The+Logic+of+Fields


 * =Title= || "The Logic of Fields" ||
 * =Author= || **Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant** ||
 * =Date= || 1992 ||
 * =Summary By= || Suzanne Ghais (and Caroline Chumo, below) ||
 * =Summary= || [Logistical question: This text seems to be a transcript of an interview—can we assume that Wacquant is the interviewer and Bourdieu the interviewee?]

In this interview, Bourdieu (assuming it’s him, not Wacquant) discusses his notion of “field” in the everyday sense of occupational or professional field (he mentions artist, academic, financial fields, etc.). The critical point for us is his concept of structure and the interplay of structure and agency within and around a field. The structure and the relations among positions within it are the main focus and to Bourdieu are more important than the people who populate the positions. However, this does not, for Bourdieu, eliminate agency. The occupiers of positions in a field are engaged in constant struggle for influence over things such as the definition of the field, the relative value of different kinds of “capital” (not just literal capital but skills and knowledge), and general dominance or influence. · The notion of “field” implies thinking relationally. Relations in the social world exist objectively. A field is a network of such relations. · The notion of field is closely related to the notion of “capital”—some forms like money are constant across fields; others (such as mathematical skill) are related more exclusively to that field. A form of capital only functions in relation to a field. · Within a field one does something akin to playing a game, deploying their capital as one uses tokens in a game. The game has tacit rather than explicit rules, and players can try to change those rules “through strategies aimed at discrediting the form of capital upon which the force of their opponents rests (e.g., economic capital) and to valorize the species of capital they preferentially possess (e.g., juridical capital)” (99). · The question of the boundaries of a field is often one of contention within that field, so you can’t define it up front. You have to look at the field empirically. “The limits of the field are situated at the point where the effects of the field cease” (100). Example: the numerous cultural associations such as “choirs, theater groups, reading clubs, etc.” don’t form a field, but universities “are linked by objective relations such that the structure of these (material and symbolic) relations has effects within each of them” (100-101). · Fields are characterized by constant struggle for influence and thus are always in flux, so we need to look at historical change processes. · We have to analyze a field in relation to power (e.g., is the field in a dominant or subordinate position in relation to others); we also have to map out the structure of the relations among “agents or institutions” (105) in that field, and the “habitus” of agents [didn’t understand what this means]. · We cannot separate positions in the sense of positions in a system, and taking a position, as in a stance: “the space of positions tends to command the space of position-takings” (105). · The systems of relations within fields are “independent of the populations which these relations define” (106)—that is, the system and its relations are more important than the specific people in it. But people have agency: “individuals… exist as //agents//… who are socially constituted as active and acting in the field… by the fact that they possess the necessary properties to be effective, to produce effects, in this field” (107). · Relations between fields cannot be described generally but only with reference to specific historical time and place. · The //state,// if we must use the concept, comprises “an ensemble of administrative or bureaucratic fields… within which agents and categories of agents, governmental and non-governmental, struggle over this peculiar form of authority consisting of the power to //rule//…” (111). So, [if I understood correctly] fields struggle to influence the making of policy within networks of relations (of various kinds—from adversarial to collaborative) with the state (or different parts of it). || · To the extent that the structures of relations we inhabit control us, are we aware of it? If so, does that awareness take the form of recognizing the structure and the way it shapes our behavior, or does it take the more limited form of feeling vaguely frustrated and relatively powerless? ||
 * =Discussion points= || · Is there a contradiction here between saying, on the one hand, that the systems of relations are primary over the people in them, but on the other hand, that the people still are active players with agency?
 * =Discussion Notes (Caroline Chumo)= || In response to: Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc J. D. Wacquant “The Logic of Fields” (pg. 94-114) from __An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology__ (University of Chicago Press, 1992)

In his interview with Loïc J. D. Wacquant, Pierre Bourdieu (1992) explains how “fields” can be used to understand social dynamics. The notion of fields walks a fine line through the debate over the relative usefulness of structure versus agency in society. Fields approach social interactions as sets of relations. “At each moment, it is the state of the relations of force between players that defines the structure of the field” (99). For Bourdieu relations are not static, but rather, they exist through time. Through relations social dynamics develop their own histories which then act as a force on future social dynamics. These relational “games” are played out in many levels of society, such as in interstate relations, where a common game takes place in the form of attempts to change the rules (analogy: changing the value of chips in a card game). Often the boundaries of a field are implicated in the relations defining the field, and may be a political question (analogy: the notion of objectivity in journalism being tied to attempts to stardardize/discriminate good and bad journalism). The relational tensions between forces in a field determine its internal dynamics and change. Fields are not systems in the functional sense because they are not made up of parts.

Bourdieu’s proposal that social relations may be understood using the concept of the “field” provides useful applications for international relations. First, it must be acknowledged that Bourdieu echos familiar concepts in international relations theory such as limited rational choice, whereby actors make decisions based on a limited set of institutional options and norms. Bourdieu is also reminiscient of the broad school of constructivism wherein ideas norms and institutions create a context for actor behavior and ideals. For my own interest in the poor countries competing for economic space in a global political economy, Bourdieu’s fields offer substantial intellectual resources. The practice of “developing” poor economies is itself part of multiple "fields" of social relations. Notable and overlapping fields include the colonialism and postcolonialism, democracy and governance, trade politics and citizen agency. I am particularly interested in the current activity of external economic and military powers such as the US, EU, China and India in relation to the justifiably normative endeavor of eradicating poverty.

I will take one example to illustrate my point: the relationship between the European Union and the African Union. Conceiving of this relationship as a Bourdieu-esque “field” illuminates a complex, historical multidimensionality between the EU and the AU. Within this field, that the EU and the AU collaborate to promote regional security, such as around the recent events Libya cannot be removed from EU-AU trade and aid agreements, civil society engagement, and cultural exchanges. Agency on the part of one actor is relative to both the power of its counterparts and to the overall nature of the field. At once the field limits possible outcomes, but a deep knowledge of the field dynamics may allow some actors to influence outcomes than others.

In pursuing research along this vein, how does one limit the scope of inquiry? The EU-AU field, like others relationships surrounding poverty alleviation in poor countries, is a very large and complex. Bourdieu speaks of identifying actor positions and stances, but inevitably questions of time will also be important. Does the field extend infinitely in time? || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =