionr- . .

rlnc lml Earnsplratlon.

REFERENCES

Althusser, . 1970. orMarx. NewYork: intage ooks.Becker, . 1976. The economic pproach o human ehavior. hicago: he University f Chicago

Press.Bourdieu, . 1971a.Champ u pouvoir, hamp ntellectuel t habitus eclasse. colies :7-26.

. 1971b. ntellectual ieldand reative roject. n Ktu)wledge nAlontrol: ew directi(nls (rrthe ociology f education, dited y M.F.D. oung, 61-188. ondon: ollier-Macmillall.

. 1972. Esquisse 'une heorie e la pratique. rece(lec e trois tudes d'eth710l(-)gieabyle.Geneva: roz.

. 1977.Outline f a theory f practice. ambridge:zambridge niversity ress.

. 1980.The prduction )f belief:Contribution o an economy f symbolic oods.Mcdia,Culture, nd Society : 261S293.

. 1984a. )istinction: social ritique )f he udgement f taste. Cambridgc: arvard niversityPress.

. 1984b.Le champ itteraire: realables ritiques t principes e methode. endemains 6:5-20.. 1985.The market f sytnbolic oods. octics 4(April): 3-44.. 19e37a. ho.seses. Paris: cs Edition c Minuit.. l 987b. Ladissolution ureligicux. hoscslites.Paris: es Editions e Minuit.. 1987c.Legitimation nd structured nterests n Weber's ociolc)gy f religion. n Max

Weber, ationality nd rrati(mality, dited y S. Lash nd S. Whimster, 9S136. oston: llen& Unwin.

. 1987d. ociologues c la croyance t croyaIlces e sociokagues. hoses ites.Paris: esEditions eMinuit.

. 198t3.Hame ciemicus. Stanford, S'A: tanfc)rd nivcrsity rcss.

. 1989.Lanoblesse 'ctat.Grandes coles t csprit lecorps.Paris: es Edition e Minuit.

. 1990a. n otherwords: ssays frward reflcxive ocioll)gy. tanford, A:Stanford niversityPress.

. 1990tz. he Xic of practice. tanft d, CA: Stanford niversity ress.

. 1991a. cNcsis and tructurc fthe religious ield.Comparative ocialRcsearch 3:1-43.

. 1991 . Language tul ymbolic xmJer. ambridgc: arvard niversity ress.

. 1992.Le.s egle.s c 'art: Gencsc t structurc uchamp itteraire. aris: ditions uSeuil.

. 1993. ociologynquestion. C)ndOn:age 'ublications.


16/16


Bourdieu, ., and M. de S. Marttn 982. La sainte amille. L'dpiscopat ransais ans e champ dupouvolr. Actes e arecherchen aencesociales4/452 53.

Bourdieu, ., and J.

bourdieu - symbolic power

Documents