What do you think?
Rate this book
Language and Symbolic Power
This volume brings together Pierre Bourdieu's highly original writings on language and on the relations among language, power, and politics. Bourdieu develops a forceful critique of traditional approaches to language, including the linguistic theories of Saussure and Chomsky and the theory of speech-acts elaborated by Austin and others. He argues that language should be viewed not only as a means of communication but also as a medium of power through which individuals pursue their own interests and display their practical competence.
Drawing on the concepts that are part of his distinctive theoretical approach, Bourdieu maintains that linguistic utterances or expressions can be understood as the product of the relation between a "linguistic market" and a "linguistic habitus." When individuals use language in particular ways, they deploy their accumulated linguistic resources and implicitly adapt their words to the demands of the social field or market that is their audience. Hence every linguistic interaction, however personal or insignificant it may seem, bears the traces of the social structure that it both expresses and helps to reproduce.
Bourdieu's account sheds fresh light on the ways in which linguistic usage varies according to considerations such as class and gender. It also opens up a new approach to the ways in which language is used in the domain of politics. For politics is, among other things, the arena in which words are deeds and the symbolic character of power is at stake.
This volume, by one of the leading social thinkers in the world today, represents a major contribution to the study of language and power. It will be of interest to students throughout the social sciences and humanities, especially in sociology, politics, anthropology, linguistics, and literature.
Drawing on the concepts that are part of his distinctive theoretical approach, Bourdieu maintains that linguistic utterances or expressions can be understood as the product of the relation between a "linguistic market" and a "linguistic habitus." When individuals use language in particular ways, they deploy their accumulated linguistic resources and implicitly adapt their words to the demands of the social field or market that is their audience. Hence every linguistic interaction, however personal or insignificant it may seem, bears the traces of the social structure that it both expresses and helps to reproduce.
Bourdieu's account sheds fresh light on the ways in which linguistic usage varies according to considerations such as class and gender. It also opens up a new approach to the ways in which language is used in the domain of politics. For politics is, among other things, the arena in which words are deeds and the symbolic character of power is at stake.
This volume, by one of the leading social thinkers in the world today, represents a major contribution to the study of language and power. It will be of interest to students throughout the social sciences and humanities, especially in sociology, politics, anthropology, linguistics, and literature.
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
105 people are currently reading
4,268 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Bourdieu
331Ìýbooks1,199ÌýfollowersBourdieu pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the concepts of habitus, field or location, and symbolic violence to reveal the dynamics of power relations in social life. His work emphasized the role of practice and embodiment or forms in social dynamics and worldview construction, often in opposition to universalized Western philosophical traditions. He built upon the theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Georges Canguilhem, Karl Marx, Gaston Bachelard, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Erwin Panofsky, and Marcel Mauss. A notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations.
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
November 13, 2018
For years, I admire several post-structuralists especially Pierre Bourdieu for their contribution to the world of critical theories.
.
.
Regarding to Bourdieu, what I love the most from him is how he challenges Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes by connecting the linguistic sphere with the socio arena. Language cannot be separated from the social context as so he says. He then supports Austin's idea on speech acts-an utterance that has performative function in language and communication. .
.
.
His concept about habitus, disposition, capital and symbolic power is also a stunning fact. Habitus generates and shapes perceptions and actions. Bourdieu refers to the general nature of societal habitus, but as habitus is multi-layered as he claims dispositions to be more specific at the individual level.
.
.
What I can say in short is that one can also see how power circulates within a social market which Bourdieu refers as a capital. Those who possess higher capital will likely oppress the lower one. Yet the symbolic violence occurs when the oppressed ones do not feel like they're being oppressed (which is similar tk Gramsci's hegemony, right?). Yet this notion of power will later be different with Foucault and Baudrillard's notion of power. Referring LGBTQ as something sick and deviant is an Indonesian example of symbolic violence. It is because most of the LGBTQ agents in Indonesia will likely accept that stigma and carry those labels while WHO has already declassified LGBTQ from their category of disease. .
.
.
"The difficulty of sociology is to manage to think in a completely astonished and disconcerted way about things you thought you had always misunderstood!"
.
.
A complete review is in
.
.
#repost
.
.
#pierrebourdieu #poststructuralism #poststructuralist #bourdieusian #language #symbolicviolence #habitus #disposition #doxa #literature #igreads #bookstagram #bookish #bookhoarder #letsread #reading #bookonphotography #bookshelves #bookshelf #criticaltheory #booklover #lgbtq #homosexuality #queer #french #frenchphilosopher #philosophy #frenchphilosophy
.
.
Regarding to Bourdieu, what I love the most from him is how he challenges Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes by connecting the linguistic sphere with the socio arena. Language cannot be separated from the social context as so he says. He then supports Austin's idea on speech acts-an utterance that has performative function in language and communication. .
.
.
His concept about habitus, disposition, capital and symbolic power is also a stunning fact. Habitus generates and shapes perceptions and actions. Bourdieu refers to the general nature of societal habitus, but as habitus is multi-layered as he claims dispositions to be more specific at the individual level.
.
.
What I can say in short is that one can also see how power circulates within a social market which Bourdieu refers as a capital. Those who possess higher capital will likely oppress the lower one. Yet the symbolic violence occurs when the oppressed ones do not feel like they're being oppressed (which is similar tk Gramsci's hegemony, right?). Yet this notion of power will later be different with Foucault and Baudrillard's notion of power. Referring LGBTQ as something sick and deviant is an Indonesian example of symbolic violence. It is because most of the LGBTQ agents in Indonesia will likely accept that stigma and carry those labels while WHO has already declassified LGBTQ from their category of disease. .
.
.
"The difficulty of sociology is to manage to think in a completely astonished and disconcerted way about things you thought you had always misunderstood!"
.
.
A complete review is in
.
.
#repost
.
.
#pierrebourdieu #poststructuralism #poststructuralist #bourdieusian #language #symbolicviolence #habitus #disposition #doxa #literature #igreads #bookstagram #bookish #bookhoarder #letsread #reading #bookonphotography #bookshelves #bookshelf #criticaltheory #booklover #lgbtq #homosexuality #queer #french #frenchphilosopher #philosophy #frenchphilosophy
April 25, 2007
How can one book change so much the way you think about the world? Read it if you're tired of formal linguistics, if you have any interest in the way that language itself is regulated and becomes a way of reproducing class distinction. Love it.
August 31, 2020
Un livre qui change notre vision du monde et de la société. Si vous avez le moindre intérêt sur les questions du pouvoir du langage, de son impact et sur la reproduction sociale dont il est l'outil, ce livre est indispensable. Bref une lecture assez technique mais passionnante.
Read
September 12, 2024Language and Symbolic Power is a loosely related set of essays exploring how language institutes certain systems and practices and maintains a hold over social reality. That's putting it a little obliquely, I guess, but it's easy to understand at a commonsense level. One such example from Pierre Bourdieu's book involves political representation. A person is appointed to be a delegate but by virtue of the appointment the person is granted a right to speak on behalf of those who appointed him or her. Paradoxically, though the delegate is supposed to speak the voice of the people, in fact he or she has now been endowed with the power to speak from his or her own interests and claim, by virtue of his or her appointment, that he or she is speaking the voice of the people. Multiply examples as you'd like.
A favorite essay of mine in this collection was "Censorship and the Register of Form." This essay particularly concerns how philosopher Martin Heidegger smuggled his own political concepts into what became a form of mainstream existentialism. For instance, Heidegger distinguished two modes of everyday living. One he called "authentic," the other "inauthentic." The so-called inauthentic mode involves a person following the crowd, whereas the authentic mode involves thinking and acting for oneself. Heidegger would introduce concepts like these and say that he was not introducing a value judgment, only describing two ways of living, but he's obviously having his categories speak his judgments. There are many more egregious cases in Heidegger besides this one.
All in all, Bourdieu's book is a helpful exploration of the sociology of language, especially as it pertains to how it is used in conjunction with power.
A favorite essay of mine in this collection was "Censorship and the Register of Form." This essay particularly concerns how philosopher Martin Heidegger smuggled his own political concepts into what became a form of mainstream existentialism. For instance, Heidegger distinguished two modes of everyday living. One he called "authentic," the other "inauthentic." The so-called inauthentic mode involves a person following the crowd, whereas the authentic mode involves thinking and acting for oneself. Heidegger would introduce concepts like these and say that he was not introducing a value judgment, only describing two ways of living, but he's obviously having his categories speak his judgments. There are many more egregious cases in Heidegger besides this one.
All in all, Bourdieu's book is a helpful exploration of the sociology of language, especially as it pertains to how it is used in conjunction with power.
August 26, 2023
This is Bourdieu at his absolute best. Great work by translators as well in bringing light to the original French and conserving the sentiment therein.
Bourdieu's work here is absolutely masterful, there's no other way to explain it. His explanations and explorations of class, of capital, and why conventional definitions of either, particular on the Smith-Marx dichotomy or even on the line from Durkheim to Chomsky, is done so well. Manages to really contrast his view and explanation for it with all the other alternatives and argue in favour of his own.
The only weakness I have to point to is how dense the book is, and whether it could have been written more simply - but I am happy to let that slide in return for the absolute avalanche of great content provided.
Bourdieu's work here is absolutely masterful, there's no other way to explain it. His explanations and explorations of class, of capital, and why conventional definitions of either, particular on the Smith-Marx dichotomy or even on the line from Durkheim to Chomsky, is done so well. Manages to really contrast his view and explanation for it with all the other alternatives and argue in favour of his own.
The only weakness I have to point to is how dense the book is, and whether it could have been written more simply - but I am happy to let that slide in return for the absolute avalanche of great content provided.
January 10, 2024
mostly skimmed through this for my thesis but like a classic bourdieu, it hits the right spots. highly relevant till today and offers a grand alternative to formal linguistics - but i’m biased when it comes to that discussion anyways haha
May 20, 2020
A read for my sociology class
August 1, 2024
(�) that “reality� which is the site of a permanent struggle to define “reality�.
September 21, 2016
Not very brainy review for a very brainy book because I am tired and somewhat migrainy tonight but if I get time I will rewrite it better...
I am going to have to reread this because a lot of it went over my head. I need to read it more carefully to see if I agree with a criticism, I have heard from some quarters of everything being seen as "capital" in a "market" (I think these terms are used more as a metaphor than seen as actually equivalent and that Bourdieu would be the first to admit his imagination- what metaphors are possible- are constricted by political context).
A lot of what he said about power (how power pretty much only exists because we collectively create and allow it) rung true for me although when he reduced pretty much everything to self-interest I couldn't completely agree. He shallowly treated the obvious reality of people sometimes working against their own interests but even though he gave lip-service to issues of gender in passing, I think a deeper (and feminism informed) look at gender differences would upset some of his glib assumptions about how power works (without him being completely wrong as well).
I am not claiming men and women essentially approach power and self-interest differently. Not essentially. But I think there are things about values that he disregards or compartmentalises out and I think a feminist criticism could be mounted at the way he seems to think it all works. I agree with large chunks of it though especially the bit where sociology needs to recognise how arbitrary any category it works with is.
I also found the way the book was set out (with large chunks of what looked like a quote but did not have a citation next to it so I for one didn't know what it was from) could have been better and the language was sometimes convoluted, apart from being in more than one language to begin with. Some of this may be the translator's fault (or maybe the book was a bugger to translate to begin with). But I think there was a lot here that could be useful and some things that might not be adequate without further thought (which is any thinker ever I suppose).
Much of it seemed like a criticism of Marxism, which I wasn't expecting given the way many more recent writers use Bourdieu. I felt like some of it made more sense without bringing Marxism into the mix (although I realise Marx started the whole conversation about "capital")
Because everyone cites Bourdieu (not always well, I now think) I think I needed to read this and will have to struggle through it again. It remains to be seen whether I will change my rating once I get my head around it better.
I am going to have to reread this because a lot of it went over my head. I need to read it more carefully to see if I agree with a criticism, I have heard from some quarters of everything being seen as "capital" in a "market" (I think these terms are used more as a metaphor than seen as actually equivalent and that Bourdieu would be the first to admit his imagination- what metaphors are possible- are constricted by political context).
A lot of what he said about power (how power pretty much only exists because we collectively create and allow it) rung true for me although when he reduced pretty much everything to self-interest I couldn't completely agree. He shallowly treated the obvious reality of people sometimes working against their own interests but even though he gave lip-service to issues of gender in passing, I think a deeper (and feminism informed) look at gender differences would upset some of his glib assumptions about how power works (without him being completely wrong as well).
I am not claiming men and women essentially approach power and self-interest differently. Not essentially. But I think there are things about values that he disregards or compartmentalises out and I think a feminist criticism could be mounted at the way he seems to think it all works. I agree with large chunks of it though especially the bit where sociology needs to recognise how arbitrary any category it works with is.
I also found the way the book was set out (with large chunks of what looked like a quote but did not have a citation next to it so I for one didn't know what it was from) could have been better and the language was sometimes convoluted, apart from being in more than one language to begin with. Some of this may be the translator's fault (or maybe the book was a bugger to translate to begin with). But I think there was a lot here that could be useful and some things that might not be adequate without further thought (which is any thinker ever I suppose).
Much of it seemed like a criticism of Marxism, which I wasn't expecting given the way many more recent writers use Bourdieu. I felt like some of it made more sense without bringing Marxism into the mix (although I realise Marx started the whole conversation about "capital")
Because everyone cites Bourdieu (not always well, I now think) I think I needed to read this and will have to struggle through it again. It remains to be seen whether I will change my rating once I get my head around it better.
February 2, 2016
Language & symbolic power puts Bourdieu's system of analysis to look into, well, language and politics. The first part, dealing with language, I found much more related to my interests, and thus paid much more attention.
Bourdieu criticizes the theorists of linguistics because they do not look at something essential: that language is used in the social setting. By looking only at language itself, they miss completely how language is used and how it is true or powerful based on who (and how) uses it. Bourdieu casts a light on the use of language as an instrument of power, looking at how official languages burnt off local ones and became dominant through institutions. The position of the speaker and his access to the knowledge of the dominant language is different from his access to recognizing which language is dominant. The speaker, in fact, knows who holds the power and which kind of language is the powerful one, however he cannot speak it unless it is his "own". In that sense, male working class have very little chance of access to the dominant language, because not only it is far from their class-status, but also of their identification as masculine, the official language being elegant, subtle (in the case of French).
The second part deals with the perils of political representation and delegates. It explains the creation of the "region" through political speech and the identification as class through the elements of power.
Bourdieu criticizes the theorists of linguistics because they do not look at something essential: that language is used in the social setting. By looking only at language itself, they miss completely how language is used and how it is true or powerful based on who (and how) uses it. Bourdieu casts a light on the use of language as an instrument of power, looking at how official languages burnt off local ones and became dominant through institutions. The position of the speaker and his access to the knowledge of the dominant language is different from his access to recognizing which language is dominant. The speaker, in fact, knows who holds the power and which kind of language is the powerful one, however he cannot speak it unless it is his "own". In that sense, male working class have very little chance of access to the dominant language, because not only it is far from their class-status, but also of their identification as masculine, the official language being elegant, subtle (in the case of French).
The second part deals with the perils of political representation and delegates. It explains the creation of the "region" through political speech and the identification as class through the elements of power.
October 25, 2012
Thèse très intéressante qui vient fragiliser l'idée d'une langue complètement autonome pour soumettre celle-ci à différentes déterminations sociales.
April 25, 2021
This book is a compendium of some different written texts and articles by Pierre Bourdieu, around the theme of "Language and Symbolic Power". He develops a lot of concepts and theories that are extremely interesting, but some times, damn, he's just impossible to understand for the uninitiated!
The first three parts, namely "The Economy of Linguistic Exchanges", "The Social Institution of Symbolic Power" and "Symbolic Power and Political Field" are for me the only ones of use, the fourth one, "For a Sociological Pragmatic" being utterly complex and byzantine, and not bringing much in terms of knowledge and understanding compared with the other three.
As a soft-skills trainer, with a strong interest in the field of Communication, I find the first-part assimilation of linguistic exchanges to an economic barter to be very interesting, to say the least. In pragmatic terms, educators and trainers tend to view the communicative exchanges as nothing but pure "exchanges of information", when Bourdieu adds a strong sociological flavour to his analysis by also considering the behind-the-scenes influences that shape the language itself: how knowledge and mastery of the "official" language differentiates the initiated (usually "elites" or "wannabe elites") from the uninitiated (lower-class, "dominated" people), and how the perfunctory use of language (the ability to "perform" in using it, depending on the social situation) or to "censor" oneself (also depending on the social situation) sets people in different categories, and "earns" them "income" in the different bourdieusian "currencies" (monetary, symbolic, social, cultural). Bourdieu ends that part with an essay on "popular" language and cultural elements, looking at its blurry definition that is giving as much information on the language/elements themselves, as on the ones classifying them as "popular" to distinguish themselves from the plebeians.
In the second part, Bourdieu discusses the symbolic power/authority vested in the people performing symbolic communications, and how they are strongly interconnected: one may know the verbal codes that correspond to a function, but without the adequate recognition from the associated social circle, the words will just ring hollow because they will be just this: words. On the other hand, words that are said backed by a symbolic authority will have the symbols' weight behind them, and will therefore not have the same tint to them. Bourdieu looks into the self-segregation of closed social circles that keep the symbolic exclusivity to themselves, with examples associated with religion for instance, how they can be violated by a breach in symbolism, and, to bridge with the next part, how this translates into politics.
In the third part, Bourdieu moves to a more political sphere, taking into consideration the symbolism of "representation" and "mandating": how can an organisation be represented by a single person, and how can a single person be represented by an organisation? What are the symbolic exchanges taking part in this, and how does this translate in the field of politics, especially as regards to the different sides of politics (one can draw parallels between the left's high demand for public accountability vs the right's high demand for symbolic actions).
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't get anything from the fourth part, so if you were to read the book, you can make up your own mind...
Still, I consider this greatly interesting, again as it gives an excellent frame of analysis of the different communication exchanges that happen in both public and private settings. Some concepts of the author's are outdated (like "women's talk" for instance) but he has to be re-contextualised at the time of writing.
The first three parts, namely "The Economy of Linguistic Exchanges", "The Social Institution of Symbolic Power" and "Symbolic Power and Political Field" are for me the only ones of use, the fourth one, "For a Sociological Pragmatic" being utterly complex and byzantine, and not bringing much in terms of knowledge and understanding compared with the other three.
As a soft-skills trainer, with a strong interest in the field of Communication, I find the first-part assimilation of linguistic exchanges to an economic barter to be very interesting, to say the least. In pragmatic terms, educators and trainers tend to view the communicative exchanges as nothing but pure "exchanges of information", when Bourdieu adds a strong sociological flavour to his analysis by also considering the behind-the-scenes influences that shape the language itself: how knowledge and mastery of the "official" language differentiates the initiated (usually "elites" or "wannabe elites") from the uninitiated (lower-class, "dominated" people), and how the perfunctory use of language (the ability to "perform" in using it, depending on the social situation) or to "censor" oneself (also depending on the social situation) sets people in different categories, and "earns" them "income" in the different bourdieusian "currencies" (monetary, symbolic, social, cultural). Bourdieu ends that part with an essay on "popular" language and cultural elements, looking at its blurry definition that is giving as much information on the language/elements themselves, as on the ones classifying them as "popular" to distinguish themselves from the plebeians.
In the second part, Bourdieu discusses the symbolic power/authority vested in the people performing symbolic communications, and how they are strongly interconnected: one may know the verbal codes that correspond to a function, but without the adequate recognition from the associated social circle, the words will just ring hollow because they will be just this: words. On the other hand, words that are said backed by a symbolic authority will have the symbols' weight behind them, and will therefore not have the same tint to them. Bourdieu looks into the self-segregation of closed social circles that keep the symbolic exclusivity to themselves, with examples associated with religion for instance, how they can be violated by a breach in symbolism, and, to bridge with the next part, how this translates into politics.
In the third part, Bourdieu moves to a more political sphere, taking into consideration the symbolism of "representation" and "mandating": how can an organisation be represented by a single person, and how can a single person be represented by an organisation? What are the symbolic exchanges taking part in this, and how does this translate in the field of politics, especially as regards to the different sides of politics (one can draw parallels between the left's high demand for public accountability vs the right's high demand for symbolic actions).
As I mentioned earlier, I didn't get anything from the fourth part, so if you were to read the book, you can make up your own mind...
Still, I consider this greatly interesting, again as it gives an excellent frame of analysis of the different communication exchanges that happen in both public and private settings. Some concepts of the author's are outdated (like "women's talk" for instance) but he has to be re-contextualised at the time of writing.
March 2, 2020
"In the symbolic domain, takeovers by force appear as takeovers of form-- and it is only when this is realized that one can turn linguistic analysis into an instrument of political critique, and rhetoric into a science of symbolic powers." (pg. 213)
As one can infer from the above quote, Pierre Bourdieu's "Language & Symbolic Power" is a book at whose heart is a study of the intersection of language (discourse) and power as it is found in society. Drawing upon resources as diverse as Martin Heidegger's use of common-place diction in his work, to the efforts to establish the priority of Occitan as a regional dialect, to Nietzsche's analysis of the psychological function of the priest (or delegate) in relation to his/her usurpation of the collective's voice, Bourdieu's work is steeped in the traditions of socio-linguistics that he helped create. However, this work's date of publication (1982) makes outdated some of his comments about the role of the Marxist (Communist) parties in France and their use of language as a way to both describe and create the consciousness of a worker's movement. It's Franco-centric emphasis also localizes some of his insights, which has the effect of making less topical his insights. In general, however, Bourdieu's analysis and perceptions about the key role that social realities have in influencing our language are solid and acutely accurate, lending pleasure and understanding to the book's perusal. Particularly pertinent to those obsessed with language and its relation to society, "Language & Symbolic Power" also offers much to the general reader, as it is informative without being pedantic. A good read this is!
As one can infer from the above quote, Pierre Bourdieu's "Language & Symbolic Power" is a book at whose heart is a study of the intersection of language (discourse) and power as it is found in society. Drawing upon resources as diverse as Martin Heidegger's use of common-place diction in his work, to the efforts to establish the priority of Occitan as a regional dialect, to Nietzsche's analysis of the psychological function of the priest (or delegate) in relation to his/her usurpation of the collective's voice, Bourdieu's work is steeped in the traditions of socio-linguistics that he helped create. However, this work's date of publication (1982) makes outdated some of his comments about the role of the Marxist (Communist) parties in France and their use of language as a way to both describe and create the consciousness of a worker's movement. It's Franco-centric emphasis also localizes some of his insights, which has the effect of making less topical his insights. In general, however, Bourdieu's analysis and perceptions about the key role that social realities have in influencing our language are solid and acutely accurate, lending pleasure and understanding to the book's perusal. Particularly pertinent to those obsessed with language and its relation to society, "Language & Symbolic Power" also offers much to the general reader, as it is informative without being pedantic. A good read this is!
January 6, 2020
J'ai trouvé la lecture de ce livre incroyablement ardue. MAIS je pense qu'il est indispensable à lire pour quiconque s'intéresse à la façon dont nos sociétés sont construites et comment le pouvoir y est distribué. La théorie de Bourdieu est brillante, rigoureuse et très cohérente. En assimilant le patrimoine linguistique à un capital et en théorisant le champ social sous la forme de différents "marchés" avec offres et demandes, il permet de repenser le marxisme en dépassant le seul domaine économique (et Freud au passage en étendant le domaine du symbolique à tous les aspects du quotidien). S'il fallait le (re)-démontrer, voilà un superbe travail qui rappelle que qui maîtrise les mots et les symboles possède le pouvoir.
January 8, 2020
What to say about this book: "Initially complex book, little by little understanding the language and line of reasoning about Symbolic power is to understand the invisible power, which can only be exercised with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it. I am currently reviewing these books and again reading with another age and another experience and maturity to understand and see that the quasi-magical Power, which allows one to obtain the equivalent of that which is obtained by physical, economic, political and political power. If you look for a basis for understanding the science of communication, I always begin with this reading! From the beginning of the human race, the invisible and symbolic powers have dominated. "
March 6, 2021
Cette édition contient une préface qui permet de comprendre les grandes lignes de la pensée de Bourdieu et explique son vocabulaire, ce qui aide beaucoup par la suite. Surtout si on a jamais lu Bourdieu avant. Pour le reste, un discours extrêmement juste sur la classe, et le pouvoir exercé par la langage.
March 24, 2020
Parfois très dense. J'ai eu du mal à le terminer. Je recommande de commencer par des livres de Bourdieu qui explique son cadre conceptuel et ses termes fétiches.
May 30, 2023
makes me feel like I don't know how to read. also good in essays to make me look like I know how to read.
December 15, 2023
The first 210 pages were excellent, focusing on language and symbolic powers (as the title suggests), but the 30 last pages about "social space" and "classes" were losing my interest.
Shelved as 'dnf'
August 19, 2024DNF @ pg 70.
April 30, 2022
Bourdieu foi um dos sociólogos a desafiar Saussure no tocante a conecção da fala com seu contexto social. Segundo ele, um não poderia ser separado do outro - essa ideia pode não parecer nova, mas é preciso lembrar que esse texto data da década de 80.
Em sua concepção, o poder simbólico advém da construção da realidade e que é a solidariedade social (ou intercomunicação, ou reavaliação, ou adaptação) que permite a troca de conhecimentos.
Não é necessário dizer que se segue uma discussão sobre ideologias, marxismo, jogo polÃtico e o sentido geral do simbolismo coletivo e individual.
Sua crÃtica a Chomski (que por muito tempo foi vedete em Letras) também é avassaladora. Para Bourdieu não há uma razão universal que dê forma a linguagem.
É um livro muito interessante para quem se interessa por esse campo especÃfico que circula entre a semiótica e a polÃtica, mas por ser altamente teórico, pode desincentivar alguns leitores.
Em sua concepção, o poder simbólico advém da construção da realidade e que é a solidariedade social (ou intercomunicação, ou reavaliação, ou adaptação) que permite a troca de conhecimentos.
Não é necessário dizer que se segue uma discussão sobre ideologias, marxismo, jogo polÃtico e o sentido geral do simbolismo coletivo e individual.
Sua crÃtica a Chomski (que por muito tempo foi vedete em Letras) também é avassaladora. Para Bourdieu não há uma razão universal que dê forma a linguagem.
É um livro muito interessante para quem se interessa por esse campo especÃfico que circula entre a semiótica e a polÃtica, mas por ser altamente teórico, pode desincentivar alguns leitores.
April 22, 2019
Un essai qui regroupe différents écrits du sociologue Pierre Bourdieu. Ignare en sociologie, je peux seulement dire â€� pour ce que j'ai réussi à comprendre â€� que l'auteur cartographie le pouvoir que le langage peut conférer à celui qui le manie de façon adéquateÌý; mais aussi la légitimité indispensable que doit avoir le locuteur pour que ce langage, même manié à la perfection, puisse apporter du pouvoirÌý; ou encore l'interdépendance qu'il y a entre celui qui produit le langage et ses récepteurs. Intéressant, mais assez difficile d'accès pour quelqu'un n'ayant aucune base en sociologie.
August 1, 2016
Overall, this book hit home far less than other Bourdieu books. However, when it did, it really did! I would recommend this book for someone who already has at the very least an intermediate grasp of Bourdieu as well as an interest in language, discourse, and perhaps even politics. Includes some excellent chapters on symbolic domination/power/violence and also the most explicit explanation of Bourdieu's 'market' analogy that I've seen so far.
December 20, 2020
Muito útil para entender a luta por dominância do poder de delimitar, de nomear um espaço de poder e, com isto, de atribuir poder para configurar/manter/derrubar espaços de poder. Contudo, é uma leitura muita árida em diversos momentos, com frases imensas cheias de apostos compondo parágrafos e pouca fluidez narrativa. Com isto, a obra perde em didatismo, mas segue relevante e atual para compreensão das lutas simbólicas que permeiam o tecido social.
March 8, 2008
Okay, so I've only read parts of it so far, but it gives a great theoretical framework for understanding language as power. I used this book a ton in a paper I wrote about the power struggle between Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley at the Kenilworth Entertainments.
October 24, 2007
Bourdieu's best, in my humble opinion. Read "Social Space and the Genesis of Classes" above all else.
April 12, 2008
It's all about the habitus, baby!
July 21, 2008
After seven or eight reads, I am sure most people understand it. Then they get angry with Bourdieu for his Gallic ways.
January 2, 2013
Difficult and dense but totally worth it. A nice outline of many of Bourdieu's theories with some thought provoking explanations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.