Abstract
Marcel Mauss and Pierre Bourdieu underline the role of objects—or of the mediations of exchanges as we say, particularly their importance for a relational perspective in sociology. If Mauss remains unsystematic in this regard, Bourdieu delivers a theory of capitals illustrating the power of non-human beings, a view promoted by Bruno Latour in his sociology of associations. Chapter 5 compares Bourdieu and Latour, and shows that they have similar views on the link between mediations and institutions, the role of the institutions in the consecration of the cycles of the relation, the legitimacy of the actors and of the institutions involved in this cycles. Both view this legitimacy as dependant on shared interests between actors and institutions, an argument which puts Latour not only near to Bourdieu, but also to Émile Durkheim.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
As Faveraux points out, Bourdieu sees “the institution…as what, first, serves reproduction only, and second, as what establishes [some actors or groups; CP], rather than what has been established [by them; CP]” (Favereau 2001, 301). This single observation actually reminds us of many French contributions to sociology that attempt to extend Bourdieu’s critique of institutions. They try to analyse how this encoding of habitus works in relation to institutions (for example, Lahire 1998), and how it sustains the criticism that individual actors address to institutional frames in society (Boltanski and Thévenot 1987)—in other words the resistance of individuals to their society, as discussed in the first two chapters (cf. also Lamont 2010, 136; Guggenheim and Potthast 2012, 157–178). Such perspectives suggest that more attention has to be paid to the question of institutional control, as has already been pointed out by former relational sociologists such as Harrison White (cf. Chap. 1). In Chap. 6 this question of institutional control will be given special attention.
- 2.
Vogt has already proposed also reading Mauss’ discourse on the techniques of the body for a more general view on technique (Vogt 1976, 33–44).
- 3.
For a short introduction to a comparison between Bourdieu and Latour in the perspective of relational sociology, see Schinkel (2007, 707–729).
- 4.
We recognise here the influence of Erwing Goffman on Bourdieu, to which Bourdieu pays tribute elsewhere (Bourdieu 1983, 112–113).
- 5.
As Breslau says, “Uniting the two meanings of the word ‘representation’, the concept shows that representing a social group and representing an object of science are identical in network terms” (Breslau 2000, 305). Breslau suggests that authority on the mediations of exchange gives authority over the group—in the context of the quote from Latour, a group of scientists.
- 6.
Knorr Cetina underlines this by saying that there is therefore no longer any need to postulate that scientists and all other actors would hide their strategies in order to get their symbolic profits. On the contrary, scientists immediately show their interest in credibility, and they act correspondingly in their daily scientific practice (Knorr 1979, 373 note 36).
- 7.
To say it in Schubert’s words, the production of belief in Bourdieu is “the work of socialization necessary to produce agents endowed with the schemes of perception and appreciation that will permit them to perceive and obey the injunctions inscribed in a situation or discourse” (Schubert 2008, 196–197 note 10).
- 8.
For Bourdieu, the effect of a field is the deterministic effect by this field on any kind of production within that field—which is another way to stress the unilateral power of the field over the institutions within or, therefore, to stress the subjection of institutional logic by the logic of fields (cf. for example Bourdieu 1975, 139, 1985b, 73, 1991c, 3–46).
- 9.
Gooday emphasises that, for Latour, institutions—and in particular scientific institutions—have the specific function of transforming the world (Gooday 2008, 794 note 30), which is a direct consequence of their constitution as heterogeneous assemblages of heterogeneous humans and non-humans. This attention paid to heterogeneity and renewal distinguishes Latour’s understanding of institutions from that of Bourdieu, who considers that institutions contribute to the reproduction of the structures of fields.
- 10.
Riis sees in Latour’s reasoning on black boxes the origin of a “‘political ontology’”, which we observe all the more when we link black boxes to institutional authority (Riis 2008, 288).
- 11.
This also means that building black boxes is for every institution a way to simplify the complexity that those institutions face when they develop. Thus, black boxes have a critical function for institutions because they provide means to simplify their reproduction (cf. also Schmitt 2009, 216). Nevertheless, what is true for institutions is not true for the public—black boxes represent the complexity of an institution to the public, and thus protect the institutions against possible criticism coming from the public.
- 12.
From this viewpoint, we cannot say with Law that the prospect of ANT (Actor-Network-theory) such as Latour conceives it, leads to a study of social inequalities (Law 1992, 379–393). By the way, the relativisation and the shift of this question away from the centre to the periphery of sociological inquiry is not only specific to ANT but it is a common feature shared by those sociologies.
- 13.
This is also why we cannot put Latour and Bourdieu into radically opposite positions because the former only speaks of associations while the latter speaks of fields. These two concepts certainly enable us to underline important differences between both authors as we have seen. However, there are noticeable similarities in their views on state, institutions, individual actors, mediations of exchange, and labour with and on these mediations (cf. on this point, on the example of the scientific field, Kale-Lostuvali 2016, 273–296).
Bibliography
Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1987. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: PUF.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. L’ontologie politique de Martin Heidegger. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 1: 109–156.
———. 1976. Le champ scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 2: 88–104.
———. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1980a. The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods. Media, Culture and Society 2: 1–93.
———. 1980b. Le mort saisit le vif. Actes de la recherche en sciences socials 32–33: 3–14.
———. 1981b. La représentation politique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 36–37: 3–24.
———. 1982. Les rites comme actes d’institution. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 43: 58–63.
———. 1983. Erving Goffman, Discoverer of the Infinitely Small. Theory, Culture and Society 2: 112–113.
———. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
———. 1985b. Effet de champ et effet de corps. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 59: 73.
———. 1986. La force du droit. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 64: 3–19.
———. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1990a. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1990b. In Other Words. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1991b. The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason. Sociological Forum 6: 3–26.
———. 1991c. Le champ littéraire. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 89: 3–46.
———. 1995. The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 1998. The State Nobility. Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Cambridge: Polity.
———. 2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Luc Boltanski. 1976. La production de l’idéologie dominante. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 2: 3–73.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Alain Darbel, and Dominique Schnapper. 1997. The Love of Art. European Art Museums and Their Public. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Yvette Delsaut. 1975. Le couturier et sa griffe: contribution à une théorie de la magie. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 1: 7–36.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1979. Inheritors. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
———. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Loic Wacquant, and Samar Farage. 1994. Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field. Sociological Theory 12: 1–18.
Breslau, Daniel. 2000. Sociology After Humanism: A Lesson from Contemporary Science Studies. Sociological Theory 18: 289–307.
Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. 1981. Unscrewing the Big Leviathan; or How Actors Macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So? In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, ed. Karin Knorr and Aaron Cicourel, 277–303. London: Routledge.
Fauconnet, Paul, and Marcel Mauss. 1901 (1969). Sociologie. Œuvres 3. Cohésion sociale et division de la sociologie. Paris: Minuit, 139–177.
Favereau, Olivier. 2001. L’économie du sociologue ou penser (l’orthodoxie) à partir de Pierre Bourdieu. In Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu, ed. Bernard Lahire, 255–314. Paris: La Découverte.
Gooday, Graeme. 2008. Placing or Replacing the Laboratory in the History of Science? Isis 99: 783–795.
Guggenheim, Michael, and Jörg Potthast. 2012. Symmetrical Twins: On the Relationship Between Actor-Network Theory and the Sociology of Critical Capacities. European Journal of Social Theory 15: 157–178.
Kale-Lostuvali, Elif. 2016. Two Sociologies of Science in Search of Truth: Bourdieu Versus Latour. Social Epistemology 30: 273–296.
Knorr, Karin. 1979. Tinkering Toward Success: Prelude to a Theory of Scientific Practice. Theory and Society 8: 347–376.
Lahire, Bernard. 1998. L’homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Nathan.
Lamont, Michèle. 2010. Looking Back at Bourdieu. In Cultural Analysis and Bourdieu’s Legacy. Settling Accounts and Developing Alternatives, ed. Elizabeth Silva and Alan Warde, 128–141. New York: Routledge.
———. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
———. 1988a. A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity. Social Studies of Science 18: 3–44.
———. 1988b. How to Write ‘The Prince’ for Machines as Well as for Machinations? In Technology and Social Change, ed. Brian Elliott, 20–43. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
———. 1993a. Petites Leçons de sociologie des sciences. Paris: La Découverte.
———. 1993b. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
———. 1994a. On Technical Mediation – Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy. Common Knowledge 3: 29–64.
———. 1994b. Pragmatogonies. A Mythical Account of How Humans and Nonhumans Swap Properties. American Behavioral Scientist 37: 791–808.
———. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
———. 2001. L’espoir de Pandore. Pour une version réaliste de l’activité scientifique. Paris: La Découverte.
———. 2004. Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
———. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2011. Politics of Nature: East and West Perspectives. Ethics & Global Politics 4: 1–10.
———. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Paolo Fabbri. 1977. La rhétorique du discours scientifique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 13: 81–96.
Latour, Bruno, and Shirley Strum. 1986. Human Social Origins: Oh Please, Tell Us Another Story. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 9: 169–187.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Law, John. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systemic Practice and Action Research 5: 379–393.
———. 1902–1903 (2001). A General Theory of Magic. London and New York: Routledge.
———. 1925 (2002). The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, New York: Routledge.
———. 1927 (1969). Divisions et proportions des divisions de la sociologie. Œuvres 3. Cohésion sociale et division de la sociologie. Paris: Minuit, 178–245.
———. 1947 (2007). Manual of Ethnography. New York, Oxford: Durkheim Press/Berghahn Books.
———. 1973. The Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society 2: 70–88.
Riis, Søren. 2008. The Symmetry Between Bruno Latour and Martin Heidegger: The Technique of Turning a Police Officer into a Speed Bump. Social Studies of Science 38: 285–301.
Schinkel, Willam. 2007. Sociological Discourse of the Relational: The Case of Bourdieu and Latour. The Sociological Review 55: 707–729.
Schmitt, Marco. 2009. Trennen und Verbinden. Soziologische Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Gedächtnisses. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Schubert, J. Daniel. 2008. Suffering. In Pierre Bourdieu. Key Concepts, ed. Michael Grenfell, 183–198. Stocksfield: Acumen.
Vogt, W. Paul. 1976. The Uses of Studying Primitives: A Note on the Durkheimians, 1890–1940. History and Theory 15: 33–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Papilloud, C. (2018). Mediations: Pierre Bourdieu and Bruno Latour on Objects, Institution and Legitimisation. In: Sociology through Relation. Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65073-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65073-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65072-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65073-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)