Giddens And Bourdieu Analysis

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