Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 09:17:29 -0700
From: Hagen Finley <hagen-AT-violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Fields and circles


 Thus,
>concentric circles are a misleading metaphor, suggesting that
>we focus more on the perimeter than the struggle for and over value within
>the field. The overlap between fields is the site of habitus, but now
>we shift our lens to the combination of possession a microclass of people
>or, in BBourdieu's terms, a position, has. 

        I actually don't wish to champion the metaphor of concentric
circles, but as I have thought about the misgivings posted in response to
that interpretation it became apparent to me that my depiction of Wacquant's
explanation was misleading. The picture I intended to sketch (which is a bit
harder to portray without a diagram) is one in which the social universe
contains overlapping social  spaces, which in turn contain overlapping
fields - and to some degree - subfields. Instead of concentric circles, we
actually find clusters of overlapping circles (fields) within clusters of
overlapping spheres (social spaces) which ultimately determine the broadest
boundaries of the social universe. 
        I apologize for this lack of clarity - Wacquant described this
relationship as concentric and then proceeded to diagram it in this
clustered manner and I didn't pay adequate attention to the discrepancy
apparent in these two portrayals. This doesn't mean everyone has to embrace
this new imagery - I imagine any attempt to reduce these concepts to a
diagram will generate some detractors - and that not without some merit, but
I also think it is important to offer explanations of Bourdieu's theory
which can be readily  understood by the Bourdieuian neophyte. 
Hagen Finley
Berkeley, CA

**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu