Field theory is a more or less coherent approach in the social sciences whose essence is the explanation of regularities in individual action by recourse to position vis‐a‐vis others. Position in the field indicates the potential for a force exerted on the person, but a force that impinges “from the inside” as opposed to external compulsion. Motivation is accordingly considered to be the paramount example of social structure in action, as opposed to a residue of chance or freedom. While field theory is often castigated for its necessarily tautological definition, this may be far more of an advantage than a defect. Field theory offers social scientists a combination of analytical insight and attention to the concrete; further, the implicit definition of “explanation” that it brings is one that, unlike conventional sociological definitions, is internally consistent and in accord with everyday usage.

/pdf/what-is-field-theory-1-2zn92q8ilo.pdf

What Is Field Theory?1

This article raises questions about current educational reform efforts now underway in a number of nations. Research from a number of countries is used to document some of the hidden differential effects of two connected strategies—neo-liberal inspired market proposals and neo-liberal, neo-conservative, and middle class managerial inspired regulatory proposals, including national curricula and national testing. This article describes how different interests with different educational and social visions compete for dominion in the social field of power surrounding educational policy and practice. In the process, it documents some of the complexities and imbalances in this fiel do f power. These complexities and imbalances result in “thin” rather than “thick” morality and tend toward the reproduction of both dominant pedagogical and curricular forms and ideologies and the social privileges that accompany them.

Creating Difference: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism and the Politics of Educational Reform

Dans cet article l'auteur expose ses conceptions de l'habitude, de l'habitus et de la phenomenologie Si Bourdieu reste la principale reference a la notion d'habitus, il ne manque pas de critiqes, lesquelles ne sont pas toutes justifiees pour l'auteur, qui en reconnaissant le role preponderant de l'analyse bourdieusienne en discute les differents points de vue Il propose de revisiter l'habitus sous un angle phenomenologique, en se basant sur les ecrits de Merleau-Ponti et de Husserl L'objectif de cet essai n'est pas de remplacer la theorie de Bourdieu par l'approhe phenomenologique mais de contribuer a ameliorer et aprofondir l'analyse sociale

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/658063.pdf

The phenomenological habitus and its construction

Contributors to this forum are invited to write from their own disciplinary perspective on exciting intellectual developments in their field and to assess their implications for contemporary political economy. They should also address how far political economy is (or should become) an interdisciplinary venture. We find it hard to answer these questions, however, because neither co-author identifies with a single discipline. Indeed, we reject the discursive and organisational construction (and, worse, the fetishisation) of disciplinary boundaries. This means in turn that we cannot describe our approach as inter- or multi-disciplinary in its aspirationâ��even though, faute de mieux, we draw on concepts,theoretical arguments and empirical studies written from existing disciplinary perspectives. Instead, we describe our shared approach as pre-disciplinary in its historical inspiration and as post-disciplinar y in its current intellectual implications. We are not alone in refusing disciplinary boundaries and decrying some of their effects. Indeed, among the most exciting recent intellectual developments in the social sciences is the increasing commitment to transcending these boundaries to understand better the complex interconnections within and across the natural and social worlds. Thus our own contribution to this forum seeks to bring out some implications of pre- and post-disciplinary analyses of political economy. We advocate the idea of a â��cultural political economyâ�� and suggest how it might transform understandings of recent developments in political economy.

/pdf/pre-disciplinary-and-post-disciplinary-perspectives-48wsmlo25r.pdf

Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary Perspectives

Bourdieu confuses himself and others by calling his project a ‘transcendence’ of the objectivist–subjectivist antinomy. Contrary to claims, Bourdieu’s methodology and theoretical premises are direc...

Rade Kalanj

Papers

Culture and power