City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Susen, S. (2016). Towards a Critical Sociology of Dominant Ideologies: An
Unexpected Reunion between Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski. Cultural Sociology, 10(2),
pp. 195-246. doi: 10.1177/1749975515593098
This is the accepted version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/14389/
Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1749975515593098
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City,
University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral
Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from
City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study,
educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or
charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are
credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page
and the content is not changed in any way.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk
City Research Online
593098
Towards a Critical Sociology
of
Dominant Ideologies:
An Unexpected Reunion
between Pierre Bourdieu
and Luc Boltanski
Simon Susen
City University London, UK
Abstract
This article aims to demonstrate the enduring relevance of Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski’s
‘La production de l’idéologie dominante’ [‘The production of the dominant ideology’], which was
originally published in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales in 1976. More than three decades
later, in 2008, a re-edited version of this study was printed in book format as La production de
l’idéologie dominante, which was accompanied by a detailed commentary, written by Luc
Boltanski and entitled Rendre la réalité inacceptable. À propos de « La production de l’idéologie
dominante » [Making Reality Unacceptable. Comments on ‘The production of the dominant
ideology’]. In addition to containing revealing personal anecdotes and providing important
sociological insights, this commentary offers an insider account of the genesis of one of the most
seminal pieces Boltanski co-wrote with his intellectual father, Bourdieu. In the Anglophone
literature on contemporary French sociology, however, the theoretical contributions made both in
the original study and in Boltanski’s commentary have received little – if any – serious attention.
This article aims to fill this gap in the literature, arguing that these two texts can be regarded not
only as forceful reminders of the fact that the ‘dominant ideology thesis’ is far from obsolete but
also as essential for understanding both the personal and the intellectual underpinnings of the
tension-laden relationship between Bourdieu and Boltanski. Furthermore, this article offers a
critical overview of the extent to which the unexpected, and partly posthumous, reunion between
‘the master’ (Bourdieu) and his ‘dissident disciple’ (Boltanski) equips us with powerful conceptual
tools, which, whilst illustrating the continuing centrality of ‘ideology critique’, permit us to shed
new light on key concerns in contemporary sociology and social theory. Finally, the article seeks
to push the debate forward by reflecting upon several issues that are not given sufficient attention by
Bourdieu and Boltanski in their otherwise original and insightful enquiry into the complexities
characterizing the daily production of ideology.
Corresponding author:
Simon Susen, Department of Sociology, Rhind Building, City University London, Whiskin Street, London,
EC1R 0JD, UK.
Email: Simon.Susen@city.ac.uk; Simon.Susen@cantab.net
Keywords
Boltanski, Bourdieu, Bourdieusian, capitalism, class, constructivism, constructivist, critical
sociology, critique, dominant ideology, domination, emancipatory, hegemonic, ideology,
ideology critique, neo-liberal, neo-liberalism, neo-managerial, neo-managerialism, power,
reflexive, relationalist, science, scientific, social theory
Introduction
The main purpose of this article is to make a case for the enduring relevance of Pierre
Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski’s ‘La production de l’idéologie dominante’ [‘The produc-
tion of the dominant ideology’], which was originally published in Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales (henceforth ARSS) in 1976.
1
More than three decades later, a re-
edited version of this study was printed in book format as La production de l’idéologie
dominante (Paris: Éditions Raisons d’agir, 2008 [1976]).
2
This new edition was accom-
panied by a detailed commentary, written by Luc Boltanski and entitled Rendre la réalité
inacceptable. À propos de « La production de l’idéologie dominante » [Making Reality
Unacceptable. Comments on ‘The Production of the Dominant Ideology’] (Paris:
Demopolis, 2008).
3
In this commentary – which contains not only various revealing
personal anecdotes, but also numerous important sociological insights – Boltanski
provides an insider account of the genesis of one of the most seminal pieces he co-wrote
with his intellectual father, Bourdieu.
Yet, the theoretical contributions made in La production de l’idéologie dominante
(henceforth PID) and, to an even greater degree, those made in Rendre la réalité inaccept-
able (henceforth RRI) have been largely ignored in the Anglophone literature on contem-
porary French sociology.
4
This article aims to fill this gap not only by drawing upon PID
but also, more significantly, by offering a fine-grained examination of Boltanski’s RRI,
5
demonstrating that these two texts – which constitute forceful reminders of the fact that
the ‘dominant ideology thesis’
6
is far from obsolete – are essential for understanding both
the personal and the intellectual underpinnings of the tension-laden relationship between
Bourdieu and Boltanski. In addition, the following sections elucidate the extent to which
the unexpected, and partly posthumous, reunion between ‘the master’ (Bourdieu) and his
‘dissident disciple’ (Boltanski)
7
equips us with powerful conceptual tools, permitting us
not only to illustrate the continuing centrality of ‘ideology critique’ but also, in a more
fundamental sense, to shed new light on key concerns in contemporary sociology and
social theory. The final section seeks to push the debate forward by reflecting upon several
issues that fail to receive sufficient attention by Bourdieu and Boltanski in their otherwise
original and insightful enquiry into the complexities characterizing the daily production of
ideology.
1.
A Scientific Project
PID was a scientific project.
8
Bourdieu and Boltanski’s conception of science as both an
inventive and a political endeavour
9
was based on the paradoxical assumption that it was
vital ‘to believe in science and not to believe in it’
10
, that is, to defend its enlightening
mission and, at the same time, to question its epistemic claims to objectivity and
universality. Science is inventive in that it provides conceptual and methodological tools
for the examination of reality, and it is political in that it can be used either to reinforce
or to undermine the legitimacy of established ideological, behavioural, and institutional
patterns.
Aware of both its innovative and its normative functions, Bourdieu and Boltanski
insisted on the empowering potential and progressive contributions of science, whilst
rejecting the positivist faith in the possibility of epistemic objectivity and universaliza-
bility. Thus the two scholars embraced both a position of scientific optimism, aimed at
challenging common-sense preconceptions about the world, and a position of scientific
pessimism, oriented towards exposing the socially specific – that is, value-, power-, and
interest-laden – functions of all forms of knowledge production.
Yet, just as it is crucial to draw a functional distinction between the constitutive tasks
of science, it is imperative to draw a typological distinction between non-science and
science. To be exact, we need to recognize the epistemological difference between
ideology and science: the former is distortive, grounded in misperceptions, misconcep-
tions, and misrepresentations; the latter is – at least potentially – informative, founded on
logical descriptions, rational explanations, and methodical evaluations. It is the task
of scientific analysis to penetrate beyond the deceptive – that is, ideologically filtered –
appearances of ‘reality’ and to uncover the underlying structural mechanisms that
govern both the characteristics and the developments of the ‘world’, including those of
society.
11
2.
A Non-Conventional Project
PID was a non-conventional project.
12
ARSS, in which PID was originally published,
sought to bypass the orthodox logic of mainstream academic forums of discussion and
dissemination, thereby enabling its founding figures to develop a sense of ownership and
distinct intellectual identity. Those directly involved in the venture ‘found it difficult to
publish [their] papers in official academic journals, with editorial committees, such as,
for example […], the Revue française de sociologie’
13
. The scholars in charge of editing
these journals tended to regard themselves as ‘gatekeepers of norms […] in the name of
Science and of what they called Epistemology’
14
. The nepotistic and protectionist modes
of functioning of established French academia in the 1970s did not leave much, if any,
room for alternative ways of undertaking and circulating sociological research.
In such a counterproductive intellectual climate, for renegades such as Bourdieu and
Boltanski, who were unwilling to subscribe to the stifling doxa pervading the academic
game of middle-of-the-road social science, ‘the idea of having [their] own journal – a
place in which [they] could do what [they] wanted to do, write as [they] wished to write,
develop the areas in which [they] were interested, describe and criticize at the same time,
in short, do sociology’
15
– was both intellectually and strategically attractive. Such an
endeavour would permit them to set their own agenda, with independent – that is, self-
defined and autonomously applied – evaluative parameters, standards, and criteria.
In this respect, both space and time were significant considerations. To start with,
‘[t]he question of the length of the papers’
16
was important: trying ‘to escape predefined
formats’
17
, ARSS provided the opportunity to publish unusually short, as well as extra-
ordinarily long, articles. Furthermore, the issue of timing was critical: aiming to avoid
the constraining logic of bureaucratic schedules, ARSS offered a discursive forum in
which ‘to publish quickly, for instance, a result of a survey […], without having to await
a committee’s verdict for months’
18
.
As any experienced social scientist will be able to confirm, some research-based man-
uscripts are excellent at 2000 words, others at 8000 words, and others at 15,000 words or
even longer; and some studies, especially empirical ones, if they do not get published
until several years after their completion, will seem obsolete by the time they see the light
of day in the public arena of scholarly discourse. Bourdieu’s book series Le sens commun,
published by Éditions de Minuit, was motivated by a similar rationale, enabling him and
his collaborators to create unorthodox realms for the distribution of social-scientific
findings. United in this mission, the relationship between Bourdieu and Boltanski was
characterized by a curious ‘mixture of genuine friendship and interest’
19
, shaped by the
contradictory – yet fruitful – confluence of collaboration and competition underpinning
their collective effort to construct alternative spaces for critical reflection capable of
bypassing the stifling logic of mainstream academic conventions.
3.
A Reflexive Project
PID was a reflexive project.
20
Back in the early and mid-1970s, before the arrival of per-
sonal computer technology,
21
most aspects concerning the writing and editing process
22
were dealt with manually. Arguably, this lack of access to advanced IT equipment
allowed for a more flexible, imaginative, and impromptu modus operandi than is the case
in the perfectionist writing culture of the digital age.
23
Embarking upon the challenging
task of developing ground-breaking research paradigms and sociological concepts, such
as ‘neutral places’
24
and ‘multipositionality’
25
, Bourdieu and his collaborators aimed to
make cutting-edge contributions to the social sciences by ‘really breaking with academic
routines and constraints’
26
. Immersed in this stimulating atmosphere of both individual
and collective intellectual ambition, they took advantage of ‘the possibility of working
with new people, speaking other languages, and moving within new areas, in order to
discover documents and ideas’
27
.
The emerging project of developing a reflexive sociology had two major compo-
nents, intimately related to Bourdieu’s famous ‘double epistemological rupture’
28
: the
break with both scholastic and common-sense conceptions of the world. The former is
expressed in a categorical commitment to empirical research; the latter is articulated in
an uncompromising devotion to critical research. The former is epitomized ‘in the pleas-
ure of sociology, which – dissimilar to established disciplines such as philosophy and
literary studies – requires not only spending one’s life reading books but also leaving the
library’
29
and looking for inspiration, as well as data, in the ‘real world of occurrences’
30
.
The latter is central not only to the interpretive endeavour of calling doxic preconcep-
tions and taken-for-granted assumptions into question, but also to the explanatory ven-
ture of shedding light on underlying social forces, notably power structures, whose
existence largely escapes people’s everyday grasp of the ‘deceptive world of appear-
ances’
31
. This uncovering mission – which is essential to Marxist forms of ideology