Candidate no:120408

Would an interactionist rather than a structuralist

approach better explain welfare state structures when

using Bourdieu’s idea of fields?

This essay will look at the work of renowned social

scientist Pierre Bourdieu, focusing on his concepts of

fields and how they can relate to the welfare state.

Bourdieu undertook a predominantly structuralist approach

to his work with the aim of showing that society is

constructed from numerous fields that exist alongside,

and compete with, one another. This essay will begin by

looking at field theory, and looking at the components

that it is made from; the ideas of doxa, habitus and

capital are outlined, as they are essential in

understanding the structure of a field, and will be

referred to throughout the essay. Bourdieu is an advocate

of speech act theory, whereby we can make something true

simply by saying it, this is evidenced through the

juridical field: legal professionals have the power to

create the law simply by declaring law. The juridical

field is to be considered in detail: this field is

somewhat of an anomaly in that it is viscous and can be

1

Candidate no:120408

exist within more than one field. It is suggested that

the fact that the juridical field can exist within and

alongside other fields suggests an interactionist take on

how fields can cooperate; the juridical field is a field

within its own right, that is made up of smaller fields

and it is argued that if we undertake an interactionist

approach we can see that fields exist alongside each

other but function together rather than compete with each

other. It is suggested that if we are to undertake an

interactionist approach to fields then we actually start

to have a model that looks increasingly similar to

DeLanda’s assemblage theory. The idea of an assemblage

and a field a remarkably similar with the comparability’s

being discussed: both a field and an assemblage are

structured areas of behaviour, however it is their

interactions that differ: whereas field compete,

assemblages interact. It is suggested that the modern

welfare state is made of many fields that interact, and

it is the fact that these interactions are numerous and

widespread that account for the strength of the welfare

state.

2

Candidate no:120408

Society according to Bourdieu is comprised of various

autonomous areas known as fields. Bourdieu describes a

field thusly:

A field is a field of forces within which agents

occupy positions that statistically determine the

positions they take with respect to the field, these

position- takings being aimed either at conserving

or transforming the structure of relations of forces

that is constitutive of the field (2005:30).

A field is a space in which a definitive form of action

is enacted, with the behaviour within the field being

determined by the field itself. Behaviour within the

field is shaped by two things: doxa and habitus

(Bourdieu, 1987). A useful metaphor for aiding in the

understanding of field theory is that of a game of

football. The ‘field’ of football is the football pitch

itself where the game of football is carried out. Doxa is

the rules of the game. The agents are the players, with

each player, or agent, having a specific role in the

game; the role that an agent undertakes within the field

3

Candidate no:120408

is determined by their habitus, which is their previous

experience, their training, and their physical prowess.

The doxa, or the rules of the game, ensure order and

structure within the field; doxa comes to frame the

parameters within which the game is played. Whilst doxa

is according to Bourdieu a ‘self evident norm’ it is to

be thought of as a social construct as opposed to a

naturally occurring phenomena. The doxa of any given

field is in fact created by the field itself, and it is

the belief held by agents that the doxa is real that

makes the doxa real.

Arguably one of the greatest influences on ones habitus

is ones social class, which in itself is a habitus

created by varying capitals (Bourdieu, 1993:5). Bourdieu

argues that ones class is developed largely by cultural

and educational capital, as well as ones means of

employment, suggesting there is a ‘very close

relationship’ linking ‘cultural practices’ to educational

capital and social origin (1984:13). These three things

join together to form our class, which in turn forms our

cultural outlook. For Bourdieu habitus is a cognitive

4

Candidate no:120408

framework that we use to understand the world. It is said

that ones habitus ‘implies a “sense of ones place”’ but

also a “”sense of the place of others”’ (Bourdieu,

1993:5). Our habitus can be viewed as our socialisation,

but Bourdieu (1993) argues that it is actually an

accumulation of varying forms of capital. When we think

of capital the most obvious form is economic, the amount

of wealth or money one has, but this is not necessarily

the most important with capital coming in various forms,

the desirability of a capital being dictated by the field

within which is the capital is valued. For example

educational capital comes to form ones habitus, but this

can have varying affects depending on the field one finds

oneself in: educational systems produce ‘titles’ which

can have enabling or stigmatising results depending on

the doxa of the field we are in (Bourdieu, 1984:23).

So to return to the football analogy, we can think of the

doxa as the rules of the game, whilst the habitus is

comprised of a myriad of factors such as physical

capabilities and tactical knowledge. The players come

together to play a game of football both literally and

5

Candidate no:120408

metaphorically in the field. When we play we adhere to

the doxa that resides within the players’ minds, and so a

standardised game of football is reproduced. However the

doxa of the game is not rigid, there is not a tangible

set of rules that are impossible to challenge: a player

may challenge the rules whilst playing, for example one

may take a dive when tackled in order to gain a penalty

kick, or a player may illegally handle the ball in order

to gain an advantage. These actions are not strictly

legal within the game, but the elasticity of the rules

are routinely tried in order to see how far these rules

can be stretched. The field is a place of constant

struggle between both the players with one another, and

with the players against the rules; it is in this respect

that Wacquant suggests that the field is a place of

struggle for legitimacy and not simply a reproduction of

itself (2007:264). If a field were to reproduce itself

the first time that the rules are challenged, the first

time that it faces any kind of struggle, the field would

buckle or break: a field would not be able to exist if it

was not reflective and reactive. We can see this when we

6

Candidate no:120408

look at our modern state: if the fields of punishment

were simply to reproduce themselves we would still have

public hangings and corporal punishment, however as these

fields have been challenged and public opinions have

changed these institutions have had to adapt throughout

the years.

The struggle for definition and for legitimacy, of rules,

norms, values and practices is at the heart of a field.

Bourdieu suggests:

”professionals” [within a field] strive to set out

explicitly practical principles of vision and

division. On the other hand they struggle, each in

their own universe, to impose the principles of

vision and division, and to have them recognised as

legitimate categories of construction of the social

world (2005:37).

The ‘professionals’ are those that have the ability to

shape the structure of a field due to the power they have

been granted, Bourdieu (1989) termed this power symbolic

7

Candidate no:120408

power. Bourdieu describes symbolic power as needing two

conditions:

Firstly, as any form of performance or discourse,

symbolic power has to be based on the possession of

symbolic capital… Secondly, symbolic efficacy

depends on the degree to which the vision proposed

is founded in reality (1989:23).

Symbolic capital is ascribed by fellow agents within a

field, so for example a premier league football player

would have more symbolic capital than somebody who plays

football for their local pub on a Sunday. Now a

professional footballer is an individual who is

remarkably proficient at kicking a bag of wind between

some sticks, a skill which when taken out of context, out

of the appropriate field, is useless. However when this

skill set is applied in the correct field the opposite is

true: the ability to score well is highly valued within a

specific reality or place. Symbolic capital is assigned

to certain people by others within a field; our habitus,

our relevant forms of capital are analysed and we are

allotted our place within the field, at the same time so

8

Candidate no:120408

too is our symbolic power. In football the professional

players have more symbolic power and so have more

influence over the field. This can account for changes

within the field of football: fashions pioneered by

certain players may be imitated by their fans, or changes

in the way that the game is played such as the increase

in diving to gain penalty kicks. The increase in diving

may show a testing of the doxa, but the fact that it can

be a punishable offence is evidence of how the field can

change in order to maintain is position of power.

In the eyes of Bourdieu society as a whole is comprised

of a number of differing fields all of which are

independent but all of which compete with one another

(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992:97). Just as football and

rugby can be played just fine alongside one another, one

could not have a very good game of rugby if one were to

use the doxa and habitus from the football field as they

are implicit in designing and framing the parameters of

the game. Taking Bourdieus structuralist approach we can

view a university as a field in its own right, but upon

closer inspection we can see that it is made from smaller

9

Candidate no:120408

fields. If we were to look at a university, the physics

department may be able to work alongside an economics

department physically, if the academics from these

departments were to switch field they would not have the

required capital to flourish in their new department: the

university is a hierarchical structure, the further down

the hierarchy we go the increasingly specialised the

fields become (Dezalay and Madsen, 2012:441). This being

the structuralist approach to social organisation whilst

using field theory: the state being comprised of various

fields ranging from universities to armies, all of which

can be deconstructed in to smaller and more particular

fields; when we place these fields next to one another,

when we organise them in the correct fashion then we

create something that resembles our welfare state.

Bourdieu (1977) follows in Weber’s (1919) school of

thought arguing that the state has the legitimate

monopoly of force and in having so it is able to portray

itself as valid or legitimate. The state is able to do

this as it has the power to define what is and is not

legitimate. Weber argues that for a form of authority to

10

Candidate no:120408

be legitimate there must be a belief in the ‘”legality”

and the right of those elevated to authority under such

rules to issue commands’ (1974:328). The belief in the

legitimacy and authority of the state is much like the

belief in the existence of a field: the fact that the

state exists makes us believe in the state, and our

belief in the state creates the state. However the state

has a special tool that is able to use in order to

legitimate its authority, this being the ability to shape

a moral and ethical doxa in the form of a legitimate

legal code. The law, like doxa, is constantly a sight of

struggle as each and every day people challenge and break

it. However this sight of struggle will result in

punishment for the individual if they are caught. Much

like the state itself, state sanctioned punishment is

considered legitimate as it is believed to be legitimate,

this belief being socially constructed both in the minds

of the collective conscious and in the words of the legal

field. The belief that the state is legitimate, that it

is part of a collective conscious, can explain the

existence of a state, but a structuralist approach fails

11

Candidate no:120408

to explain if or how the numerous fields that form the

structures of the state interact.

The legal field for Bourdieu (1987) is a product of

speech act theory whereby one can make something true

simply by saying it, this clearly being visible within

the legal field. The law resides within the collective

conscious of a society as we are told by those we believe

to have authority such as the police, judges, that it

exists, and for law to exist it has to be spoken into

existence. Learned legal professionals are tasked with

the creation of law, it is not pre-existing code of

conduct but a social construct. In this way the juridical

field creates a divide within society between the small

minority that has the ability to create, understand and

implement the law, and the layperson that is obliged to

follow. The fact that only a relatively small number of

people are granted power over the law also results in a

basic form of social hierarchy, with everyday citizens at

the bottom and highly qualified legal professionals at

the top. One has to be well versed in legal doctrine as

the legal language and code is purposefully complex;

12

Candidate no:120408

everyday words are given new meanings that laypeople will

be unable to understand (Bourdieu, 1987:828-829). This

relatively small group are granted a great deal of

symbolic power: the law is an incredibly complex thing

that we struggle to understand and so we hold those with

practical working knowledge of it in high esteem, and as

we do so we grant them the power to steer the course of

the juridical field.

Whereas nearly all fields are independent but continue to

function alongside each other Bourdieu (1987) suggests

that the juridical field is somewhat of an anomaly in

that it has the capacity to enter and function within

other fields. The juridical field is unique in that it

can work within other fields as it can often have a role

to play with the regulation of a field as it has the

ability to define legally and illegal behaviour. From a

structuralist point of view the juridical field can be

seen as the glue that is used to hold various fields

together, and so it has a large role to play in the

ordering and formulation of society. The idea that the

juridical field created the modern day state is offered:

13

Candidate no:120408

Bourdieu (1977) arguing that historically there has been

a move from a dynastic to bureaucratic form of rule. The

bureaucraticisation of the state became so as agents

within the legal field were endowed with the resources

that enabled them to write and implement the law

(Bourdieu, 1977:46). This field became increasingly

powerful and so an individual would need an ever-

increasing amount of capital and power to have influence

within the field.

As previously stated, when we analyse a field we can

often see that it is made up of smaller and smaller

fields with an ever-increasing specialisation. If we

reverse this process, we can start off with a group of

very small fields which when situated together can form a

larger field; the small field is much like a building

block, and the more we add together the larger the

structure we build. The juridical field can be considered

as the cement that holds the structure together. If we

have enough blocks organised in the correct fashion, when

we remove the cement the structure will still stand. A

structuralist approach can explain in what way the blocks

14

Candidate no:120408

are ordered, but we would need to take an interactionist

approach to understand how the way these things are

ordered can have an impact on the other things around

them. And so it is argued that whilst Bourdieu’s idea of

a field and its requirements are a useful tool for

understanding various sociological phenomena, this theory

fails to explain the complexities of society and

specifically how various parts of a society interact with

one another. Money is a form of capital that is created

by the economics field, which as with other fields is

made up of smaller and smaller fields. Bourdieu’s

structuralist approach can show how varying fields are in

competition with one another, but it does not show how

economic capital, the product of a specific field, can

find itself within another field. Similarly, the

university and the educational fields can create

educational, cultural and symbolic capital, all of which

can be utilised within other fields, but an examination

of how they function and find themselves to be within

other fields is lacking. Capital is fought for and given

a differing value relative to the field that it is

15

Candidate no:120408

within, but this does not give us a clear understanding

of why and how capital is valued. Rather than a

structuralist approach, it is suggested that an

interactionist perspective would better explain the

manner in which fields compete.

Let us move away from the building block metaphor and see

the impact of the juridical field in action and for

consistencies sake examine the effect that the juridical

field can have within the university or educational

field. The state, and so arguably the juridical field,

according to Bourdieu (2004) is made up of a left and

right ‘hands’ with the right being the punitive side and

the left being the caring side: the right being the

coercive systems and the left being welfare systems. It

is the left hand of the state that will have dealings

with the university field and it does so in differing

ways. The government has the power to create universities

through legal legislation and the allocation of money,

but more importantly it has the ability of deciding the

fate of a university by deciding how much money it is

allocated. The current form of social and economic

16

Candidate no:120408

organisation means that the university staff require a

wage in order to live, as we all do, and as the

university is considered part of the public sphere it is

the government that decides how much, or how little, the

staff are paid. Money, or economic capital, is a creation

of the economic field and is used as a mediator between

the state and the university. When we take a

structuralist approach we can see that the university, in

fact the entire educational field, is in competition with

other fields with the aim of attaining economic capital.

The university will be competing with the social services

and the hospitals for the attention of the left hand of

the state. This approach fails to explain how economic

capital comes to find itself within other fields though.

When we talk about the juridical field we are not just

taking about the law, but also the agents that act within

this field. We have seen that the juridical field has the

ability to define right and wrong, legal and illegal

behaviour, through the creation of legislation. But the

juridical field also can use the law as a tool to shape

itself and other fields by implementing plans or

17

Candidate no:120408

allocating capital through welfare. This newfound field

and the knowledge it generated enabled the state an

opportunity to enter in to the private lives of its

citizens; whereas the state previously could define legal

and illegal behaviour, it now has the ability to define

what is moral and immoral. A married couple with gainful

employment and three children would be viewed as moral,

or ‘normal’, however an unmarried single mother with

three children who relies on state benefits is seen as

immoral. The expansion of the law into new areas is

termed by Habermas as Juridification, offering the

following definition:

The expression Juridification refers quite generally

to the tendency towards an increase in formal (or

positive, written) law that can be observed in

modern society. We can be distinguish here between

the expansion of the law, that is the legal regulation

of new, hitherto informally regulated social matter,

from the increasing density of law, that is, the

specialized breakdown of global statements of the

18

Candidate no:120408

legally relevant facts into more detailed statements

(1987:357 italics in original).

The welfare system is a relatively new creation, Murphy

(1991) suggesting that it has its foundations in the

1830’s in the emergence of economics: economics

facilitated the ability to ‘measure’ society and so

create empirically based social and fiscal policies. It

is interesting here to note how a new field has had such

an impact upon our everyday life. Furthermore, it is

interesting to see how this new field with its ability to

function within other fields has had such an impact.

Rather than competing with other fields as Bourdieu

suggest, economics has existed within and shaped other

fields. And so we can consider economics to be much like

the judicial field it is viscous, it is a field in itself

but it can have an impact upon other fields too.

Law believes that our social life and our social

structure is based upon interactions rather than the

product of social structures and so an interactionist

approach should be taken in order to fully understand our

social structure, arguing that ‘social structure’ should

19

Candidate no:120408

be considered a verb and not a noun (1992:5). It is felt

that a structuralist approach begins with a vision of

society and tries to reduce it down to its component

parts, it starts with the macro and tries to reduce it to

the micro, whereas as our life’s are conducted within the

micro, it would make better sense to start here and try

to conclude at the macro scale (Latour, 2005; Law, 1992).

And so we can use Bourdieus idea of a field is we alter

the structuralist approach for an interactionist. Rather

than having a field that has is rigidly defined by doxa

and habitus, and is on competition with other fields,

what happens if we have a field that is flexible, and is

in communication and cooperation with other fields? It is

suggested that this would in fact lead us to something

similar to Assemblage Theory, and that this perhaps

offers a better way of interpreting the social structure.

First of all let us begin with a definition of Assemblage

Theory in order to clarify the term and ensure a clear

understanding in order to aid our discussion. It is in

Deleuze and Guattari’s (2013) work where the idea of

assemblage theory has its genesis, but it is in Manuel

20

Candidate no:120408

DeLanda’s (2011) work where we can see assemblage as a

tool for the understanding of the social. DeLanda

summarises Assemblage theory by first of all suggesting:

unlike wholes in which parts are linked by relations

of interiority (that is relations which constitute

the very identity of the parts) assemblages are made

up of parts which are self-subsistent and

articulated by relations of exteriority, so that a

part may be detached and made a component of another

assemblage (2011:18).

Here we can draw similarities to field theory, with an

assemblage being a ‘field’ of sorts, an area or network

of objective relations (Dezalay and Madsen 2012:439),

however it has the ability to interact or be part of

another field. Further comparisons between field theory

and assemblage theory can be made: DeLanda argues that an

assemblage needs something to stabilise or destabilise it

in order to give it definition, which can be

characterised as territorialisation and coding (2011:19).

Territorialising in effect provides the components that

are needed to create an assemblage. Physically

21

Candidate no:120408

territorialisation can refer to the definition of a space

or the creation of a boundary, but we can also think of

it as a combination of an agent and their habitus. Coding

is much like doxa, it is the structuring of behaviour

that has a consolidating and stabilising effect upon the

identity of an assemblage (Delanda, 2011:15). The process

of territorialising and coding can be seen when we look

at the human body: our body is made of individual cells

that form together to create our internal organs; our

internal organs form together to create us as an

individual. The organs themselves are much like a field,

each with a specific purpose, but rather than competing

with each other they work together. A heart will not

function if it does not have the correct component parts,

ventricles and arteries are key components but it is when

they are combined that a heart is formed. Furthermore a

body without a heart will not function, but the heart is

not the only vital organ; everything within the body

works together, and each component has an affect on other

components within the system.

22

Candidate no:120408

Assemblage Theory suggests that society is constructed in

a similar fashion and this is evident if we look at the

modern welfare state. If we look at the juridical field,

then we can see that it is in effect almost everywhere,

but it is also connected to other assemblages. For

example when we think of the law, that is the punitive

‘right hand’ of the law, we think of the police force

whose job it is to enforce the law and reduce infractions

of the law. The police ‘field’ or assemblage is thus

linked to the court system where the appropriate

punishments for legal transgressions are decided. The

court has the ability to send an individual to prison,

the prison system is in itself a field of assemblages

comprised of numerous prisons offering varying levels of

incarceration of inmates. If the crime committed is not

deemed serious enough for jail time to be a relative

punishment then the judge or magistrates’ can order the

person to carry out community service, in which case the

local council will be involved in deciding an appropriate

form of communal recompense. Now there is an obvious

link between the local council and the local police

23

Candidate no:120408

force, as both are in a position to ‘take care’ of a

community and so they act alongside each other in doing

so. Both are fields, but rather than being in competition

with each other, they have to function together with the

aim of maintaining an ‘orderly’ society and can be linked

through the court system, but also as they together work

within the same space in order to achieve the same goal:

a structured well ordered society.

Various assemblages, such as the legal field, the

National Health Service, local councils, all interact

with one another and come together to form the welfare

state. These assemblages are made of thousands upon

thousands of agents and component parts that are all

interlinked. The fact that the state is dense, that is

comprised of a great many fields that cooperate can

account for the existence of the modern state. However

DeLanda (2011:70-72), again following Weber much like

Bourdieu, suggests that a state must present itself as

legitimate in order to have an authority. The fact that

the state is comprised of a great many and varied

assemblages, from the educational system to the armed

24

Candidate no:120408

forces, means that the state does not solely require a

belief that it is legitimate as it has proof that it is

legitimate: it is made up of assemblages that are deemed

vital for a social structure that are all interlinked and

interactive.

To conclude, we can see that Bourdieu has empowered us

with a valuable tool in field theory, and particularly

the component parts of doxa, habitus and capital.

Bourdieu takes a structuralist approach when applying

field theory arguing that fields can exist alongside and

compete with each other. However, it is argued that

whilst a structuralist approach can explain social

hierarchy and in this sense explain social structure, it

is unable to account for the fact that the juridical

field has the ability to interact and function within

numerous fields. Similarly, it is argued that money is a

creation of the economics field, and whilst it is a form

of capital that can be competed for it can also be a

mediator between fields. It is argued that as fields can

create a form of usable capital that can be utilised

within other fields: this can be considered evidence that

25

Candidate no:120408

these fields can, and do, interact and cooperate. In

order to explain this anomaly and create a more cohesive

theory it is suggested that we undertake an

interactionist as opposed to structuralist approach when

using the idea of fields. However in undertaking a

different approach we have to adapt our theory slightly

and when we adapt fields and enable them to interact a

striking similarity to DeLanda’s assemblage theory is

evident. It is argued that assemblage, as an adaption of

fields, can better explain the welfare state structure as

it can be used in a structuralist sense, to show how

fields can form together to create a dense social

structure, but it can be also utilised in explaining

interactions. In being able to show how fields interact,

assemblage can also explain the complexities of the state

apparatus, arguing that a state is a strong and permanent

structure due to its wide ranging interactions; when we

confront the police, we not only confront the officers

but all the other fields they are connected with. It is

in this way that it is said that when we undertake an

interactionist approach and think of a field as an

26

Candidate no:120408

interactive assemblage then we can better explain the

structure of our current welfare state.

27

Candidate no:120408

Bibliography

Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, L., 1992. An Invitation To Reflexive

Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P, 1977., From The Kings House To The Reason Of

State: A Model Of The Genesis Of The Bureaucratic Field.

In: L, Wacquant, ed. 2005. Pierre Bourdieu And Democratic Politics.

Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 2.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique Of The Judgement Of

Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P., 1987. The Force Of Law: Toward A Sociology

Of The Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal. July 1987 pp.805-

853.

Bourdieu, P., 1989. Social Space And Symbolic Power.

Sociological Theory. Vol. 7 pp.14-25.

Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field Of Cultural Production. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P., 2004. Acts Of Resistance: Against The New Myths Of Our

Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.

28

Candidate no:120408

Bourdieu, P., 2005. The Political Field, The Social

Science Field And The Journalistic Field. In: R, Benson

and E, Neveu., 2005. Bourdieu And The Journalistic Field.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

DeLanda, M., 2011. A New Philosophy Of Society: Assemblage Theory

And Social Complexity. London: Continuum International.

Deleuze, G and Guattari, F., 2013. A Thousand Plateaus:

Capitalism And Schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury.

Dezalay, Y and Madsen, M, R., 2012. The Force Of Law And

Lawyers: Pierre Bourdieu And The Reflexive Sociology Of

Law. Annual Review Of Law And Social Science, Vol. 8 pp.433-452.

Habermas, J., 1987. The Theory Of Communicative Action Volume 2.

Boston: Beacon Press.

Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling The Socail: An Introduction To The

Actor Netowrk Theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Law, J., 1992. Notes On The Theory Of The Actor Network: Ordering,

Strategy And Heterogeneity. Lancaster University: Centre For

Science Studies.

29

Candidate no:120408

Murphy, W, T, 1991. The Oldest Social Science? The

Epistemic Properties Of The Common Law Tradition. Modern

Law Review. Vol. 54 pp.182-215.

Wacquant, L., 2007. Pierre Bourdieu. In: R, Stones.,

2007. Key Sociological Thinkers. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan. Pp.261-277.

Weber, M., 1919. Politics as a Vocation. In: H, Gerth and

C, Wright Mills., 2009. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.

London: Routledge. pp77-127.

Weber, M., 1974. The Theory Of Social And Economic Organisation.

Oxford: Oxford university Press.

30