French sociologist and anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002)  is best known for his theoretical and epistemological approach, which he calls by various names: genetic structuralism, constructivist structuralism, structuralist constructivism, and reflexive sociology, although this approach is best known for its specific use of Bourdieu's key theoretical concepts of "field" and "habitus". Bourdieu most consistently set out this theoretical approach in his books Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1977, in French 1970), Outline for a Theory of Practice (1977, in French 1972), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment Taste (19894, in French 1979), and An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992). The epistemological basis of Bourdieu's approach is based on his tendency to overcome binary oppositions (dichotomies) prevalent in social sciences: subjectivism/ objectivism, physicalism/psychology, structure/actors, theory/empiricism, micro/macro, causal explanation/interpretive explanation, materialism/idealism, methodological individualism/methodological, etc. The apparent dualism of these paired concepts is caused by social factors, that is, intellectual rivalry, which produces a narrow and rigid division between scientific disciplines, subdisciplines, and theoretical directions. Bourdieu's solution to overcoming these divisions is to use a truly critical and reflexive social science that will always pay attention to the socio-political context, especially the power relations within which scientific research is conducted and the context that affects the subject of study. This approach requires a critical and reflexive attitude towards theory and methodology, but also towards the practices of the people who are the subject of research. The essence of this "reflexive" epistemology is the constant, systematic, and strict use of self-criticism and introspection of scientists who study society.

Bourdieu's theoretical approach introduces two key theoretical concepts: "habitus" and "field". In addition to these two concepts, the following concepts are very important for Bourdieu's theory: "practice", "strategy", "capital", "distinction", "symbolic power", "symbolic violence" and "doxa". All of these concepts have, in Bourdieu's approach, a very specific meaning, different from the way these terms are used by other sociologists. The term field denotes a specific semi-autonomous sphere of social life that has its own logic. Each field has its institutions, its own rules, governing values, norms of behavior, and desirable goods (physical or symbolic) to be possessed. Examples of fields are: politics, science, art, religion, education, etc. Each field has its structure, that is, a network of relationships between objective positions occupied by the individual or collective actors acting within that field. The number of fields themselves and their development varies between different societies. Historical development is especially important, because with the emergence of modern complex industrial societies there comes an increase in the number of fields, an increase in their autonomy, and an increase in the structure and complexity of each field. What is crucial for Bourdieu's sociology is the view that the analysis of power relations and the actions that individual and collective actors take, to increase their power, within different fields, is key to understanding society. Each field is the scene of more or less open fighting. Actors in dominant positions will adopt defensive and conservative strategies to preserve their status, while those in lower positions will develop subversive strategies aimed at overthrowing the governing rules, while, most often, accepting the legitimacy of the field itself.

Habitus is a theoretical concept that was introduced to social sciences by German sociologist Norbert Elias. In Bourdieu's approach habitus represents the mental and cognitive structure of every person, which enables people to act in society. Each person internalizes these mental structures by living in society. Habitus gives people rules for understanding, valuing, and classifying all aspects of society. On the other hand, the habitus gives people the ability to act in society, because it creates long-term predispositions to, more or less, instinctively react in a certain situation. Habitus is associated with social class, because individuals, that are in the same class, share a common culture and taste. Habitus is not adopted by simple internalization and acceptance of social norms, but cognitively, through daily action within the field. Habitus is adopted partly on a conscious level and partly on an unconscious level. Actors act pragmatically, but their goals and means, for the most part, are not determined consciously and rationally, but spring from a socially constructed "the feel for the game."

It is the concept of practice that theoretically connects habitus and field. Everyday practices of people, within some field, shapes the habitus, but, at the same time, these practices contribute to maintaining or changing the very structure and rules of a field. According to Bourdieu, practice is crucial, so he puts much more emphasis on what people really do than on what they think or say should be done. Bourdieu also uses the metaphor of game, to explain habitus and practice; where habitus would represent knowledge of the rules and "the feel for the game", while practice would represent moves that players take in the game. A very important aspect of practice is the "strategy" that actors use to achieve their goals within some field. Most strategies are not the product of conscious planning, but they are, most often, unconscious rules that enable improvisation in everyday life. Of course, such improvised strategic activities must be effective to achieve the goals.

In order for to achieve their goals, that is, for their strategies to be successful, individual and collective actors use various forms of capital. There are four types of capital that can be employed within each field (although different types of capital will be more effective in different fields): symbolic capital, cultural capital, economic capital, and social capital. While the notion of economic capital is very close to what economists mean by capital, other forms of capital are specific to Bourdieu's approach. Symbolic capital consists of prestige, status, titles, and reputation. Social capital consists of social networks and personal acquaintances that an individual can use to implement his strategy. A person's cultural capital depends on the amount of knowledge and the ability to use symbolic cultural forms that are associated with the top of the hierarchy within each field. The form of cultural capital to which Bourdieu pays the greatest attention is high art, ie knowledge of classical music, painting, fine literature, and the like. Within the upper class, there is an inverse relationship between the size of economic and cultural capital. To achieve a generational reproduction of class position, those with the most economic capital can achieve reproduction by using only economic capital, while those who do not have enough economic capital need cultural capital to preserve positions within the ruling class.

Bourdieu believes that each field is a stratified hierarchical system within which there are relations of power and domination. Of all the forms of power and domination, the most important are symbolic power and symbolic violence. All cultural symbols - art, food and clothing patterns, science, religion, language - serve to pursue the interests of those in power. Those at the top of the hierarchy of a field use symbols to preserve, increase and legitimize that power, so such strategies are a source of symbolic power and symbolic violence. Symbolic power and violence have the function of creating and increasing social "distinction". The distinction, conceived in this way, is a separate analytical concept in Bourdieu's approach and is the main theme of his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment Taste. Society is filled with the great struggle to create social distinctions, because class struggles are, in essence, struggles to create a symbolic classification of people into distinct classes. Symbolic power and symbolic violence serve to create, legitimize and preserve the distinctions that exist between social classes. When symbolic power succeeds in gaining a monopoly on the legitimacy of power relations and the "distinctions" that exist between classes within a field, then that field begins to have its own doxa, that is, common sense, which serves to present power relations and distinctions as natural and self-evident. The goal of those who exercise domination is to, with the help of symbolic power, present the relations of power so legitimate and self-evident that any attempt of resistance by the oppressed is extinguished. That is why self-restraint and self-censorship, imposed on themselves by oppressed actors, are the most effective forms of reproduction of power relations.

                                              Class analysis

In addition to Bourdieu's theoretical work, he also conducted empirical research to examine the applicability of his approach. In the aforementioned book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment Taste, he explores the relationship between cultural consumption and class. This book is based on a large empirical study of cultural consumption, including newspapers, music, food, and other forms of consumption. He concluded that there are three hierarchically ordered types of aesthetic taste or style of cultural consumption: elite (legitimate), middlebrow, and popular (mass). Elite aesthetic taste characterizes, first of all, the dominant class, although Bourdieu found that in this class there is an inverse relationship between the size of economic and the size of cultural capital. Each type of cultural consumption and taste serves to give individuals a sense of place within the social structure. The aesthetic taste of a person (elite, middlebrow, or mass) in one of the areas of cultural consumption (e.g. art) usually corresponds to the type of taste in other areas (e.g. fashion, sports, literature).

In the same Book Bourdieu presents his theoretical approach to classes and his classification of classes in France. Bourdieu sees classes as the product of symbolic self-classification of a particular group, but also of external classification by other groups. A significant and underestimated aspect of class tensions is, in Bourdieu's opinion, the "classification struggle" concerning the symbolic function of everyday cultural consumption and lifestyles. The biggest difference between Bourdieu, on the one hand, and Marxist and Weberian authors, on the other, is that he does not define classes according to their position in relations of production, but defines different classes according to the level of different forms of capital they possess, and how relations between those forms of capital affect the collective and individual practices of members of different classes. Individuals, as members of different classes, use their capital - of all types - to develop strategies and put them into practice, all with the aim of improving or maintaining their own position. The success of these strategies for each individual is what Bourdieu calls the "social trajectory" of the individual.

The class habitus of workers is shaped by the internalization of their own class position, and this internalization occurs during early socialization, primarily through the family and the school system. Accordingly, habitus acts as a socialized form of capital. Formal educational qualifications are a particularly important aspect of cultural capital. Habitus, inherent in different classes, is not directly a product of the position of these classes in production relations but is related to the size and composition of different types of capital, which condition the emergence of specific living conditions, thus creating a "class position" for a particular class. The living conditions of some class create a specific class habitus, for that class.

According to Bourdieu, individuals occupy different professional locations within the general system of professions and vocations, and these relationships form a professional structure. Bourdieu’s class scheme classifies all persons, who are in the professional structure, according to the locations they occupy within that professional structure. In that sense, the division of labor by professions represents the structure of objective positions - "locations" that are "occupied" by individuals.

Class locations can be positioned over three separate dimensions or axes. The first axis concerns the total capital, primarily economic and cultural, which individuals have at their disposal through their profession. This axis is most important for positioning individuals in a particular class. Industrialists, directors, and university professors have large capital at their disposal, and therefore share the same class location and together form the dominant class. Manual workers do not own any form of capital and together they form a working (dominated) class. In the middle, between these two classes, are technicians, small business owners, and those who perform routine administrative tasks, and they make up the "petty bourgeoisie", or the middle class.

The second axis concerns the differences that exist within the classes, in proportion to the type of capital different factions of the same class have at their disposal. The same class contains different factions, and these factions differ according to the type of capital that individuals in specific locations have at their disposal. Professors and those who control the creation of aesthetic content have great cultural capital, but little economic capital. On the other hand, industrialists have large economic capital, but small cultural capital. The third axis examines the intragenerational and intergenerational mobility of individuals, both between different classes and between factions of the same class. Bourdieu's research showed that there are three basic class locations in France: the dominant class, the middle class, and the working class.

                                               Research on Academic World

Bourdieu explored the academic world in the books Homo Academicus (1984) and State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1998, in French 1989). He examines the relationship between fields, habitus, and different forms of capital within the French university system. Special attention is paid to sociology as a discipline and its key authors. Bourdieu studies the social origins of these sociologists, what they published and where, their political engagement, the institutions with which they are connected, their media appearances, etc. This helped him make a map showing the forms of capital used, as well as how power and conflict take place within a French university. Bourdieu also studied the field of television, above all, television journalism. He singles out two opposite types of television journalism - "pure" (autonomous) and commercial. pure journalists organize their work autonomously, in accordance with ethical and professional principles. The work of commercial journalists is aimed at creating content that will increase the rating, viewership, and income from advertisements, all with the aim of achieving the economic and political interests of corporate media owners. The commercial approach to journalism is becoming dominant, and one of the consequences of that trend is the depoliticization of news, which is increasingly focused on human stories, sensations, and public scandals, and, at the same time, increasingly neglects socially and politically important topics. Television can also serve as a place where actors from other fields (science, culture), and those who have failed in their fields, can find their refuge and a place for self-promotion if they are suitable for the television.

Bourdieu's work left a big impact on many sociologists and scientists from related social sciences, although fewer scientists strictly apply his approach, of which most notable and influential are: Luc Boltanski, Alain Darbel, Jean-Claude Passeron, Monique de St. Martin, and Loïc Wacquant.

Authors: Bourdieu, Pierre. Boltanski, Luc; Darbel, Alain; Passeron, Jean-Claude; St. Martin, Monique de; Wacquant, Loïc.

Books:

Boltanski, L., The Making of a Class. Cadres in French Society (1987, in French 1982); 

     -     Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics (1999);

     -     The New Spirit of Capitalism (2005);

     -     On Justification. The Economies of Worth (2006);  

     -     On Critique - a Sociology of Emancipation (2011); 

     -     Love and Justice as Competences - Three Essays on the Sociology of Action (2012, in French 1990); 

Bourdieu. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1977, in French 1970);

     -     Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977, in French 1972);

     -     The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relations to Culture (1979, in French 1964);

     -     Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1984, in French 1979);

     -     State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1998, in French 1989);

     -     The Field of Cultural Production (1993a);

     -     Free Exchange (1995);

     -     Academic Discourse: Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power (1996);

     -     Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action (1998c);

     -     The Social Structures of the Economy (2005);

     -     On Television and Journalism (1998, in French 1996);

     -     The Logic of Practice (1990, in French 1980);

     -     Homo academicus (1990, in French 1984);

     -     In Other Words: Essays toward a Reflective Sociology (1990, in French 1987);

     -     Language and Symbolic Power (1991, in French 1982);

     -     Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society (1999, in French 1993b);

     -     Masculine Domination (2001, in French 1998a);

     -     Counterfire: Against the Tyranny of the Market (2003, in French 1998b);

     -     Science of Science and Reflexivity (2004, in French 2001);

     -     General Sociology, vol 1-3 (2019-2021, in French 2012, 2016);

Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone (eds.). Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives (1993);

Grenfell, Michael. Pierre Bourdieu: Agent Provocateur (2004);

Jenkins, Richard.  Pierre Bourdieu (2002);

Parker, John. Structuration. (2000);

Robbins, Derek. Bourdieu and Culture (1999);

Wacquant, Loïc. Body and Soul: Ethnographic Notebooks of An Apprentice-Boxer (2004); 

     -     Pierre Bourdieu and Democratic Politics (2005); 

     -     Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality (2008); 

     -     Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (2009);

     -     Prisons of Poverty (2009); 

     -     Deadly Symbiosis: Race and the Rise of Neoliberal Penality (2009).