Abstract
This chapter considers the usefulness of Bourdieu’s field theory in understanding exchanges between small, intimate settings for cultural production and those of large-scale media and cultural industries. We suggest that there are four kinds of value for such a project in adopting Bourdieu’s approach. Firstly, the focus on the scale of production offers a useful alternative to terms such as ‘independent’, ‘fringe’ and ‘underground’. Secondly, Bourdieu’s framework allows greater precision in analysing exchanges between the two fields. Thirdly, Bourdieu’s conceptualisation is useful in understanding the value to bourgeois consumers of romantic discourses about autonomy from market imperatives. And finally, the approach facilitates comparison between areas of cultural practice that are not usually considered within the same analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alomes, S. (1983). Cultural radicalism in the sixties. Arena, 62, 28–54.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Ferguson, P. P. (1988). Flaubert’s point of view. Critical Inquiry, 14(3), 539–562.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). In R. Johnson (Ed.), The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (1980a). The aristocracy of culture. Media, Culture and Society, 2(3), 225–254.
Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (1980b). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture and Society, 2(3), 261–293.
Foster, R. (2006). A true hipster. The Monthly, July, p. 52.
Frith, S., & Horne, H. (1987). Art into pop. London: Methuen.
Heath, J., & Potter, A. (2004). Nation of rebels: Why counterculture became consumer culture. New York: Harper Collins.
Moore, T. (2012). Dancing with empty pockets – Australia’s Bohemians. Sydney: Murdoch Books.
Murger, H. (1930). Preface. The Latin Quarter (Scénes de la Vie Bohème). E. Marriage & J. Selwyn, (Trans.). London: Collins.
Shaw, K. (2013). Independent creative subcultures and why they matter. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 19(3), 333–352.
Tabrett, L. (2013). It’s culture stupid: Reflections of an arts bureaucrat. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Currency House.
Thompson, P. (2014). Field. In Michael J. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu – Key concepts (2nd ed., pp. 65–82). Abingdon: Routledge.
Thornton, S. (1996). Club cultures: Music, media and subcultural capital. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Walker, C. (1984). The next thing: Contemporary Australian rock. Kenturst, NSW: Kangaroo Press.
Wang, Y. (2016). Homology and isomorphism: Bourdieu in conversation with new institutionalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), 348–370.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gibson, M., Moore, T. (2018). Cultural Innovation on the Fringe—the Fields of ‘Limited’ and ‘Extensive’ Production. In: Albright, J., Hartman, D., Widin, J. (eds) Bourdieu’s Field Theory and the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5385-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5385-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5384-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5385-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)