ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Bourdieu in AmericanSociology, 1980–2004Jeffrey J. Sallaz and Jane ZaviscaDepartment of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721;email: jsallaz@email.arizona.edu, janez@u.arizona.edu

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007. 33:21–41

First published online as a Review in Advance onApril 11, 2007

The Annual Review of Sociology is online athttp://soc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131627

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0360-0572/07/0811-0021$20.00

Key Words

history of sociology, sociology of knowledge, research program,field theory

AbstractThis article traces the transatlantic diffusion of Pierre Bourdieu’sideas into American sociology. We find that rather than being re-ceived as abstract theory, Bourdieu has been actively put to useto generate new empirical research. In addition, American sociol-ogists have used their findings to problematize and extend his the-ory. Bourdieu’s sociology, in other words, has inspired a progressiveresearch program in the United States. We trace this process inthe two main forums for presenting research: journal articles andbooks. Content analysis of articles published in four major sociologyjournals reveals that, far from a recent fad, Bourdieu’s ideas steadilydiffused into American sociology between 1980 and 2004. Case stud-ies of four influential books in turn illustrate how researchers haveused Bourdieu’s key concepts (capital, field, habitus, and symbolicpower) to inform debates in four core subfields (political, economic,cultural, and urban sociology).

21

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Texts such as mine, produced in a definite po-sition in a definite state of the French intellec-tual or academic field, have little chance of beinggrasped without distortion or deformation in theAmerican field.

(Bourdieu 2000b, p. 241)

INTRODUCTION

The passing in 2002 of the French sociol-ogist Pierre Bourdieu provides us pause toexamine his influence on the practice of re-search in American sociology over the pastthree decades. From his position as Chair ofSociology at the College de France, Bourdieubecame a global public intellectual, shapingscholarship internationally in a wide rangeof disciplines. It is often forgotten, however,that he first forged his unique scholastic vi-sion through an engagement with Americansociology. Schooled originally in philosophy,Bourdieu entered sociology as an autodidact,by reading American sociology while doingfieldwork in Algeria and as a visiting scholarat Princeton University. Bourdieu would latertranslate and publish major works of U.S. so-cial science (including the first French edi-tions of key works by Erving Goffman, whomhe had befriended during his U.S. stay) in hisown book series and journal. U.S. sociologywas for him a means by which to break withthe antiscientific bent of the French academicfield (Calhoun 2003). However, Bourdieu(1990a, p. 5) was deeply critical of what he sawto be a “mediocre and empirical” strand withinmuch sociology. In the United States, such dryempiricism resulted from disciplinary insular-ity, itself a historical product of the prematurespecialization of the various social and hu-man sciences (Ross 1991, Gulbenkian Comm.Restruct. Soc. Sci. 1996).

Just as Bourdieu was highly reflexive abouthis use of American sociology, so too didthe initial publication of Bourdieu’s works inEnglish stimulate debate within American so-ciology (e.g., DiMaggio 1979, Brubaker 1985,Calhoun et al. 1993, Alexander 1995). Thisearly debate was organized around an over-

arching metaphor of Bourdieu as a producerof knowledge that American sociologists re-ceived and consumed. Typically, as the open-ing epigraph attests, the latter were foundguilty of hermeneutical errors. Wacquant(1993), for example, blamed “recurrent mis-interpretations” by American scholars onvarious factors, including unfamiliarity withthe philosophical underpinnings of many ofBourdieu’s concepts and a general frustrationwith his opaque writing style (see also Simeoni2000; Swartz 1997, pp. 3–6; Lane 2000, p. 3).

We seek to spark a second wave of re-flection, one that, in the spirit of Bourdieu,transcends the binary opposition of knowl-edge producers versus consumers. Indeed,Bourdieu (2000a [1997], p. 62) himself arguedthat his conceptual oeuvre is not to be treatedas an “end in itself ”; rather, we should “dosomething with [his concepts] . . . bring them,as useful, perfectible instruments, into a prac-tical use” (cf. Brubaker 1993, p. 217; Breiger2000). To what extent, we ask, have actorsin American sociology both used Bourdieu’sideas to advance key debates in the field and at-tempted to extend these ideas in turn? Has, inother words, Bourdieu’s sociology constituteda progressive research program for sociolog-ical research in the United States (Lakatos1978)?

To address these questions, we first pro-vide a brief overview of Bourdieu’s main con-cepts, the range of empirical topics to whichthey were applied over his career, and com-mon critiques of his work. Second, we exam-ine how Bourdieu’s ideas have been put to usein research published in major American so-ciology journals since 1980, through a quan-titative content analysis.1 Third, we presentcase studies of four books that have explicitlyapplied Bourdieu’s key concepts to a major

1These data of course do not permit a thorough mappingof the American academic field in the Bourdieuian sense;that would require systematic study of the positions, trajec-tories, and dispositions of sociologists, as well as the rela-tionship between academic and scientific capital in the fieldin which they operate (Bourdieu 1988 [1984]).

22 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

substantive area of the discipline (the fourwe consider are economic sociology, politi-cal sociology, urban sociology, and the soci-ology of culture). In general we find that therecent upsurge of interest in Bourdieu’s the-ory is neither fad nor homage, but rather theculmination of a long and steady diffusion ofBourdieu’s ideas into American sociology. Notonly are scholars increasingly likely to citeand acknowledge Bourdieu, but many are us-ing their findings to problematize and pushforward his research program. Bourdieu theoutsider, we may say, has gradually acquiredinsider status.

OVERVIEW OF BOURDIEU’SSOCIOLOGY

The son of a rural postman, Bourdieu wouldbecome the most prominent sociologist inFrance, and at the time of his death, a globalpublic intellectual. This unusual trajectorysensitized him to both the power of so-cial structures to reproduce themselves andthe possibility for social change (Wacquant2002). Following graduate work in philoso-phy, Bourdieu was drafted into the Frencharmy during the Algerian War for Indepen-dence of the late 1950s. There he conductedhis first major study, on the Kabyle people’sexperience of colonization (Bourdieu 1962[1958], 1979 [1977]).2 The most importantwork to emerge from this study is Outline ofa Theory of Practice (1977 [1972])—later re-vised and expanded in the book The Logic ofPractice (1990b [1980])—in which he devel-ops his theory of social structure and socialaction. Moving from philosophy through an-thropology to sociology, Bourdieu continuedto develop his conceptual system through sus-tained empirical research on a wide range oftopics. Upon returning from Algeria, he first

2During this period, Bourdieu also conducted a parallelstudy of his childhood village in France. Most of this workhas yet to appear in English, but some initial translationsare available in a special issue of the journal Ethnography[Volume 5, Issue 4 (2004)].

turned his attention to the role of educationin the reproduction of inequality in France(Bourdieu & Passeron 1977, Bourdieu 1988[1984]). This interest in social inequality nextled him to study cultural production and con-sumption (Bourdieu 1984 [1979], 1993, 1996[1992]). In later work, Bourdieu developed histheory of the state through studies of language(1991 [1982]), elite schools (1998 [1989]), andhousing markets (2005 [2000]).

Bourdieu’s theoretical project bridges thedeep philosophical divide between the struc-turalism of Levi-Strauss and the existential-ism of Jean-Paul Sartre. Structuralism estab-lishes “objective regularities independent ofindividual consciousness and wills,” privileg-ing scientists’ formal models of social relationsover agents’ commonsense understandings ofthe world (Bourdieu 1990b [1980], p. 26).Phenomenology, by contrast, equates agents’representations of the world with reality itself,without analyzing the conditions of possibil-ity of subjective experience (Bourdieu 1990b[1980], p. 25). Neither perspective takes intoaccount the scientist’s own relationship tothe social world and the attendant effectson the production of knowledge. The nov-elty of Bourdieu’s theory lies in the synthesisof the objectivist and subjectivist epistemolo-gies underpinning these two traditions. So-cial structures inculcate mental structures intoindividuals; these mental structures in turn re-produce or (under certain conditions) changesocial structures (Bourdieu 1988 [1984], p. 27;1989, p. 15; 1991 [1982], pp. 135–36).

Furthermore, Bourdieu assembled a set ofconcepts to describe these processes: capi-tal, field, habitus, and symbolic power. Webriefly define each concept in turn. The var-ious species of capital are resources that pro-vide different forms of power. Economic cap-ital consists of not just monetary income, butaccumulated wealth and ownership of pro-ductive assets. To possess cultural capital isto demonstrate competence in some sociallyvalued area of practice. Bourdieu speaks ofthree subspecies of cultural capital: an embod-ied disposition that expresses itself in tastes

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 23

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

and practices (an incorporated form), for-mal certification by educational institutions ofskills and knowledge (an institutional form),and possession of esteemed cultural goods(an objectified form). Social capital consistsof durable networks of relationships throughwhich individuals can mobilize power and re-sources (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, p. 119).Any form of capital can serve as symbolic capi-tal if people recognize its unequal distributionas legitimate (Bourdieu 1991 [1982], p. 118).

In American sociology, the forms of cap-ital are usually operationalized and analyzedas individual-level variables. Bourdieu (1984[1979], pp. 105–6), however, was critical ofvariable-oriented analysis, in particular re-gression approaches that try to separate theeffects of independent variables. Althoughpeople may vary in the overall volume andcomposition of the capitals that they possess(Bourdieu 1985, p. 231), it is insufficient tostudy social space as an aggregate of individu-als and their capital holdings. This is becausethe power that capital provides depends on thestructure of the field in which it is activated.

Field is a mesolevel concept denoting thelocal social world in which actors are embed-ded and toward which they orient their ac-tions. In his review of field theory, Martin de-lineates three senses of the concept of field—atopological space of positions, a field of rela-tional forces, and a battlefield of contestation.All three senses are present in Bourdieu’s writ-ings, but the sense of contest is most signif-icant (Martin 2003, pp. 28–30), as exempli-fied by his frequent use of a game metaphor.Like a game, a field has rules for how to play,stakes or forms of value (i.e., capital), andstrategies for playing the game. In the pro-cess of playing, participants become investedin and absorbed by the game itself (Bourdieu& Wacquant 1992, pp. 98–100).3 Yet the most

3For applications of the game metaphor in Bourdieu’s so-ciology, see the analysis of the field of power as a “gamingspace” in The State Nobility (Bourdieu 1998 [1989], pp. 264–78) and the explication of the relationship between habitusand field as a “feel for the game” in The Logic of Practice(Bourdieu 1990b [1980], pp. 66–69).

important game in any field is establishingthe rules to define “the legitimate principlesof the field” (Bourdieu 1991 [1982], p. 242).Bourdieu (1991 [1982], p. 167) considers thisthe most effective form of power, the capac-ity of dominant groups to impose “the defi-nition of the social world that is best suitedto their interests,” which he calls symbolicpower.

What are the different types of fields, andhow are they related? We can identify fieldsby what is at stake within them: “In empir-ical work, it is one and the same thing todetermine what the field is, where its limitslie . . . and to determine what species of capitalare active in it” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992,pp. 98–99; cf. Bourdieu 1989, pp. 132–33).The “fundamental species of capital” (eco-nomic, cultural, and social) tend to operatein all fields, whereas specialized forms existthat have value only within a particular field—for example, scientific capital within the aca-demic field (Bourdieu 1991 [1982], pp. 124–25). The concept of field also provides entreeinto Bourdieu’s theory of history: Premodernsocieties did not have fields per se, as all ac-tion occurred in a single social space, whereasmodern societies are characterized by a pro-liferation of fields. The relations among dif-ferentiated fields are governed by the modernstate, characterized by Bourdieu as the pos-sessor of a metacapital through which rulesand hierarchies of value are established acrossfields. It is, in Bourdieu’s (1989, p. 22) famousextension of Weber’s formulation, the “holderof the monopoly of legitimate symbolicviolence.”

The metaphor of field is reminiscent ofphysics. However, “social science is not a so-cial physics” because people, unlike particles,can change the principles that structure a field(Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992, pp. 101–2). Totheorize the relationship between structureand agent, Bourdieu (1991 [1982], p. 53) in-troduces the concept of habitus, a system of“durable, transposable dispositions.” Habitusis a slippery concept; we offer what we think tobe its three essential characteristics. First, as

24 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

a disposition, habitus is less a set of consciousstrategies and preferences than an embodiedsense of the world and one’s place within it—a tacit “feel for the game” (Bourdieu 1984[1979], p. 114; Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992,pp. 128–35). Second, because it is internal-ized in individuals through early socializationin the family or primary group, habitus isdurable (although never immutable). Third,habitus is transposable, in that people carrytheir dispositions with them as they enter newsettings.

Bourdieu’s work is frequently criticized ontwo grounds: for being too static and for beingtoo specific to French society (e.g., Gartman1991, Alexander 1995, Griswold 1998). Ac-cording to the stasis critique, the interlockingconcepts of field, capital, and habitus depictan airtight system in which structures produceindividuals who in turn reproduce structures.Whereas Bourdieu did document a great dealof reproduction of inequality in his empiricalwork, he also argued that his theory can ac-count for change. Mental structures and socialstructures rarely correspond perfectly. Undersuch circumstances, such as those observedby Bourdieu in revolutionary Algeria, a dis-placement of the habitus occurs: The every-day world is now problematic. This in turnmay open “space for symbolic strategies aimedat exploiting the discrepancies between thenominal and the real” (Bourdieu 1984 [1979],p. 481). Even relatively stable fields can bedestabilized by exposing the symbolic vio-lence supporting existing power relations—for Bourdieu, this is a central task of sociolog-ical inquiry.

What of the criticism that Bourdieu istoo French? Early critiques of Bourdieu ar-gued that he attempted to universalize theparticularities of French society and thathis empirical findings could not be general-ized to America. However, scholars are in-creasingly adopting a relativist rather thansubstantivist view of his theory. Bourdieuhimself did not expect that his empirical find-ings on France could be directly reproducedelsewhere; he merely identified underlying

structures whose contents could differ cross-nationally:

Those who dismiss my analyses on accountof their “Frenchness” (every time I visit theUnited States, there is somebody to tell methat “in the mass culture of America, tastedoes not differentiate between class posi-tions”) fail to see that what is truly importantin them is not so much the substantive re-sults as the process through which they areobtained. “Theories” are research programsthat call not for “theoretical debate” but for apractical utilization (Bourdieu & Wacquant1992, p. 77).

BOURDIEU IN AMERICANSOCIOLOGY JOURNALS

To see precisely how Bourdieu’s research pro-gram has been utilized practically in Americansociology since 1980, we indexed its influenceon empirical research published in major jour-nals. We compiled a database of all articlespublished between 1980 and 2004 in four so-ciology journals with consistently high impacton the field (according to the Social ScienceCitation Index). These were the AmericanJournal of Sociology, the American SociologicalReview, Social Forces, and Social Problems. Itis possible that this selection of journals un-derstates Bourdieu’s influence, as his workmay have entered American sociology via lessmainstream journals (although a preliminaryanalysis yields little evidence of such a trend).4

By concentrating on general journals in the

4This is certainly true of Theory and Society, to whichBourdieu was a frequent contributor. As early as 1980–1984, approximately 11% of articles in Theory and Societywere citing Bourdieu. By 2000–2004, Bourdieu appearedin nearly one of every three articles in that journal. Con-versely, we found scant reference to Bourdieu in two otherjournals that one might expect to have been early adopters.In Qualitative Sociology, only 3 out of 200 articles citedBourdieu between 1983–1994. Citations have increasedsince then—with 5 articles (5%) from 1994–1999 and 8articles (8%) from 2000–2004, a rate below that of thejournals we analyze. Similarly, only 3 articles citing Bour-dieu appeared in Gender and Society from 1987–1994, with7 articles (4%) from 1995–1999, and 6 articles (3%) from2000–2004.

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 25

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

discipline, we develop a barometer for Bour-dieu’s influence where it may be least ex-pected, constituting a strong test of the main-streaming of his theory.

From this database of 4040 articles, we ex-tracted all that cited Bourdieu at least once,generating a total of 235 articles (5.8% of allarticles published in the period).5 We sub-sequently analyzed and coded them so as totrack the following: the general diffusion ofBourdieu’s ideas and concepts into the fieldover this time period and the level of engage-ment with Bourdieu by scholars, as well astrends in the main concepts used and specificworks cited.

Finding 1: Citations of Bourdieu AreIncreasing

Figure 1 documents a marked increase duringour 25-year study period in the percentage ofarticles in the top four sociology journals thatcite at least one writing of Bourdieu (numbersgiven are totals per five-year period). Whereasonly 2% of all articles did so in the 1980–1984 period, 11% did so during the 2000–2004 period.

Figure 2 displays this growth in termsof the total number of articles citing Bour-dieu in each journal during each five-year pe-riod. The number more than doubled from1984 to 1994 (from 16 to 40) and thendoubled again from 1995–2004 (from 40 to80). Figure 2 also illustrates trends acrossjournals. Whereas during the first 15 yearsof the study period, the majority (69%) ofBourdieu-citing articles appeared in AmericanJournal of Sociology or American SociologicalReview, during the past 10 years the distri-bution across journals has equalized consid-

5Some of these articles were authored by scholars whomight not be identified as American sociologists (e.g.,economists, or sociologists based outside the UnitedStates). We nevertheless included them in the final sam-ple insofar as articles published in these four journals aregenerally written for and read by scholars situated in thefield of U.S. sociology.

erably. In sum, Figures 1 and 2 demon-strate a steady diffusion of Bourdieu’s writingsinto American sociology throughout the past25 years.

Finding 2: IncreasinglyComprehensive Citations

All citations of course do not have equal signif-icance. Having documented an increase in thetotal number and percentage of articles cit-ing Bourdieu, we sought to discern preciselyhow Bourdieu’s work was being put to use inthese articles. To what extent has Bourdieu in-spired a research program, in that sociologistsdraw on his work to formulate questions, de-sign research, and interpret results? We classi-fied each article according to a three-categoryschema to capture the degree to which theauthor engaged Bourdieu. At one extreme arewhat we call limited citations. These are arti-cles that mention Bourdieu but briefly (typi-cally only once, rarely in the text itself, and of-ten in a string of related citations) and withoutany further elucidation of his theory or works.The following example, taken from the data-analysis section of an American Journal of Soci-ology article by Giordano et al. (2002, p. 1028),qualifies as a limited citation:

As we indicated in the previous examina-tion of the lives of three specific women,the ways in which the respondents are po-sitioned structurally varies and is a foun-dation upon which any change effortswill be constructed. However, the respon-dent’s comments above make clear thatthis involves perceptual as well as objectiveelements (Bourdieu 1977).

We label this article’s engagement limitedbecause, although stating that one respon-dent’s comments can be interpreted as gen-erally in line with Bourdieu’s framework, theauthors neither mention Bourdieu again nordeploy any of his concepts specifically in theirresearch design. Of course, in labeling an ar-ticle a limited citation, we are not evaluatingthe article’s overall quality. These citations

26 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

signal awareness of the general significanceof Bourdieu’s research program, even if thatprogram is not essential to the study’s socio-logical contribution.

We label as an intermediate citation onethat goes beyond a cursory reference, butstops short of a comprehensive engagementwith Bourdieu’s theory. An intermediate ci-tation provides some discussion of specificwritings, often engages Bourdieu at multiplepoints in the article, and may even structurea measure around one of his concepts. Con-sider Paxton’s (1999) article “Is Social Capi-tal Declining in the United States?”, in whichshe develops several measures of social capitalwith which to test Putnam’s “bowling alone”thesis. Although her results are striking in thatthey challenge conventional assumptions re-garding the decline of trust and associations inAmerica, what is important for our purposesis that one of her social capital measures isspecifically derived from Bourdieu’s concep-tualization, a connection she dedicates severalparagraphs to explaining.

We in turn label an article a comprehen-sive citation if it sustains a theoretical engage-ment with Bourdieu. Such articles derive theircentral research questions and/or hypothe-ses from his theory. Furthermore, they typi-cally mention Bourdieu in the abstract and citethree or more of his works. A good example isthe article “Forms of Capital and Social Struc-ture in Cultural Fields: Examining Bourdieu’sSocial Topography” (Anheier et al. 1995). Assignaled by both the title and the first sen-tence of the abstract—“This article tests onekey assumption of Bourdieu’s theory of cul-ture fields”—this article is centered entirelyon a prolonged dialogue with Bourdieu.

Figure 3 presents our findings concern-ing the depth of citations. Overall we witnessa fourfold increase in the raw number of ar-ticles with an intermediate or comprehensiveengagement, from 7 in the initial period ofour study (1980–1984) to 27 in the final pe-riod (2000–2004). The percentage of such ar-ticles, however, is decreasing, as limited cita-tions proliferate. Whereas in the 1980–1994

period just over half of all citations werelimited, by 1995–2004 approximately two-thirds were. This increase in limited engage-ments does not necessarily mean that citingBourdieu is a purely ceremonial act. It mayin fact be a sign that at least some of Bour-dieu’s core concepts have become so taken forgranted within the sociological lexicon thatthey may serve as building blocks for largerarguments and therefore their elaboration isno longer needed in the context of a journalarticle.

Finding 3: Progression of Bourdieu’sResearch Program

Having shown that Bourdieu is increasinglycited in American sociology journals, wenext sought to discern whether these arti-cles push back on Bourdieu by problematiz-ing and/or developing his key concepts. Weasked, in other words, whether Bourdieu’swork has engendered a progressive researchprogram in American sociology. As elaboratedby Lakatos (1978), there are two types of re-search programs. A degenerative program isone in which troubling findings are assidu-ously avoided. In contrast, a research programis progressive to the extent that its core postu-lates and concepts are aggressively applied tonew areas of empirical research, resulting inanomalies. These anomalies in turn representchallenges to which the researcher respondsby extending the program through the refine-ment of core postulates or the specification ofauxiliary ones.

We thus coded all 49 articles in our studythat comprehensively engage Bourdieu ac-cording to whether they either use their em-pirical findings to extend Bourdieu’s theoryor use Bourdieu’s theory to extend a sub-field within sociology. Of these 49 articles, 25(51%) explicitly attempt to extend Bourdieu’sresearch program. A good example of thistype of project is Erickson’s (1996) article“Class, Culture and Connections.” In it sheapplies Bourdieu’s two-dimensional schema ofsocial spaces (accounting for the distribution

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 27

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Table 1 Bourdieu’s key concepts used over time

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004Key conceptCapital 44a 45 55 40 32Field 0 3 3 12 11Habitus 13 14 15 3 8Symbolic power 6 3 2 4 9None 37 35 25 41 40Key capitalb

Cultural 86 92 86 79 46Social 0 8 5 18 42Other 14 0 9 3 12

aPercentages based on our analysis of four American sociology journals (American Journal of Sociology, AmericanSociological Review, Social Forces, and Social Problems).bKey capital is listed as a percentage of those articles for which capital is the key concept.

of economic and cultural capitals) to theorganization of a private security industry.Contra Bourdieu’s well-known findings re-ported in Distinction on the importance ofhigh-culture knowledge, Erickson discoversthat the breadth of one’s cultural knowledgealong with one’s networks are responsible forintrafirm patterns of hierarchy. These results,she claims, allow us to expand and modifyBourdieu’s theory, by specifying the differentsorts of capital that might structure a field(Erickson 1996, p. 247).

The remaining 24 comprehensive arti-cles (49%) use Bourdieu’s ideas to engageand extend an existing research programin American sociology. Ron (2000), for in-stance, interviewed Israeli soldiers regardingthe use of repression during actions againstPalestinians. By putting to use Bourdieu’s dis-tinction between rules and practices, Ron’sarticle advances political sociology’s under-standing of state violence.

Finding 4: Capital (EspeciallyCultural) Dominates

Our final set of questions concerns trendsin the use of specific concepts and the cita-tion of specific works. For each article in thedatabase, we coded which, if any, of Bourdieu’s

four primary concepts (capital, field, habitus,and symbolic power) was most central to theanalysis. We also checked whether each arti-cle employed all these concepts relationally,as Bourdieu intended—only 9% did so, andnearly all of these engaged Bourdieu’s ideas insome depth.

Table 1 demonstrates that capital is andhas been the most popular concept. Capitalwas cited by 45% of all articles in our anal-ysis, and in each period it prevailed over thesecond most frequently cited concept by atleast a three-to-one ratio. Capital’s popularityamong researchers, however, seems to havedeclined over the past ten years, droppingfrom a high of 55% of cites in the 1990–1994period to just 32% in the 2000–2004 period.The same holds for habitus, which was the sec-ond most frequently used concept from 1980to 1994, but whose use has since declined. Thefield concept, in contrast, has slowly workedits way into American sociology. Although itwas cited only rarely in the first 15 years of ourstudy, it now is cited in approximately 10% ofarticles.

Considering the importance of the capitalconcept to research published in U.S. sociol-ogy journals, we investigated further whichspecies of capital was the primary focus ofthese articles. Overall, 74% of these articles

28 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

centered on cultural capital and 18% on so-cial capital. There appears, however, to be anongoing dramatic shift in the relative pop-ularity of these two capitals. In 1980–1984,86% of articles that employed capital as thecore concept concentrated on cultural capi-tal (undoubtedly reflecting the popularity atthis time of Bourdieu’s work on education,buoyed later by the popularity of Distinc-tion), while none focused on social capital.By 2000–2004, cultural capital’s share haddeclined to 46%, while social capital’s hadrisen to 42%. This trend can likely be ac-counted for by the increasing interest in so-cial capital across several subfields: social net-work analysis, race/immigration, and politicalsociology.

To understand these changing patterns,we examined trends in the citations of spe-cific works. Figure 4 presents these data forall writings that were cited by at least 10%of the articles in any time period. We see,first, a sharp decline in citations of Bour-dieu’s main book on education, Reproductionin Education, Society and Culture (Bourdieu& Passeron 1977). Cited by approximately40% of articles in the 1980s, it is now citedby only approximately 10%. Citations of thetwo Practice books also dropped in the early1990s, although they have since regained theirplace as the second most frequently citedworks. By far the most influential work overthe past 15 years, however, is Distinction,which during its peak period of 1990–1994was cited by nearly 60% of all articles. In sum,Bourdieu’s cultural capital—especially as elab-orated in Distinction—remains the key influ-ence on research in American sociology jour-nals. These trends may be attributed in partto the timing of the translation of Bourdieu’sworks into English. The books that appearedearliest have experienced a dip in popular-ity as translations of additional works appear.Time will tell whether more recently trans-lated works such as The State Nobility and TheSocial Structure of the Economy will gain a broadaudience, or whether reference to Bourdieuwill be mostly limited to a few canonical texts.

FOUR BOOKS EXTENDINGAMERICAN SOCIOLOGY

We now turn from a quantitative study of ci-tation patterns to a qualitative analysis of howBourdieu has been put to use in recent book-length studies. We chose four monographsto examine in detail based on the followingfour criteria: First, the author is a prominentscholar in a particular sociological subfield;second, he or she is based at an American uni-versity; third, the monograph incorporates atleast one of Bourdieu’s major concepts into itsresearch design; and fourth, it has been subse-quently judged as an important text in the sub-field. They are Eyal et al.’s (1999) Making Cap-italism Without Capitalists, on forms of capitalin political sociology; Fligstein’s (2002) TheArchitecture of Markets, on fields in economicsociology; Lamont’s (1994) Money, Morals andManners, on symbolic power in the sociol-ogy of culture; and Wacquant’s (2004) Bodyand Soul, on habitus in urban sociology. Thesebooks also employ a diverse range of researchmethods, including survey analysis, interview-ing, comparative historical, and ethnography.For each of the four books we ask the fol-lowing questions: What role do Bourdieu’sconcepts play in the project’s research design?How do the authors use Bourdieu’s ideas toadvance key debates in the subfield? And howare the findings used to extend Bourdieu’s re-search program?

Capital and Political Sociology

In their book Making Capitalism Without Cap-italists, Eyal et al. (1999) pose a puzzle: Howdid capitalism emerge in postcommunist Cen-tral Europe without the formation of a prop-ertied bourgeoisie? Some predicted that com-munist elites would become a bourgeois classby turning state resources into their own pri-vate wealth. However, Eyal et al.’s survey ev-idence in Hungary, Poland, and the CzechRepublic reveals divergent patterns of mo-bility among fractions of the Soviet elite.They employ Bourdieu’s concept of capital to

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 29

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

describe the winners and losers in the fieldof power. Holders of Soviet political capital(i.e., party bureaucrats) and economic capital(i.e., informal entrepreneurs) failed to adjustto new conditions, whereas the holders of cul-tural capital used knowledge rather than prop-erty to foster a new variety of capitalism (Eyalet al. 1999, p. 74).

What allowed cultural elites to dominatethe economic and political fields after social-ism? The hybrid property forms that emergedduring the transition period created an open-ing for new types of strategies for controllingassets without formally owning them (Stark& Bruszt 1998). Cultural capital providedcertain elites with not simply knowledge onhow to manage an economy, but the abil-ity to stake symbolic claims to legitimate thenew order. In tracing elite power struggles,Eyal et al. (1999) show how a “governmen-tality of managerialism”—in Foucault’s senseof the production of truth claims as a meansto power (cf. Eyal 2003)—emerged via an un-easy alliance between communist technocratsand dissident intellectuals. Neoliberal tech-nologies such as monetarism appealed to themanagerial ethos of technocrats, whereas dis-sidents embraced the ideology of civil soci-ety. This alliance grafted dissident rituals ofsacrifice, purification, and confession of com-munist sins onto neoliberal ideologies thatcalled for collective belt-tightening, personalresponsibility, and fiscal austerity.

Eyal et al. (1999) deploy Bourdieu to ad-vance political sociology in two ways: Theydevelop a framework for understanding in-traelite power struggles, and they mergeBourdieu and Weber to propose a new schemafor classifying social systems. The book’s em-phasis on elites is both a strength and a sourceof controversy. Eyal et al. follow Bourdieu(1984 [1979], pp. 176, 421) in analyzing the“dominant and dominated fractions of thedominant class,” thus moving beyond a sim-ple story of elites versus masses. Having foundthat cultural capital is ascendant in CentralEurope, the authors highlight the crucial role

of control over symbolic meanings in politi-cal power struggles. In their words, “We seethe essence of ‘cultural capital’ not as the ap-propriation of ‘surplus-value’ but as the exer-cise of symbolic domination” (Eyal et al. 1999,p. 236).

A sophisticated treatment of postcom-munist elites, the book ignores the lowerclasses because “capitalism is being made fromabove” (Eyal et al. 1999, p. 160). This deci-sion may appear to reflect Bourdieu’s lead: Indefining the lower classes in terms of whatthey lack (capital), Bourdieu has more to sayabout struggle among elites than about varia-tion within other classes (Crane 2000, p. 27).In a review of Making Capitalism Without Cap-italists, Burawoy (2001, pp. 1103, 1112) pointsout that Bourdieu, in analyzing “the reproduc-tion and mystification of class relations,” doespresent extensive evidence about the workingclasses. Eyal et al. (2001, p. 1122) respond thatelites simply matter more in Central Europe,where there is no collective working class,but rather a “demobilized, disorganized massof workers.” Nevertheless, whether the lowerclasses recognize the cultural elite and theircapitalist project as legitimate is an impor-tant question, unanswered in Making Capital-ism Without Capitalists.

This study of the transition to capitalism inCentral Europe motivates a broad theoreticalagenda: to reconstruct Weber’s theory of his-tory via Bourdieu’s theory of social structure.Eyal et al. (1999) map Weber’s classificationof stratification orders onto Bourdieu’s formsof capital: Social capital dominates societiesstratified by rank (status), whereas economiccapital is ascendant in class societies. They his-toricize these concepts by asking what formsof capital dominate at various times, lead-ing them to rethink neo-Weberian theoriesof both socialism and capitalism. Many an-alysts of socialism characterize Soviet soci-eties as having a neotraditional status order,in contrast to the modern class order of cap-italism ( Jowitt 1992). However, a status or-der can be modern: In the Soviet case it was

30 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

institutionalized as political capital andfounded on the substantive rationality of theparty-state (Eyal et al. 1999, pp. 66–67). Sim-ilarly, contra both Weber and Marx, some ofthe chief institutions of capitalism—i.e., mar-kets for commodities, labor, and capital—canexist without a propertied bourgeoisie. Thiscan still be considered capitalism if “we definethe bourgeoisie not ‘structurally,’ by its posi-tion in the relations of production, but ‘histor-ically,’ as the class whose historical project isto modernize society” (Eyal et al. 1999, p. 60).This “forms of capital” approach to stratifica-tion systems provides a more flexible classi-fication schema that accommodates differenttypes of modernity as well as different varietiesof capitalism.

Making Capitalism Without Capitalists ex-tends Bourdieu’s theory by applying hisconceptual framework to a new historical con-text, and in so doing develops a novel ty-pology for the comparative study of capi-talism. Eyal et al. (1999) apply Bourdieu’sconcept of trajectory adjustment, originallydeveloped to account for social mobility inmore stable societies, to show how his con-ceptual apparatus can be applied to the studyof transformation (see Eyal 2003 for a moreextended development of this idea). The fo-cus on Eastern Europe also reveals a novel po-tential for cultural capital to predominate inthe field of power, a possibility not consideredby Bourdieu (1984 [1979], p. 291), who char-acterized cultural capital as “the dominatedprinciple of domination.” Nevertheless, Eyalet al. conclude that the current ascendanceof cultural capital in Central Europe is un-likely to last long. Like charismatic authority,rule by cultural capital must be recognized tobe effective. Regime stability depends on theoften transitory recognition by other actorsof the “the validity of their truth claims, orthe usefulness of their knowledge” (Eyal et al.1999, p. 68). In the case of postcommunism,those claims support the eventual transitionto a class society in which economic capital isascendant.

Fields and Economic Sociology

The Architecture of Markets is Fligstein’s (2002)attempt to outline a conceptual apparatus foreconomic sociology. The first part of the bookdelineates his main concepts, the most impor-tant of which for our purposes is the idea oforganizational fields. Fligstein’s (2002, p. 29)“theory of fields assumes that actors try to pro-duce a ‘local’ stable world where the dominantactors produce meanings that allow them toreproduce their advantage.” Economic fieldsspecifically are stabilized through four sets ofrules: property rights defining who may le-gitimately be a player; governance structuresspecifying the rules these actors must obey;rules of exchange of various resources; andconceptions of control, essentially the com-monsense strategies of field actors. The sec-ond part of the book then uses the field con-cept to illuminate several empirical topics:why countries differ in their dominant em-ployment systems, the evolution of corporatemanagement styles in the United States, andthe dynamics of globalization.

How does Fligstein’s use of the field con-cept advance current debates on the organi-zation of capitalist economies? First, it avoidsthe pitfalls associated with rational-choiceaccounts, which “use interests as the mainexplanatory variable” for understanding eco-nomic action (Fligstein 2002, p. 30). Such in-terests are typically taken to be universal: themaximization of a set of preferences such ashappiness or, in the context of firms, profits.Yet field theory problematizes the notion ofinvariant interests instead inquiring how ac-tors conceptualize their interests in the firstplace (Guillen 2003, Martin 2003). Nor isfield theory congruent with attempts to res-cue rational choice theory through accountsof bounded rationality or managerial satisfic-ing (Simon 1957), through which variations indecision making are explained through infor-mation constraints. Fligstein (1990) insteadtraces managers’ conceptions of control totheir trainings and career trajectories. Actionin the economic field, in short, is reasonable

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 31

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

rather than rational (Bourdieu 2005 [2000],p. 2).

Second, the field concept avoids the mis-take of treating markets as either dynamicand constantly in flux or stable and durable.On one hand, both economic and Marxistperspectives portray the ideal-typical capi-talist economy as a competitive free marketin which firms struggle to maximize prof-its. In such accounts, the strategies throughwhich firms compete—e.g., by suppressingworkers’ wages or undercutting competitors’prices—undermine stability and cause regu-lar episodes of market destruction. The eco-nomic sociology of fields argues “in contra-diction to theories of competitive markets,[that] many markets have complex and stablesocial structures” (Fligstein 2002, p. 7; empha-sis added). Rather than an anarchic market, aneconomic field is characterized by implicit un-derstandings about how competition is han-dled, what roles various firms have in the mar-ket, and the general hierarchy of firms (Carroll& Swaminathan 2000, White 2002).

On the other hand, some have argued thatthe field concept as it is used by Fligstein andBourdieu overstates the durability of marketarrangements, thus losing sight of the conflictand dynamism that do occur in the economy(Roy 2004). Others point out, however, thatfield theory specifies both the conditions un-der which market structures become open totransformation, as well as the strategies usedby actors at these moments to reshape thesestructures (Krippner 2001). Although stablefields are vertically stratified, they are alsoopen to revolutions from below in which sub-ordinate firms or actors from outside the fieldchallenge the existent hierarchy of producers.At these moments the prevailing governancestructures and conceptions of control are ren-dered problematic. During such field crises,what is at stake is not simply the distribution ofresources, but the very rules by which the fieldwill operate. And although Fligstein (2002,pp. 76–77) does not use Bourdieu’s terminol-ogy exactly, he does specify the various formsof capital—coalitions, framing strategies, po-

litical opportunities—mobilized by actors inincipient or transitional economic fields.

The third way in which the field conceptcontributes to economic sociology is by deep-ening accepted understandings of globaliza-tion, most notably by theorizing the politi-cal dimension of the process. Both Bourdieuand Fligstein argue that states are essentialfor making and maintaining market fields.In Bourdieu’s (2005 [2000], p. 223) only ex-tended treatise on the economic field, SocialStructures of the Economy, he argues that, “his-torically, the economic field was constructedwithin the framework of the national state.”Fligstein (2002, p. 8), drawing on Polanyi(1957), also emphasizes the false antimony be-tween free markets and state regulation thatneoliberal economics takes for granted. Bybringing the state back in, field theory refutesthose who posit an inevitable move toward theAmerican model of minimal state regulation,maximum corporate flexibility, and a share-holder value conception of control (Strange1996). Hence we see a convergence in theiraccounts of globalization:

The “global market” is a political cre-ation . . . . [W]hat is universally proposed andimposed as the norm of all rational economicpractices is, in reality, the universalizationof the particular characteristics of an econ-omy embedded in a particular history andsocial structure—those of the United States(Bourdieu 2005 [2000], pp. 225–26).

[G]lobalization and shareholder value havebecome united . . . . [S]hareholder valuemeans that firms should maximize profits forowners, and governments should just stayout of it. This ideology is a generalizationabout the American experience (Fligstein2002, p. 221).

The dynamics of the incipient global eco-nomic field, in both of these accounts, de-rive less from inherent efficiencies of U.S.-style capitalism than from the deploymentby American firms and right-leaning politi-cians of their material and symbolic capital to

32 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

construct field rules that cement their stand-ing as dominant actors.

To conclude we consider two importantways in which Fligstein’s and Bourdieu’s ac-counts diverge: regarding consumers and in-stitutions. Fligstein (2002) excises consumersfrom his story, concerned as he is to refute eco-nomic theories of market demand as structur-ing production fields. Producer identities, inmost economic sociology accounts, derive pri-marily from horizontal ties with other produc-ers. Bourdieu (2005 [2000], p. 19; 1984 [1979];1990c [1965]), however, argues that the “par-ticular characteristic of the product,” espe-cially its symbolic meaning for consumers,exerts an independent effect on the struc-ture of suppliers. The field of house buildersin France is thus characterized by a dividebetween producers of traditional craftsmenhouses and producers of prefabricated mod-ern houses. It would in our opinion be an in-teresting line of research to discern whetherthe field formation projects that Fligsteintreats as generic do in fact vary across indus-trial sectors, depending on the meaning of theproduct to consumers themselves.

The second point of divergence relates tothe greater weight given by Fligstein (2002,p. 39) to the institutional context or policydomain in which field struggles take place.For instance, even in state systems in whichdominant firms have captured the executiveand legislative branches, field challengers canmount attacks within the legal domain. Some,however, have argued that in Bourdieu’s writ-ings we often find a lacuna between abstractfield struggles and concrete practices withinfields (Swartz 1997, p. 293; Lareau 2003,p. 277). A notable exception is the aforemen-tioned study of housing policy, in which we seehow policy decisions were made by bureau-crats and legitimated via a formally indepen-dent commission of inquiry. Paying attentionto how action plays out in concrete institu-tional locations such as policy domains canbut give flesh to the conceptual foundationsof field theory (Sallaz 2006).

Symbolic Power and CulturalSociology

In Money, Morals and Manners, Lamont (1994)asks how upper-middle-class white men inthe United States and France draw “sym-bolic boundaries” to define themselves andclassify others. A follow-up book, The Dig-nity of Working Men, extends the study toworking-class and nonwhite men in bothcountries (Lamont 2000). Symbolic bound-aries, she argues, support stratification sys-tems to the extent that they facilitate exclusionand hierarchy. Lamont (1994, p. 5) devel-ops this concept through an extended engage-ment with Bourdieu—in her own words, thestudy “builds directly on Bourdieu’s appara-tus. Indeed, it adopts the Bourdieuian viewthat shared cultural style contributes to classreproduction.”

Lamont (1994) identifies three modes ofsymbolic exclusion in her respondents’ dis-courses: cultural boundaries drawn on the ba-sis of education and refined tastes; socioeco-nomic boundaries rooted in wealth, power,occupation, and race; and moral boundariesvaluing qualities such as integrity, work ethic,and egalitarianism. Lamont classifies her re-spondents according to the salience of thesethree types of boundaries and finds that cul-tural boundaries are much less salient thansocioeconomic and moral boundaries in theUnited States, whereas the opposite holds forFrance. This difference is attributed to varia-tion in both structural conditions (i.e., educa-tion and welfare systems, job security, and mo-bility patterns) and cultural repertoires (e.g.,intellectual traditions of individualism versushumanism).

Prior to Lamont, Bourdieu-influencedcultural sociology consisted mostly of surveyresearch on the association between culturalcapital and highbrow taste to test whetherBourdieu’s findings for France hold true forthe United States (e.g., DiMaggio 1982,Peterson & Kern 1996, Bryson 1996; seeHolt 1997 for a review). Lamont (1994) ar-gues that survey researchers predefine what

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 33

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

counts as status markers through the closedformat of their questions. She turns toqualitative methods—specifically to in-depthinterviews—to inquire inductively into howpeople actually draw symbolic boundaries. Inthe process, she discovers new types of bound-ary work (Lamont 1994, p. 3). Class distinc-tions in the United States, she finds, are drawnprimarily by moral discourses, as opposed tothe cultural boundary work that predominatesin France. Bourdieu (1984 [1979], pp. 41,48) viewed such moral opprobrium as pre-dominant among the working classes, whosetastes refer “explicitly to norms of morality oragreeableness in all of their judgments” (cf.Lamont 1994, p. 277). In finding that the up-per classes also employ explicitly moral dis-courses in drawing boundaries, Lamont hasinspired greater attention to morality in re-cent studies of culture and inequality (e.g.,Southerton 2002).

Just as Lamont brings a renewed focuson class into the study of culture, she alsobrings culture into the study of stratifica-tion by providing qualitative evidence on the“lived experience of class” (Thompson 1963).Although ethnographers have long studiedworking-class culture from the perspective ofthe shop floor, relatively few qualitative stud-ies explore the cultural experience of class inother settings [Halle’s (1993) study of homeinteriors and Lareau’s (2003) study of child-rearing practices are exceptions]. Lamont’s(1994, 2000) two volumes follow Bourdieu indrawing attention to the symbolic dimensionof class inequality and reproduction.

This work also demonstrates the analyticalutility of cross-national comparisons, whichremain rare in sociological studies of cul-ture. Lamont may not have noticed moral andsocioeconomic boundaries in France with-out first studying them in the United States,where they are more apparent. These com-parative findings lead her to question and ul-timately reject Bourdieu’s research program.In her view, the concept of cultural capital isflawed because it leads analysts to focus exclu-sively on one type of symbolic boundary. She

thus proposes to replace Bourdieu’s forms ofcapital with her typology of symbolic bound-aries. Similarly, she dispenses with the conceptof field as suggesting a zero-sum game withfixed rules (Lamont 1994, p. 183). Boundarywork only leads to class reproduction to theextent that a social consensus exists on the sig-nals of high status, a state of affairs that ana-lysts should investigate rather than presume(Lamont 1994, pp. 177–78).

Rather than extending Bourdieu, Lam-ont (1994, 2000) moves beyond him andultimately leaves him behind (he is scarcelymentioned in The Dignity of Working Men).Thus sociologists appear to be faced with achoice of theories for relating culture andinequality: Lamont’s symbolic boundariesversus Bourdieu’s forms of capital. How-ever, we think the two frameworks canbe synthesized by returning to Bourdieu’sconcept of symbolic power, which Lamontdoes not discuss. Bourdieu (1991 [1982],p. 105) defines symbolic power as controlover “the perception which social agentshave of the social world.” We view symbolicboundary work as a bid for a form of symbolicpower, the power to define the “criteriawhich are used to evaluate status,” whichLamont (1994, p. 5) defines as the purposeof boundary work. Although Bourdieu’s workon class culture focuses empirically on thelegitimation of cultural capital, the theory canaccommodate other types of boundary work.The effects of boundary work on legitimationare an empirical question, and Lamont (1994,p. 179) calls for more observational studies toillustrate how boundary work is “translatedinto social profits,” which is difficult to assessfrom interviews alone. Future scholars couldprofitably extend both her work and that ofBourdieu through ethnographic research onboundary work in practice.

Habitus and Urban Ethnography

In Body and Soul, Wacquant (2004) uses par-ticipant observation data collected while hewas a graduate student at the University of

34 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Chicago to describe daily life in an African-American boxing gym situated in the city’simpoverished south side. Although Wacquant(2004) argues both that the process of becom-ing a boxer entails learning how to manageone’s “bodily capital” (p. 127) and that thelarger world of prizefighting can be concep-tualized as a “pugilistic field” (p. 141), thebulk of his ethnographic data is mobilizedtoward describing the genesis and function-ing of the habitus of this sporting world. Thepugilistic habitus is that of “a virtual punchingmachine, but an intelligent and creative ma-chine capable of self-regulation while inno-vating within a fixed and relatively restrictedpanoply of moves as an instantaneous func-tion of the actions of the opponent” (Wac-quant 2004, p. 95). The book itself followsWacquant’s own acquisition of the pugilistichabitus, culminating with an appearance inthe Chicago Golden Gloves tournament. In-sofar as the habitus concept proves useful fordescribing and explaining the corporal dimen-sion of experience, Body and Soul becomes anobject lesson for bringing the body into soci-ological research.

How does Wacquant’s (2004) study ad-vance the subfield of urban sociology? Thebook is firmly embedded within the traditionof urban sociology as practiced by the first andsecond Chicago schools (Abbott 1999). Likeclassic studies of the city, it avoids the tempta-tion to treat the urban ghetto as a disorganizedsocial world, instead elucidating the underly-ing principles that produce regularity and or-der. And like the Chicago school’s symbolicinteractionist tradition, Body and Soul takes se-riously the point of view of its subjects, es-pecially how they make sense of their dailylifeworlds (Hughes 1971). Yet by putting touse the concept of habitus, Wacquant is ableto move beyond the Chicago school in threeways.

First, Body and Soul situates the worldviewof the urban dweller within the larger so-cial structure. In classic accounts, the urbanslum occupied a transition zone within thecity (Park & Burgess 1925). These natural ar-

eas were products of processes beyond any-one’s control, and their inhabitants were typ-ically immigrants unsocialized into the moresof American society (Downes & Rock 1998,p. 71). Habitus, however, serves as a prophy-lactic against such apolitical accounts. For in-sofar as the habitus consists of dispositionsthat are in essence internalized social struc-tures, it can never be analyzed as cut off fromthe outside world. Nor can shifts in the largerenvironment be attributed to natural forces.Wacquant (2004) thus moves out from thegym and its boxers to document the work-ings of the surrounding ghetto. He describesat length the political-economic processes—the disappearance of work, the city’s failedurban renewal projects, the militarization ofstreet gangs—precipitating in these other-wise formidable young men a sense of “claus-trophilia” (Wacquant 2004, p. 26) that bothdraws them into and ties them to the gym.

Second, habitus restores a picture of thesocial actor as embedded in history. TheChicago school of ethnography, especially asrepresented by the symbolic interactionist tra-dition, remained mired in an eternal present(Bourdieu 1989, p. 21). It treated local interac-tion orders as worlds unto themselves whosedynamics could be analyzed without regardto participants’ life trajectories or the “biog-raphy of the occasion” (Drew & Wootton1988, p. 4). In contrast, Wacquant’s (2004)analysis reveals how the past lives on in thepresent. He demonstrates that it is young menwith roots in the stable working class whocan most readily adopt the pugilistic habitus(Wacquant 2004, pp. 44–46). For them therigor and discipline required of the craft in-voke memories of an affluent black Chicago inwhich their fathers held blue-collar jobs. Thisanalysis, we may note, mirrors that of Bour-dieu’s (1979 [1977]) own study of colonial Al-geria. Bourdieu documented the struggles ofpeasants, equipped with a traditional habitusforged in a precapitalist economy of symbolichonor, thrust into a market society. Wacquantdescribes the converse: the travails of an ur-ban proletariat cast out of the modern labor

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 35

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

market. The dispositions necessary to survivethe Fordist factory live on in the progeny ofthe industrial proletariat, even as they navi-gate a deindustrialized urban wasteland.

Third, the habitus concept transcends thepolarization typical of current scholarly andmedia accounts depicting the urban poor as ei-ther a depraved underclass trapped in a cultureof poverty ( Jones & Luo 1999) or noble crea-tures struggling to “live in accordance withstandards of ‘moral’ worth” (Duneier 1999,p. 341). By studying boxers, Wacquant (2004)is able to make this point quite clearly. Like theghetto itself, the boxing ring is equated in thepopular imagination with fury and chaos; it is aspace where punches and blood fly wildly. Butthe gym for its denizens is actually quite pro-saic, an “island of order and virtue” within theghetto (Wacquant 2004, p. 17; see also Geurts2005). Here they engage in camaraderie withfellow boxers, learn valuable life lessons fromthe beloved coach DeeDee, and inject ex-citement into an otherwise dreary existence.Indeed, the pugilistic habitus is a complexof physical dispositions resonant with othervalue spheres. The gym provides a surrogatefamily; putting one’s time in mimics the timecycle of industrial work, whereas the devotionrequired of the craft (e.g., resisting the temp-tations of sex and sweets) mirrors that of areligious discipline.

How could Wacquant’s (2004) study ex-tend Bourdieu’s research program? Body andSoul remains faithful to Bourdieu’s conceptsand ideas; we see the major contribution asthat of deploying the concept of habitus as amethodological tool for producing field data.Though he pronounced a “kinship and a sol-idarity” with those who “put their noses tothe ground” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992),Bourdieu’s writings expressed grave doubtabout ethnography. He labeled it a “primitiveparticipation,” a fallacy of scholastic reasoning(Bourdieu 1990b [1980], p. 14). Researchers,he claimed, can never truly see the world fromtheir subjects’ point of view, insofar as theycannot overcome their skhole, the aloofnesscreated by their distance from practical neces-

sity. Wacquant, as Bourdieu’s student, was un-doubtedly aware of his mentor’s admonitions.He goes to great lengths to demonstrate boththat he was reflexive about his position as a re-searcher and that he was able to overcome thisposition—through rigorous apprenticeship—to gain acceptance from other boxers. In-deed, Wacquant claims to have been so se-duced by the taste and ache of action thathe contemplated leaving the academy to pur-sue a boxing career. While it is debatablewhether Wacquant did overcome the socialand economic gulfs separating him from hissubjects, especially those for whom the ringrepresented the one and only chance to escapepoverty (Fine 2004, Krueger & SaintOnge2005), the book stands as an exemplar of howconcepts such as field, habitus, and capital canbe put to use in ethnographic research.

CONCLUSION

To document the influence of Bourdieu onthe practice of research in American sociol-ogy over the past two-and-a-half decades, wehave deployed methods both quantitative (anempirical study of citation trends in major so-ciology journals) and qualitative (focused ex-egesis of four monographs). To conclude thisreview article, we offer three general observa-tions to conjoin the preceding two sections.In the process, we suggest future directions inBourdieu-inspired research.

First, our study of citation patterns in jour-nal articles shows conclusively that the recentsurge of interest in Bourdieu’s work is notmerely a fad, nor is it a short-lived homagefollowing his passing in 2002. Today over 10%of all articles published in the four leading so-ciology journals cite Bourdieu. Although ourdata do not permit us to make direct compar-isons of the relative popularity of Bourdieuvis-a-vis other social theorists over this timeperiod, they do demonstrate a steady increasein the influence of Bourdieu’s theory since atleast 1980.

We decided to focus on the four mostinfluential sociology journals insofar as they

36 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

could serve as barometers with which to gaugethe increasing presence of Bourdieu in themainstream or core of the discipline. Al-though well-suited for the purpose of a briefreview article, this dataset does not permitinsight into the mechanisms of diffusion ofBourdieu’s theory into U.S. sociology con-ceptualized as a Bourdieuian field. This sortof project would entail documenting not justcitation patterns but also the institutional lo-cations and biographical trajectories of cit-ing authors. Bourdieu’s (1988 [1984]) ownstudy of French sociology and its place inthe larger academic field, Homo Academicus,would suggest as a preliminary hypothesisthat early adopters were scholars seeking tochallenge the prevailing status hierarchy ofthe field. We would here expect to find ear-lier and more frequent citations in periph-eral journals, similarly, with articles utilizingperipheral methods (participant observation,feminist methods, etc.). An alternative hy-pothesis is that agents rich in academic cap-ital (i.e., those with PhDs from high-statusdepartments or universities) were most pre-disposed to attempt the risky tactic of cit-ing the then-outsider Bourdieu. Adjudicationbetween these two hypotheses must awaita future, more thorough study of Americansociology as a Bourdieuian field. Such aproject could also inform the new sociology ofideas, which examines the concrete processesby which ideas diffuse across boundaries—national, disciplinary, and otherwise (Camic& Gross 2001, Vaughan 2006).

Second, as shown by both our quantita-tive analysis of citation patterns and our casestudies of books, Bourdieu’s writings are notbeing cited in a strictly ceremonious man-ner. On the contrary, Bourdieu’s core the-oretical concepts are increasingly used todesign empirical research and to advance de-bates in core sociological subfields. Besidesthe four fields discussed herein (sociologyof culture, economic sociology, urban soci-ology, and political sociology), recent workhas used Bourdieu’s concepts to advance de-bates in the sociology of ethnicity and na-

tionalism (e.g., Brubaker 2004), media stud-ies (e.g., Benson & Neveu 2005), education(Carter 2005), the family (Lareau 2003), stateformation (Loveman 2005), and many otherfields. We would, however, like to point outa relative dearth of work from a Bourdieuianperspective in the sociology of gender (how-ever, see Fodor 2003, Adkins & Skeggs 2004,Martin 2005, Lizardo 2006). All the books re-viewed for this article, for instance, focusedmainly on the experiences of men [Wacquant(2004) on urban boxers, Lamont (1994) onboundary work by French and American men,Eyal et al. (1999) and Fligstein (2002) onmostly male political and economic elites].Considering that Bourdieu (2001 [1998]) heldgender inequality to be the most intractableand pernicious form of domination, this rep-resents a subfield in which new researchcould further advance a Bourdieuian researchprogram.

Third, the works reviewed herein demon-strate the dynamism of Bourdieu’s theory.While many have argued that Bourdieu’sconcepts and findings—especially regard-ing the importance of cultural capital anddistinction—are applicable only to contem-porary French society, we have shown thatthey are in fact transposable to the Americancase and other countries as well. The reviewedworks, by applying Bourdieu’s concept to dy-namic worlds of social change, also put to restthe accusation that he is simply a reproductiontheorist (cf. Gorski 2006). Eyal et al. (1999),for example, use the notion of capital port-folios to understand the transition from so-cialism to capitalism, whereas Fligstein (2002)theorizes the conditions under which fieldscan be transformed. Finally, we have shownthat Bourdieu’s conceptual oeuvre has notbeen imported unreflexively into the UnitedStates, but rather has been treated as a pro-gressive research program. In other words,researchers have aggressively applied his con-cepts to new empirical domains, generatinganomalies that can only be resolved by refin-ing these concepts and enriching social sci-ence generally.

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 37

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For assistance with data collection we thank Danielle Hedegard and Jennifer Schultz. Usefulcomments and conversation were offered by Ron Breiger and Tom Medvetz, as well as theparticipants in the 2006 Summer Institute of the Center for Advanced Study in the BehavioralSciences.

LITERATURE CITED

Abbott A. 1999. Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred. Chicago: Univ.Chicago Press

Adkins L, Skeggs B, eds. 2004. Feminism After Bourdieu. Malden, MA: BlackwellAlexander J. 1995. The reality of reduction: the failed synthesis of Pierre Bourdieu. In Fin

de Siecle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of Reason, ed. J Alexander,pp. 128–217. London: Verso

Anheier HK, Gerhards J, Romo FP. 1995. Forms of capital and social structure in culturalfields: examining Bourdieu’s social topography. Am. J. Sociol. 100:859–903

Benson R, Neveu E, eds. 2005. Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Malden, MA: PolityBourdieu P. 1962 (1958). The Algerians. Boston: BeaconBourdieu P. 1977 (1972). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1979 (1977). Algeria 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1984 (1979). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory Soc. 14:723–44Bourdieu P. 1988 (1984). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: PolityBourdieu P. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociol. Theory 7:14–25Bourdieu P. 1990a. In Other Words: Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford

Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1990b (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1990c (1965). Photography: A Middle-Brow Art. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1991 (1982). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York:

Columbia Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1996 (1992). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford,

CA: Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 1998 (1989). The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 2000a (1997). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 2000b. Passport to Duke. In Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, ed. N Brown,

I Szeman, pp. 241–46. New York: Rowman & LittlefieldBourdieu P. 2001 (1998). Masculine Domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressBourdieu P. 2005 (2000). The Social Structures of the Economy. New York: PolityBourdieu P, Passeron J. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: SageBourdieu P, Wacquant LJD. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

PressBreiger R. 2000. A toolkit for practice theory. Poetics 27:91–115Brubaker R. 1985. Rethinking classical theory: the sociological vision of Pierre Bourdieu. Theory

Soc. 14:745–75Brubaker R. 1993. Social theory as habitus. See Calhoun et al. 1993, pp. 212–34

38 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Brubaker R. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressBurawoy M. 2001. Neoclassical sociology: from the end of communism to the end of classes.

Am. J. Sociol. 106:1099–120Bryson B. 1996. “Anything but heavy metal”: symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. Am.

Sociol. Rev. 61:884–99Calhoun C. 2003. Pierre Bourdieu. In The Blackwell Companion to Major Contemporary Sociological

Theorists, ed. G Ritzer, pp. 274–309. Malden, MA: BlackwellCalhoun C, LiPuma E, Postone M, eds. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Chicago: Univ.

Chicago PressCamic C, Gross N. 2001. The new sociology of ideas. In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology,

ed. J Blau, pp. 236–49. Cambridge: BlackwellCarroll GR, Swaminathan A. 2000. Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dy-

namics of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing industry. Am. J. Sociol. 106:715–62Carter PL. 2005. Keepin’ It Real: School Success Beyond Black and White. New York: Oxford Univ.

PressCrane D. 2000. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. Chicago:

Univ. Chicago PressDiMaggio P. 1979. Review essay: on Pierre Bourdieu. Am. J. Sociol. 84:1460–74DiMaggio P. 1982. Cultural capital and school success: the impact of status culture participation

on the grades of U.S. high school students. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:189–201Downes D, Rock P. 1998. Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule

Breaking. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressDrew P, Wootton A. 1988. Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Oxford: PolityDuneier M. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar Straus & GirouxErickson BH. 1996. Class, culture and connections. Am. J. Sociol. 102:217–51Eyal G. 2003. The Origins of Postcommunist Elites: From Prague Spring to the Breakup of

Czechoslovakia. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressEyal G, Szelenyi I, Townsley ER. 1999. Making Capitalism Without Capitalists: Class Formation

and Elite Struggles in Post-Communist Central Europe. London: VersoEyal G, Szelenyi I, Townsley E. 2001. The utopia of postsocialist theory and the ironic view

of history in neoclassical sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 106:1121–28Fine GA. 2004. Review of Body and Soul. Am. J. Sociol. 110:505–57Fligstein N. 1990. The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.

PressFligstein N. 2002. The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First Century

Capitalist Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressFodor E. 2003. Working Difference: Women’s Working Lives in Hungary and Austria, 1945–1995.

Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressGartman D. 1991. Culture as class symbolization or mass reification? A critique of Bourdieu’s

Distinction. Am. J. Sociol. 97:421–47Geurts KL. 2005. Even boxers carry mace: a comment on relationality in Loıc Wacquant’s Body

and Soul. Qual. Sociol. 28:143–49Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL. 2002. Gender, crime and desistance: toward a

theory of cognitive transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 107:990–1064Gorski P. 2006. Bourdieusian theory and historical analysis. Presented at Practicing Pierre

Bourdieu: In the Field and Across the Disciplines, Ann Arbor, MIGriswold W. 1998. Review of The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field by

Pierre Bourdieu. Am. J. Sociol. 104:972–75

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 39

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Guillen MF. 2003. The economic sociology of markets, industries and firms. Theory Soc. 32:505–15

Gulbenkian Comm. Restruct. Soc. Sci. 1996. Open the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press

Halle D. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

Holt DB. 1997. Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from his critics.Poetics 25:93–120

Hughes E. 1971. The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. Chicago: Aldine-AthertonJones RK, Luo Y. 1999. The culture of poverty and African-American culture: an empirical

assessment. Sociol. Perspect. 42:439–58Jowitt K. 1992. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressKrippner GR. 2001. The elusive market: embeddedness and the paradigm of economic soci-

ology. Theory Soc. 30:775–810Krueger PM, SaintOnge JM. 2005. Boxing it out: a conversation about Body and Soul. Qual.

Sociol. 28:185–89Lakatos I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. New York: Cambridge Univ.

PressLamont M. 1994. Money, Morals and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-

Middle Classes. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressLamont M. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and

Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. PressLane JF. 2000. Pierre Bourdieu: A Critical Introduction. London: PlutoLareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressLizardo O. 2006. The puzzle of women’s ‘highbrow’ culture consumption: integrating gender

and work into Bourdieu’s class theory of taste. Poetics 34:1–23Loveman M. 2005. The modern state and the primitive accumulation of symbolic power. Am.

J. Sociol. 110:1651–83Martin JL. 2003. What is field theory? Am. J. Sociol. 109:1–49Martin JL. 2005. Is power sexy? Am. J. Sociol. 111:408–46Park RE, Burgess EW. 1925. The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the

Urban Environment. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressPaxton P. 1999. Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment.

Am. J. Sociol. 105:88–127Peterson RA, Kern RM. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. Am. Sociol.

Rev. 61:900–7Polanyi K. 1957. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston:

BeaconRon J. 2000. Savage restraint: Israel, Palestine and the dialectics of legal repression. Social Prob.

47:445–72Ross D. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge Univ. PressRoy W. 2004. Power and culture in organizations: two contrasting views. Sociol. Forum 19:163–

72Sallaz JJ. 2006. The making of the global gambling industry: an application and extension of

field theory. Theory Soc. 35:265–97Simeoni D. 2000. Anglicizing Bourdieu. In Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in Culture, ed. N Brown,

I Szeman, pp. 65–87. New York: Rowman & LittlefieldSimon HA. 1957. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative

Organization. New York: MacMillan

40 Sallaz · Zavisca

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANRV316-SO33-02 ARI 29 June 2007 21:48

Southerton D. 2002. Boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’: class, mobility and identification in a newtown. Sociology 36:171–93

Stark D, Bruszt L. 1998. Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East CentralEurope. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Strange S. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press

Swartz D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress

Thompson EP. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Voctor GollanczVaughan D. 2006. NASA revisited: theory, analogy, and public sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 112:353–

93Wacquant LJD. 1993. Bourdieu in America: notes on the transatlantic importation of social

theory. See Calhoun et al. 1993, pp. 263–75Wacquant LJD. 2002. The sociological life of Pierre Bourdieu. Int. Sociol. 17:549–56Wacquant LJD. 2004. Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. New York: Oxford Univ.

PressWhite H. 2002. Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. Press

www.annualreviews.org • Bourdieu in American Sociology 41

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

www.annualreviews.org ● Bourdieu in American Sociology C-1

2

4

6

8

10

12

Art

icle

s (%

)

5-year intervals

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004

Figure 1

Percent of articles in top sociology journals citing Bourdieu.

7

57

9

15

16

19

23

23

22

31 5

8

1

816

12

16

19

0

20

40

60

80

Nu

mb

er o

f ar

ticl

es

5-year intervals

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004

AJS

ASR

SF

SP

Figure 2

Number of articles citing Bourdieu by time period and journal (AJS, American Journal of Sociology; ASR,American Sociological Review; SF, Social Forces; SP, Social Problems).

ANRV316-SO33-02-Zavisca.qxd 06/29/2007 10:07 PM Page C-1

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

C-2 Sallaz ● Zavisca

52

7

66

13

12

1615

12

916

21

42

53

0

20

40

60

80

Nu

mb

er o

f ar

ticl

es

5-year intervals

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004

Comprehensive

Intermediate

Limited

Figure 3

Depth of citations by time period.

ANRV316-SO33-02-Zavisca.qxd 06/29/2007 10:07 PM Page C-2

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

www.annualreviews.org ● Bourdieu in American Sociology C-3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Distinction

Practice

Forms

Invitation

Reproduction

Art

icle

s (%

)

5-year intervals

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004

Figure 4

Percent of articles citing key works (“Distinction” refers to the book by the same name; “Practice”refers to either of the books Outline of a Theory of Practice or The Logic of Practice, which we grouptogether because so much of their content overlaps; “Invitation” refers to An Invitation to ReflexiveSociology; “Forms” refers to the 1986 article, “Forms of Capital”; and “Reproduction” refers to the bookReproduction in Education, Society and Culture).

ANRV316-SO33-02-Zavisca.qxd 06/29/2007 10:07 PM Page C-3

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18

Annual Reviewof Sociology

Volume 33, 2007Contents

FrontispieceLeo A. Goodman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � x

Prefatory Chapter

Statistical Magic and/or Statistical Serendipity: An Age of Progress inthe Analysis of Categorical DataLeo A. Goodman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1

Theory and Methods

Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980–2004Jeffrey J. Sallaz and Jane Zavisca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21

Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental andAnalytical FoundationsErnst Fehr and Herbert Gintis � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 43

The Niche as a Theoretical ToolPamela A. Popielarz and Zachary P. Neal � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 65

Social Processes

Production Regimes and the Quality of Employment in EuropeDuncan Gallie � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 85

The Sociology of MarketsNeil Fligstein and Luke Dauter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �105

Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments and Future TrendsPeggy Levitt and B. Nadya Jaworsky � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �129

Control Theories in SociologyDawn T. Robinson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �157

Institutions and Culture

Military Service in the Life CourseAlair MacLean and Glen H. Elder, Jr. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �175

v

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18

School Reform 2007: Transforming Education into a ScientificEnterpriseBarbara L. Schneider and Venessa A. Keesler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �197

Embeddedness and the Intellectual Projects of Economic SociologyGreta R. Krippner and Anthony S. Alvarez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �219

Political and Economic Sociology

The Sociology of the Radical RightJens Rydgren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �241

Gender in PoliticsPamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �263

Moral Views of Market SocietyMarion Fourcade and Kieran Healy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �285

The Consequences of Economic Globalization for AffluentDemocraciesDavid Brady, Jason Beckfield, and Wei Zhao � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �313

Differentiation and Stratification

Inequality: Causes and ConsequencesKathryn M. Neckerman and Florencia Torche � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �335

Demography

Immigration and ReligionWendy Cadge and Elaine Howard Ecklund � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �359

Hispanic Families: Stability and ChangeNancy S. Landale and R.S. Oropesa � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �381

Lost and Found: The Sociological Ambivalence Toward ChildhoodSuzanne Shanahan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �407

Urban and Rural Community Sociology

The Making of the Black Family: Race and Class in Qualitative Studiesin the Twentieth CenturyFrank F. Furstenberg � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �429

Policy

The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction,Coercion, Competition, or Learning?Frank Dobbin, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �449

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18

Workforce Diversity and Inequality: Power, Status, and NumbersNancy DiTomaso, Corinne Post, and Rochelle Parks-Yancy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �473

From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Researchat the CrossroadsKathleen J. Tierney � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �503

Historical Sociology

Toward a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes, andEmergenceElisabeth S. Clemens � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �527

Sociology and World Regions

Old Inequalities, New Disease: HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan AfricaCarol A. Heimer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �551

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–33 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �579

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 24–33 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �583

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology chapters (if any, 1997 tothe present) may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

07.3

3:21

-41.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na L

ibra

ry o

n 08

/29/

07. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.