Field is not only a concept in Bourdieu's sociological theory, but also an analytical unit he engaged in sociological research. Bourdieu's choice of this theoretical analysis tool and unit is inseparable from his research method. Bourdieu entered the hall of sociology from anthropology, and he had a special liking for anthropological methods. In the study of primitive tribes in Algeria, he successfully applied anthropological methods. As for the study of modern French society, it involves two different levels of problems: First, can anthropological methods be used? Second, how to use anthropological methods?
Bourdieu's early research was deeply influenced by Levi-Strauss, but with the deepening of his research, he criticized structuralism and did not compromise on these two issues. He said: "Nothing can stop us from applying anthropological methods to modern society." In the concrete practice process, Frenchman P Rabineau gave him great inspiration. Rabineau chose a group (elite French social reformers) who cared about urban planning and opposed racism and class oppression in the 1920s. Rabineau made an anthropological study of this group. Bourdieu expanded from the research unit of "group" to "field", in which group occupies a position, and his anthropological research method is based on field.
The field is jointly constructed by social members according to specific logical requirements. It is the main place for social individuals to participate in social activities and the place where symbolic competition and personal strategies are concentrated. The purpose of this competition and strategy is to produce valuable symbolic goods, and the value of symbolic goods depends on the classification of relevant consumer societies. The victory of symbolic competition means that a symbolic commodity is judged to be more valuable than its competitors and can be imposed on society. Bourdieu called it "symbolic violence", and he thought: "Strategy is the product of practice, the feeling of game, and the feeling of special game determined by history ... This presupposes a permanent creative ability, which is indispensable for people to adapt to all kinds of complicated, changeable and never-same situations." Therefore, the field can be regarded as a space for indefinite item selection, which marks the items to be selected for social members, but there is no final option. Individuals can make a variety of competitive strategies to choose, and different people will have different results. In these results, on the one hand, it can reflect the will of the selector, that is, the individual's creativity, on the other hand, it can reflect the framework requirements and restrictions of the topic selection.
To say that a field is full of power means that individuals compete in the field. Every field has a ruler and a ruled, and any rule implies confrontation. In Bourdieu's view, even the determination of field and field boundary is full of confrontation of different power relations. He defines the boundaries of the field through the interaction between individuals. The boundary of a domain is determined by the domain itself, and there is no prior answer. "The boundary of the field is where the function of the field stops." [4](P98) Bourdieu put forward the concept of capital: "The forces active in the field are those things that are used to define all kinds of' capital'." Bourdieu's concept of capital is different from that used by economists. He regards capital as accumulated labor (in the form of materialization or "materialization"), which can be occupied by actors or groups on an exclusive basis as social resources.
There is strength and competition in the field, and the logic that determines competition is the logic of capital. A kind of capital is difficult to exist and play a role without being linked to the field. Capital is not only the goal of competition in field activities, but also the means of competition. Bourdieu divided capital into three types: economic capital, social capital and cultural capital. Later, he added symbolic capital. Bourdieu believes that there are various fields in social space, and the diversification of fields is the result of social differentiation. Bourdieu regarded this process of differentiation as a process of field autonomy. Autonomy actually means that a certain field has got rid of the restrictions and influences of other fields, and shows its inherent essence in the process of development. In order to explain the autonomy of the field, Bourdieu divided two kinds of "production fields" in a given space, one is "limited production field" and the other is "large-scale production field". The limited production field expands with the specialization of the field itself, while the large-scale production field is the expansion of the social field, with more external influences entering and more social and secular forces infiltrating. The boundaries of this field are often vague and the degree of specialization is not high.
In a limited production field, production serves other producers, that is, actors and systems in this field. At this time, the supply side is also the demand side, and the limited production field is an autonomous field, or an autonomous field. Inspired by economics, Bourdieu studied "the degree of autonomy". He believes that the more independent a field is, the greater the degree to which producers in this field only produce for other producers in this field and not for consumers in the social field. In this way, the field with the strongest autonomy is science, followed by high-level art. In contrast, the autonomy in the legal field is low, while the autonomy in the political field is the lowest. Because the field of science is a model of autonomy. Therefore, Bourdieu pointed out that the more autonomy a field obtains from the social field and the power field, the more scientific the language in this field. The competition and strategy in a field depends not only on the value of symbolic goods, but also on the autonomy of the field, because the field with strong autonomy follows the logic of "right and wrong" and the field with weak autonomy follows the logic of "friend or foe". Practice and Reflection: A Sociological Guide to Reflection
Prerre bourdaud (France), translated by Li Meng Li Kang, published by Central Compilation Press 1998.
This book clarifies the principles supporting Bourdieu's scientific practice and provides readers with the key to understand the internal logic and extensive system of Bourdieu's science.
This book consists of three parts. The first part provides readers with the key to understand the extensive system and internal logic of Bourdieu's works by outlining the theoretical structure and academic prospect of Bourdieu's knowledge, practice and society. The second part mainly reflects the results of the seminar of the University of Chicago; The third part reflects on the practice of sociology based on the discussion at the Paris seminar.
The book mainly puts forward three concepts: capital, field and habit.