Bourdieu’s Thought and Its Effects on Criminology Sandberg’s “Street Field”

Introduction

Throughout history, various figures have always tried to understand and analyze the society. The way to understand society is to recognize its constituent parts and to fully understand the relationship between these parts. Starting from this point, although different thinkers from Socrates to Aristotle, from Locke to Hobbes, from Marx to Bourdieu have put forward very valuable views that will contribute to the structural analysis of society. Due to the volume of my study, I will mainly address how Bourdieu considers society with a structural analysis, how he evaluates the relationship between these elements, and the practical relationship of this approach with the world we live in. In order to maintain the integrity of the study, I will examine the concepts of field, habitus and capital put forward by Bourdieu. Then, I will touch on Sandberg’s association of this element with Bourdieu’s philosophy, based on the smallest part of the settlements called “street”. In the meantime, I will explain whether criminology justifies this evaluation framework. Finally, I will conclude my article with a general evaluation.

Keywords: Bourdieu, Capital, Field, Habitus, Crime, Street, Narrative, Street Talk

Fundamental Concepts of Bourdieu’s Thesis

Bourdieu’s Approach

Before presenting Bourdieu’s approach, let’s briefly recall the foundation stones that led Bourdieu to think this. The philosophical background that Bourdieu observed was shaped on 2 foundations. The first of these was the “objectivism” approach. This approach basically claimed that structures/instutions were determinant in human life and that the individual’s freedom and chance of choice were more limited. It is possible to say that Durkheim and Marx were among the thinkers who founded this approach. On the other hand, the other approach was the “subjectivism” approach. In this approach, subjectivism, unlike objectivism, states that the individual is freer and the structures/organisations/instutions have lost their importance. It is possible to say that this approach was seen as accurate by important names such as Weber. Although both approaches have solid and consistent arguments when considered independently, Bourdieu put forward his own assessment, thinking that these approaches are incomplete (Wacquant, 1997) (Bourdieu, 1993).

Bourdieu offers a fundamental perspective on the life we live, interact with, and are sometimes active and sometimes passive. According to the thinker, the individual continues his life with the social schemas (habitus), social fields (fields) and elements established by what he has (capital) inherently. In the following lines of my article, I will discuss these concepts in detail. Before discussing these elements, I would like to touch upon the concept of “science of practice”, which has a wide place in Bourdieu’s philosophy. Bourdieu reaches a conclusion while examining how the actions of the individual are formed. Actions are a practice. Practices are shaped by the elements in question. In other words, field, habitus and capital directly affect how practices are shaped (Bourdieu, 1977). For this reason, he explains the examination and analysis of actions with the concept of science of practice. Just before touching upon the concepts of field, habitus and capital, I preferred to touch upon this concept, which reminds us of the importance of these elements (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

Key Terms

Field

Bourdieu argues that individuals live within separate and distinct fields. This concept of field should not be understood as a geographical limitation. On the contrary, it should be considered as social areas. For example, education (school) is a field. Business (office) is a field. Academic environments are a field for competitors competing with each other. Each field has its own rules, systems, game styles and rewards. While the reward for business life is promotion, a diploma can be given as an example for the reward for education. Bourdieu states that individuals compete within these fields and that their practical actions in the field are shaped by habitus and capital (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

Habitus

According to Bourdieu’s definition, habitus is the social patterns and schemas that are embedded in the individual’s reflexes, feelings, thoughts, brain and even behaviors of their life experiences and achievements. The psychological, sociological and reflexive experiences that individuals gain in their family life, business life, school life, on the “street shape how the individual behaves. According to Bourdieu, individuals act in these fields under the influence of habitus. In fact, the two essential equations that form the basis of his philosophy are field and habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

Capital

When capital is mentioned, purely economic capital comes to the human mind. Perhaps the main reason for this is Marx’s book of the same name and its influence. However, when you look at capital from Bourdieu’s perspective, you see a more social evaluation than you see in Marx. In this context, Bourdieu finds it inadequate to evaluate “capital” purely as economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu emphasizes that capital can be divided into various groups/types and that a broader classification of capital is more accurate. Bourdieu argues that there are four forms of capital: economic capital, cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). In this context, I will discuss the various subheadings of capital.

Forms of Capital

1. Economic Capital: Economic capital is things such as money, gold, silver, real estate that generate income and have economic value on their own. In other words, for Bourdieu, economic capital is not very different from how it is understood. In fact, the main difference in Bourdieu’s approach is that capital is not understood as just this and is expanded.
2. Cultural Capital: Cultural Capital is the idea that an individual’s level of education, culture, knowledge and experience are considered as capital. For example, graduating from a school like Harvard or Oxford can be considered as one of the clearest examples of cultural capital. Sure, the social environment you gain while studying at such schools is also an extremely important gain. Indeed, Bourdieu also sees this as social capital. It can be said that cultural capital and social capital sometimes feed and strengthen each other.
3. Social Capital: Social capital can be considered as the gains that a person gains from the social beings they interact with in their social life. In this sense, having a rich family, having devoted friends, having a wide business network, and having a strong network in the most basic sense can be counted among the examples of social capital. This is the evaluation that draws my attention the most in terms of Bourdieu’s approach. I believe that the acceptance of a wide network from civil society organizations to companies located in industrial zones, from educational institutions to health institutions as a type of capital should be evaluated as one of the basic elements that make Bourdieu unique.
4. Symbolic Capital: This type of capital is also closely related to concepts such as lineage, reputation, prestige. If an individual is a member of a dynasty or part of a similar privileged symbolization, he or she can be considered to have symbolic capital. Sure, it should not be forgotten that symbolic capital is closely related and often interacts with other forms of capital such as cultural capital, social capital and economic capital

Symbolic Violence

Another term that needs to be examined carefully in order to understand Bourdieu is symbolic violence. This concept, which has an important place in Bourdieu’s works, is completely different from the classical understanding of violence. Violence can be explained with concepts such as force, physical intervention, and assault on the individual. Symbolic violence, on the other hand, does not include physical intervention, although it involves tyranny like violence. Symbolic violence is seen as acts that provide domination over individuals. For example, the experiences of an individual who is hesitant to run for election in a region or to claim rights over a piece of land because they are not members of a dynasty are derivatives of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence is a form of tyranny that is invisible, normalized, and closely related to symbolic elements (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

This distinction made outside of classical violence should not lead one to think that Bourdieu has inaccurate arguments in his evaluations of violence and crime. Bourdieu’s arguments regarding the life of the individual have had a wide repercussion within the framework of criminology, which is considered as the science of crime.

Bourdieu and Criminology

In order to understand Bourdieu’s influence on criminology, it is necessary to first understand criminology. Criminology is the science of crime in its simplest sense. Sure, the main thing that needs to be addressed at this point is what crime is. In its basic sense, crime can be defined as the violation of a law. The reason why I prefer the expression law instead of norm is quite clear. Indeed, in the Turkish penal code, committing an act that is not prohibited by law is not defined as a crime. Violating a norm that has taken its place in social life can lead to various consequences. These sanctions can be exclusion, condemnation, and othering. However, the committing of an act prohibited by law is a crime in the full sense. I find it important to emphasize this distinction.

After giving the classical definition of crime, I should also touch on why people tend to commit crime. We can make inferences based on simple crimes: People steal because they want to have more money (economic capital). People print fake diplomas because they want to achieve this status (cultural capital). People obtain the credentials, ID’s, e-mails of others because they want to gain benefits by reaching more people (social capital). These examples, which are identified with Bourdieu’s philosophy, show that crime can be committed to reach the concepts Bourdieu points out. For this very reason, Bourdieu’s work is noteworthy for criminology.

It would not be right to evaluate Bourdieu’s contribution to criminology only through capital. Because, bridges have been established between criminology with the concepts of habitus and field by various researchers. As a lawyer, I think that the concept of field should be evaluated as the triggering and sometimes instigating element of crime. Indeed, criminals create crime by competing with each other in the fields they determine among themselves. For example, in crimes such as drug, looting and theft, we witness that this field is often the street.

Therefore, it would be extremely accurate to benefit from a study that evaluates Bourdieu’s concept of field on the axis of the street. In that part, I’m going to examine 2 articles related to it.

1. “Habitus, Capital, and Conflict: Bringing Bourdieusian Field Theory to Criminology” by Victor L. Shammas & Sveinung Sandberg

The authors begin their articles with an introduction by discussing the position and influence of Bourdieu’s ideas in sociology and philosophy. They state that Bourdieu’s ideas have found a response in many areas of social sciences, but that they have been late in being adapted to criminology. Similar claims have been made to what I think as a lawyer in the above line. The authors explain the reasoning for this study by stating that in-depth studies have not been conducted on the concept of “field”, and that in particular the “street” field has not been sufficiently studied as a “field”. They emphasize why they study the “street” field by stating that this element is one of the most suitable parts for micro analysis in our social life (Shammas & Sandberg, 2015).

Because the “street” has extremely deep-rooted elements beyond its simplicity. The street is the center of struggle. Since the members of the street have to act in accordance with the rules, style of play and rewards of the street, just as Bourdieu stated, the street has a transformative effect. It is possible for an individual to fall into the street after bankruptcy, or for an individual from the street to become a business person. In this respect, it is possible to say that transitions in street life are flexible. In addition, there is a hierarchy on the street. This hierarchy is sometimes defined by the magnitude of crimes committed, and sometimes measured by proximity to mafia groups. The street produces its own habitus in all its pureness. Thus, survival on the street requires very serious skills. The reason why writers attach so much importance to the street is that it offers the opportunity to examine almost every detail of criminology, from the formation of criminal groups to the birth of crime, at a micro level (Shammas & Sandberg, 2015).

Although we are deprived of the opportunity to make long-term evaluations and criticize Sandberg due to the volume of the assignment, I find the in-depth analysis of Sandberg’s work valuable in terms of geographically simulating Bourdieu’s thesis on a micro scale.

2. “Street Talk and Bourdieusian Criminology: Bringing Narrative to Field Theory” by Sveinung Sandberg & Jennifer Fleetwood

In this article, the authors wanted to evaluate what strengthens, nourishes, grows and makes the street field attractive. In their study, they saw that storytelling is an indispensable element for the street. Sure, storytelling should be examined under the title of the narrative term. Because, narrative is a very important part of the habitus. In order to see the street equivalent of their findings, the authors interviewed 40 drug dealers living in Norway. As a result of the interviews, they saw that there are certain types of narrative in the street field. One of these is crime stories. Intricate, difficult to achieve, original crime stories glorify the reputation of the criminal on the street. Another is violence stories. Being the party who commits violence in a violence story symbolizes power in the street field. Another is drug experience stories. The more intensely you live this experience, the more attractive you become. Another is stories about the difficulties of life. If an individual has reached a certain level, the more difficulty they have to endure compared to their counterparts to reach that level, the more their value increases (Fleetwood & Sandberg, 2016).

Individuals who come together in the street field usually influence, trigger and direct each other by talking about these. Thus, the narrative field is strengthened. For this reason, it would be extremely accurate to say that the element that structures the street is “street talk” (Fleetwood & Sandberg, 2016).

CONCLUSION

Within the word limit of our article, we have evaluated why Bourdieu found the institution-centered and individual-centered approaches in sociology inadequate, how he viewed society, how he shaped his philosophy on concepts such as field, capital, habitus, symbolic violence, whether this thesis can be adapted to criminology, whether the street field can be evaluated within the scope of Bourdieu’s thesis, the basic elements of the street field, and the perspectives of different authors. As a result, we can say that Bourdieu’s thesis needs to be studied in depth, that this thesis offers the opportunity to accurately evaluate almost every point of social life, that this thesis can also be applied in criminology, and that there are many results proving the accuracy of the thesis in the street field, which can be called the micro location of crime.

Semih Temizer
[email protected]

References

1. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question (R. Nice, Trans.). SAGE. (Original work published 1984)
3. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
4. Fleetwood, J., & Sandberg, S. (2016). Street talk and Bourdieusian criminology: Bringing narrative to field theory. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(4), 365-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816666070
5. Shammas, V. L., & Sandberg, S. (2015). Habitus, capital and conflict: Bringing Bourdieusian field theory to criminology. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895815603770
6. Wacquant, L. J. D. (1997). Pierre Bourdieu. In R. Stones (Ed.), Key sociological thinkers (pp. 215-217). Macmillan.