Field
From Geography
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | ‘Field’ is a concept that can be related to the French sociologist [[Pierre Bourdieu]]. His work shows some resemblance with that of [[Anthony Giddens]], in the sense that he also takes a middle-ground position within the structure (determinism) vs. agency (voluntarism) debate (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009). A central theme within his line of reasoning is the notion of ‘social space’, which is “the social world or society in general”, in terms of an “arrangement of social positions that are determined by relations of proximity and distance” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 8), it’s a relational social space. | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ‘Field’ is a concept that can be related to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. His work shows some resemblance with that of Anthony Giddens, in the sense that he also takes a middle-ground position within the structure ( | + | |
According to Bourdieu, the social space is composed out of different fields, whereby all fields display an own microcosm, each field has it’s own logic (Lippuner et al., 2009). Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore (2009, p. 323) describe a field as “a social domain in which there are shared rules of operation. These can be defined by institutions but can be more open, and are defined by the circulation of specific forms and practices” As Lippuner (2009) et al. write: “It is characterized by specific principles of differentiation and representation that define how to valuate, ascribe positions, interpret evens, and deal with problems. Each field has a specific mode of labelling positions, that is, a specific logic of distinction” (p. 8). Furthermore, it is because of their own logic of distinction, that they seem like an own autonomous social universe (Lippuner et. al., 2009). Examples of fields, which can be seen as the subsystems of society, are the economy, politics, science, art, religion etc. | According to Bourdieu, the social space is composed out of different fields, whereby all fields display an own microcosm, each field has it’s own logic (Lippuner et al., 2009). Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore (2009, p. 323) describe a field as “a social domain in which there are shared rules of operation. These can be defined by institutions but can be more open, and are defined by the circulation of specific forms and practices” As Lippuner (2009) et al. write: “It is characterized by specific principles of differentiation and representation that define how to valuate, ascribe positions, interpret evens, and deal with problems. Each field has a specific mode of labelling positions, that is, a specific logic of distinction” (p. 8). Furthermore, it is because of their own logic of distinction, that they seem like an own autonomous social universe (Lippuner et. al., 2009). Examples of fields, which can be seen as the subsystems of society, are the economy, politics, science, art, religion etc. | ||
| - | The different ways of distinction in a field relate, Bourdieu states, with the minds and bodies of the actors within that specific field, depending on the specific social position of an actor (which, in turn, relates to different forms of capital) (Lippuner et al., 2009). On the basis of the properties of the field (the specific logic of distinction), “actors develop schemes of perception and acting” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 9). This is called the | + | The different ways of distinction in a field relate, Bourdieu states, with the minds and bodies of the actors within that specific field, depending on the specific social position of an actor (which, in turn, relates to different forms of capital) (Lippuner et al., 2009). On the basis of the properties of the field (the specific logic of distinction), “actors develop schemes of perception and acting” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 9). This is called the ‘[[habitus]]’, which he uses “to convey the routinized, yet indeterminate, nature of social practice” (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009, p. 323). |
| + | |||
| + | This notion of the field also shows a resemblance with the concept of social (sub)-systems as articulated by Luhmann (Arnoldi, 2001). With the concept of sub-systems he also points at, for instance, the separate domains of politics, economy, science etc., which also have their own mechanisms of distinction and selection, and which, just as Bourdieus fields, “represent a specific viewpoint from which social reality is being observed and constructed” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 9). | ||
| - | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| - | + | '''References:''' | |
| - | References | + | |
| - | + | ||
Arnoldi, J. (2001). Niklas Luhmann. An Introduction. In: ''Theory, Culture & Society''. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-13. | Arnoldi, J. (2001). Niklas Luhmann. An Introduction. In: ''Theory, Culture & Society''. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-13. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
Lippuner, R. & Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration Theory. In: ''International Encyclopedia for Human Geography''. Elsevier. | Lippuner, R. & Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration Theory. In: ''International Encyclopedia for Human Geography''. Elsevier. | ||
| + | [[Category: Social System Theory]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Structuration Theory]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Practice Theory]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:44, 19 September 2012
‘Field’ is a concept that can be related to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. His work shows some resemblance with that of Anthony Giddens, in the sense that he also takes a middle-ground position within the structure (determinism) vs. agency (voluntarism) debate (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009). A central theme within his line of reasoning is the notion of ‘social space’, which is “the social world or society in general”, in terms of an “arrangement of social positions that are determined by relations of proximity and distance” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 8), it’s a relational social space.
According to Bourdieu, the social space is composed out of different fields, whereby all fields display an own microcosm, each field has it’s own logic (Lippuner et al., 2009). Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore (2009, p. 323) describe a field as “a social domain in which there are shared rules of operation. These can be defined by institutions but can be more open, and are defined by the circulation of specific forms and practices” As Lippuner (2009) et al. write: “It is characterized by specific principles of differentiation and representation that define how to valuate, ascribe positions, interpret evens, and deal with problems. Each field has a specific mode of labelling positions, that is, a specific logic of distinction” (p. 8). Furthermore, it is because of their own logic of distinction, that they seem like an own autonomous social universe (Lippuner et. al., 2009). Examples of fields, which can be seen as the subsystems of society, are the economy, politics, science, art, religion etc.
The different ways of distinction in a field relate, Bourdieu states, with the minds and bodies of the actors within that specific field, depending on the specific social position of an actor (which, in turn, relates to different forms of capital) (Lippuner et al., 2009). On the basis of the properties of the field (the specific logic of distinction), “actors develop schemes of perception and acting” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 9). This is called the ‘habitus’, which he uses “to convey the routinized, yet indeterminate, nature of social practice” (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009, p. 323).
This notion of the field also shows a resemblance with the concept of social (sub)-systems as articulated by Luhmann (Arnoldi, 2001). With the concept of sub-systems he also points at, for instance, the separate domains of politics, economy, science etc., which also have their own mechanisms of distinction and selection, and which, just as Bourdieus fields, “represent a specific viewpoint from which social reality is being observed and constructed” (Lippuner et al., 2009, p. 9).
References:
Arnoldi, J. (2001). Niklas Luhmann. An Introduction. In: Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. & Whatmore, S. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th edition. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Lippuner, R. & Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration Theory. In: International Encyclopedia for Human Geography. Elsevier.
