Search

In 2010, Sir Ken Robinson, a world thought leader in education, released a provoking TED Talk called Education Paradigms. In it he said, 'I believe we have a system of [...]

WHAT HAPPENS when you give a third grader a power drill? With some wood and a little supervision, she'll make her own keepsake box. Or, put her in that same [...]

A critical review of Bourdieu's theory of the state is developed here against the backdrop of both his wider theoretical project and empirical studies. Elaborating the concepts of symbolic capital, symbolic violence, and symbolic domination, the centrality that Bourdieu accords to symbolic forms is compared to benchmark Weberian accounts that start with the state monopoly of violence. Reviewing also some of the burgeoning secondary literature discussing his theory of the state, Bourdieu's writings, which encompass various antinomies, are shown to vacillate between two distinct perspectives-a strong and a weak theory of the state. His rejection of the 'physicalist' approaches of Marx, Elias, and Tilly is elaborated and subject to a counter-critique, particularly in relation to the notion of symbolic 'violence.' Bourdieu's account of the state is shown to be as much a political as theoretical intervention. His antagonism towards Marxist accounts in particular is shown to be rooted in a pragmatic interest in the role of the 'left hand of the state' in progressive reform; and this perspective is traced back to the twin influences of Durkheim and Hegel, French republicanism, and in particular the potential of the state to express a universal interest. At the same time, compared with sophisticated Marxist and Weberian accounts and the work of Norbert Elias and Gramsci, Bourdieu's theory is shown to be severely lacking in the way that he deals with violence and coercion. His 'expanded materialism,' particularly with the 'strong theory,' bends the stick too far and overplays the symbolic basis of consent. Nevertheless, Bourdieu's insights with regard to the pervasive influences of state practices of classification, taxonomy, delegation, and naming are shown to have real utility with regard to focused empirical investigations of the state in modern societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the last three decades, sociology has been in a permanent state of theoretical and programmatic disarray. Symptoms of the crisis include ambivalence about the possible scientific status of sociological knowledge, theoretical and methodological fragmentation and ambivalence about the appropriate degree of political and ethical 'involvement' in the sociological stance, and deep-seated anxieties about the relationship between sociology and neighbouring disciplines across the human sciences. Through a comprehensive exegesis of his major contributions, it is argued that Norbert Elias provides the foundations for a 'central theory', integrating diverse theoretical traditions within sociology, while providing a clear framework for establishing a synthesis across the full range of (social and biological) human sciences. In short, Elias provides us with the rudiments of a comprehensive human science, with sociology well placed to play an orchestrating role in the investigation of phenomena at the highest level of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]