in TC Alsrander, Fin de Siecle Social ana the Problem of Reason. Verse, 99S ———— The Reality of Reduction: ‘The Failed Synthesis of Pierre Bourdieu Pierre Bowden has become the most infvenial “entical theorist fn the world of social sence In an age marked by the death of ‘communis his oravee may be viewed asthe most impressive living ‘nbodimen ofa neo-Marvist tradition that triumphant only a decade ‘go, curently is stopping to survive Indeed, despite the author's own, ‘lain othe contrary (e Boutdicu 1990br 22 and 123-39), and hs Impressvely omnivorous ingestion of vat portions of theeeially| shtaponistic ideas, Bourdieu's work cannot be understood unless i ‘sscem asthe latest inthe longline of blliane constructors ol asst ‘of thought be himself has rately defended but which, nouethelss, Penetates tothe very martow of his social since Veshape itis the fare to recognize the cultural dust of every ‘important form often centry Mares that has made Burd’ ‘qu Marxist lineaments s0 invisible ro so many. His American iter preter (eg, Brubaker 1985; DiMaggio 1979: +4695 Ringe 1993), for ‘example tend to deny or ovelook this fundamental theoretical lnk CGaltural Maraiststhemacives have had no sich trouble, resizing and sometimes ric Bourdieu’ work a part of the century long sllort extending from Lakies and Gramec to the later Srte ad Habermas to create a nco-Macxs theory of supersteactaral forms? Stuart Hall (+9729), key figure in de Briish clara suds schoo that originated in Brminghan, has hailed Bourdieu fr promising to devclop'an adequate Mars theory of ideology.” Nicholas Gaenhan fand Raymond Williams (4980: 241) also have recognized shat, "while Bourdieu as concentrated his attention upon the wade of denination, + Relativism , Reduction, ‘upon what he calls the exercise of Symbolic Power, his theory is east se resolutely materialist terms” ‘Yer here ea paradox bere Fo, peshaps more than any eters scientist inthe cca taiion, Bourdieu has moved well beyond fnerelyteisions effort to tinker with one part or another of Marx's ‘eiinl thought. Rather, like Habermas, he has sought heroically 9 ‘ecorstract orca materialism ad evento create anew theory th ‘rhe resembling orginal Macxisn in critical respects, simulaneously eke o dnplace tm spent ays Indeed, we were 0 employ the Kind of metasociology of knowlege to which Bourdieu himsel ‘often so ecklesly resorts we might say tha being a Bourdewian has become a mark of distinction precisely because ofthe isis engulfing the neo-Marais tan. In a period that has subjected materials tovial theory to reenfess epistemological etigue, iis vital ies fave that his own critical approach acces the importance, if ot the authenticity, of symbokic action and cultural systems, At she same ime, however, hourdie’s work gives ul play tothe materialism and Conroe cynic of cor time. In am age when wtopian hopes have tecome rovtnied, when liberation movements have ven way 10 fondymentalis revivals and socialist regimes to market econbmic, Bourgiew’s understanding of action and der implies that hi mast be so, No matter what the ideals of an actor, 2 group, oa ags, Houriew’s theory of practice suggests, they are bound co be degraded by the strategie wll to power that undedics, ad undermines, every menological Alco wich deseribes anconscious intention weaving affect and ‘Lema into the orderly continuity of contingent interaction ~is never Allowed to ineude. After ally one can acknowledge the opitying ‘Timcnson of action ap equa othe strategic only if one concepualzes ts mernalenvtonments (te psychological and cltral ones) a5 Merng action independently of us external environment the socal Jyerer’ Once Bourdieu’ theory i stateized, this becomes impos [Ihe Alec and schema, glued int habitat ae treated, in et, seGbjetive environments in cation to which actors” calculations ‘re cnercued mechanistally. Despite thei internal ontoogiealleation, itey ae enternal nam epistemoogical sense, fr they do not mitigate, ‘Rudi, or condition the sarue of calculation sell AS a result, ‘Motivation is voncepralzed a atonal in a merely strategie way ourie’s pots that action must be practical. We mst ook, he Sat os functions inthe eal world, otto dhe internal srctres aie ideal world to which pays merely formal abeisanc. "As soon home toves fom the stucre of language to the functions fills {hari othe uses agents actually make oft Bouricw warns “one fee that mere knowledge of the code gives only very imperfect ‘Sosy of the linguseinteractons realy taking place’ (OTP: 253 ch Boudica +99ta), Yer surely, codes may be les than omipresent ad omimaclent without Biving up a degece of symbolic control The power Bourdieu want to give to objective considerations in ote Bnd, goes well beyond acknowledging that they have a roe Te invlt hat "everything takes place a fy from among the lass of nied abstract corresponding to speech sound he recivet cEicecd™ the one which seems to it co be compatible with the Gheumatances as be perceives them” (OTP: 25, italics added) Bourdca understands perception objectively ater than subjective Scpusing his way fom perception to objective stratus, he eaves ‘ractuves in the subjective, semiotic seme entirely behing Reception dpcnds to are des on the objective strstr of te ‘Ste ee the inerating spe’ objecvepouon the sci ‘Mhctr eg teaonsolconpeston or obetie aan, or reations powers auto orras) “There isa theoretical contradiction, then, beeen two diferent sesions of Bourdieu's practical ation theory. One stresses the role ‘f aonrstional ation and objectively constructed habitus, the other the sole of rational motivation having an objective esl, Bourdieu ress cule hs comtraditin ly odo 0, he would have ro ut “emu the mystifying cammoullage that gives his they is apparently Mra form, What e does instead i concepualize a form of sNon that i theoretically oxymoroaic. We might cll his the notion ai thon at unconseious statgyy a compound whose theoretical Pinction i to make more palatable the vulgar reduction of action fo onepuation. Wheteas rational choice theory ypeally stipulates ‘Say ne envionment for it actor, that of material conditions, ecrdca’'s recognition ofthe aleve symbolic habius requires that the envionment for his strategie ation be more complex, The actor ‘Bleue in elation to both material and symbolic conditions, and ae aer are suated within, nor cuside, ht self Wan objet of Sekion i considered be unconscious and nonmaterial, however,that action cannot alo be sid eo be vatonal”achrding 10 che gmc ofl hy, Bose oes om the fact hat, deat this prob, be wil otal such ation to be called nonrational exer oe uric caught in denna that he des no face and cannot resolve. Becase of his he ford to maketh ncorgrvus sugges ton that stateyzation, which omnipresent, proses lel nat unconscious way leg OTP. 36y HA: 94), What be i abject torabout rational actor they mat esses on enonaly but {sociation of rationality wth an intention” of “Consiousnes™ (COP: so}, am association shat in is view makes it ot ony ave but restrievely economic Economie ata chce hoor sigs titer that ends are ‘consciously posted’ (i) or tht economic Feasoning is onstows and. pro to the act. The resale that ‘comomiessnaware that practcs cam have other principles than Inechanial eases conscious ends The aeracy, aecording Hourdiu iso eecognie that peaccs an bey an Sconone lope witout ebeyingnarowiy ecw inerents: Ress caine be Sens immanent in rates Brot ated eon tht inti ey e+ ae that cnc ulated. Yet nether dors the raonality faction emerge fam he “determinations ut mechan external and sero othe agents Aton is reasonable nd rata esse, witht coneius eae lation if rains stator by the need ta ache the objecanes inscribed inthe lope of particular ld a the lowes cos id) can be desribed at consent with genuinely intentional satis ven “when iti in no way inspted by [any] concious concen {0s t46h- Action, then is'easonable without bing the produc of reasoned design? infoomed by an “objective faa” wathou being ‘ctually determined mechanistic, eligible and coherent wh fot involving ineigent, coherent, and dberate decoy ahd “adjusted to the future” without being oneted toward» projection ot an (LOP: 50-5) ‘What an extrordinaniy supple concep Bourdieu’ conception of practi action st Once thas postulated clelaton as uncoscioey, ican achive al de aang of atonal aor het without taking account ofthe ccm that have ben lodge so peste ain Tor needs of year hes pence “Unconscious satgy” te oxymoranic because dhe sme action ‘connote completely rato sed momaioal at the same tie. I Presuppostonal terms, habiur refers tr ormatine sandards of aluton, oat leas fo standards of evaluation a can ad must be normatvied, Norms they aeinded norms can bin action only ‘on nonrational subjective, and nonindivdual grounds. They cannot {do so the habitus eannot work if actors have the ability 10 weigh the adherence to nore solely according to the external and objective Consequences hee acts, To presuppose this possibility would be to ambane conception of collective and internal order witha rational ‘conception of ation “To suggest euch 2 combination violates not only theoretical lope but spe comin sens. For conceptions of ord and aeton must be complementary, Ineralzed, normative order and rational action arelike oi and water they canbe placed beside one another but hey ainnot mins If actors ace spy calling creatures, the objects of thei calculation may ceeinly Be norms so, then these same noes ‘ant form the character (habits) ofthe calculating agents a8 well ‘Norms which ate merely objects of calculation eam only be the nnn fof others, not ofthe actor Resell. Norms which are entirely objects ‘of ealelaion can no longer be understood as haing 2 subjective tole; rather, they play the same theoretical role as ater kinds of| fxtely abjetive things. One might pu the mater ths way. Whi the empirical referent ofthe concept “norm retains the ontological Stats of oom, that jg, am antimateral, subjective, mentaiic ‘entity, ie doesnot retain dhe epistemological status of norm: i 00 longer refers to a mode of orientation but to an objet of onenaton [Azthe whole tradition from Kane w Habermas suggests, orm create frder only when they bind ction via intemal commitment. {lation to which an exclusively cational ealeultion impossible" For the sake of argument, we might allow that what Bourdieu means by caling even unconsciously motivated actions rational Simply shat all actions havea rational effect, not that they aeration Sly caused, We might unpack Bourdieu’s oxymoron, in other words, iy vecaling his eves diacusion ofthe necesity to move from stro ‘resto functions and tothe wes that actors make ofthe element ht move then But surly this che worst kind of functionals reason frguing from effect to cause without demonstatng feedback loops inbetween, Ie was 0 avoid jast Such teleology that Bourdieu fist inerodnced the notion of habitus as an alternative to utltaan think ing, Yer habitus now is employed in such a way 25 to demonstrate Ularanism's omnipresence.” On the one hand continues to mark the presence of emotional and cultural relerents inside the actor | the other, these sferents ow function merely to allow a peasy Calculating ew of action to take an unconseous, and unesitaze, theoretical roleThe unconscious location of the usileysaximizing Impetus in Bours work hasbeen remarked wpon by oiber cites. Henne {tp 57}commentfr example, hart avo having to assume tharacnsbjets pose the acta itetion of ity maximization, Bourdieu’ proceed from the Hes thatthe posonally based uty Cael of social groupe manifest in heir collective pecepoal ad evaluate schemata on a unconscious level” The esl he suet SS tha Bourdieu can now clam that even if they subjeely cnet thew actions in other ways, sci subjects act om thd economic ‘ewpont of wit” These and otber similarly poined crc Fey and Renaut 78; Jenkins 1983: 373) ee, however, when they identify abies 2 el the case of unconscious ony ater than dc the later asa emphasis that paral an seiusly nde the former, Habitus cannot be equated withthe wy tmonizson of onging action; the emia eflegion ofthe Stor objective postion ata much earer point in tne. fhe habits FS dfned as bing oeed nti any det sense to oles in the tors contemporary word but rather, to ineralized expectations that have dered om an caer world Only by suming the {ominance of sttepe eaculation eam action be prayed 3 ornted {eontenporay exter objets a the sae ine “Tocrutane unconscns satezaton i thi way, in oer words lowes what mos ruling abo the very concept oF practice Weave ace that, whe wos pesetediially a 2 sonceteal Shernatve fo “abjctive iWeioy” practice actually cares three iandamentally diferent meanings in Bourde's theory, Asan expres Sion ofthe eworldy, partclaring focus of ation, pracice allows Bourdieu vo chalga conception of ping ston ab abstract ‘eollowing His edntonseporryal fhe formation of habit, “nthe eter Rand slows hin to portray practice not al a down {ocarh but az onented primary to ceonome and sraticatonl ise. when Bourdieu urs rom ele co sate) action tecomes pracal crow i tether emotional nor toca but opt, caked and sate in he shatange ese, The lates oncepow ames an unconscious postion not teense Bourdieu Constr ah the nonrational habits But Dcaise he wishes to Svoid the marcow cconomism and selLevident superficiality of xchange theory. “Theoretical logic exerts an ineluctable force, but this force is typically misunderstood bythe theorists upon whom i acts. Bourn Certainly is not himself aware that, by vitue of his teductonstic Theoret logs, he has boon Jeo adope the oxymoron postion | have called unconscious stateization. Because he doesnot know the cam hal acne beter way to formulae the syethei he wishes to achiev, which sides hig at res fat, Bours ‘ews this notion of unconscious sratgjation not a6 a theoretical re but a8 4 cfowning theoretical cumph. He proclaims that, instead of naive exchange theoy~ the ethnocentric aves of eco toms (OTP: 177) ~ he has suceeded i proposing 2 sophisticated, pose Eteudian one: Instead of seing unconscious statgiation 3s eeesidual eategory of lst resort that allows him to make che best ofa ind theocucal situation, Bourdew hails asa conceptual heuristic ff enormous importance For iti thi theoretical oxymoron chat provides she visible sheorecical fulrum of Bourdieu’ macrozcology. From shi ingenious bur impoverished version ofthe micro-macro lik Bourdieu drives the Insvumental reduction of action ~ pracce a5 profisecking = nto rey ea of social ie. He contends that every society defined by Sh overarching ‘esonomy of practices; thas, an economy of rational Practices hat ean be dened in elation to all kinds of functions” [LOP: fo. The prablem with ccononic theory isnot, finaly that itis conceptually imperiisie bu, ima strange way, that tf not tmbitious enough, “The theory of srl esonomie practice i simply a pantcular cae ofa general theory ofthe economics of practic, Bourdew writes in his first major dheoeeal treatise (OTP: 177), and he as seiterated thi cemeal point ever ice. Vath concept of the economy of practices we ae I othe heart ‘of Bourdew'sresarch program. He intends to cary oti fll what ‘camomics docs only paral, and to extend economic calculation to “ithe goods, material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves ab rare and worthy of being sught" (LOP. $1). Bourdieu promise, in short, to do no ks than te ferret out the economy of Practices in evry arena of social life Thee are, he writes confident, whole universe of economics, et i fds of strug’ ibid) “These ld of serge are, in fact the pray objets that issesearch program takes up. We tur now to Bourdieu’ empitial sociology of the field, and co the struggles he describes “Field Theory’ and Homology: The Reduction of Institutional Autonomy Teas been argued by some commentatorste. Brubaker 198.18 well iy Bowed lege 19895 87709) imal hat hy introducing the“iheory of the field" Bourdiew hat complesfigd his model of ontemporacy society, ina sense de-Marsaingt With this theory, the Srgument mows, Bourdieu intends to emphasie the independent, nom {conomie character of dillerentated soil spheres and the ecesity| fora more pluralistic, noneynchronows, and antieedctinistc theory torundestand therm, ia a 1985 interview with German theorists, for ‘xample, Bourdicu pointed to che iallunce oa hist inking of Weber notion of Viesewpkeit, which he tanslated as “ete manysidedess| ‘oF soa realty” This Conception of social eagmdntation, Bourdie we doubles the bss of. the work hat a preparing onthe theory Ul flds~ and which cold be elle ‘he play’ of words [which] tril nd wih cmideration o he pura of logs corresponding £0 “ier woos that to dle elds de places which dierent nde ‘common sens, diferent commonplace Wess and diferent tens of ‘opin al reduce each other ae consroted. wows In onder to inept this assertion, we mst hile ove level of generality. Up until this point, we have examined presupposivonal Sesion of action and order and thi effet on the most general thodelsof soil hie, We must move now ta more specifi, empirical Sistons about how these general commitments >ecome tealated to propositions about the sructute of contemporary society. When this she in reference is undertaken, i becomes cleat thatthe eld Eoneept i not a departure but a speciation and elaboration of Bourdew’s moce general commitment, which have noe been altered im any way. As the field theory becomes a more important fous in Bourdieu sociology, we observe not anew theo tal development bur the unacknowledged process of selfevsion at so ten marks the work of important thinkers, and important taditions, a8 they chive sulcient influence to merit rte scat Bourdiew fails to introduce into hit eld theory notions of action and order that are lest redetionitic and more multidimensional ham the parts of is work we have examined ths fa, lntrests ae stil the fame of Bourdieu’ game, not culturally habituated motives which Exhibit» eral capacity because they ae produced by socialization ‘within a elatively autonomous culture, This pone s hammered home gain and again "Toerest 5... a condition of the functioning of Feld Bourdicu suggests insoae as 15 what "gets people moving, what makes them gt together, compete and strug e with each oes? WOW: Even "when one breaks away from eco mim inorder C0 describe the wiverse of posible économie he assures us, ‘ome is blero satay the principle of sulicient reason according which there iso action without a ran tre, ke, without imerest to put it anche way, whout mvesmentin a game (LOP. 3901-0 Sally and mot bluray: The mation oir. mas conceived sais of uptue intend to ung theatre of questioning to beat on eal ro whch IPssabsencand on th ps of call poacton se parle isthe ncaa deliberate and provsnal reductions, ourdew sth: ‘When Bourdieu speaks about the autonomy and plurality of ils he des not mean to make his model of soit pluralistic in ithe the sociologicaly liberal seme of Parsons (cf. Alexander and Cloay {990) oF, more recently, Botansk and Thevenot (1991) 0¢ he phi Sophicaly liberal sense of Walzer (93) What he means, instead, to open up the possibilty that insitional domains cane studi Ss areas of stipe without immediatly teatiag then as single phenomena of predction and consumption eltons of «apt comomies sat that woul eave them without empical interest {and without independent social lec. “There i co be sure a line of reasoning in Bourdiu's work that describes fs as “producto lang, slow proces of atonomization (LOP, 67), One even can sce a tendency increasing 3 the Marxian Detiod ofthe r9éos and 1970 dew toa close co conceptualize fells Ss independen institucional spheres dominated by ets whose power is based on their autonomy a6 suck. When Bourdieu wees abn! sientuts in 1985, for example, he describes their “take fn} the existence of a rience ofthe social capable of affirming its autonomy Seaint all forms of power’ (OW: 169; ef also on science, Bourdie 199te: 6) Ths marks sgufican departure from Marxist propo thons about the coneet organization of empirical social ie If this ine ‘of reasoning were carted though consistently, would push Borde toward that insrumentlzing sain of Weberan work in which the concept of “osu” plays such a central role. Neo-Weberan socio [its ike Parkin, Collis Rex, and Dabwendori hae wont extersivls thoue the strugales fr insitaional contol and resource men that the search for social closure emails While this sand of the Weheram tradition manifes an nstrumentazing and seduction tndertanding of action and order whose zeal neatly matches [ourdew's ow, atleast thas the virtue of eecogizng the emplrealty of socal diferentiation and che boundaries it places upon | ‘conomic power. “Thete ate occasion, indeed, when one of Bourdleu's (19916), discussions of Bell actually Takes on just suc a deracinced Weberian form. Generally, however, the argumen| that Bourdin's ‘work should be sen as Weberanin ether sope or intent ~ arguments Inade by Bourdieu himself or his inerpetets (eq, Brubaker 1985; Ringer 1994; van den Berg, 1991) ~is flawed in fundarenal ways. ln the fist place, i fale to diingish between the diferent and often Incompatible strands of Weber's own work, one moke materials the fother ore multidimensional. For example athe hey article where Bourdieu (1985) asserts the Weberan origins off theory, he cites the cri instigating event his reading of Weber’ sociology of| {elgion. The image of the later that Bourdiew identifies as having ‘stimulated him, however sharply reductionist an materialist. 1 i reading that cecals other ‘sympathetic’ Mares) interpretations, Which are less elfors atthe interpretation of Webde than polemical Sppropriaions of his idea by thinkers who cemain neo-Mardiss Boureteu himself sem to recopiae the politics of his interpretation Schnowledging that he has made a "stuctralit™ reinterpretation {9B 18), which “attnbutes routinely to Weber himself. concepts Sch ss those of religious eld or of symbolic capital and a mode of| thinking all of which are clearly alien to the logic of his chou ibid). When Brubaker (1985: 748) praises Bourdiew for following “the “generalized” or “radical” materialism exemp ied in Weber's ‘work, then he i cepraducing Bourdie’s own Weber interpretation, ‘which attends fo only one ofthe dimensions of Weberian thought Toutdieu’s field theory, furthermore, ulkimatey dilfers from the ‘weberan precily inthe fact that st doesnot carry the tecogition| ‘of sutonomization’ all he way to an acknowledgment of ‘lore? To the contrary. at virtually every opportunity Bourdiew insists tha each field must beaten a a microcosm ~ his preered erm is “homology” (Gee pp. 139-41 above) ~ ofa social system that ie most decidedly pitas in form. Even when be follows the post-Maraian path of feld theory, then, Bourdieu remains committed to his general theory ‘of ‘pactial action’ with all he systematic contadictions i email, Practice i abitalze, habits are economized, and both praice and habits give way to conceptions of unconscious suaeglzing oriented ro sertures of domination that almost always take on clas form, Each social real, for Bourdieu, canbe allowed its own autonomy, and each ean be seen 3 depending upon a specific hab tus cur. Each tena, however, must atthe same time be understood 383 venue for profitmaking and calculation Friis the obecsive material structure (leah el hat forms the actor's habits an the eos of ever ell Specie social act These stroture, furthermore, are inimately eat {o~ adumbrating, articulating, and ecaptlaing = the abet "Measures ofcaptalitscity 352 whole, In 1975, one of hs Bre “pplcations of field theory to specie institutional domain, Bourdiew {eady made this connection abundarly clear. Aer 2 lengthy Presentation of the scientific Fld in teens of erally strated rymmetial struggles over the commsity of truth, he addesed he question of the fils degree of autonomy.” which be defined “in relation, fist to the socal demands of the dominant class ard [second tothe internal andl external socal conditions (1975: 5s). The pparent autonomy of the aural science Bld derives from the fst that the dominant clase grant the natural scenes an autonomy Corresponding tothe ints tind inthe economic applications of Seine techniges ibd.) The “elated and precaios’ autonomy Of the social sciences, by contrast, can be explained because “the ‘ominane lass as no reson to expect anything’ except perhaps 2 particule valuable contribution tothe lgiumation ofthe established Drder and strengthening ofthe arsenal of symbol insrumens Somination? (ibid Taaced, in retrospective discustion ofthe genesis of the id on ‘ep, ordi claim that tis tees on objective forces asserting the Bed actualy reves an earlier postion which had stesed more "utonomy for the Feld foe ages In ode otal comsractthe notion of he Fel twas nese 0 ‘eyo Imy] ise aterp to nay he elec Bel a 9 relay Sonor unre uf specie relationships fat the mei) ‘ble laonhipe betwen the agents solved in ella i, ‘lye meractos among the authors othe suchors and lt, ‘heal the abectve slutonsipe Between the postions acuped Py thee apnt poston wich determine he on ofthe neactions (Bourn 198509) He suggests that this Later, more deterministic position = which ‘proposed a construct ofthe religious Beld a8 a suctue of objectne ‘lationship’ daplaced a more “interactional vew ofthe claion: Ships between se religious agents (id ais in orginal” ‘One should no more accept at face valve this autobiographical arrative than Bourdieu’ equally post hoe reconstruction of his ikl theory as Weberan ints intent. Yet, che theoreti point hes making here his insistence onthe objective and external steactaring of Feld‘eloionships 2» against # more crmerpentst, ages fd internat Siw shld be taken vn neds ico hrm ‘oy tw conceptualize the relation between bls is» Yelling ove. He imigit have chosen a concept Uke diferentiation, sutonomization, Fragmentation, or even puraration. Why did he wor? Because ideas ike thee do on sugest the tight itetwining and detcrminae ‘tracing that Bourdieu sees atthe heat of contemporary if “Foybe suc, the meaning Bourdieu aunibutes to homology i not csc coherent On the one hand, when responding 0 crits of {he field theory as materia ane redocost, be fn ow the face that he poring homology, mot wlmuy, beewea the ld ad its cconomildaes environment: On the other hand, when Bourdieu [tects apse ‘neal approaches vo meaning which emphasize {he cclatresndcpeadeace of fle from other institfional envicon- {ces he it that there homology berween mamings, ks, [2nd objective economic rations that assures ther igh inteewining, “This later understanding reveals the equation in Bocedcu's theory Lerween ‘correspondence’ and ‘homology,’ an equation that certainly ‘confirms the adiional theoretical uadertanding of the tra Tinnco Marxist theory, Lacien Goldmann introduced homology ‘Toward a Sociology ofthe Novel (1975), to emphasize the somo phim he bcheved be had discovered between “the literary form of {the ovel and the ‘everyday relationship of men with goods... ina Sascry prodacing for the marker” (ibid: 127). Homology, for Goldiane, eget a telaconchip of transformation betwen parallel Vins, 2 movement Kom the move baa, ccomomac plane of socal ie onto the supersiructral level, where the imaginative forms of ‘consiosoness Preval. "The novel forme writen, "seems to be the ‘ranformation onthe literary ple of everyday hfe minnie society born of predation for the marker (ba). Homology implies “ech 1 ‘igorows” corespondence between Feels, in other words, {Hat it allowed Goldin to se an identiey wdergidng apparent ‘Batinctions, "single structure manifest om two different Feel.” allowed hit wo speak, indeed of + homologous history ofthe stu: tes involved (ibe: 138)" Homology suggests am echoing process that reproduces essentially similar structures ia inter lated enites while avoiding any suggestion of exact replication. Kt docs not, then, "aggro any real aetonomy s 2 causal seus, in the sensei which ‘rwcrre fs conceived a eng back to eet and vesracture the ‘workings ad diection of trctere At wa, infact, peel because this merely chong, iterative mpicton that Parsons and Shs {igs cried the notion of homology when they 90 ph to deine the elationship beeen cure, vc and persona aon of nc. [penetration betwen elatvely atonomousspstems. Theis polemical hye was the ulure and personaly, school of wterwar ard pos ‘rar anthropology, as exemplified by Kesh Benedict. ‘Smpathetc tterprcters of Bourdieu's fell theory have filed to appreciate the importance ofthe dieence beween a anata Construction that involves rea, eatve, autonomy for cheats ‘arin iatttional Bek and one that ress pon the notion of Tlemology wlach dear In speaking bout the Bis of posite ‘lavonshipe between socal reals, fo example, Brobsker (3985 Jat) descrbes only two akcraatives ~ Boue's theory of ‘Ar {rally homologous eld which premised on the stematic my (Of practical soil Ie,” and Daniel Bells notion of the “dsunction (f reals” which arguee that cultural, socal, and psychical Systems cou Yom mn cy comtraducory directions within dhe sve ‘Socal formation. Surly, however, desea tid aernative Between these two extremes, one whi recagajes the dijon tensions yt ‘imlinncowsinerdependences between levels of oranication ac Subsystems in scien that are dllerntiated to some degree tally every systematic stay ofa fic hat he has made, a0 in vitally every casual dncssion aswell Boudi caeflly sis Upon the nabeddedness of che ld i 3 broader struggle between the Socal classes of ae capa sci. Ina paper om the sociology of Sport inthe cary aon, fr example, Bowden begins by emphasing ‘ovare andthe ternal mtraystemic nature of the power stages that, according to hes edd theory, mark sports off 252 soclogeal domain: One has to wotce the pace of sporting races a 570m feo which every clement derives ts dtnctive ale (OW: 156), He then cures immediacy, however to the andedying sovial categories (of stiri an domination mic he isis are associated with ‘ach dine sporting practic. "The sions work, he wees, ‘Const in establishing Ue socially perinea properties that m0 hata sport has a ality with the interes, astes and peferemes ‘fa devermiaate cal category ibid: 157). Indeed, Bourdicy insis that cach sport ie associated with a social postion and an inate perience of the physical and soil wort (ibd, that iy wal fwetbership n'a clas fraction and posion i an ccowamic onan tion fact, nome of the more anomalous and revealing passages of tas work, Bowed arma tat we maat beware of esabshinga tect (eloson ast have at done ah tence sport ad sil positon, Terween wresling or foxball and workers, or between ju and the lower table classe” On theoretical grows, however, he mbtthar ust such an asiociation is necessary, and he emplays the concept ‘of homology to make this point. There "correspondence, which i 2 rel homology» beeween che space of sporting prafices, or, more Precisely the space ofthe diferent fcly analyte modalities of the pracice of diferent sports, and the space of social posi (ibid 250 * Tes pity that Bourdieu did no py heed ois own advice. Instead, he continually stresses the intimate connection between internal position in afield and she external role played by fhe field inthe feproduction ofthe capitalist economy. We will e,bin fat, that in his theory ofthe particular reproductive demands of late capitalism Bourdieu discovers an empiccal device for resolving the tension between the independent appearance of fieldspecifc group struggles ind thei simultaneous subjection tothe Laws of eapitalit ie Research Programm and Empirical Reduction: The ‘Double Determinism” of the Empieial Studies Bourdieu’ empirical stdies hardly confront the fasts of the social world in a objecting” or unmediated way, as e so often mainains (eg. LOP: 121). Those studies, rather, elaborate and specify the complex yet ultimately reductonitic presuppositions and. models Uhave described above. They do so via a more empirically related, intermediate model of contemporacy institutional Ife one which draws substantially from the neo Maret tradioa. The result is 8 Seves of empiscal studies which, paradonscaly, offer a densely “empirical account of contemporary society that iat the same time, rot only highly simpliic but highly contrived. he macto-theory that supplies the infartractre~ ue the tran advisedly ~ for Bourdiews empirical work on felis i familar Amalgam of postcarcty Marxism and new class theory, cos-cut by residues from the conceptual labyrinth of strctural Marxism, ‘The evident importance in Bourdieu model of seuctucal Marast categories may seem surpesing in light ofthe srking animosity ‘toward thse theorists that Bourdieu has often expessed, for example his (1975) shootup of Balibar's homage to the Athuseran ‘reading of Marx. Ths animosiy was aot expressed, however, dung the third and formative period of Bourdiu's work, the 19608 post Sartran development marked bythe incorporation into his tihng of orthodox Marxist eas (see Appendix). Nor did thi animosity do anything co undermine the eagerness with whict Bourdiu and his colleagues took wp empirical investigations which demonstrated thar edaction functioned; 1 we Alvhuse’ tem, 38am Wleoogisl state appacat that served merely to reproduce the cla tuctre of captalia societies "The apparent conics between such macro-sructrai and the “praxis” language Bourdieu employs forthe micr-evl is mitigated ‘ot only bythe reductionism ofthe habitus-tratey-Aeld amalgams