Giddens And Bourdieu Analysis

Superior Essays
Comparing and Contrasting Giddens and Bourdieu Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu both focused their social theories on proving the same phenomenon. The central focus of their studies was related to the relationship between structure and agency. Previous classical theorists stated that both structure and agency were two different concepts that existed in opposition to each other. However, Giddens and Bourdieu set out their theories to prove that both structure and agency are separate concepts but, at the same time, they are dialectical in nature. Both contemporary theorists developed a unique theoretical framework that overcame the original sentiment of structure and agency existing in opposition to one another. Giddens and Bourdieu both …show more content…
In Giddens point of view, social structure is not external to society’s actors. Each individual has the capability to contribute to the social world but they do not possess the ability to solely alter the course of history by their own free will. Giddens explains that social structure exists within and through the various activities of individuals across time and space. The on-going practices of humans allow the conditions for reoccurring structural conditions. Likewise, Bourdieu explains that social structure is present among various dimensions and always has an impact upon the agency of humans. One example of this is how social structure controls an individual’s access to capital. Individuals create capital, but in reflection, capital determines where humans place on the social structure scale. The varying access to capital ultimately has an impact upon an individual’s influence and power within society. Giddens and Bourdieu both share the same theoretical framework. However, they both differ in how they explain their theoretical framework. When Giddens writes about the relationship between structure and agency, he redefines already defined concepts to fit his perspective. He redefines terms such as: agency, structure, action, and reflexivity. Giddens uses these terms from previous theorists and molds them to fit a new definition to compliment his view of a dialectical relationship …show more content…
These new concepts relate to previously defined concepts, but are created specifically by him to fit his new theoretical perspective. Bourdieu’s new concepts of objectivism and subjectivism relate to the previous concepts of structure and agency. It is with these new concepts that Bourdieu states that he believes there is a dialectical relationship between objectivism and subjectivism. He classifies his concepts of objectivists and subjectivists and states that one focuses on structures while ignoring agency, and the other focuses on agency while ignoring the structures within. He then sets out to prove that there is a dialectical relationship as a whole between the two, rather than the original notion of ignoring certain aspects of each. He also formulates different concepts that also define and explain the original concepts of structure and agency. Habitus and field are two other concepts that he created which ultimately lead to the name of his overlying theory. With everything that he theorized in mind, Bourdieu then personally defined his dialectical view between objectivism and subjectivism as constructivist

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Pierre Bourdieu Analysis

    • 1881 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu are two synthetic sociological theorists that tried to solve the issue of structure versus agency. Giddens and Bourdieu have two different ways of addressing this issue. Bourdieu addressed the issue through his theory of practice and concepts of habitus, capital and field. In his theory he tries to synthesis the concepts of agency versus structure but ultimately fails because in his theory it seems that structure is seen as the more influential force. Giddens on the other hand addressed the issue through his theory of structuration, which claimed that structures should be seen as the medium and outcome.…

    • 1881 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    They both laid various influential foundations that will help further transform philosophy into the science of all sciences. After giving a brief context to Fichte’s and Schelling’s writings, this essay has shown the major contrasting ideas of these two philosophers and the similarities that they share concerning an absolute principle. In Fichte’s, Review of Aenesidemus, and, On the Concept of the Wissenschaftslehre, he sides with Reinhold, showing that the freedom of consciousness is not a fact, but an act, and wants to promote that philosophy could be structured on a circular single absolute first principle, the self-positing of the I. In Schelling’s Philosophical Letters on Dogmatism and Criticism, he explains the origin of the distinction of dogmatism and criticism, while addressing problems such as a moral God and the deeper and profound meaning of Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason. The major difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s writings is based on their specific systems of philosophy.…

    • 1424 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I strongly believe that rationalism surpasses empiricism through the ideas of innate thoughts. Innate thoughts are placed in our minds to help us understand wrong from right. Rationalism also uses reason to come to a conclusion rather than living through the experience. Yes, we do learn from our experiences, but we can also use our brains to come up with assumptions of possible outcomes. Lastly we can rely on the principles of deduction, because we know for a fact that what is being studied or what is happening is for certain.…

    • 1139 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Through the analysis of Goffman’s work as critiqued by others and in relation to someone who expanded on his theories it can be concluded whether Goffman is in fact a credible source for understanding impression management. Examining first the impact Goffman’s work has had on sociology and the issues applied against his theory. Author Philip Manning (1992) examines Goffman 's work in his novel, Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Manning explains Goffman 's theory in association to modern society. Furthermore, Manning recognizes the complexity of Goffman’s work and claims that while other social scientist may apply some of Goffman’s theories to evolve their own work, they are not equipped to amplify his study of social interaction.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It may also be contended that this absolute identity cannot be discursively demonstrated or conceptually articulated (because demonstration and conceptualization already presuppose a subject-object split) but can only be apprehended immediately in an intellectual intuition. Comparing these against one another with their thought processes and presuppositions in mind, my personal assessment leans towards that of Fichte’s conclusion and position. My reasoning behind this is heavily influenced by Heinrich, who enabled me to be more able to discern the process of logic that Fichte employed which brought his insights to fruition. Firstly, it should be again stated that Fichte has this belief of the original act of self-positing being an inalienable feature of our mode of being as subjects. As…

    • 705 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One significant response to it was the paper by Fred Adams and Ken Aizawa. They proposed to defend common sense through their work on The bounds of cognition. In The bounds of cognition, Adams and Aizawa propose a multitude of arguments for the Extended Cognition Theory, basically picking apart the theory as a whole. Two of the arguments that are worth noting are the two marks of cognition and the coupling argument. In Adams and Aizawa’s writing, they establish acceptance of one of Clark and Chalmers’ principles.…

    • 1412 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I related with Camus’ thoughts on being able to change the way one thinks and with Sartre’s thoughts on existence preceding essence. But, I disagree with Kierkegaard 's thoughts on subjectivity and objectivity and with Sartre’s thoughts on forlornness, anguish, and despair. Because of personal beliefs, I found that I could relate these ideas to my life and to the world around me. In the first book, “The Fear and Trembling” by Kierkegaard, subjectivity and objectivity are two main ideas that are talked about. When one thinks the objective way one is trying to gain truth by eliminating the subjective way and if one thinks the subjective way one is trying to…

    • 1714 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The human nature of understanding is a worldwide concept, that has been adapted over time. These concepts of human understanding were introduced differently by philosophers. John Locke and David Hume, documente in their treatises how the human nature of understanding works. In many arguments of reasoning, Locke states that humans should be on the same level of thinking and knowledge to argue about an idea. David Hume believes that fact is a contradiction, and with contradiction you can’t argue with.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Creativity Vs Discipline

    • 1772 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Within the warrant, “a general principle or reason used to connect the data with the claim” (p. 194). Finally, Toulimin creates a “claim” to the response, data, and the warrant. Using an argument process like Toulimin’s, allows research to move towards truth and could ultimately provide more of a pluralistic outcome. If a writer were to use Toulimin’s model of argument, he or she leaves the argument open to assumptions within their claim. Toulimin is leading an argument towards “recognizing claims, data, warrants” which is much more diverse than the syllogistic…

    • 1772 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Grasping the recursive nature of social practices - the duality of structure – is according to Giddens, the key to achieving this (Aston, 2013). Giddens suggests systems, influence people’s actions, but in turn, structures continue to exist only if they are supported by people’s repeated actions. Giddens concept of the duality of structure combines agency and structure into one instead of seeing them as a dualism that consists of two separate although connected phenomena (Aston,…

    • 1026 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays