The twilight of fields: Limitations of a concept or disappearance of a historical reality?

Abstract

The concept of field forged by Pierre Bourdieu is often regarded as if it could be applied universally (as the concept of ‘habitus’, for example, can be). This article shows that such an extensive use comes from a misunderstanding of the real nature of this concept. From Bourdieu’s own viewpoint, clearly developed in The Rules of Art, fields have emerged in a highly specific type of society: that is, the so-called ‘differentiated’ or ‘capitalist’ societies. Therefore, they must be considered one and only one of the many possible modes of organizing productive activities, a mode that at the scale of human history is remarkable for its rarity. From this perspective, taking seriously the concept of field requires to renounce applying it at all costs to any concrete action system or sociohistorical configuration characterized by interdependences. Nor can one postulate that fields are in any way the human species’ ultimate, perfect way of organizing its productive activities, though this normative tendency can be felt in Bourdieu’s own writing when he discusses science or art. Provided we are careful to use it restrictively, the field concept will hold up quite well against the many objections it has elicited. Moreover, one can only maximize the concept’s heuristic returns if one keeps in mind that it refers to a determined socio-historical reality: that is, if one is willing to envisage the possible disappearance of the reality it accounts for.