Habitus/Field

Abstract

European sociology serves as an interesting contrast to American sociology in terms of theory and theoretical development, as exemplified by Pierre Bourdieu's writings and particularly with his ideas of habitus and field. On the one hand, most typical of theoretical development in American sociology is to build on an existing body of theoretical work rather than seeking to create something novel, and secondly to attempt to find ways to link theory to empirical research by operationalizing the theory. Examples of such programs include theories addressing justice, balance, and identity (micro‐level theories) as well as institutionalism, social change, and revolutions (macro‐level theories). European, particularly continental, sociology has tended to take a somewhat different approach by focusing on integrating key theoretical ideas across different perspectives, as well as creating new language with which to express such integrative ideas. Additionally, another key distinction between American and European sociology is that American sociology highlights what some writers consider to be false distinctions and dichotomies in a range of areas – such as theory versus research methods, objective versus subjective, qualitative or interpretive methods versus quantitative or positivistic methods, macro versus micro, and structure versus agency. European sociologists argue against creating and maintaining such arbitrary boundaries in describing and explaining the social world. Bourdieu's ideas of habitus and field provide a new way of explaining key aspects of the social world that integrates key ideas from different sociological perspectives.