Critical discussion of Pierre Bourdeui’s written works: Pierre Bourdieu produced many influential pieces of text throughout his life time, but no three were import to his contribution to anthropology than the three discussed below. Each piece of text contributes a small section to an overarching theory of the development of society Bourdieu is trying to create that explains the reproduction and maintenance of society. The “Outline of a Theory of Practice” (1977) is one of Bourdieu’s most accliamed pieces of writing. Bourdieu in this text closely examines the previous practices which have dominated the understanding of human actions have failed in truly understanding them. Bourdieu subsequently develops a new theory of ‘practice’
…show more content…
Bourdieu’s first section “The Objective Limits of Objectivism”, addresses the issues he identifies with in the practice of observing academic study of society, particularly he identifies the rule governed nature of the social sciences. Here Bourdieu wrotes about one his most famous ethnographic pieces of fieldwork the Kabyle peoples of the Berbers. Bourdieu studied their marriage and kinship structures whilst risiding in Algeria. Bourdieu assertained that that certain rules surround whom married whom were only invoked when it suited either party, in the case of the Kabyle it was marrying patrilateral parallel cousins. Bourdieu concluded that society was not goverened by rules but, rather by strategy of its participants. Bourdieu’s second section of the text”Structures and Habitus” provides an insight into Bourdieu’s ideas surrounding why the rule goverened approach of the social sciences is failing and developing habitus as a response to this failing. Habitus as a theory aims to explain the production of culture with a certain space. Bourdieu identifies it as an active agent of reproducing the environment around and individual …show more content…
This text leads on from “The Forms of Capital” (1986) to futher develop the symbolist meaning of elements and actions within society. This text emainines the exchanges with society in a symbolic method that convey power through language, symbols politics. Bourdieu divided “Language & Symbolic Power” into three parts. Part one, ‘The Economy of Lingustic Exchanges’ delves into the power of language within society. Bourdieu propses that lingustic usage varies according to where a person resides within a society and with whom they interact with. It demonstrates the reproduction of the social structure within which they dwell. For Example how a certain word can mean two different things but it depends on the context in which it is utter. The difference in meaning provides a demonstration of the intricate nuances that exist within each society. A modern example of this would be the word ‘thong’: to an Australian this refers to an open shoe to be worn during summer. To other cultures a thong as a piece of underwear. This cultural comparison clearly identify the same word but in different ways witheach culture illustrating the power of lingustics in cultural understanging. Part two of Bourdieu’s text, ‘The Social Institution of Symbolic power’ explores how symbolic power is infused within the social structure. The symbolic nature of tangible and intagilble
Bourdieu’s first section “The Objective Limits of Objectivism”, addresses the issues he identifies with in the practice of observing academic study of society, particularly he identifies the rule governed nature of the social sciences. Here Bourdieu wrotes about one his most famous ethnographic pieces of fieldwork the Kabyle peoples of the Berbers. Bourdieu studied their marriage and kinship structures whilst risiding in Algeria. Bourdieu assertained that that certain rules surround whom married whom were only invoked when it suited either party, in the case of the Kabyle it was marrying patrilateral parallel cousins. Bourdieu concluded that society was not goverened by rules but, rather by strategy of its participants. Bourdieu’s second section of the text”Structures and Habitus” provides an insight into Bourdieu’s ideas surrounding why the rule goverened approach of the social sciences is failing and developing habitus as a response to this failing. Habitus as a theory aims to explain the production of culture with a certain space. Bourdieu identifies it as an active agent of reproducing the environment around and individual …show more content…
This text leads on from “The Forms of Capital” (1986) to futher develop the symbolist meaning of elements and actions within society. This text emainines the exchanges with society in a symbolic method that convey power through language, symbols politics. Bourdieu divided “Language & Symbolic Power” into three parts. Part one, ‘The Economy of Lingustic Exchanges’ delves into the power of language within society. Bourdieu propses that lingustic usage varies according to where a person resides within a society and with whom they interact with. It demonstrates the reproduction of the social structure within which they dwell. For Example how a certain word can mean two different things but it depends on the context in which it is utter. The difference in meaning provides a demonstration of the intricate nuances that exist within each society. A modern example of this would be the word ‘thong’: to an Australian this refers to an open shoe to be worn during summer. To other cultures a thong as a piece of underwear. This cultural comparison clearly identify the same word but in different ways witheach culture illustrating the power of lingustics in cultural understanging. Part two of Bourdieu’s text, ‘The Social Institution of Symbolic power’ explores how symbolic power is infused within the social structure. The symbolic nature of tangible and intagilble