Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

Irrelevant paragraph about Michael Burawoy

The second paragraph under "Bourdieu as a Public Intellectual" which refers almost exclusively to Michael Burawoy appears to be a shameless self-promotion for the latter. The events described took place after Bourdieu's death, and Bourdieu himself is only referred to in passing. I suggest that an article about a famous academic should not be littered with name-checks to people who would like to be associated with him. This is not personal, but that paragraph seemed glaringly inappropriate.

If Michael Burawoy wishes to be included in the article, then I suggest it might be better to have an "Influences" section in which those who have been influenced by the ideas of Bourdieu might be listed in a bullet-point format, although I'm not advocating this and I'm not willing to do it myself.2.100.219.136 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

wrong link

"He coined the terms habitus, field, and extended the marxian term of capital..." -- "field" links to an article on algebra theory, the first sentence of which is, "A field, in abstract algebra, is an algebraic system of elements in which the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (except division by zero) may be performed and the associative, commutative, and distributive rules hold, which are familiar from the arithmetic of ordinary numbers." -- Possibly not relevant to Pierre Bourdieu and/or sociology? REMINDER: when you use a common word as a link, check to see if the article it goes to is relevant.

Thank you for the notice. I removed the link. (As a sociologist myself, I just couldn't think that there is any other thing hidding behind a term like "field" ...). --till we *) 19:35 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)

Cybe 2000

Can someone review Cybe's contribution. The style is inconsistent and much of it sounds like quotes -- but there are no quotation marks so I suspect it is plagiarized. Slrubenstein 19:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like excerpts made by a student of sociology. A google search for some characteristic phrases didn't give any results. Anyways, what is in the article is pretty much the same everybody would write down if s/he wants to describe Bourdieus habitus theory, so I don't think these maybe-paraphrases are a problem. See also User_talk:DanKeshet#Dahrendorf, where Cybe2000 explains why a text copied into the Dahrendorf article is very similiar to a text found in the web. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks,Slrubenstein

Chief Influences

As I know Bourdieu was a Foucault student, didn't he? And also he was influenced by Foucault, I think it is evident. --Myszliak 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a cite for his principal influences being Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty? From my understanding of his work, he is sharply critical of phenomenology, and the thinkers that he has claimed solidarity with (that I can think of) are Gramsci, Dewey, Wittgenstein and, chiefly, Pascal. I plan on editing this page soon, as some matters on which he has actually spoken somewhat extensively (particularly in Invitation to a Reflexive Sociology). Also, he takes great pains to establish that he is neither Marxist, Durkheimeian or Weberian, and goes to length to avoid weighing in on the relative correctness of their approaches. The problem with drawing his theory chiefly from Distinction (and Homo Academicus) is that it follows only one strand of his thought, which is complicated by his ethnographies of the Bearn and Kaybles, his theoretical meditations, and his political tracts. Jimmyq2305 09:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will look for particular citations, but I think that it is quite self-evident in itself. Certainly Bourdieu is critical of phenomenology, but you can't say that he disqualifies it altogether. His main critique seems to be its subjectivism. One of Bourdieu's great merits was that he reconciled, through the concepts of field and habitus, social phenomenology (subjectivism) and social physics (objectivism). If you look at his work you cannot deny that Heidegger was influential on Bourdieu. Besides the fact that Bourdieu himself states that he spent much time studying Heidegger and Husserl, Bourdieu takes away much from phenomenological notions of temporality and spatiality. It is also perhaps more undeniable that Bourdieu took alot from Merleau-Ponty's analytic of the body. Bourdieu goes at great length to talk about the body, and how social categories are instituted not in conscious thought but in, to use Heidegger's term, one's very manner of being. Habitus is about being and corporeal scheme, essentially, and how each of these is socially constituted. I will look around and find explicit citations for this, but for the moment I don't think that it is plausible to undermine the influence of phenomenology in Bourdieu's work. I too plan to improve this article based on what I've read in Practical Reason, and once I finish Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Drifter 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I do agree that he has studied phenomenology and is well versed in it, but, again, I think that there are several influences that he cites uncritically that should be considered primary (although dewey and gramsci are more of paralell developments, as he says in "invitation" that he hadnt read them at the time of his major studies). if you dont mind, im going to stick in an edit saying that his chief theoretical influences are the philosophical medititations on habit of Pascal (cf: the introduction to Pascalian meditations - when asked if he was a marxist, durkheimeian weberian etc he would respond that he was a Pascalian). He also specifically claims that the interaction between habitus, field, and capital situated in an individual subject is not an existential dasein or a knowing subject (as in Husserl).

He was also largely, and again according to himself, influenced by the descriptive styling and theory of memory of Marcel Proust.

What i think its most important not to lose sight of, though, is that while he was involved with the intellectual scene of the post-heidegerrean french intellectuals, and is often journalistically compared to barthes, focualt, lacan, derrida et al, he was first and foremost a sociologist, and most of his theoretical self-situations are in the context of sociological theory. Its comparatively rare for him to use philosophical references at all... hes much more comfortable discussing his work in the context of the history of sociology. 66.222.62.214 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmyq2305 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said. Of course, because I am a philosopher (I would like to later train in sociology), I tend to privledge philosophical sources if only because I know them and not others. Again, though, I just can't shake the idea that Bourdieu was heavily influenced by Heidegger and, especially, Merleau-Ponty. You should include other influences, of course. But the principles underlying Bourdieu's "logic of practice" are undeniably situated at least partially in the tradition of Heideggerian phenomenology which places emphasis on the body and practices. I wonder if it is really that big of a deal to say that Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty where influences on Bourdieu. If nothing else, I think we could compromise and say that Merleau-Ponty influenced him. Does that sound right? Drifter 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He speaks much more highly of mearleau ponty and husserl than of heidegger. im replacing heidegger with husserl, if thats cool. I think, however, that as it stands the article misinterprets Bordieu's philosophical stance. He is not as unambiguously continental as it would seem. I contend that Quine, Wittgenstein and Austin (and Bordieu asserts as much in "In Other Words" are a larger influence on his philosophy even than Merleau Ponty and Husserl.Jimmyq2305 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that one bit, and it sounds like you are much more well versed in Bourdieu than I am (I have read 1 and 3/4 quarters of his books, the rest about him I have ascertained just by being around people who are very knowledgeable about his works). It is okay if you replace Husserl with Heidegger. Thanks, Drifter 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bourdieu does praise Wittgenstein as "the philosopher who has helped me most at moments of difficulty. He's a kind of saviour for times of great intellectual distress - as when you have to question such evident things as 'obeying a rule'" (In Other Words, Polity, 1990) On this point, see Calhoun et al, Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, ch. 3 by C.Taylor 'To Follow a Rule', Polity 1993. I agree that Austin is very important and Merleau-Ponty definitely is. However, I think there should be some discussion of the influence of Bachelard, Canguilhem, Koyre and Durkheim - the specifically French traditions in epistemology, philosophy & sociology from which Bourdieu's thinking arose. I would recommend Bourdieu et al, The Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries, Walter de Gruyter, 1991. There is also a great Bourdieu article called Thinking About Limits but I regret I cannot source it. Ianb3019 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source for that article: Theory, Culture & Society Vol 9 No. 1 (Feb 1992) SAGE Publications. --82.148.44.137 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons

Personally, I find the comparison to Hitchens even worse than the one to Chomsky. At least Chomsky has ventured into the area of theory, whereas Hitchens is a glorified pundit, in my opinion. Maybe no comparison is the best solution? Simply state that he is an academic and an activist. - Josh

Hitchens is bad, I see no problem with Chomsky "I wanted to react against the mechanistic tendencies of Saussrre, and of structuralism. In that respect I was very close to Chomsky.." P. Bordieu, In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology p. 13 Jimmyq2305 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

" Perhaps the nearest equivalent in the English-speaking world would be Noam Chomsky." What does it meam?

What makes you think that? Bourdieu is sociologist, Chomsky is a linguist, then he wrote some books on "conspiracy theories" without having conducted empirical research like Bourdieu did in his sociological research.

You must not compare these two academic personalities, they maybe did some critics about the mass media (P.Bourdieu "Sur la television, 2000, Critic about the french TV... ) but their approach was/is completely different.

Anissa, a french student in mass media sociology at Paris III, La Sorbonne.

Yes, I'm unsure about this too, and the latter reference to Christopher Hitchens. The JPS 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the former means that Pierre Bourdieu was influential in the academia as well as in the political field in a way comparable to Noam Chomsky, who was influential in computer science as well as an independent political thinker of the left. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 14:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then, what do have bourdieu and chomsky in common regarding academic and empirical research? i think you may not compare the french leftist political movement of the late sixties (May '68 in france) with the american leftist thinkers on historical and sociological level. in my eyes chomsky is still a linguist who wrote/writes books that point at the failures of the american system whereas bourdieu is an academic sociologist who did SCIENTIFIC research on french society. according to gaston bachelard ("la formation de l'esprit scientifique", paris 1970) ..."opinion is always wrong compared to science. when you don't have competence to perceive something in the world, you tend to use opinion". science pushes to dig deeper and go beyond received ideas (idees recues in french). chomsky, according to my knowledge, stated his opinion on various political subjects but rarely did academic/scientific research to support his opinion. (anyway, we all know that chomsky has fabulous rethoric skills..)

But if you take the newer books by Bourdieu (the German translation is Gegenfeuer (In french that must be "Contre-feux"), I'm not exactly sure what the French original is titled), there he is the critical intellectual, not the sociological thinker. So I think it is the comparision with Chomsky is reasonable, to a degree. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons with Chomsky are fair, though the two differ passionately on the value of plain speaking vs. technical language. I think comparing Bourdieu with Hitchens is grossly to conflate journalism and sociology, however. Given Bourdieu's unambiguous insistence on separating the two fields, it seems to me an abusive comparison. Ianb3019 15:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this point if anyone is still curious (which admittedly seems unlikely) I stumbled across an interview with Bourdieu called A Science That Makes Trouble in Sociology In Question (Sage, 1993, p. 9). When asked "Why is it crucial that there should be a frontier between sociology and critical journalism?" Bourdieu replies with the blunt remark, "Because there is an objective difference." So to my mind it is clear that Bourdieu believed his work and that of other sociologists to be qualitatively different from the work of Hitchens (who, after all, never claimed to be writing sociology, yet might very fairly be described as a 'critical journalist').Ianb3019 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An even more powerful citation turned up when rereading Free Exchange: "It is above all through journalism that commercial logic, against which all autonomous universes (artistic, literary, scientific) are constructed, imposes itself on those universes. This is fundamentally harmful, since it favours the products and producers who are most directly submissive to commercial demands, such as the "journalist philosophers" of whom Wittgenstein speaks." Anyone comparing Bourdieu's work to that of a journalist like Hitchens should read that quote. Bourdieu would clearly not have agreed. Ianb3019 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Bourdieu/structuralism/post-structuralism

I think it may be useful for someone to explain Bourdieu's relationship to 'structuralism' (e.g. I believe Althusser was his professor at one point) and explain why he is sometimes lumped in the post-structuralist camp. (and I'm realy not sure why he's categorized as post-structuralist)

MichaelH mhandelm

I found this section of the article begged a few questions: 'Meaning and truth are not, for Bourdieu, universal or ahistorical, but are historically produced and, as such, can be universal only when the conditions of production have been universalized.' Did Bourdieu believe that the conditions of production of universal truth had ever been universalised? If so, could somebody offer examples of propositions which satisfy Bourdieu's strictures regarding the production of universal truths? I know this is asking a lot... Nevertheless, it seems to me inappropriate to attribute to Bourdieu an argument for the universality of (some) truths without providing examples of truths he stated in print to be universal. From my own reading of Bourdieu I would say that he did indeed argue as described, but I find no examples of universal truths, leading me to think that he saw universal truths as a possibility for the future but not a current reality. Please clarify my thinking!

Also, much of this discussion could be done under a 'science/objectivity' heading - certainly that part of the article needs expanding. Ianb3019 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Some of the commentary on Bourdieu is unashamedly unneutral, using stereotypes of scholars - 'cloistered don', there are no criticisms of this supposedly wonderful freedom fighter. My use of freedom fighter is since the article seems to present him as one almost, who just happens to have had a university education and wrote books concerning it. The Margrittean self-reference to Wikipedia is quite good, but other comparisons are rather anecdotal and opinionated.

Fallacy of success - whoever has wrote this section regarding 'modern success' in critical conflict theory, what exactly do they mean by this term success? Success in reproduction of class, capital, or beliefs? If so this is not elucidated. Success is a shambolic word usually applied (nowadays) to the acquisition of wealth and is deliberately vacuous and vapid as a result.--Knucmo2 10:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Bourdieu is not seen as the stereotypical cloistered don ? — I think that the expression is rather useful here. The JPS 11:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Although he has a formidable reputation amongst sociologists in the English-speaking world, he is much less well-known among the general Anglophone intelligentsia than Foucault or Jacques Derrida, both of whom Bourdieu castigated in Homo Academicus as Parisian mandarins, distant from the real world, secure in their privileges.

Bourdieu does not mention Foucault or Derrida in by name in Homo Academicus, except in the final chart in the book. The passage quoted above gives the impression that Homo Academicus is a polemic against the better known post-Sartrean French thinkers. It is not; it is a general examination of the class background and intellectual/ideological outlook of France's academics, especially at the elite Grands Ecoles.

Bourdieu notes in his introduction to the English edition of Homo Academicus that many Anglophone visitors to France were suprised by the marginal status of those thinkers better known in America and England compared to, for example, Raymond Aron. But this was an observation about Anglophone ignorance of the structure of French academia and the those who hold the real power and prestige within that system rather than a jibe at Derrida, Foucault, etc.

By Etalia mortacredit 3 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the phrases: "both of whom Bourdieu castigated in Homo Academicus as Parisian mandarins, distant from the real world, secure in their privileges". This is clearly wrong according to my reading of the book (when it came in English). Foucault, Derrida, etc. may even be considered unnamed 'heros' in the book due to the fact that they uphold the claim of intellectual independence in the academic field. An additional remark: In the last correspondance analysis chart Bourdieu himself is part of the analysis. He could himself be castigated as "Parisian mandarins, distant from the real world, secure in their privileges". I hereby suggest to take out the problematic senctence. RoarH 13:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Critique of Distinction

A short critique of Distinction from a working class point of view can be found on [1]

incomplete entry

I do not have the time, as I am up to my eyeballs in graduate studies, but this article is in need of extensive revision and expansion. Pierre Bordieu is, by almost any standard, one of the most important figures in sociology in the latter half of the twentieth century. This article, however, does not do convey the range of his scholarship (beginning as an anthropologist and continuing on to pioneering works in sociology, pedagogy, and communication studies). Nor does the article provide anything like a comprehensive outline of his theory and influences. Help! RH

I love messages when people complain that articles have so much missing, but they never seem to have time to do it themselves. The JPS 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Bourdieu translated into English

"This typically intellectualist theory of artistic perception directly contradicts the experinece of art-lovers closest to the legitimate definition; aquisition of legitimate culture by insensible familiarization within the family circle tends to favour an enchanted experience of culture which implies forgetting the acquisition."

simply amazing.

Indeed. Unfortunately I can't speak French. A colleague who can assures me that Bourdieu is a pleasure to read in original form. The translations are a bloody nightmare. The JPS 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Source? Might have been me, in which case I would now replace "insensible" with "imperceptible", but otherwise it happens to be what Bourdieu wrote. A lot of commentators who don't read PB in French conveniently have a friend who does and who assures them that PB is "a pleasure to read in original form". Perhaps they'd like to cite a few passages?Richard.nice (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not. Bourdieu was a great sociologist, but his long sentences made his prose a nightmare for those not used to this type of writing. Of course translation makes it even worse, but it is sufficiently complicated in french. I could argue that his style meets the needs of his intellectual work. It is a complex thought. I find it very pleasurable to read, also. I found the text cited above ("this typically...) very pleasurable and very clear, for example. But I'm aware that his writing is hostile for the beginner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.21.130.1 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello I'm French so I will give you my point of view. Bourdieu's style is known for being pretty hard to understand (in french) and he used to defend the idea that you must carefully choose every word to break with the social philosophy contained by them, that's why his sentences were so long. But he is still a wonderfull writer, if you look closely at his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.159.2 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Capital

I noticed there is very little detail on cultural capital in this article- According to Bourdieu's "Forms of Capital" essay, there are actually three times of cultural capital: embodied, objectified and instiutionalized. There is a lot more depth there than what the articles suggests. I must admit I am slowly trying to figure out Bourdieu myself, so any attempt at adding to the main article would prove silly I think. But here is what I have in my notes on the topic if others would like to read/comment,

Embodied state of cultural capital:

It is both the inherited and acquired proprieties one’s self. It is not transmittable instantaneously like a gift. Inherited not in the genetic sense, but more in the sense of time, cultural, and traditions bestow elements of the embodied state to another. Bourdieu calls it a symbolic capital, because its transmission is not obvious it is not actively recognized as a form of exchanged capital. Because capital is not evenly distributed in the “structure of the field”, one can use cultural capital to achieve economic profit or vice versa (you can always buy friends).

Objectified state:

Cultural goods can be transmitted physically (sold) as an exercise of economic capital, and “symbolically” as cultural capital. One can sell a painting, but one can only understand its cultural meaning, or can consumer the painting, if they have the cultural capital which may or may not be transmitted during the selling of the painting.

Institutionalized state:

The Institutionalized state of cultural capital is objectified cultural capital that transcends the biological limits of the bearer. It is guaranteed or supported by a larger institution. See academic scores or credentials. (Institutional recognition of the cultural capital held by an individual.) This allows easier conversion of cultural capital to economic capital by guaranteeing a certain monetary value for a certain institutional level of achievement.

68.163.15.214 02:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a page on cultural capital that I have just updated which describes these three types. I will try and include these paras there. Are they from the work Forms of Capital? If not do you have a reference for them? JenLouise 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't really understand the definition you ahve of institutionalised cultural capital. Perhaps we can discuss it on the cultural capital talk page? JenLouise 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory, Bridget Fowler, Sage Publications, 1997, p.31, Bridget Fowler offers a very brief outline of Bourdieu's species of capital which I have found useful whenever I have sought quickly to clarify them for a lay audience: 'In his studies of universities, Bourdieu deploys the concepts of the four types of capital which are by now almost synonymous with his approach, that is, social capital (power gained by the sheer number of family members, retainers or network of supporters), symbolic capital (reputation or honour - including intellectual honesty), cultural capital (distinction within the autonomous fields of art and sciece; intellectual or educational qualifications) and economic capital (ownership of stocks and shares, or, more generally, of monetary rewards).' Judging by the frequency with which it is cited, Bourdieu's article 'The Forms of Capital' is a jumping off point for many on this subject, including the author of the above entry. I must say, I did not find it very helpful since it divides capital into 3 species rather than 4, offering a quite insufficient account of what is meant by the frequently deployed 4th term 'symbolic capital'. However, the fact that 'The Forms of Capital' treats symbolic capital as NOT a fourth species of capital inclines me to believe that the 3 principal species of capital may each be viewed materially or symbolically; in other words, when Bourdieu speaks of symbolic capital, this could be economic, cultural or social.Ianb3019 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Loic Wacquant writes on the relationship between cultural/economic/social capital on the one hand and symbolic capital on the other in a chapter he wrote summarising Bourdieu's approach for 'Key Contemporary Thinkers' (London and New York: Macmillan, new edition, 2006). The key passage reads "Capital comes in 3 principal species: economic, cultural and social. A fourth species, symbolic capital, designates the effects of any form of capital when people do not percieve them as such." I would conclude from this that the quotation I added here from B. Fowler is somewhat misleading and that in fact symbolic capital is perhaps best thought of not as a fourth species at all, but as the side of any of the 3 principal species which is specifically symbolic. Imagine 3 identical pillows in different coloured pillow-cases - let's take them to be analogous to the 3 main species of capital. It is sensible to talk of the red, yellow and blue pillows just as it's sensible to talk of economic, cultural and social capital. But it is also sensible to use a fourth term, e.g 'inner pillow', to refer to the identical pillows inside each pillow-case, just as it is sensible to talk of symbolic capital as a form that any of the 3 might take. Find Wacquant's comments on p.7 of the text at this URL:

http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/3210/resources/PIERREBOURDIEU-KEYTHINK-REV2006.pdf

Ianb3019 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have slightly rewritten the entry for symbolic capital/violence, removing a citation from Marx which seemed to me confusing ("Capital is not a simple relation, but a process, in whose various moments it is always capital." from Grundrisse) Apologies to anyone who might have thought otherwise - I'd be glad to see it back in if it was introduced with a reasonably simple explanation of its relevance to Bourdieu's usage of the term 'capital.' I am trying to structure the article with a view to what must surely be its principal use, namely as a clear overview for curious 'lay' readers. I hope this edit is in line with that.Ianb3019 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

References

reference.com

This is all taken, almost word for word, from reference.com. This article really needs to be expanded upon and made to meet acceptible wikipedia standards. Unfortunately, I am not well acquanted enough with Bourdieu's work. Drifter 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs cleanup and enhancements, but it is no copyvio of a reference.com article -- quite the other way round: the only thing you find if you go to reference.com and look for Bourdieu is this wikipedia article. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 13:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

lol, my bad. Drifter 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Power

The article contains a link to power, which is a disambiguation page. Some of the articles on that page are obviously inappropriate, such as Electric power. I suggest that first you consider whether the understanding of the word power that a typical reader of this article will already have is sufficient to understand the article. If so, de-link it. On the other hand, if one or two of the articles pointed to by the Power dab will enhance the reader's understanding of this article, link to the most appropriate article. Good luck. Gerry Ashton 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV sentence from language section

The following sentence was added, deleted and then added again. I have deleted it a second time but started this section to discuss it.

Bourdieu himself applies his theory by introducing often commonplace concepts with a pedantic and obscure language aimed at giving an impression of intellectual superiority shared by his readers.

The sentence does not relate to Bourdieu's theory of language - unless he did it on purpose to demonstrate the fact which he did not. The content of the sentence therefore does not fit where it was put - if there was a criticism section it might belong there. However it is also POV and unreferenced which means it does not belong in the article at all. JenLouise 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are admitting that this article is POV as it is exclusively a glorification of that guy, without the least criticism? OK, I agree, but why don't you try to neutralize it, instead of destroying contributions that try to bring some balance? I insist that this sentence fits completely that section and illustrates perfectly that theory of language, however reductive that theory might be. Please stop that vandalism! Try to build instead, WP is a cooperative enterprise! --Pgreenfinch 08:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not so much POV, but original research. For me, the additions would only be fine if accompanied by a citation. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is not gained by balancing praise with insult. It is gained by getting rid of the praise. If you want a criticism section, that is okay. But you don't balance an article out by putting an obviously POV sentence that has no citation and seems not to fit at all (there is no justification in the article to support what you mean, or to draw out its meaning). Here is a passage on Bourdieu's writing style from Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (it is sympathetic toward his writing, but it is much more thorough than this little sentence that you provide):

"Finally, it is perhaps appropriate to say something about Bourdieu's wwriting style, since so many find it to be a formidable obstacle to hurdle (Jenkins 1992). Bourdieu is both a superb stylist and the auther of some impenetrable prose. He writes long, complex sentences with many phrases embedded in one another. Commas and semicolons proliferate. His prose is charged with polemic, paradox, negation, and an occassional pun that makes his work difficult for those readers who are not familiar with the Frnech intellectual context in which he is writing. Bourdieu can never be read casually.

"Nevertheless, three observations might enhance understandinng of Bourdieu's writing style. First, Bourdieu consciously employs rehetorical techniques for gaining distance from the taken-for-granted word. Since, according to Bourdieu, it is the experience of familiarity that stands as one of the principle obstacles to a scientific understanding of the social world, he self-consciously selects terminology and cultivates a writing style that establishes distance from everyday language use. Second, his style is calculated challange to the stylistic conventions of orthodox academic discourse in France. France is a country where clarity of exposition (la carté) is elevated to a national virtue, where it is seen as truly a mark of natural talent and intelligence. bourdieu's prose style can be seen as a reaction against this particular academic orthodoxy, a critical reaction that is designed to shatter the notion of excellence as a sort of natural ability. And third, though unacknowledged, Bourdieu's writing style undoubtedly represents an intellectual strategy to demarcate his distinctive product on the French intellectual market just as Barthes, Foucualt, and Lacan have invented their respective writing styles.

"These observations point to a fundamental paradox in Bourdieu's rhetorical strategy. If his sociology is indeed to be an instrument of struggle against all forms of symbolic domination and this project is to have some collective as well as personal benefit, then the problem of diffusion beyond the specialized circles of academia must be addressed. Bourdieu appears to have recognized this problem by using in a number of his more recent works a more readily accessible style of the interview..." (Swartz1997:13-4).

So you are right in a sense. Bourdieu's writing does exemplify his ideas. But the notion that the pedantic obscurity is meant to make him look more intelligent seems odd to me. I see it more as the same thing Heidegger and others were trying to do: escape the common-sense divisions of the world by utilizing an entirely different language. Of course, this is POV on my part, but it seems just as reasonable as what you're saying, if not more so. I personally do not find his writing obscure, I quite enjoy it. But that is because I have grown used to it and understand it. The above phrase also neglects that much of Bourdieu's recent work is aimed at more intelligibility: An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology; In Other Words; Practical Reason; and more.Drifter 16:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting in some sourced material (whether it is complimentary or critcal) regarding Bourdieu's writing style is a great idea - however it still does not belong in the section on Bourdieu's theory of language where the contraversial sentence was removed from because that section is on the theory that Bourdieu created, not the way that he wrote about it. Having a section on Bourdieu's writing style or soemthing similar would enable this sort of information to be included. JenLouise 01:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Pgreenfinch when something is removed from an article and a disucssion created with the sole purpose of deciding whether it is to be reincluded - it is good practice to wait until the discussion has been resolved in favour of including the sentence before adding it back in. Seeings as no one other than yourself agrees with the sentence in its current form. I am removing it once again. If you add it in again before discussion is finalised here I will report it as per WP:3RR where it says that even though the official policy is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, less than this may also be cause for blocking edits in some cases. Please wait until the discussion is finished and accept the outcome. You can help create an outcome that you approve of by constructively contributing to the discussion, i.e. accepting others opinion and coming up with new solutions acceptable to everyone, as the other editors are trying to do here. JenLouise 01:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't give lessons and try menaces, the good practice is to discuss before removing. Another good practice of "constructive contribution" is to bring a better wording or a complement or references, or displacing it to another section, instead of removing a text. As this debate shows; there is much to say about Bourdieu's language. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by those aggressive comments from several contributors. What is wrong by trying to make a more neutral article? Where is the "insult" to Bourdieu? What makes him a sacred icon to the point that even its style of writing cannot be evoked, or if so, only in a favorable way, and by denying that there is some relation with his own theory of language? --Pgreenfinch 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is arguing against making it a neutral article? "Insult," I will admit was very bad wording. However, it is still very POV and biased against Bourdieu. Words such as pedantic and obscure and claims of someone trying to make him or herself out to be more intelligent than other's is not very neutral. No one ever said his style could not be mentioned. It is very important to mention it because it is so crucial to his work, not just the way he means to frame it, but also the way he is read. This, however, does not belong in the language section where we are trying to explicate his theory of language, and not how he uses language. No one is denying that there is a relation between his language and his theory of language. If we take his theory of language seriously we will recognize how absurd a claim that would be. If you are going to use examples or anecdotes to portray his theory of language, use either cited ones, or non-controversial ones. I think something like what is under discussion is probably not the right kind of example. The most obvious reason is that it does nothing to enlighten the reader's understanding. Please add a criticism section instead and put it there with references. No one here is against neutrality, we are just trying to find the appropriate places for pieces such as these. Further, the statement, being a claim to factual reality and not to critical reaction, is extremely POV and NOT neutral in its criticism of Bourdieu. When you ask, "What is wrong with trying to make a more neutral article?" you should answer it yourself, as the comment in question is quite the opposite of neutral. It is only constructive provided the proper context, which it has not been given. Leave it out, or frame it better (perhaps in a different section). Drifter 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Creative Commons Image?

I noticed there are a couple pics of Bourdieu at Marxists.org. The site seems to be under Creative Commons license, so are the pics kosher for use here? Anyone with a better knowledge of image copyrights have any clues? --Beaker342 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Bourdieu was an avid political activist and a staunch opponent of modern forms of globalization. He saw sociology as a weapon against social oppression and injustice. He commented that "sociology is a martial art insofar as it is used to defend against the domination of symbolic systems and the imposition of distorting categories of thought".

I think this is a bad idea to put this in the introduction of the article. There is something true in those words, but it should be put in an other place of the article, and the way it's written is too strong, specially the first sentence (Bourdieu was an avid political activist and a staunch opponent of modern forms of globalization), it doesn't describe well the man, I mean an avid political activist is good for José Bové, not for Bourdieu. I don't know how to writte it in a better way, my english is too poor for that, I'm sure somebody will try something... Bye! Ajor 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - my understanding is that Bourdieu believed for decades that a social scientist should not be seen to take sides in political struggles (though may do so privately) as such a spectacle would compromise the neutrality of their research, encourage students & researchers to flatter their known sympathies, etc. It was only in later life that he came to think differently, and I doubt whether he ever straightforwardly advocated political engagement to social scientists. He usually offered very nuanced positions. I would talk of his 'growth into an active, left-wing political combatant'. He stood in defence of the left's postwar gains in healthcare, welfare and union power. I think it is misleading to oppose him to globalization - it is a very general term and Bourdieu's objections were, I think, pretty specific. For example, he sought to match the globalization of capital with the globalization of labour, hence his call for the construction of a pan-European trades union body to counter the 'bankers' Europe' he believed to have developed (see 'For A New Internationalism' in Acts of Resistance, Polity, 1998). Incidentally, I believe he publicly supported Jose Bove.

I will revise the introduction along the lines I propose here in a few weeks. Please object here if this seems inappropriate. Ianb3019 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I've never read that he didn't think social scientists should take sides. Perhaps you are getting at a different point, but all that I have read says that he despised ivory-tower academics who sat at a distance from everything and enver tried to change any of the problems they wrote about. I'm not sure about the globaliation bit, but I think the rest of the sentence is very important. Perhaps it does not belong in the introduction, although personally I liked it there, but it should definitely be reincluded somewhere. I'm itnerested to see what you come back with, but I hope it won't be watered down. From all I know of Bourdieu, the sentence seems very fitting. (As I said i don't know about the globalisation bit.) JenLouise 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an important point and does certainly contain the vital fact that he came to believe that he needed to be more politically active. I thought it was simply too strongly expressed and ignored the growth of this conviction over time. My concern was really that students might read it and think it an accurate description of the author of , eg, Distinction. It is more accurate to see it as a description of the author of the Social Structures of the Economy. In his earlier days Bourdieu was notable by his absence from political discourse. Anyway, this is all rather idle now as the article has been thoroughly revised and seems much improved.

Bourdieu's position seems quite nuanced and confusing, and this perhaps warrants the qualification of that introductory statement. However, I believe the general tenets are consistent. Bourdieu recognized two things about sociology qua science. The first is that it must be dissociated, as a scientific struggle, from political struggles. That is, the scientific field should be autonomous from the symbolic struggles of other fields such as politics (the Church should not infringe on Gallileo's scientific endeavors). On the other hand, Bourdieu saw (as is evoked in the title of one of the chapters in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology) a sort of ethical duty of the sociologist to uncover the "true" conditions of social domination. Exposing this in scientific research can enable more efficacious struggles against domination as the conceptual tools provided are employed by political activists. So I think the point is that sociological struggles ought to be dissociated from political struggles, but that the conceptual tools yielded in the exposition of structures of domination can be utilized in the struggle against such structures of domination. Of course, the problem always arises when Bourdieu speaks of "true" conditions of domination. I think this is confusing to many (Dreyfus, Baudrillard, and others comment on this seeming contradiction). The response may be (and I am not sure whether this is strong or weak), that the "truth" that Bourdieu is speaking of is perfectly legitimate. For it is "true" insofar as this is the type of capital in which scientists are interested (so, "true conditions of domination" in terms of a specific, historically enabled definition [and this definition is constantly contested] of truth). And also, truth, or scientific objectivity, is the product of the entire scientific field, and not of an individual researcher. So Bourdieu is simply contributing to a dialectical struggle for scientific existence, whereby true relations of domination, as defined within the limits of the field, are uncovered according to the criteria, stakes, etc. of that field. But perhaps we can still include this whole debate in a criticism section. But this is all quite beside the original point. Drifter 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the clarification. The position as described does beg certain questions - if the scientific field should be free of political interference, should this not also work vice versa? Bourdieu does not seem to think so - I suppose this is because politics is related to the 'field of fields', ie the field of power. As such the fruits of other fields may legitimately be brought to politics, but it would be an abuse of autonomy for political interests to be brought to them. As you say, somewhat confusing, but good to have these questions aired.

areas missing from article

There needs to be MUCH MORE about Bourdieu's work on social activism, of all the published work he did from 1996-2005 explicitly on neoliberalism has been ignored or failed to be uploaded. This represents a serious bias that needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apmab1 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally the reason that an article lacks information on a particular topic is just because previous authors are unfamiliar with it, so it would be very much appreciated if you could help by just starting a section on this (can be very basic to begin with) and then over time people will add to and improve it. Cheers, JenLouise 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

I don't see anything on his theories on religion here. Maybe someone could really help the page by summarizing his essay "Genesis and Structure of the Religious Field", in C. Calhoun, Comparative Social Research, 1991.

You could try exploring Practical Reason (Polity 1994 [Fr] 1998 [Eng]) - it contains the - admittedly v. brief - 'Remarks on the Economy of the Church' as well as a few scattered comments. Ianb3019

Ianb3019 to include something on religion in the article does not necessarily require a systematic portrayal of all of Bourdieu's thinking (at least not to begin with). If you are familiar with his thoughts you could add in a section that is brief and general, supported by a few references and then people can build from there. If I knew anything at all I would help, but unfortunately I've never covered this part of Bourdieu's work. Cheers, JenLouise 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Bourdieu's concepts

I've been doing a bit of cleaning up of some sociology articles recently and noticed that most of the articles on Bourdieu's concepts are stubs that contain less information than is actually included in this article on Bourdieu. Just a request to anyone editing this article - if you are adding to or improving to any of the sections regarding concepts that have their own page (eg. field, habitus, cultural or symbolic capital, social/cultural reproduction, etc can you please make the same additions/improvements to the articles themselves. Thanks, JenLouise 05:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up Jargon tag

I was about to hyperlink something I was writing to the Wikipedia article on Bordieu, particularly his understanding of habitus, when I encountered the following description:

Habitus can be defined as a system of dispositions (lasting, acquired schemes of perception, thought and action). The individual agent develops these dispositions in response to the objective conditions they encounter. In this way Bourdieu theorizes the inculcation of objective social structures into the subjective, mental experience of agents. For the objective social field places requirements on its participants for membership, so to speak, within the field. Having thereby absorbed objective social structure into a personal set of cognitive and somatic dispositions, and the subjective structures of action of the agent then being commensurate with the objective structures and extant exigencies of the social field, a doxic relationship emerges

I am a 'native' Australian English speaker with some anthropological training .. and I had difficulties following and understanding this. Needless to say .. I could see little value linking others to this .. it is not concise, it is not clear, and it is very heavy, difficult reading for Wikipedia's general audience.

Having encountered the above .. I see the article is replete with such difficult, heavy, jargonistic descriptions and wording .. and thus tagged it as requiring clean-up .. should any editors out there be able and willing? Bruceanthro (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an appropriate use of the 'Jargon' tag. The entry is not overly jargonistic it just uses the field specific lexis of Bourdieu studies and is going to take ages to break down to simplified language. Establishing a WikiLink for each so-called jargon term (by which i assume you mean such terms as field, dispositions, doxic) so that readers can find further elucidation elsewhere in wikiland would have to be the best approach.Rykalski (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The antidote to Jargon is Plain English, rather than creating a large series of links to Wiktionary. I don't think I'd be the only Wikipedia user who finds some of the current sentences through the article .. very hard, heavy, and difficult going .. especially when all I wanted to do was introduce a friend to Bourdieu!! Bruceanthro (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Plain English is not going to help anyone understand anything to do with Bourdieu as its directed at ensuring that people with limited literacy can access the formal written world around them (most especially government forms and documents) and anyone searching for latin terms or french sociologists is going to be a bit beyond that. Bourdieu is hard going and introducing people to his ideas is difficult but I'm not sure that shielding people from this difficulty is the best way to deal with it. The paragraph you quote is very hard going but its not a bad attempt to convey the complexity of the idea in a limited space. Making it clearer is going to involve expanding the section in question quite substantially.Rykalski (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, and not to diminish Bourdieu's thought (or academic expression of it), the language of the habitus quote is opaque, highly specialised and not encyclopedic. I'm willing to try to break it down (or "unpack" it) to make it more accessible if others would like to work on it too. It's ironic if words such as "doxic" are not made (more) transparent since it proves Bourdieu's point that the conditioned individual and society are complicit to prevent understanding (which is to prevent deliberate knowing/choice through information). Unless I've got it wrong, here. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's ironic if words such as 'doxic' are not made (more) transparent since it proves Bourdieu's point that the conditioned individual and society are complicit to prevent understanding." Right there is the whole problem with this article: disciple-itus. It "proves" nothing of the sort. All it proves is that most people aren't prepared to absorb the lost opportunity costs involved in spending hours and years of their life trying to get their heads around the esoteric jargon of self-aggrandizing intellectuals. Believe it or not, most of them have better things to do. Which comes back to our Australian friend's original point. A general encyclopedia article is not supposed to appease the aficionados, it is supposed to provide a usable explanation to the uninitiated. Zzoliche (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm one Wikipedia reader/user who would be pleased to see the current description unpacked! I fear I may not be sufficient familiar with the theory or the subject matter to be of much assistance .. though I will watch, and I'd be pleased to read any unpacking and/or rewriting :-) Bruceanthro (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bruceanthro, to touch base, I meant to acknowledge your offer but need really free time to work with some of this stuff and haven't had undivided opportunity since. Hope to get there eventually,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have studied sociology, in particular Bourdieu's theories and it is heavy and difficult stuff, it is not basic or can be easily simplified and I think anyone who says it can be is kidding themselves. I don't believe this article can be used as a stand alone or introductory piece about Bourdieu's theories, to read anything on or by Bourdieu is really only for an academic audience who would be familiar with this "jargon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.69.163 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following quote from Wikipedia's article on quantum mechanics: "The inner product between two state vectors is a complex number known as a probability amplitude. During a measurement, the probability that a system collapses from a given initial state to a particular eigenstate is given by the square of the absolute value of the probability amplitudes between the initial and final states. The possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator - which explains the choice of Hermitian operators, for which all the eigenvalues are real. We can find the probability distribution of an observable in a given state by computing the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operator." Do you understand it? I don't. Is it, therefore, jargon? Most likely not. My first guess is that physics is complicated stuff, and if I don't understand it, perhaps I should learn more physics. However, if sociologists try to analyze the complexities of societies, everybody thinks s/he should be able to grasp it immediately, and it this is not easily possible, it's attributed to the alleged jargon of the writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.56.68 (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this article has been cleaned up in the last year but I'm a critical theory MA student, new-ish to Bourdieu, and I thought this was a great article. It's got a good balance - provides an overview without dumbing down. You can't simplify the concepts in the name of plain English. I was really impressed with this. 87.84.248.99 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have written a disambiguation of this contested passage (ie "Habitus can be defined...a doxic relationship emerges.") and would gladly post it here. However, it runs to 1780 words and seems rather large for inclusion here... I could post it on the page for 'habitus' or straight into the Bourdieu page but am a little anxious about dumping such a large block of text. Also, I have no idea how to set up a link from this discussion here to my disambiguation. Can anyone help by letting me know at which location I should post it? Ianb3019 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As a stopgap solution I have finally got round to creating a user page and have posted the disambiguation there. Anyone interested in reading, using or editing it, feel free to do so. I would be grateful if you would let me know if you have done so in order that I can avoid unnecessary duplication of work. Ianb3019 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 87.84.248.99 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Room for criticism

There's room for a section on this, especially around determinism and structure, but I guess the first thing is to get what's here into shape unless anyone wants to get going on it. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthropologist?

I believe most people would argue that Bourdieu was a sociologist. If you go to pages with concepts elaborated by Bourdieu, these refer to him as a sociologist. Was this changed recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.222.72 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been called a sociologist, philosopher, and anthropologist; but I agree with you. Mike Restivo (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed recently (Dec 2008) - see [2] by 72.130.212.27 made without comment or discussion. I'm changing it back. Good catch! Also, see [3] for mostly useful changes by the same anon user who seems intent on validating Bourdieu's anthropological reputation. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, bourdieu was definitely an anthropologist. i will leave sociologist on as well, but it is innacurate, his fundamental methods of data collection and analysis are anthropological, in that, it is essentialy social philosophy based on rigorous empirical data (ethnography). as erikksen notes, anthropology is philosophy with the people in. it even says it on the back of his book 'outline of a theory of practice' if you look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bourdieu was a sociologist, and that is because he claimed to be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.159.2 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bourdieu did start out as an Anthropologist, in training as well as his ethnographic research in Algeria (as noted by 129.215.149.98 above). Refer to his book "The Algerians" (English title). He did, however, also transition into Sociology in both his university appointments as well as publications, as he turned the theories he developed through his research to also reflect on his own (French) society. See his later books in particular. However, he often referred back to his ethnographic research to support his arguments. I would say it is warranted to classify Bourdieu as both Anthropologist and Sociologist considering both his background and the scope of his writing and theories. Therandom (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Bourdieu began his studies in philosophy, then began his career as an anthropologist/ethnographer (the latter being the French term up until Levi-Strauss - see Sketch for a Self-Analysis p. 40, Polity, 2007) and later became a sociologist. He talks of his "transition from philosophy to sociology" (ibid, p. 58). The Logic of Practice, published in France in 1980, seems to me the last of his books to retain strong ties to anthropology - and even that book often seems to be an attempt to rework Outline of a Theory of Practice (unambiguously a work of anthropology) so as to make it more sociological. For the great majority of his career, Bourdieu identified himself as a sociologist, had tenure as a sociologist and published works formally categorised as sociology. On the 'looks like/smells like it/feels like it' rule, I think we can safely say he was a sociologist.Ianb3019 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it Rational Action or Rational Choice theory?

There seems to be some disagreement about what to call Rational Choice or Rational Action Theory. In my understanding, contentinental usage is mainly "Rational Action Theory" and Bourdieu uses this term in his writing. Most contemporary scholars in the U.S. prefer Rational Choice Theory. I suggest we follow Bourdieu's terminology. Either way, both terms link to the same article. Thoughts? -Mike Restivo (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to following Bourdieu's terminology. Bourdieu chooses and sticks to the term Rational Action Theory [ironically, "RAT" for short, I think somewhat intentionally], at least in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, despite that Wacquant uses 'rational choice' and 'rational action' interchangeably; see, for example, page 123. However, while both terms are found in the index, the reader is directed only to the "rational action theory" entry from that of "rational choice theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvolutionRevolution (talk • contribs) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Bibliography Link is not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.177.190 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Weight of the World

This article needs at least a sentence on Weight of the World.BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a very short reference to the Weight of the World in the section on Bourdieu as a public intellectual. It's a start. Please, BobfromBrockley, add your own extensions if what I've put seems to fall short of what you had in mind. Ianb3019 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Embodiment?

The term "embodiment" is used several times in this article without definition for this context. I wouldn't know if it's in common currency in sociology but the "Embodiment" disambiguation page has no entry specifically applicable to a sociological context. The closest would seem to be "embodied cognition" but that's just a guess and it's not obvious how it would transfer to sociology. I ask that an editor familiar with this concept in Bordieu define it and cite examples of the concept in use, or perhaps link to an article where this is done. —Blanchette (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of this Wikipedia page, which describes Bourdieu, I think it is inappropriate to attempt to define embodiment. To begin the more modest task of defining what the term means in Bourdieu's sociology, however, would be desirable. I'd tentatively suggest that this strand of Bourdieu's thought derives from his acquaintance with Merleau-Ponty & Husserl (as mentioned in the section of the article headed 'Influences'). Unfortunately, I am not qualified to summarise the arguments of these philosophers. Nevertheless, if you'd like me to make some observations about embodiment as I believe Bourdieu used the term, here on the 'talk' page, then I'll do so. But I doubt if I could comment on this with enough confidence to alter the article itself.Ianb3019 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bourdieu as public intellectual

I don't understand the second sentence in the section titled "Bourdieu as public intellectual". Sartre's "attempts" at what exactly? Attempts at being a race-car driver?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.136.164 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write that part but I agree it was unclear. I have altered it only slightly but I hope it is now less ambiguous.Ianb3019 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraph about Michael Burawoy

The second paragraph under "Bourdieu as a Public Intellectual" which refers almost exclusively to Michael Burawoy appears to be a shameless self-promotion for the latter. The events described took place after Bourdieu's death, and Bourdieu himself is only referred to in passing. I suggest that an article about a famous academic should not be littered with name-checks to people who would like to be associated with him. This is not personal, but that paragraph seemed glaringly inappropriate.

If Michael Burawoy wishes to be included in the article, then I suggest it might be better to have an "Influences" section in which those who have been influenced by the ideas of Bourdieu might be listed in a bullet-point format, although I'm not advocating this and I'm not willing to do it myself.2.100.219.136 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on which image to use as standard for infobox

File:Pierre Bourdieu.jpg

File:Bourdieu Strasbourg crop.jpg

The user FreeKnowledgeCreator has forced me to make an account and a section on this somewhat mundane point with their persistent behavior concerning the standard image to be used on the Bourdieu page.

With the great arguments: "Not an improvement at all" and "nope", they are undoing my image edit to this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Pierre_Bourdieu.jpg

From this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Bourdieu_Strasbourg_crop.jpg

They also wrongly used twinkle to ensure further edits aren't made, which is an abusive use of the function that I have reported (my edit was in good-faith, and his edit summary of "nope" makes it an illegitimate use of the tool per the stated guidelines).

Why do I believe the former image is better than the latter? As I noted in my latest revision summary: it is aesthetically and functionally better, for it is not a grainy, cropped image taken from a meeting at a congress. It is professional and shows him speaking. It is moreover also the image used on all the other major language versions of the article (French, Spanish, Italian, etc.).

If better arguments are presented for why the other image is better, I am all ears. But until then, I will keep revising it for the reasons mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Koznyshev (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the picture of him speaking is slightly better. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well; the bottom one has a lot more detail (that close-up of his nostril for instance...) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The new one is out of focus. Grainy beats unfocused any day of the week. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They're both not exactly sharp, but I concede I'm not using the optimal equipment to view them. Perhaps someone could have a go at photoshopping, either the original or this other one -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The picture of Bourdieu speaking is shown on Commons and Flickr as created in 2011 by Alicia Gaudi. Bourdieu died in 2002. There's a cropped but better-quality version on Le Monde's website at http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/ensemble/2012/01/23/pierre-bourdieu-une-pensee-en-mouvement_1632597_3232.html with an alt-text date of October 1998 and attribution to "AFP/Pierre Vardy". Can we be reasonably confident we do have cc-by-2.0 rights to use it? 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also a much better version of it here: http://images.zeit.de/kultur/literatur/2010-11/bourdieu/bourdieu-540x304.jpg

But note sure about the copyright. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. There's another of the same event here with the same date and attribution. A flickr account with 6 photos and no followers, I don't think a correct licence could be ruled out, but given the evidence I'm inclined to be skeptical. Back with the grainy photo then? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Google's search-by-image strikes again! There's also a less cropped version at Le Monde and other pictures of Bourdieu speaking at a 1998 conference, identically dressed, in Liberation and der Freitag, all attributed to Pierre Verdy/AFP. 79.73.240.233 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So anyone else have a preference for one or the other image, or is able to produce a sharper version of the first? I looked at the other major language wiki pages of Bourdieu (French, Spanish, Italian) and they all have the first image in the infobox as well. I have added a request for comment to get more opinions.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Vladimir Koznyshev is confused about what the purpose of an infobox picture is in a biographical article. The purpose is to show what somebody looks like, not to show what they look like when they are speaking or writing a book or thinking or anything of that kind. Actually, the picture is better if Bourdieu is not speaking or doing anything in particular. The image of Bourdieu gesticulating is not in any way aesthetically better, rather, it is weird and distracting. The other picture gives a better impression of his appearance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what a picture of someone 'not thinking' could possible look like, but certainly the one FreeKnowledgeCreator is promoting does not fall under that category. I am also not sure what a 'weird' picture is in relation to someone talking, nor how that may be 'distracting' in such a way that one is unable to see what they look like. It seems weird to be distracted by that. Both pictures give an impression of his appearance, the question is which one gives a better impression, and that has to do with the quality of the picture. One is grainy and aesthetically 'weird' in that it is a close up of his face; the other is unfocused but I am in the process of putting it through photoshop to make it focused. Once that is done, people here can choose which one they prefer, until a consensus is reached. Without a consensus being reached, or a convincing argument being presented, I will continue changing the picture as I see fit, for FreeKnowledgeCreator's beliefs about what picture is 'weird' or 'distracting' or 'doesn't show someone thinking' aren't the standard for Wikipedia infobox pictures. Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I repeat: the purpose of a picture in an infobox is to show what someone looks like. Nothing else. Hence it is better if it is a neutral image that shows someone doing nothing in particular. Of course one can see what Bourdieu looks like in the picture where he is gesticulating, but why include something irrelevant such as him waving or raising his hands when the only reason to have a picture at all is simply to show his appearance? You can repeat endlessly that the other picture is somehow more aesthetic. That won't change the fact that it isn't. Your comment that you will continue changing the picture as you see fit is regrettable. The accepted approached is that someone who wants to change an article needs consensus for their change; otherwise it remains as it was before. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you believe that an image is neutral when it displays someone 'doing nothing' (whatever that means), and therefore somehow better shows what someone looks like, does not make it so. There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well? Both images clearly show what he looks like, and so fulfill the criteria of the infobox image. The question is which of the two is better. You believe the grainy, 'weird' close-up picture is better, I and some others do not. Other users have said that the other image has its faults, too, though unrelated to the 'doing nothing' criterion you made up. It is unfocused, which someone will hopefully fix. Another issue that was mentioned was copyright. If it can be shown that the image I suggested is indeed subject to copyright, the matter is resolved as it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether (I found it there, and it is the only other available option as far as I know; at least I have not yet been able to find another image of him that is free of copyright per the Wikipedia guidelines, but perhaps someone else can). And no, I am not now going to keep changing the image. I will await the end of the discussion with the aim of reaching consensus, per Wiki guidelines. But consensus does not mean that your opinion is the automatically accepted one just because it reflects the status quo. At least, I have not find anything in the Wiki guidelines that says that. I would love to hear more opinions on this from other users; which image do you prefer, and do you not agree that the current one is simply not good on various grounds (e.g., extreme close-up, grainy, unprofessional)? Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Doing nothing in particular" means that someone is shown standing or looking at the camera, and that's all. What did you think it meant? Per common sense, of course that's what a picture in an infobox of a biographical article should show. Regarding your comment, "There are countless infobox images that do not fit that definition; how about you go changing all those as well?", see WP:OTHERCRAP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Per common sense that's not them 'doing nothing', it's them standing or looking at the camera. What you meant to say was 'I want images of them not gesticulating or speaking', which is fine for your personal standard for what a 'neutral image' is, but it's irrelevant for the content of an infobox, which is to show what a person looks like. Both images fulfill that criterion, and in my opinion and that of some others one does so better than the other for a variety of reasons (e.g., it is not grainy, not a weird extreme close-up). So like your image criterion of somehow showing someone 'not thinking', 'doing nothing' is equally meaningless, per common sense. And yes, the fact that there are countless infobox images on biographical entries that do not fit your personal criteria means that it is not official Wiki policy, it's just your personal preference. And no, your personal preference does not trump that of others', no matter how much you try to present it as some kind of universally valid rule or policy.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What drivel. If you want to show what someone looks like, of course you show them standing calmly and looking at the camera, not making weird hand gestures. The only reason to show someone making hand gestures would be if their hand gestures somehow helped or informed the reader. They don't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Easy there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). Yes, we already know your personal set of criteria for what an infobox image ought to look like. It's irrelevant. I'm interested in other peoples' opinions, preferably those whose ideal image doesn't include showing someone 'not thinking' or 'doing nothing [except what I want them to be doing]'.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Vladimir Koznyshev, my views are not irrelevant, because I'm an editor with the same right to edit this article as anyone else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They're irrelevant to me, just as my views are 'drivel' to you. Not sure which characterization is worse. Actually, I am, and it's not mine. In any case, in the context of Wikipedia your views are as relevant as mine or anyone else's, and since our opinions are already known, I'd like to hear more from others. I read that's actually one of the ways to reach consensus.Vladimir Koznyshev (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)