Pierre Bourdieu developed field theory to analyze society. [1] Society consists of multiple social fields that operate under their own unique rules and logic. [2] Within each field, agents occupy different positions based on their accumulated capital and subconsciously internalized dispositions (habitus). [3] Fields reproduce social hierarchies through doxa, the unquestioned norms and conventions that agents learn and reinforce through their habitus.

1. Pierre Bourdieu FIELD THEORY
KEYWORDS The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is one of the key
Field Theory thinkers of the 20th Century in relation to ways of working with
Sociology the understanding of our actions and our positions in cultures
Structuralism and in society. In relation to philosophy of science, Bourdieu
Agent Theory takes a position between structuralism (which has an objective
Interpretive Methods view on people as agents in society) and a subjective
Social rooms approach to his objects of study. That means, that people are
Capital free agents, but they are also affected by the structures of their
Habitus social environments. Bourdieu's theory aims at research of
Doxa people in their environment by mapping their actions, their
preferences and how they look at other people. This mapping
can then be interpreted by using theoretical concepts like
capital and doxa. In this small article, you will be introduced to
the keypoints of Bourdieu's field theory.
The Field Theory
Society is defined by what Bourdieu calls the social room. This
social room is divided into several fields, that operates with
each of their own set of rules of access. For example, in the
field of education, the rules of access are exams; in the field of
religion, the rules of access are faith and dogmas; in the field
of business, the rule of access is success and proactivity etc.
The concept of field theory is an analytical concept, that can
be used to map people's preferences, their actions, and their
social practises. Every field is often a limited area of society,
which has a certain practise. This practise involves the social
actions we use when we are together in these fields and when
we communicate to- and from a field. We don't always know
why we are performing our actions, but it often just feels right in
a given field. There are certain, almost objectively assumed,
qualities of our thinking in a given field. For example, the way

2. we act and make use of the rules in a given field is what
Bourdieu calls to strengthen our position in a given field. In
every field we fight for good positions by making use of the
rules of the game. These rules are called doxa in Bourdieu's
theoretical approach. We tend not to question doxa in a field.
We respect the rules of the game, be it official rules or more
subtle directions in a given field. But these rules can of course
be changed by the agent's actions in these spaces of
possibilities. It is very typical, says Bourdieu, that the given
field has an effect on us. The field can regulate our behaviour.
So battles for better positions within a field is regulated by the
doxa of the field. However, there are elements of the agent's
own autonomous actions: only the agents of the given field can
define the value of the the field's position. For example, an
adult may not care about the playground in the park. But the
children who get together to play here are trying to establish
positions in terms of who it is to decide what to play, who may
be invited to play etc. Sometimes you don't even have to
belong to the field to be willing to ascribe a high value to the
field: In the field of politics we often don't get a lot to say after
the elections, but we respect the political-debate field and we
accept its doxa. The positions in the field of political power also
marks the distinction between us and them: those with a high
ranking position in the field has this certain value because of
the difference between the positions in the field and the
difference between those who are inside and those who are
outside. The ruling class often has agents with invested
prestige. Now, how can we define the different types of
strengths in these fields? Let's move on to the concepts of
capital.
Capital and habitus
The specific position, which is occupied by an agent in a
certain field, is dependent of the agent's capital: Bourdieu is
working with a theoretical framework of different types of
capital:
Social capital are the social network ressources of an agent. It
Can be family, business associates, formal and informal
networks. You might score all the A's at your education, but

3. without a good network to support you, you might get problems
in your search for a job after your graduation.
Economic capital are all the accumulated ressources such as
money, property etc. This is also related to the certain life styles
of a social room/field.
Cultural capital are the cultural knowledge and the
competencies that are build up and used by the agent. This
also includes preferences or taste. In other words: what is for
example fine art and what is not, as defined by a field's doxa.
Again, this marks the distinction between members of different
fields. The cultural capital is a set of rules that define how to
define other fields and other capital. Some might not be
interested in a high salery, but experience a lot of symbolic
capital by working in an acedemic field:
This symbolic capital is the general
framework for all the above
mentioned types of capital. Symbolic
capital is connected to a field's doxa
and has to do with prestige and
reputation. The symbolic capital and
the use of economic-, cultural-, and
social capital constitutes a specific
field and its doxa. This might lead to
supressive actions of power,
however, this might not be regarded
as such by the implied agents. Often
the agents of a given field do not
have the full overview of all aspects
of the field, but they have a practical
sense of operating in the field and to
create a position. This sense is each agent's habitus, and this
habitus is connected to the doxa of the field. The habits, values
and preferences of the agents are mixed with the doxa of the
field, thus making the field an internal part of the agent's
habitus. The agents are adjusting to the field, and then, on the
other hand, the field is affected by their habitus. This dual
power of the agent and the system creates a world, a common
knowledge and a system of truth. This is the reality we can
investigate, says Bourdieu.

4. The logic conclusion of this theoretical approach is to look at
culture and power as being defined and reproduced in fields of
preferences and doxa. And, more important, we can take a
look at the concepts as they are defined by a field.