Social field

The term field is used in the general field theory of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and describes a social system. There are several autonomous fields in a society, each field having a definable function in society (justice, health, economy, religion, art, literature, and many others are independent fields). For Bourdieu, the basic functioning of fields on the structural level (not on the content) has clear rules and similarities. In his field theory, sometimes also called general field theory , he describes these similarities that occur in all fields. Field theory therefore offers a framework of concepts and theorization proposals for the analysis of individual social fields.

For the special functionality of individual fields, see: Political Field , Literary Field .

Field interest

Each field has exactly one clearly defined field interest. The field interest is the main object that constitutes the field. It determines what a field is about, what is argued and fought about. Examples: In the economic field primarily about money, in the legal field about law, in the medical field about health, in the political field about rule, in the religious field about truth etc.

People who participate in a certain field generally consider the respective field interest to be important . A specific field interest (e.g. health, law, art) thus constitutes an independent and autonomous field (medical field, legal field, artistic field) by defining a single focus or main subject. This also largely determines in terms of content what should and should not take place in a field.

Fields thus show obvious parallels to the sociological systems theory , which ascribes similar properties to social systems ( autopoetic , differentiated, self-contained).

Feldillusio

The concept of the Illusio can be viewed from two perspectives.

Field of interest as Illusio : Each field creates a Illusio by pretending participants and outsiders wrongly, that in the field exclusively and only comes to the field of interest. The illusion of the scientific field would, for example, be an uninterested production of knowledge, the illusion of the educational system with equal educational opportunities, the illusion of art an economy-free art for art's sake ( L'art pour l'art ). Bourdieu breaks with the illusions created by the fields. Of course, there has always been a fight for other resources in fields, such as power, money, positions, interests, distribution structures, etc. v. m. The interest in the field is therefore by no means the only thing that is relevant in fields that are fought and argued about. The illusion in fields describes, as the word itself already implies, a kind of attempt at deception: outsiders or naive participants in a field should believe the illusion that a field is exclusively and really only about the field interest itself. The illusion of a field thus disguises unsightly power struggles and disputes about money, influence, prestige, positions, etc. The field preserves its positive image through the illusion, at least for non-participants and ignorant people.

Field illusion among participants: All participants in a certain field share the firm belief that it is worth participating in the field. They also share a willingness to invest and participate in the disputes in the field. At the same time, the participants accept and internalize the rules and laws of a field.

“For the unconscious implementation of the rules of the game in the field, he introduces the term» illusio «- illusion of reality. By this he understands the fact that "one is caught in the game, that one believes that the game is worth the stake or, to put it more simply, that it is worth playing" (PV: 140f.). The "illusio" brings the players to involve himself so deeply in the game, the stakes without representation, what it is all about in the game, are tacitly acknowledged. This gives rise to a »secret agreement« with the rules of the game. "

Field structure

The concept of the field structure provides the most important properties and meta-concepts for the analysis of all existing fields. With this concept all important structures of a field are meant. The field structure regulates, for example, the power structure, the distribution structure of types of capital, conditions of participation and change options in the field, field rules, etc. v. m. Each field has its own complex structure that regulates the interactions, forms of communication, rules, norms, profits and conditions of participation. Precisely because the structures of a field exert a tremendous power over all participants, the field structures themselves are contested.

Rulers and rulers - preservation and change of the field structure

"Each of these fields has its rulers and rulers, its struggles for preservation or overthrow, its reproductive mechanisms, etc."

Rulers : Bourdieu understands rulers primarily to mean those actors who are rich in all relevant types of capital in a field (cultural, economic, social, symbolic, field-specific capital) and who occupy positions of power in the field. According to Bourdieu, it is above all the rulers who have the ability to shape, change or reproduce field structures. Most of the time, they try to maintain and reproduce the field structure as they benefit from it. Although the rulers are always in the minority, they usually have the greatest influence in determining the field structures. It is therefore no coincidence that field structures are usually designed in such a way that they correspond to the interests of those in power, who usually speak out in favor of maintaining the structures. Nevertheless: the rulers are always challenged and challenged by the ruled, which is why they too have to fight to maintain the field structure. Ruled : The ruled (little capital, hardly any positions of power) in a field usually fight for a change in the field structure. Bourdieu points out several times that field structures are by no means static. Both rulers and rulers are constantly struggling to change the field structures in their favor. From a long-term perspective, dynamics and change are the characteristic properties of a field.

"The field is a place of (...) struggles to change these conditions, and consequently a place of permanent change."

Field positions

For Bourdieu, a field is a space of relative balance of power and positions. Every actor who interacts in a field also has a position in that field . The positions are not static, in all fields there is the possibility of mobility and of changing one's own position (ascent and descent). The field position of an actor largely determines how much power, influence, participation rights and speaking rights this actor has in the field. Bourdieu claims that there are certain regularities and similarities regarding positions in all fields. In general, the more types of capital an actor has, the higher his position in the respective field. Positions are not static, they have to be worked hard for and defended. Dominated actors tend to struggle to improve their position in the field, while dominant actors spend a lot of time and energy trying to maintain it.

Relationality of field positions

Bourdieu emphasizes several times that field positions and fields in general must always be understood relationally. A field position only results when it is viewed relationally to the other positions in the field. The same applies to the types of capital, actors only take a higher field position if they have relatively more capital than their counterparties. Relationality accordingly plays a central role in Bourdieu's field theory. With the change and the dynamics of fields, the individual positions in the field that the actors occupy also change.

The field position of an actor is directly dependent on the capital he owns:

"Rather, they are owners of capital and, according to their curriculum vitae and the position they occupy in the field due to their capital ownership (volume and structure), have a tendency to actively work towards maintaining or overturning capital distribution."

In general, the more capital an actor has, the more chances and possibilities he has to take part in the battles in the field and to assert himself in them. Therefore, actors strive to tie up as much capital as possible in order to gain advantages over other counterparties. Bourdieu points out (as with the field position) that the potential of individual types of capital must always be viewed in relative terms. Only capital that is relatively unevenly distributed can be used as an effective weapon. For example, academic titles (a form of cultural capital) are rare because not everyone has them. Due to this relative rarity, actors in one field can gain advantages over other competitors. The same applies to money (economic capital) and relationships (social capital), which are also very unevenly distributed. Only through relationality and the unequal distribution of individual types of capital or skills do possible advantages for the bearers arise.

Example: In a country with a high rate of illiteracy, those actors in the field who can only read and write (a form of cultural capital) already benefit. In a literate country, on the other hand, the ability to read and write does not bring any profit in the field, as everyone can do it.

Capital determines and enables mobility in a field. Actors who have gained a lot of capital over time also improve their position in the field, which at the same time goes hand in hand with better opportunities for participation. This mobility shows once again that fields are to be understood dynamically.

Field history

Bourdieu points out the importance of analyzing the history of fields. Fields should never be viewed as a mere product of the present, but were significantly shaped by the past. Fields such as the political, religious, artistic or economic field have a long history in which structures were created that still shape the fields in the present. This is particularly evident in an intercultural comparison: One and the same field (e.g. the legal field, religious field) can be very different in the individual societies, since it has arisen in different cultures and has its own history helped shape the current structure.

Sorts of capital

Five types of capital are relevant for field theory:

1) cultural capital : 1.1) incorporated cultural capital : knowledge, education, language & articulation skills; 1.2) institutionalized cultural capital: academic titles, badges / honors, certificates, legitimate positions etc .; 1.3) Objectified cultural capital: books, instruments, works of art.

2) economic capital : money, property.

3) social capital : relationships, friendships, collaborations, group membership.

4) symbolic capital : recognition, honor, legitimacy , assertiveness.

5) Field- specific capital : Special skills that are absolutely necessary to participate in a field. Mostly only useful in one field.

Types of capital play an elementary role in fields. The types of capital that an actor can choose to participate in, his power, his legitimacy and much more depend on. Bourdieu calls types of capital weapons which actors in the field use to enforce their own interests and interpretations of reality. However, fields also offer the possibility of increasing one's own capital in a targeted manner, which is why there are also disputes about types of capital themselves.

"A capital or a type of capital is that which is effective in a certain field as a weapon and as a contested object at the same time, that which allows an owner to exercise power or influence, i.e. to exist in a certain field and not just a" quantité négligeable " to be."

The individual types of capital have their own functions and logics in the fields. Bourdieu emphasizes that not all fields consider the individual types of capital to be equally important. The hierarchy or the importance of individual types of capital varies from field to field. In some fields, for example, cultural capital is valued much higher than economic capital (legal field), whereas in other fields (field of (pop) music) economic capital is much more important for success. In general, 1) cultural, 2) economic and 3) social capital play a central role with different weighting for all fields.

Symbolic capital in fields

Bourdieu equates symbolic capital with legitimacy in a field. The symbolic capital of a person results from the sum of all other types of capital (cultural, economic, social and field-specific capital). A lot of symbolic capital is therefore usually owned by those actors in the field who are also rich in other types of capital. The symbolic capital is the most powerful capital in all fields. Actors with a lot of symbolic capital are particularly valued and appreciated in one field. They are also most often given the right to speak in public discourses. The legitimacy and professionalism assigned to them mean that their statements, interpretations and constructions of reality enjoy a higher appreciation and validity. In general, the few rulers in a field have the most symbolic capital. In this context Bourdieu often uses the concept of symbolic violence or symbolic power : Actors with a lot of symbolic capital have exclusive power and creative possibilities. They have the privilege of legitimizing their constructions of reality and world interpretations more easily and making them come true than other actors in the field. However, symbolic violence goes beyond the construction of legitimate realities. Rulers (rich in all types of capital) have the opportunity to shape and shape the field structures the most.

However, symbolic capital is not exclusively reserved for the rulers and is not exclusively linked to capital. Occasionally, even those with little capital enjoy a lot of legitimacy in a field if they are perceived as particularly authentic or can convince with other personal characteristics (e.g. long-term commitment, sympathy, honesty, outstanding skills, attractiveness, etc.).

Field-specific capital

The field-specific capital usually includes all skills required to participate in a field or sub-field and to be successful in it. Basic knowledge is a prerequisite for participating in a field. Examples of field-specific capital would be: Ancient Greek knowledge in the field of Greek studies, writing knowledge in the field of literature, knowledge of music in the field of music, taste in clothing in the field of fashion, belief in the field of religion. The amount of field-specific capital of an actor depends on how professional and how rare his skills are in the field. The profits of an actor in the field are thus again dependent on the relationality and the rarity of his field-specific capital. It is immediately noticeable that certain forms of field-specific capital are only useful in the respective field, but are worthless outside of this field. Knowledge of ancient Greek is, for example, an absolutely necessary condition to participate in the subfield of Greek studies, but at the same time knowledge of ancient Greek is useless in all other fields. This applies to most fields: Participation is impossible without field-specific capital or knowledge. Bourdieu calls this an entry fee in order to be able to participate in certain fields and to be valued. Another characteristic of the field-specific capital is its lack of accumulability. While the other types of capital (cultural, economic, social, symbolic capital) can be used and converted elsewhere, this is usually not the case with the field-specific.

Field logic

Each field (and its subfields) has a unique logic according to which it functions and constitutes the field. Therefore, the individual fields cannot be compared with one another so easily. Even if different fields have certain similarities, which Bourdieu tries to describe on a meta-level in his general field theory, this does not apply to field logic. The unique logics of the respective fields cannot be compared with one another. Field logics must be analyzed individually and separately in terms of content for each field.

Field boundaries

While the field interest constitutes the main object of a field, the boundaries of fields are less clearly determined. The field boundaries are also dynamic and can change over time. You determine where the field begins and where it ends. Field boundaries thus regulate who is to be viewed as an outsider and who is a member of a field. They also regulate the access restrictions to the field, for example in the form of competencies, resources or membership conditions. The field boundaries themselves are a constantly contested area: actors in the field argue about membership, entrance fees, the skills and qualities required to participate in a field. By fighting over the field boundaries, the individual actors try to enforce their own interests by designing the boundaries in such a way that they bring them advantages.

Actors in fields

Bourdieu purposefully uses the term “ actor” and thereby avoids reducing the term to rational individuals. Even if most of the actors in a field are actually individuals, collective actors must not be neglected. Organizations, institutions and groups are collective actors and also interact in fields. These too fight for their interests in fields, have different types of capital and have a decisive influence on the development of fields.

Strategies

Strategies denote another concept with which Bourdieu describes the arguments and battles in fields. Strategies are targeted attempts and measures by actors to assert themselves in the field or against opponents. Since fields are places of constant conflict and dispute, participating actors use strategies to gain advantages, to legitimize themselves or to bring about changes.

Bourdieu claims to see a clear connection between the respective strategies, the field position and the types of capital of the actors. The exact strategies an actor pursues does not depend on their creativity or mood. Actor strategies are largely products of the types of capital and the field position that an actor owns or takes. The habitus of the actors plays another factor in strategies . In doing so, Bourdieu explicitly distances himself from the theory of the rational decision , which he criticizes for being economically shortened. Although he also speaks of the action-guiding strategies of the actors in the fields, he does not attribute them to consciously calculated decisions, but to the unconscious acting habitus of the actors.

Economically privileged and uneducated actors will, for example, use any strategies that can only be implemented with a lot of money. Highly educated but economically weak actors use their educational titles, their exclusive (scientific) knowledge to legitimize their positions and strategies. Dominated and marginalized actors (poor in all types of capital) also use special strategies to assert themselves in the field. Strategies are also to be understood as devaluations and assumptions, such as the assumption of a lack of authenticity (especially in music and art), the devaluation of the economization of the field interest ("no talent for singing, all just commerce" (pop music)), the assumption that secondary ones are being exploited Interests (power, money, popularity). The rulers have the greatest and best opportunities to enforce their interests through strategies, since they have all sorts of capital and the greatest legitimacy in the field.

In summary, according to Bourdieu, strategies depend on four factors: 1) field position of the actor, 2) equipped capital of the actor, 3) habitus of the actor and 4) field structure in general.

Examples of fields

Bourdieu does not limit the number of fields.

The economic field arose from the development of market economies and, like the other fields, obeys its own laws, those of profit calculation, competition and exploitation.
The cultural field was created through the spread of written language and the establishment of educational systems . Using the example of the cultural sub-field of art , this means: The purpose of art is art - and only art. Bourdieu places the emergence of this subfield in the time of Impressionism , when artists abandoned the color and figure regulations of the client. It is therefore problematic to use the term “artist” in the period before the era of impressionism.
The development of the political-state field is tied to the history of the bureaucracies . The field-specific Basic Law requires service to the public , in which the field actors sacrifice their own interests to the public, the public service and the general public.

literature

Primary literature

Pierre Bourdieu: The logic of the fields . In: Pierre Bourdieu, Loic Wacquant (Ed.): Reflexive Anthropologie. Surkamp, Frankfurt 1996.
Pierre Bourdieu: The economic field. In: The only one and his own home. (Writings on Politics & Culture 3).
Pierre Bourdieu: The political field: To the criticism of political reason . 2001. ISBN 3-89669-984-9 .
Pierre Bourdieu: The religious field: texts on the economy of salvation . UVK, 2000.
Pierre Bourdieu: Homo academicus . Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1988. ISBN 3-518-28602-1 .
Pierre Bourdieu: The subtle differences . Critique of social judgment . Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 2003. ISBN 3-518-06743-5 (in the original first 1979).
Pierre Bourdieu: The dead grabbed the living. Writings on culture and politics 2 . VSA, Hamburg 1997. ISBN 3-87975-622-8 (in particular the sections on the genesis of the terms habitus and field as well as for another term of economy ).
Pierre Bourdieu: Practical Reason. On the theory of action, German first edition. Frankfurt 1998.

Secondary literature

Boike Rehbein : The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieus . 3rd revised edition. UTB, Stuttgart 2016. ISBN 978-3-8252-4700-3
Eva Barlösius: Pierre Bourdieu . 2nd Edition. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt 2011.
Franz Schultheis : Bourdieu and the Frankfurt School: Critical Social Theory in the Age of Neoliberalism. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2014.
Markus Schwingel: Pierre Bourdieu as an introduction. Junius, Hamburg 2003. ISBN 3-88506-380-8 .
Marcel Schöne: Pierre Bourdieu and the police field. A special case of the possible , Frankfurt / M .: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft, 2011, ISBN 978-3-86676-198-8
Rainer Diaz-Bone: Cultural World, Discourse and Lifestyle: A Discourse-Theoretical Extension of Bourdieu's Distinction Theory . VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010.
Werner Fuchs-Heinritz, Alexandra König: Pierre Bourdieu: An introduction. 3. Edition. UKV Verlagsgesellschaft, Konstanz 2014.

Individual evidence

↑ Rainer Diaz-Bone: Cultural world, discourse and lifestyle: a discourse-theoretical extension of Bourdieu's theory of distinction. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010, p. 49 .
^ Eva Barlösius: Pierre Bourdieu . 2nd Edition. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt 2011, p. 102 .
↑ Werner Fuchs-Heinritz, Alexandra König: Pierre Bourdieu: An introduction . 3. Edition. UKV Verlagsgesellschaft, Konstanz 2014, p. 115 .
↑ Rainer Diaz-Bone (2010): p. 49f.
↑ Barlösius (2011): p. 94f.
↑ Pierre Bourdieu: Practical Reason. On the theory of action . German first edition edition. Frankfurt 1998, p. 88 f .
↑ Barlösius (2011): p. 100f.
↑ König (2014): p. 115.
^ Barlösius (2011): p. 100.
↑ Pierre Bourdieu: The logic of the fields . In: Pierre Bourdieu, Loic Wacquant (Ed.): Reflexive Anthropologie . Surkamp, Frankfurt 1996, p. 139 .
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 132
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 137.
↑ König (2014): p. 119.
↑ Franz Schultheis: Bourdieu and the Frankfurt School: Critical Social Theory in the Age of Neoliberalism . Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2014, p. 66 .
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 133.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 134f.
↑ Bourdieu (1998): Practical Reason. P. 72f.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 127.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): pp. 125-127; 138.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 140.
↑ Bourdieu (1998): p. 71.
^ Pierre Bourdieu: On the sociology of symbolic forms . Frankfurt am Main 1970, p. 85 .
↑ Joseph Jurt: Bourdieu's Capital Theory . In: Bergmann, MM et al. (Ed.): Education - Work - Growing Up . Springer, 2012, p. 25 .
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 128.
↑ Diaz-Bone (2010): p. 50.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 128.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 128.
↑ Diaz-Bone (2010): p. 52f.
↑ Bourdieu (1998): Practical Reason. P. 84.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): 143.
↑ Schultheis (2014): p. 68.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 139.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 139.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 135.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 127.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 135.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 130.
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 130.
↑ ^a ^b ^c Bourdieu (1996): pp. 129 & 136f.
↑ ^a ^b ^c Bourdieu (1998): Practical reason. P. 64f.
↑ Pierre Bourdieu: The economic field . In: The only one and his own home. (Writings on Politics & Culture 3) . S. 215 .
↑ Bourdieu (1996): p. 129.