A noção de experiência na sociologia bourdieusiana: com e para além de Bourdieu

On Pierre Bourdieu<i>Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.</i>Pierre Bourdieu , Jean-Claude Passeron , Richard Nice<i>Outline of a Theory of Practice.</i>Pierre Bourdieu , Richard Nice

Field theory offers a view of social life concerned with how a set of actors orienting their actions to one another do so within a meso-level social order. Fields, once formed, are the arenas where the sociological game of jockeying for position constantly plays out. Our purpose is to review contemporary field theory as articulated in three major theoretical statements in sociology. We first discuss field theory’s intellectual roots, paying particular attention to the influences of Max Weber and Kurt Lewin, but also phenomenology and symbolic interaction. We next provide an overview of three of the most developed elaborations of field theory from the last half-century – Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of fields (1992), the neo-institutional approach to organizational fields (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), and the theory of strategic action fields recently proposed by Fligstein and McAdam 2012. We follow these overviews with more a detailed examination of how each of these theories addresses two of the most fundamental problems in sociological theory: (1) how to conceive of agency and actors in fields, and (2) how social fields emerge, reproduce, and change. We spend the bulk of our essay discussing key differences between the three approaches on these issues. We end by suggesting the next steps forward in elaborating field theory.

Based on contributions from the sociology of science in the field of Science Education, this article aims to explore and elucidate the concept of fields, formulated by Pierre Bourdieu, in the objects of study of this area. This theoretical study is structured in three parts, which are articulated throughout the text: a synthesis of the general and invariable principles of fields; an elaboration of an analogy between the different field theories (sociology and physics); a discussion about the appropriation of field theories in research studies on Science Education that use them. We discuss the field as a social space, the agents’ habitus, the positions in the field, disputes and interests, distribution of the specific capital, limits, boundaries, and the field autonomy. An interpretation of this complex Bourdieusian concept was defended, in a way to determine the limits of the field and their agents, based on how research has appropriated it. Therefore, a theoretical framework was advanced, coming up with the possible and effective articulations between Science Education and Bourdieu’ Sociology of Science.

The research reported in this thesis text is concerned with the mediatization of policy. The policy treated in this thesis text is Australia’s Science Capability Review, led by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham. Batterham’s Review is identified in this thesis text with the emergence of knowledge economy policies in Australia. More specifically, the topic of this thesis is understanding the way that media and policy practices represented knowledge as the basis for a range of social problems over the course of Batterham’s Review, and ways that media-policy interactions led to the knowledge economy as a solution. The policy conceptualisation of the knowledge economy within the policy texts that were developed over the course of Batterham’s Review is therefore an object of this research. In order to understand this topic, a number of academic resources are drawn on from the fields of policy studies, media studies, sociology and philosophy of science. The major theoretical resources utilised in this thesis are drawn from the work of the late French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, particularly his theory of social fields. The topic of this thesis depends on an understanding of how different social fields relate, which leads to some orginal theorisation around fields in order to name and represent problems that are documented from the research data. Two new concepts are introduced to understand the relations between fields and policy processes. The first of these is one class of cross-field effects, which adapts Ian Hacking’s work on the looping effects asociated with categories used within psychology to discuss ways that practices of categorisation within one field come to influence practices in other fields. The second of these is temporary social fields, developed as a way of viewing the time dependent interactions between the media field and policy fields over the course of policy reviews. The framework of analysis built around the theory of fields is incorporated as a tool for policy analysis, and is applied to the process of mediatization of policy, in which the media act to influence policy making in distinct and systemic ways. The basic unit of analysis that is associated with Bourdieu’s theory of fields is practice, leading to the interactions between the media and policy making being described as representing practices (which include framing practices and weighting practices) and intervening practices.

Encounters between fields: Integrating military forces into the health field's epidemiological effort during COVID-19 in Israel.

By way of a textual analysis of the reports on high fashion shows of the French newspaper Le Monde and the British newspaper The Guardian, this study is a reflection on Bourdieu's sociology of culture. Drawing on Bourdieu's notion of symbolic production, I comment on the construction of fashion as popular culture in The Guardian and as high culture in Le Monde. The investigation of the versions of culture constructed by the two newspapers allows me to reflect on the theoretical framework Bourdieu has developed in his discussion of the field of culture and the traditional opposition between the high and the popular which structures it. Bourdieu's sociology is a product of a specific field of production, the French: like many French researchers, he shows little interest in mass culture - his sociology of the field of fashion is a case in point -, and privileges culture as high culture. Popular culture - working class culture - is not acknowledged as a culture per se. Many of Bourdieu's concepts, such as 'cultural capital' or 'symbolic production' can usefully be applied to an analysis of the field of popular culture, but this is a step he does not take. If adequate to understand certain cultural experiences and discourses, Bourdieu's model is inadequate to understand others, but proves to be a rigid theoretical model which fails to account for the complexity and diversity of the field of popular culture, and ultimately fails to break with the cultural doxa. Finally, although Bourdieu insists that sociologists should pay attention to the discourses of symbolic production of culture, he himself fails to engage with them, focusing on their field production rather than on the meanings they convey. In contrast, this study is concerned with the meanings created in the process of symbolic production of fashion.

&lt;p&gt;Discussions of gender in the context of fashion have a long history, with plenty of discourse surrounding women, their sexuality and femininity, as well as gender inequality. As an industry, fashion is marketed to women, yet dominated by men. This MRP analyzes who the women leaders are or are not in fashion and examines what that imbalance means in relation to the industry at large. This paper takes the form of a comprehensive literature review, employing Allyson Stokes' 'glass runway' metaphor and Pierre Bourdieu's field theory as theoretical frameworks. The research explores three themes: leadership, creativity, and fashion as independent enterprise. Overall, the literature reveals longstanding societal norms that have seemingly influenced the way men and women progress through the fashion industry. These gender norms and perceptions present invisible barriers to leadership for women, but also offer some explanation for the lack of women in high-level roles in the industry.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Discussions of gender in the context of fashion have a long history, with plenty of discourse surrounding women, their sexuality and femininity, as well as gender inequality. As an industry, fashion is marketed to women, yet dominated by men. This MRP analyzes who the women leaders are or are not in fashion and examines what that imbalance means in relation to the industry at large. This paper takes the form of a comprehensive literature review, employing Allyson Stokes' 'glass runway' metaphor and Pierre Bourdieu's field theory as theoretical frameworks. The research explores three themes: leadership, creativity, and fashion as independent enterprise. Overall, the literature reveals longstanding societal norms that have seemingly influenced the way men and women progress through the fashion industry. These gender norms and perceptions present invisible barriers to leadership for women, but also offer some explanation for the lack of women in high-level roles in the industry.&lt;/p&gt;

Journalism as a field is a theoretical construction inspired by Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, which sheds new light on the issues of media studies. This analytical framework was developed in France, beginning in the 1990s with the work of Patrick Champagne on the mutual influences between the fields of journalism and politics; the rare writings of Bourdieu on the journalistic field; and finally the work of young researchers on the subfields of specialized journalism. Reception of field theory in international journalism research dates back to the early 2000s, in particular around the work of Rodney Benson. The journalistic field is a theoretical framework consisting of about 10 main concepts that raise a large number of research questions, both theoretical and empirical. It first describes the internal relations in the social space, both as a field of struggle (with concepts of illusio or field effect) and as a field of forces (with concepts of capital, commercial vs. civic poles, autonomy, or subfield). At an individual level, it also makes sense of the conduct of individual journalists (with concepts of habitus, position and position taking, and strategy). Second, it enables consideration of the place of journalism in society and its relations with other social spaces (the concept of media capital), referring in particular to the analysis of information sources or mediatization of society. This research program has been incompletely realized thus far: general descriptions of the structure of current fields are lacking; little work has been done on the reception of media messages and consideration of the development of the Internet; and transnationalization of the media is insufficient. The journalistic field nevertheless has a strong heuristic potential in at least two directions. First, it is a useful tool for comparing media systems because its relational approach avoids the pitfalls of nominalism and facade comparisons. Second, it is valuable in considering the history of journalism because it describes the emergence of specifically journalistic activity without giving way to anachronism or culturalism. The journalistic field is a demanding but nonexclusive theoretical framework, presenting a refreshing analytical challenge for traditional topics of journalism studies, such as the production of journalistic information, the mediatization of societies, the history of journalism, or the comparison of media systems.

Bourdieu's contribution to the analysis of economies and change. Does Pierre Bourdieu apply concepts from economic theory to his theory of fields and does he limit himself to an analysis of reproduction ? A survey of his work suggests that the answer to both questions is «no». To be sure he makes ample use of economic vocabulary, but he declines it in a way specific to each field and obtains very different results from those developed by rational-choice theory that a Chicago economist would apply indiscriminately to social phenomena as a whole. Likewise, more than a set of concepts that seem to evoke an immobile history, the interplay of variations and invariables is all the more central as Pierre Bourdieu frequently calls on historical perspective. He suggests at least five mechanisms to explain change and crisis: innovation instigated by the dominant players in a field, the entry of new actors, the endogenous shifting of borders between fields under the impact of the strategies deployed in them, struggles for State power and above all desynchronization between field and habitus due to changes in context. Finally, striking homologies appear between Pierre Bourdieu's sociology and the research inspired by regulation theory, even if the aims and basic notions of the two theoretical constructions remain distinct. homologies appear between Pierre Bourdieu's sociology and the research inspired by regulation theory, even if the aims and basic notions of the two theoretical constructions remain distinct.

Chapter 1 sets up general themes: individual versus collective identities and survival; power and tragic, compelled agency; and change versus reproduction of practices and relations. After a brief discussion of historiography, the chapter developed its theoretical framework, building on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and fields. First, perception and sensation are the foundation of social fields, which are structured signals of practice and authority. Second, fields have topographies of social and symbolic distance that shape perceptions and practices. Empathy is particularly important. Third, a crucial facet of fields is anchors, entities of symbolic and emotional valence that link individuals to fields through personal and symbolic meanings. Finally, groups of fields and actors crystalize into “economies” of contexts and rules of worth. The chapter closes with a discussion of power and compelled, tragic agency, and with a discussion of data: Blockade diaries, state and Party records (NKVD and police reports, Party documents, etc.), and interviews (during the Blockade, in the late 1970s, after 1991).

Many specialists have considered and conducted research onchanges in, and the current situation of, higher education within universitiesboth in Latin America and the world. Coincidentally, these changes have aglobal character. There has been a heteronomizing trend since the 1980sin terms of a framework of an ‘Evaluating State’ which seeks to improvethe economic management and quality of universities by incorporating newactors such as private companies and, hence, the logic of the market. Thushigher education policies have been implemented which seek to increaseproductivity and quality through regulatory mechanisms that will lead tonew forms of academic activity and university organization. In this context,and on the basis of Bourdieu’s Field Theory, this article examines how histheory allows us to think about these new forms, and to foresee possiblescenarios in the framework of the struggle to appropriate the various issueswhich are currently in play on different levels: between universities, betweenuniversity bodies, between faculties and between academics.

Objective: To explore the social representations (SRs) of child malnutrition among fathers, mothers orguardians of the Wichí indigenous community and healthcare professionals from the General José de SanMartín department, Salta, using Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory (FT). Materials and methods: A qualitative study was conducted within a social–critical and interpretive paradigm of SRs. Participant observation, in-depth interviews and focus groups were employed to collect data from healthcare professionals and Wichí mothers with malnourished children from the General José de San Martín department, Salta, until data theoretical saturation and intramethod triangulation were achieved. The analysis was based on Pierre Bourdieu’s FT, using the categories proposed by the author. The study variables sought to understand the health field (HF) in a holistic, multidimensional and qualitative way. Results: In the HF, inequalities were observed in the dispositions of social agents according to the capitals at stake. For healthcare professionals, economic capital, understood as “institutional resources and assets,” was considered the most important form of capital, while for the Wichí community, the focus was on “economic capital in relation to cultural capital” (self-sustainability and respect for their culture).Efforts to reduce these inequalities created ongoing tension and social pressure. Disagreements were also observed among SRs of child malnutrition, particularly concerning health indicators versus intercultural care, the Wichí language and worldview versus the Spanish language, the hegemonic biomedical approach versus ecological and intercultural perspectives, community support based on welfare versus community support based on respect for the Wichí culture, along with other actions decontextualized from the reality of theregion. Conclusions: Given the existing disagreements and inequalities between healthcare professionals and the Wichí community, it isrecommended to promote ways of being, doing and thinking in the intercultural and contextualized training approaches for healthcareprofessionals. This would enable more effective responses to child malnutrition in the indigenous communities of Salta.

One of the main foci in scholar debate on Ukraine is the overarching question, how ‘divided’ this country is. However politically important this matter might be, serious research has usually been surprisingly shallow, and more often than not ignoring a geographical dimension connected to this political issue. This dissertation reads a ‘division of Ukraine’ as a ‘spatial-political conceptualization’. It is seen as a product of ‘strategic spatial-political discourses’ offered by potent political actors and their shared interpretation in the mind of the voter, thus facilitating shared imaginary geographies of Ukraine. The outcome is a performative reification of these discourses through voting.&#13;\nThis perspective allows for an analysis regarding who has which geography of Ukraine in mind (meaning, what kind of underlying ‘spatial-political conceptualization’ is preferred), and furthermore, if there are structural differences in the regions of Ukraine regarding the prevalence of these concepts (meaning, do similar voters subscribe to similar interpretations all over Ukraine or is there an independent locality aspect?).&#13;\nA theoretical framework has been developed, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘theory of practice’ and following Michael Vester’s thoughts: A relational ‘social space’ comprising several so-called ‘fields’ served hereby as the point of departure. One ‘field’ accommodated so-called ‘camps’ as vertically integrated (elite and commons), pillar-like segments in the event of an election. These ‘camps’ were based on a shared sense of order and sorting of the social. This field was found structured by certain cleavages; two have been identified for Ukraine 2012. Such a perspective allowed for inclusion of segments of societies regarding theoretically challenging polities in transition like Ukraine – and prevented a too narrow view focused exclusively on political actors. This has been combined with ideas brought forward by spatial sociologists, so that the above (virtual) ‘spatial-political conceptualizations’ of Ukraine appeared to be the spatial manifestation of shared principles of order and sorting of the social. Departing from this framework, the dissertation has been divided into three main parts:&#13;\nAt first, preliminary studies have been conducted regarding the concrete structuring of the ‘field of camps’ in Ukraine around the time of the elections in question: As a result, three main camps have been identified. These were labeled the ‘government-camp’, the ‘democratic opposition-camp’ and the ‘nationalist-opposition-camp’.&#13;\nSecondly, however just for heuristic purposes, it has been analyzed that the most appropriate regionalization of Ukraine for the elections of 2012 would mean a peculiar, three region outlay based on a set of quantitative data like social structure and voting behavior.&#13;\nThe synoptic use of these findings structured the selection of potential participants for the main part, which aimed at offering answers regarding above questions. For theoretical as well as practical reasons, the focus group chosen was a set of 45 graduate students from five Ukrainian ‘National Universities’, the highest echelon of tertiary education in Ukraine, based in a ‘western’, a ‘central’ and an ‘eastern’ region, and drawn from the respective three ‘camps’.&#13;\nIt has been found that there was not one idea or conceptualization of ‘division’ among the participants from the ‘government camp’, but instead four different ones. The most&#13;\nx&#13;\npuzzling finding was, that such ‘division’ always meant some sort of special status for a quite fuzzy Ukrainian ‘East’. Among them, the meanwhile classic ‘partition-along-the-Dnipro’-conceptualization was the most rarely found idea. Also, however contrary to their own official stance, participants from the ‘democratic opposition’ seemed to systematically put less emphasis on national unity and balance than expected (at least in spatial perspective): Two consistent conceptualizations have been found here: A ‘unity-oriented’ one largely found with participants from this ‘camp’ from the ‘western’ and ‘central’ parts of Ukraine; and another, covertly ‘regionalist’ found with many participants from ‘eastern’ Ukraine. Participants from the ‘nationalist opposition’ preferred – besides the mentioned ‘unity-oriented’ conceptualization – also one that has been labeled ‘uniformity-oriented’: A unitary state based on an ethnic Ukrainian nation with authoritarian characteristics. In 2012, ‘conceptualizations of division’ have thus been found ‘one-sided’ at best, as they were exclusively aimed at a fuzzy ‘East’, but never at the (likewisely fuzzy) ‘West’ of Ukraine – meaning more or less historic Galicia. They have been found very consistently among participants from the ‘government-camp’ in several specifications; to a lesser extent also among participants from the ‘democratic opposition-camp’.&#13;\nFurthermore, it has been shown, that these ‘camps’ were mostly country-wide phenomena (acknowledging a non-specified degree of regional concentration, however): Concepts articulated by participants from one ‘camp’ in the ‘West’ were found generally comparable to those from participants of the same camp in the ‘eastern’ or ‘central’ parts of Ukraine. The only exception that implies a locality-aspect was found with the ‘camp of democratic opposition’: Participants from the ‘East’ tended to prefer the above ‘regionalist’ conception much more than those from elsewhere.&#13;\nAll in all, Ukraine seemed from this perspective far less ‘divided’ or ‘partitioned’ than usually brought forward by commentators in public discourse or sometimes even by parts of the scientific community, whose arguments are usually based on ‘spatialized facts’ such as electoral geographies of past elections or distributions of social structure variables – which also had a huge impact on forming (shared) opinions in 2012.&#13;\nHowever, the above findings can lead to the assumption, that the actors behind ‘strategic-political discourses’ of ‘division’ – usually camouflaged as strive for regional self-governance or (linguistic) autonomy – had already by 2012 sown the seeds for making this a reputable idea, as some respective interpretations of such discourses seemed to match surprisingly well – and this was not solely confined to the ‘government-camp’.&#13;\nThe outlined results shall contribute to better understanding the phenomenon of a ‘divided’ or ‘partitioned’ Ukraine, connecting a geographical dimension to a currently unsolved political problem. Nevertheless, as the main limitations stem from the chosen focus group and a narrow post-election time frame, this dissertation shall be understood as a case study and not as an elaboration regarding the overall population.

This study focuses on the development of Field Theory (FT) literature trends through bibliometric analysis for the previous 20 years. The data analyzed consists of 447 peer-reviewed journal articles from 228 sources retrieved in the Web of Science (WoS) database with Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) indexing, from 2003 to October 2022. An overview of 447 articles was presented by utilizing Biblioshiny and HistCite. To visualize the data, we used VOSviewer software. Bibliometric analysis enabled us to chart the development of the FT literature. and its variants, provide a thorough understanding of the FT field's dynamics (structure), and identify journals, authors, subtopics (themes), and their interconnections and network relationships. The results of this study obtained two significant findings, namely that studies on FT grew rapidly from 2003 to 2022, especially in 2016. In addition, there are seven research clusters where neo-institutionalism and Pierre Bourdieu are the dominant themes.