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
Top Related