Bourdieu’s political sociology and the politics ofEuropean integration

NIILO KAUPPIUniversity of Helsinki

Some traditional approaches to the politics of European integration

For ¢ve decades, Western Europe has been in political and economicturmoil. Closer cooperation between Western European countriesstarted with France’s and Germany’s determination to prevent theadvent of a third world war. The leaders of these countries decided topool steel production by creating the European Coal and Steel Com-munity. Later, with a few other countries they created a commonatomic agency. Economic integration soon took the lead, spilling overto other domains. The Euro, shared by twelve European Union mem-ber-states, crowned this economic push, and is creating pressures todevelop closer cooperation in other areas, such as military issues,foreign policy, and social policy.

Political scientists have provided standard social scienti¢c approachesto this macro level transformation process. They have emphasizedinstitutional and policy matters. To simplify a great deal, two modelshave dominated scholarly discussion. The state centric model empha-sizes the role of nation-states in their attempts to augment their power.According to some proponents of this inter-governmentalist and neo-

CHAPTER 11

317

D.L. Swartz and V.L. Zolberg (eds.), After Bourdieu, 317–331.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

1

realist model, the process of European integration has, in many ways,strengthened rather than weakened European nation-states. Nation-states are still the key players in European politics. A second model,propagated by neofunctionalists, is called the multi-governance model.According to this model, nation-states are losing ground in the face ofgrowing transnationalization and regionalization of decision-making.The European Union has already become the main decision maker inEurope.3

Sociological and anthropological micro-level approaches have latelysupplemented and, to a certain extent, challenged these policy-oriented,high politics approaches to European integration.4 These anthropo-logical and sociological approaches look at integration processes frombottom up, to use Simon Bulmer’s terms, at the level of everydaypolitical life, often using interviews and participant observation asresearch techniques. French anthropologist Marc Abe¤ le' s has studiedthe European Parliament and the European Commission from theinside, analyzing the internal dividing lines and tensions of theseinstitutions. In his works, Abe¤ le' s strives to present European politicalinstitutions as they reveal themselves to an outside observer. In hisbook La vie quotidienne au Parlement europe¤ en (Everyday life in theEuropean Parliament), he maps the contradictions of transnationalpolitical representation.5 The Member of the European Parliament hasto represent both the national interests of France and those of thetransnational institution he serves.6 American political sociologistGeorge Ross has studied the cabinet of the former head of the Euro-pean Commission Jacques Delors.7 In this study, Ross scrutinizes thestrategies of Delors’s cabinet in the Commission, and the numerouspractical questions that arise when national politicians and civilservants end up serving common, European interests in the EuropeanCommission.

Since the 1990s, social constructivism has presented a social scienti¢calternative for the study of European integration. By introducingAnthony Giddens’s social theory into international relations theoryand European studies,8 social constructivism opens new paths toscholarly work that emphasize socialization and the social construc-tion of reality, following in the spirit of Berger and Luckmann.9 Incontrast to previous approaches, social constructivist studies empha-size the symbolic aspects of European integration, discourses andmore generally the power of words to construct (to simplify again agreat deal) two distinctive political ontologies relative to Europe, that

318 NIILO KAUPPI

2

of a Europe of nation-states and that of a Europe of transnationalprocesses.

According to some social constructivist scholars,10 the purpose of theconstructivist research program is to study relatively neglected areas ofthe integration process, polity formation through rules and norms, thetransformation of identities, and the role of ideas and the uses oflanguage. Social constructivism focuses on what the authors call socialontologies, which include such diverse phenomena as intersubjectivemeanings, cultures of national security, and symbolic politics. Byemphasizing social interaction, social constructivists are able to exam-ine in a new way the structure of the international system, and thedialectics between states and the international order. According tosome, social constructivism is situated between rationalism, representedby such approaches as neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism,and re£ectivism, which includes postmodernism and post-structuralism.

Although presenting an alternative approach, social constructivismalso has its weaknesses. A major one is the absence of a theory ofagency.11 This has to do with a neglect of political action as situatedaction, that is, action in speci¢c institutional settings. Social construc-tivist scholars concentrate on the interaction between agents andstructures, emphasizing the role of structures. A second weakness ofsocial constructivism is that, despite its stated aims to study the socialfabric of European and world politics, it is only weakly sociological. Itsprotagonists are eager to examine the discursive processes informingEuropean integration, identity, norms of behavior, and so on, leavinglargely untouched the social characteristics of the individuals andgroups who, through their activities, construct this symbolic andmaterial entity. Bourdieu’s political theory presents another version ofsocial constructivism, a structural constructivist account of politicsthat believes in the construction of reality by agents who, constrainedby structures that are material and symbolic, struggle to accumulatesocial resources.

Political ¢eld and political capital12

Bourdieu develops his political sociology using three by now well-known concepts, ¢eld, capital, and habitus. Following Max Weber’sanalysis of spheres of life,13 Bourdieu analyzes politics like any otherarea of social activity, such as the economy, religion, or education.14

319BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Bourdieu’s concept of ¢eld refers to a relative autonomous sector ofsocial activity. By capital, Bourdieu means social resource. Each ¢eldhas its speci¢c capital. Political capital is what agents accumulate, and¢ght for, in the political ¢eld. It involves speci¢c social skills, thecapacity to mobilize individuals around a common goal, to formulatecollective policies, or to win seats for one’s party, for instance.15 Each¢eld has its dominant habitus, a culture or an internalized set ofprinciples of actions and of evaluation. Reality is, of course, morecomplicated than this.

In his political theory, Bourdieu conceptualizes politics topologically.The political ¢eld constitutes a space that is structured such that thevalue of each element of it is formed through the network of relation-ships that this element entertains with the other elements in the ¢eld.In Bourdieu’s structuralist theory, then, the relative value of an elementis determined by this set of relationships and not by any externalfactors. Any unit, a political party, an international organization, aconfederation of nation-states, can be analyzed as a ¢eld.

The political ¢eld is subject to some general, structural principles thatare common to all ¢elds. The most important of these modus operandiis the ¢eld’s organization around two opposite poles: the protagonistsof change and the apostles of law and order, the progressives and theconservatives, the heterodox and the orthodox, or the challengers andthe incumbents.16 In the political ¢eld, this binary logic not onlystructures political parties and ideologies; it permeates the political¢eld as a whole, from political parties and other political organizationsbetween the progressive and conservative wings, all the way down tothe habitus of an individual who might have evolved from a radicalyouth into a conservative party o⁄cial.

In his theory, the political ¢eld has the same structural characteristicsas any other ¢eld. Political capital is symbolic capital in the ¢eld ofpolitics, a type of capital that the agents involved in this ¢eld competefor. Agents at the autonomous pole of the political ¢eld possess themost legitimate type of political capital, whereas agents at the heter-onomous pole of the political ¢eld accumulate alternative types ofpolitical capital. The dominant have a lot of capital, the dominatedrelatively little. Through a process of sociomimesis, agents’ politicalstances and political strategies follow their positions in the political¢eld.

320 NIILO KAUPPI

Political agents attempt to monopolize the legitimate means of manipu-lating the social world.17 They compete with journalists and socialscientists in the struggle for the ‘‘monopoly of legitimate symbolicviolence,’’18 a phrase Bourdieu borrowed from Weber’s discussion ofthe priesthood having the monopoly over the legitimate manipulationof the means of salvation and the state’s monopoly over legitimateviolence.19

The in£uence of Weber’s discussion of the priesthood is also evident inBourdieu’s analysis of the relationship between political professionalsand amateurs. As the political ¢eld gains in autonomy, the profanesbecome increasingly dispossessed of the properly political means ofproduction. For instance, professional politicians that have gonethrough elite French schools like the Instituts d’e¤ tudes politiques (IEP)or the Ecole nationale d’administration (ENA) gradually replaceamateur political activists or citizen-legislators.20 This way the criteriathat regulate entry into the political ¢eld also change. Bourdieu doesnot theorize the levels of autonomy, but as the ¢eld becomes moreautonomous its internal mechanisms play a more central role inpolitical activity.21 Struggles are sedimented and institutionalized,eventually forming part of the objecti¢ed and materialized socialunconscious. In this historical process, each political organizationdevelops its own esoteric culture that is alien to outsiders. FollowingBourdieu’s analytical method, to understand the speci¢c meaning of apolitical stance, one must situate it in a relational network composed,on the one hand, of the other stances formulated at the time and, onthe other hand, of the structure of the demand.

As political capital becomes objecti¢ed into posts in the party appara-tus, relative independence from electoral sanction develops. For indi-viduals in normal times, the temptation to integrate into the politicalapparatus grows as the material and symbolic spoils accumulated bythe party are redistributed to the followers.22 Conversely, in excep-tional or revolutionary times, staying in the political apparatus can berisky.

Bourdieu di¡erentiates between two types of political capital, thatacquired by the individual and that acquired by delegation. Individualpolitical capital is the result either of slow accumulation, as in the caseof French ‘‘notables,’’ or of action in a situation of institutional voidand crisis,23 in which case the concept is close to Weber’s charismaticlegitimacy. Personal political capital disappears with the physical

321BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

disappearance of the person holding this power. He or she is recognizedand known for characteristics that are considered his or her own.Political capital is acquired by delegation through investiture by aninstitution, for instance, a political party or other political enterprise.A person receives from the institution a limited and provisional trans-fer of collective capital composed of recognition and ¢delity.24

Through this process, the capital is partly transformed from collectiveto personal. Political capital becomes institutionalized in the form ofposts and positions. Those in the service of political enterprises aretheir delegates.

Political capital by delegation thus refers to a situation where thepower of a politician depends on the power of his or her party and ofhis or her position in the party. The leader of the party becomes,through investiture, a banker25 and the party a bank specializing inpolitical capital. The banker controls access to this collective capital,which is bureaucratized and certi¢ed by the party’s bureaucracy. CitingAntonio Gramsci, Bourdieu writes that political agents such as tradeunion representatives are ‘‘bankers of men in a monopoly situation.’’26

Bourdieu’s theory is Durkheimian in its holistic analysis of the political¢eld, and Weberian in its attempt to think of political processes usingeconomic terms as models and to concentrate on symbolic capital.Following Durkheim, Bourdieu sees the political in functionalist termsas forming a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. The logic ofthe whole conditions the role of the parts, and the whole takes on a lifeof its own that is independent of the parts. The logic of the political¢eld determines the stances taken.27 Bourdieu also sees politicalactivity in terms of rituals, institutions, and symbolic action. A centralritual in his theory of political representation is that of investiture,whereby an individual is chosen to represent and constitute a group.

Like Weber, for whom the modern state is an ‘‘enterprise’’ or a ‘‘busi-ness’’ (Betrieb),28 for Bourdieu the o¡er and demand of political goodsand the monopolization of capital are the main political processes. Asa result, sociology and political science paradoxically become sub¢eldsof economics (types of minor economics), mimicking economic termsand thought schemes. Political action becomes an inferior, because lessrational, form of economic action. Politics is seen as a war betweengroups ¢ghting for domination. By law, public o⁄cials are supposed tofurther public interest, although often they use their legitimacy tofurther their particular ends. Political power is supposed to be public

322 NIILO KAUPPI

power, and the state the guarantor of public order. Bourdieu ques-tioned these suppositions. At the same time, phenomena usually seenas forming part of political culture, such as the public sphere29 and therule of law, had little place in Bourdieu’s theory. Incorporating themwould require drawing qualitative di¡erences and distinguishing poli-tics from other human activities in non-formal terms.

Since the 1960s Bourdieu began studying the state, and speci¢cally theFrench state. The sociogenesis of the state is ‘‘the culmination of aprocess of concentration of di¡erent kinds of capital, capital derivedfrom physical force or instruments of coercion (the army, the police),economic capital, cultural, or better still informational capital, sym-bolic capital; a concentration which, as such, translates into possessionof a sort of metacapital giving the bearer power over all the other kindsof capital and those who possess them’’ (my translation).30

Through a process of privatization of public power prior to theexistence of the state, certain social groups succeed in monopolizingvarious kinds of public authority. The new authority that emergesbecomes responsible for calling the shots and deciding about therelative value of social resources and their exchange rates. The stateparticipates in a decisive manner in the production and reproductionof the instruments of construction of social reality. In Bourdieu’sformulation, the state is a kind of grand social organizer that ‘‘con-stantly exercises a formative action of durable dispositions,’’ of dauer-habitus to use Weber’s term.31 It imposes fundamental principles ofclassi¢cation on everybody ^ sex, age, competence, and so on.32 Itsin£uence is everywhere. In the family, it controls the rites of institu-tion; in the schooling system, it creates divisions between the chosenand the rejected, durable, often de¢nitive symbolic divisions that areuniversally recognized and that often have determining e¡ects on thefuture of individuals. The individual’s submission to the state order isthe result of the harmony between cognitive structures and the objec-tive structures of the world to which they apply.

Competition and symbolic violence among various groups ^ homohomini lupus ^ are endless, instituted by society in a Rousseaunmanner but lacking the positive basis Rousseau’s theory of primitiveman has. There is no end to the struggle, no light at the end of thetunnel. In fact, and paradoxically, it seems that in Bourdieu’s theorypolitics is by de¢nition stateless, understood as genuine shared publicauthority. Bourdieu never studied the European Union as a socio-

323BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

logical object, but in its current, neoliberal form, he condemned it.33

Through his political activism, he sought to create a social Europe. InBourdieu’s framework, the European Union is taking some of thefunctions of the nation-state, but a European civil society and ane¡ective European democracy have not yet developed. The EuropeanUnion is in its current form undemocratic, a polity without a civilsociety.34

Structural constructivism and European integration

Several scholars working in the area of the political sociology ofEurope have been inspired by Bourdieu’s work, and have adaptedsome of Bourdieu’s analytical tools (such as ¢eld and capital) to thestudy of European integration. They analyze European integrationthrough speci¢c objects, for instance new social groups such as Mem-bers of the European Parliament or civil servants, connecting politicalstrategies to structural location and to social characteristics such asgender and education, and analyzing broader processes such as theconstruction of a transnational political ¢eld. They approach theseobjects anthropologically by interviews and participant observation,linking meaning-structures to broader macro-sociological transforma-tions. In this sense, more than most sociological institutionalists, theyexplore agency. In contrast to Bourdieu, they also study speci¢callypolitical processes such as elections as a means of distributing politicalpower and the public sphere as participating in the setting of rulesdirecting the political game, in some cases comparing to one anotherthe structures of di¡erent national political ¢elds. Concerning theEuropean Parliament, what is interesting is that it is a totally new typeof political institution. Likewise, the European parliamentarian is anew type of politician who can be contrasted with the traditionalelected politician and the nominated international politicians such asthose working in international organizations.

While the European Union does not possess the traditional attributesof the state, such as the monopoly of legitimate violence, or of afederation, such as a constitution and taxing and spending powers, itpresents nonetheless certain features of a ¢eld that increasingly domi-nates the more established social political units that partly compose it(states, regions). Certain groups in the European bureaucracy presentthemselves as holders or caretakers of a type of European, collectivesymbolic capital that undermines state sovereignty. Struggles over the

324 NIILO KAUPPI

de¢nition of the European Union and the content of this Europeanpolitical capital are taking place between agents at all levels, startingfrom the transnational level where the E.U. bureaucracy, variouspowerful transnational interest groups (for instance industrial groups)and the smaller member-states oppose the larger member-states at-tempts to keep the European Union as a confederation of nation-states. The political and economic resources available to the groupsoccupying central positions in the Eurosphere (to use Dusan Sidjanski’sterm35) enable them increasingly to determine the rules of the transna-tional political game through, for instance, institutional con¢gurations(e.g., by reinforcing the position of the European Commission) and theimposition of new principles of social classi¢cation (e.g., throughdirectives) (70 percent of new legislation stems from the Europeanlevel). This concentration of resources also transforms the politicalcultures of the national and regional political sub¢elds, as the case ofthe European Parliament demonstrates.36

French political sociologist Michel Mangenot has studied the constitu-tion on the European level of a transnational network of powerfulpolitical agents that use domestic political resources at the transna-tional level. These have a common trait: they are all former students ofthe French elite school Ecole nationale d’administration (ENA). Theyform an uno⁄cial network in the European bureaucracy, exchangingamong themselves services and information. This system of socialservices and information is parallel to the o⁄cial, European bureauc-racy. Mangenot shows how the Europeanization of the ENA ^ a keyinstitution in the reproduction of French elites37 ^ found resistance inmany circles that considered Paris as still being the sole political centerof France. An invisible coup d’e¤ tat has taken place in terms of theeducation of French elites, as part of the training now takes place inStrasbourg, seat of the Council of Europe and, with Brussels andLuxembourg, of the European parliament. Certain educational assets,speci¢cally studies at the IEP and the ENA, have provided individualswith the means to make it to top bureaucratic positions in the Euro-pean Commission.38 For some, European institutions have becomeextensions of French institutions.

Another French political sociologist, Willy Beauvallet applied Bour-dieu’s concept of ¢eld to the study of a speci¢c political unit, theEuropean Parliament, scrutinizing the social characteristics and capi-tal structures of the European parliamentarians.39 He analyzes thepolitical uses these parliamentarians make of their position in the

325BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

French political ¢eld. The French contingent to the European Parlia-ment can be examined in terms of length of service, education, politicalexperience, and so on. Beauvallet classi¢es these European deputiesinto four groups depending on two variables, the level of investment inthe European Parliament and the length of their careers. Novices canbe divided into those who invest and try to carve themselves careers inthe European Parliament and those who consider the Parliament asbeing a stepping stone for a more traditional political career. Career-minded European parliamentarians had invested considerably intowork in the European Parliament, whereas more experienced politi-cians were there mainly to crown their careers.

In my research, I have explored transnational political processes inEurope by studying the dislocating e¡ects of European integration onthe Finnish and French national political ¢elds and elections to theEuropean Parliament.40 In both member-states, European integrationhas changed the structural features of the domestic political ¢elds byintroducing new institutions and practices. In Finland, the elections tothe European Parliament enabled individuals who would not normallysucceed politically to gain an electoral position. The 1996 electionswere characterized by a total lack of interest from top politicians suchas the prime minister, Paavo Lipponen, and the ¢nance minister, SauliNiinisto« . This testi¢ed to a larger indi¡erence on the part of thepolitical establishment. What was important was what happened atthe executive level, at that of the Council of ministers of the EuropeanUnion. This indi¡erence toward the European electoral institution,which is due to the structural marginality of the European Parliamentin Finnish politics, partly enabled individuals endowed with culturalcapital ^ TV celebrities and former sports stars ^ to win seats.

In France, the picture is not totally di¡erent. There also the EuropeanParliament is a marginal political institution.41 It attracts a variety ofindividuals, from those with no political capital to politicians domi-nated in terms of their capital structures. For those with no politicalcapital, European elections provide an opportunity to transform otherassets such as cultural capital into political capital. For women politi-cians and regional politicians, dominated in domestic political struc-tures, European elections serve as an entrance point to nationalpolitics. Women politicians have been successful in these elections, ashave regional politicians unknown to the national audience. Thesuccess of women politicians can be explained partly by the strategiesof politicians like Franc� ois Mitterrand and partly by the strong pres-

326 NIILO KAUPPI

ence of women in some parties, such as the Socialist party. But many ofthe women initially elected to the European Parliament, where theycould be out of the way and do as little damage as possible from thepoint of view of the dominant political groups, eventually found theirway to other sectors of the French political ¢eld, even to becomeministers. For regional politicians the European Parliament presentedan alternative avenue to access top national positions to the Senate andthe lower chamber. In both Finland and France, the European Parlia-ment has enabled certain groups to challenge traditional careers andthe dominant political culture that goes with it.

European political integration is also social and cultural integration.Spending time in Brussels changes the political habitus of politicians.For Finnish and French politicians work in Brussels does not presentan alternative to national political careers, they do not all becomefederalists after having worked in the European Union. Rather, trans-national political careers modify opportunity structures and becomeadditional possibilities to more traditional prospects at national, re-gional and local levels. Some invest more than others in the EuropeanParliament, but this investment is at the same time an investment atnational, regional, and local levels. These do not exclude one another,because politicians use their assets to further their careers on all levels.

Conclusions

In contrast to state- or Commission-centric approaches, structuralconstructivist political sociology has the advantage of presenting aholistic approach to political processes, enabling an analysis of theformation of a transnational European political space, composed ofboth a transnational level and more established national and regionalunits. As a variation of the multi-governance model, it grasps theEuropean Union, member states, and civil societies as forming a singlestructure ^ a ¢eld ^ that constrains and enables political action.42 TheEuropean Union is also a new system of political domination, in whichcertain groups, members of the Eurosphere, endeavor to transformprivate authority into public authority and their special interests intoEuropean interests in contrast to national or regional interests, classi-¢ed as narrow minded and archaic. Following political theorists whoexamines elites such as Michels, Mosca, and Pareto, Bourdieu’s criticalapproach is sensitive to the political power struggles that attempt tode¢ne the common good. Scholars inspired by his work and endeavor-

327BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

ing to develop his structural constructivist approach have analyzed thepolitical strategies forged by agents in relation to the formation of atransnational political ¢eld and to speci¢c social characteristics suchas class, gender, education, and political experience.

At a high level of abstraction, politics can be analyzed in all forms ofsocial interaction. The study of politics is equated with that of socialdomination. At a lower level of abstraction, politics can be analyzed asa speci¢c ¢eld of human activity. Scholars need to develop structuralconstructivism to take into account the speci¢cities of ¢elds and notjust their general properties. The study of political ¢elds has to behistorically informed. Di¡erent kinds of political ¢elds have to beseparated from one another. At this lower level of abstraction di¡erenttypes of political ¢elds could correspond to di¡erent types of politicalsystems (for instance, the E.U. vs. nation-states, the Westphalian statevs. the postmodern state). For Bourdieu, the mechanisms of powerdelegation operate the same way in the totalitarian Soviet Union as indemocratic France43 and in the religious and political domains. In themanner of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he overemphasizes in his analysisof political delegation the profane’s total submission to the delegate.But the public sphere (the media, NGOs and pressure groups) presentsa counter force to the political establishment that regularly denouncespoliticians for their wheeling and dealing. In this respect, Bourdieu’spolitical action, contradicts his political theory, as he himself was veryactive in various intellectual movements at the end of his life.

A developed structural constructivist account of European regionalintegration has to address the temporal and multi-level character of theEuropean Union (the internal dynamics of integration). For instance,the structural dislocations created by various temporalities ^ such asnational election cycles ^ prevent structural homologies betweendi¡erent spaces from being realized. In the case of a transnationalpolity like the European Union, its multilevel character requires thatthe multi-positionalities of agents be taken into account. For instance,in certain speci¢c situations national ministers, as representatives notonly of their member-states but also of the European Union, can usethe information they have to further and even to impose policies atlower levels. Now that European institutional structures are beinghotly debated and the European Union is expanding to EasternEurope, critical approaches such as the one provided by structuralconstructivism are needed more than ever.

328 NIILO KAUPPI

Notes

1.

2. See, for instance, Andrew Moravcsik, ‘‘Why the European Community strengthensthe state: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach,’’ Journal of Common MarketStudies 31 (1983): 473^524; The Choice for Europe (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1998).

3. New institutionalisms of rationalist, historical, and sociological persuasions haveprovided a third way to the neofunctionalist/multilevel governance and inter-governmentalist approaches. See James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, ‘‘The newinstitutionalism: Organizational factors in political life,’’American Political ScienceReview 78 (1984): 734^749; William Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, editors,The newinstitutionalism in organizational analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1991); Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor, ‘‘Political science and the three newinstitutionalisms,’’ Political Studies 44 (1996): 936^957; Junko Kato, ‘‘Institutionsand rationality in politics ^ three varieties of neo-institutionalists,’’ British Journalof Political Science 26/4 (1996): 553^582. For a recent presentation of theseapproaches, see Gerald Schneider and Mark Aspinwall, editors, The rules ofintegration. Institutionalist approaches to the study of Europe (Manchester: Man-chester University Press, 2001).

4. See, for instance, the special issue on the political sociology of Europe, VirginieGuiraudon, editor, Cultures & Con£its 38^39 (2000).

5. Marc Abe¤ le' s, La vie quotidienne au Parlement europe¤ en (Paris: Hachette, 1992).6. Richard S. Katz, ‘‘Role orientation in parliaments,’’ in Richard S. Katz and

Bernhard Wessels, editors, The European parliament, the national parliaments, andEuropean integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

7. George Ross, Jacques Delors and European integration (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1995).

8. Alexander Wendt, ‘‘Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction ofpower politics,’’ International Organization 46 (1992): 391^425; Social theory ofinternational politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

9. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann,The social construction of reality: A treatise inthe sociology of knowledge (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966). The symbolic usageby political scientists of sociological literature is a larger problem that is tied tointerdisciplinary communication.

10. Thomas Christiansen, K. E. J�rgensen, AntjeWiener, editors, a special issue of theJournal of European Public Policy 6 (1999) on social constructivism and socio-logical institutionalism.

11. Je¡rey Checkel, ‘‘Social construction and integration,’’ Journal of European PublicPolicy 6 (1999): 545^560.

12. For discussions of Bourdieu’s political sociology and political theory, cf. Jean-YvesCaro, ‘‘La sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu. EŁ le¤ ments pour une the¤ orie du champpolitique,’’ Revue franc� aise de science politique 30/1 (1980): 1171^1197; Fre¤ de¤ ricBon and Yves Schemeil, ‘‘La rationalisation de l’inconduite. Comprendre le statutdu politique chez Pierre Bourdieu,’’Revue franc� aise de science politique 30/1 (1980):

329BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

For the term “structural constructivist”, see Bourdieu, “Social space and symbolic power,”Sociological Theory 4 (1989): 14. French sociologist Pierre Ansart also used the termin his survey of French sociology, Les sociologies contemporaines (Paris: Seuil, 1990).For an analysis of structural constructivism in the French intellectual field, see NiiloKauppi, French Intellectual Nobility: Institutional and Symbolic Transformations in thePost-Sartrian Era (Albany, SUNY-Press, 1995), 35–68.

1203; Philippe Fritsch, ‘‘Introduction,’’ in Pierre Bourdieu, Propos sur le champpolitique (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2001), 7^31; Lahouari Addi,‘‘Violence symbolique et statut du politique dans l’oeuvre de Pierre Bourdieu,’’Revue franc� aise de science politique 51/6 (2000): 950^954; NiiloKauppi, ‘‘Elementsfor a structural constructivist theory of politics and of European integration,’’Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies Working Paper, 104 (2003); andDavid Swartz (forthcoming), ‘‘Pierre Bourdieu’s political sociology and governanceperspectives,’’ in Henrik Bang, editor, Governance traditions of political science,sociology and political theory.

13. See Zwischenbetrachtung, MaxWeber, Gesammelte aufsa« tze zur religionssoziologie(Tu« bingen: Mohr, 1972), 542; H.H. Gerth and C.Wright Mills, editors, From MaxWeber. Essays in sociology (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1946), 323^362.

14. ‘‘Une interpre¤ tation de la the¤ orie de la religion selon Max Weber,’’ Archiveseurope¤ ennes de sociologie XII (1971): 3^21; ‘‘Gene' se et structure du champ reli-gieux,’’Revue franc� aise de sociologie XII (1971): 295^334.

15. For an interesting discussion of skills, see Neil Fligstein, ‘‘Social skills and thetheory of ¢elds,’’ Sociological Theory 19/2 (2001): 105^125.

16. William Gamson,The strategy of social protest (Homewood: Dorsey Press, 1975).17. Bourdieu, ‘‘Champ politique, champ des sciences sociales, champ journalistique,’’

Cahiers de GRS 15 (Lyon), 13.18. Bourdieu, ‘‘Champ politique, champ des sciences sociales, champ journalistique,’’

19.19. Weber, Economy and society (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972);

Staatssoziologie. Soziologie der rationalen Staatsanstalt und der modernen poli-tischen Parteien und Parlamente (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1966), 27^28.

20. Pierre Bourdieu, The state nobility. Elite schools in the ¢eld of power (Cambridge:Polity Press, 1996); Pippa Norris, ‘‘Recruitment into the European parliament,’’ inKatz and Wessels, editors, The European parliament, the national parliaments, andEuropean integration.

21. Weber, Economy and society, 608.22. Cf. Weber, Staatssoziologie, 63^64; Bourdieu, ‘‘La repre¤ sentation politique. Ele¤ -

ments pour une the¤ orie du champ politique,’’ Actes de la recherche en sciencessociales 36/37 (1981): 19^21.

23. Bourdieu, ‘‘La repre¤ sentation politique,’’ 18.24. Ibid., 19.25. Bourdieu, Propos sur le champ politique (Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon,

2000), 65.26. Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1991); Antonio Gramsci, Selections from political writings 1921^1926 (London:Lawrence and Wishart, 1978), 17.

27. Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power, 184.28. Weber, Economy and society.29. Ju« rgen Habermas, The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry

into a category of bourgeois society (Cambridge: the MIT Press, 1989).30. Bourdieu, Raisons pratiques (Paris: Seuil, 1994), 109.31. Weber, Gesammelte aufsa« tze zur religionssoziologie, 541.32. Bourdieu, Me¤ ditations pascaliennes (Paris: Seuil, 1997), 209.33. Acts of resistance: Against the new myths of our time (Cambridge: Polity, 1998).34. Bourdieu, Acts of resistance. Habermas’s assessment is similar. Ju« rgen Habermas,

The postnational constellation: Political essays (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001).

330 NIILO KAUPPI

For analysis of Bourdieu’s intellectual politics, see the special issue of Substance93/23 (2000), Jean-Franc� ois Fourny, editor.

35. Dusan Sidjanski, ‘‘Eurosphe' res. Dirigeants et groupes europe¤ ens,’’ in Franc� oisd’Arcy and Luc Rouban, editors, De la Ve' me re¤ publique a' l’Europe. Hommage a'Jean-Louis Quermonne (Paris: PUF, 1996).

36. However, this does not automatically make politicians more European or federalist.37. See Bourdieu,The state nobility.38. Michel Mangenot, ‘‘Une e¤ cole europe¤ enne d’administration? L’improbable conver-

sion de l’ENA a' l’Europe,’’Politix 43 (1998): 7^32.39. Willy Beauvallet, ‘‘Institutionnalisation et professionnalisation de l’Europe poli-

¤ ¤ � ¤ '40. Niilo Kauppi, ‘‘European Union institutions and French political careers,’’ Scandi-

navian Political Studies 19/1 (1996): 1^24; ‘‘Power or subjection? French womenpoliticians in the European parliament,’’ European Journal of Women’s Studies 6/3(1999): 331^342; ‘‘La construction de l’Europe: le cas des e¤ lections europe¤ ennes enFinlande 1999,’’Cultures & Con£its 38^39 (2000): 101^118.

41. This is also true in terms of the social characteristics of Europarliamentarians, seeEmil J. Kirchner, The European parliament: Performances and prospects (Alder-shot: Gower, 1984).

42. For a similar approach in some respects, see Dorette Corbey, ‘‘Dialectical function-alism: Stagnation as a booster of European integration,’’ International Organiza-tion 45/2 (1995): 262.

43. Bourdieu, Propos sur le champ politique, 101.

331BOURDIEU’S POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

tique. Le cas des eurodeputes francais,’’Politique etrangere (Winter, 2003).