Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:29:53 -0700 for <socgrad@UCSD.EDU>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Duniway <duniway@u.washington.edu>
Subject: re:Bourdieu and RCT
To: alina oh <alinaoh@midway.uchicago.edu>
On Thu, 13 Oct 1994, alina oh wrote:

[snip]
> Where I part ways though, is with the argument in favour of a simplified
> model of homo economicus. 

I'm suggesting (ala Wagner) that the utility of RCT simplification is not 
is its descriptive validity (clearly we don't think about all of our 
activity) but in the fact that sometimes models of behavior AS IF it were 
based on reasoning are useful.  If habitus is shaped by strategic 
response to resources and interests, then activity will be quasi 
rational, and if you were interested in predicting it RCT might work 
quite well.

> 
> The concept of the habitus enables Bourdieu to develop an alternative
> conceptual language for behavioral patterns that do not reference explicit
> rules or norms, or represent the sum of individual acts -- I find this
> missing in most RCT stuff that I ve come across. 

I agree that one of Bourdieu's strengths is that he gets out of some 
conventional semantic traps by creating a new set of analytical terms.  I 
also agree that RCT doesn't talk much about the reason for preferences, 
so they don't talk about norms very often (Yes I know Steve, some 
probably do, but I'm simplifying so I can wrap my brain around it.).  
Sometimes that is important, and in other circumstances it doesn't matter 
much.

> 
> I also agree with your initial definition of field - as it refers to both the
> totality of actors and organizations involved in an arena of social or
> cultural production and the dynamic relationships among them [e.g. an
> "intellectual field"] -  but what seems to be missing from your
> interpretation is -- that the field concept also suggests a hierarchically
> structured arrangement of social relations within a space according to
> certain interests, power relations and hierarchies of value and judgement. 

I think you may be confusing the concept with the empirical generalities 
in the fields Bourdieu studied.  As I understand his use of the term, 
field is analogous to a shared understanding of the goals and rules of a 
particular game.  I think by hierarchies of goals and judgements you are 
referring to the same thing I refer to as goals, so there is no 
disagreement there.  But a field does not necessarily suggest 
hierarchical social and/or power relations.  I'm being really nit picky 
here, because in most instances such hierarchies would be present, but 
they aren't logically necessary.  What Bourdieu does is argue that the 
first thing you need to understand is the structure of the field, so you 
need to ascertain what, if any, power relations exist by figuring out 
what types of capital are relevant and who has it.  I'm not trying to 
argue as much as clarify, since I think we aren't disagreeing, just 
analyzing his work slightly differently.

Bob Duniway					University of Washington