Over the last fifteen years or so anthropology has been engaged in the study of neoliberalism, with a growing quantity of research into the implementation and consequences of neoliberal policies (cf. Kipnis 2007). Why should a subject that has generated, and continues to generate so many debates in other disciplines have such belated success in anthropology? In principle the reasons are solid, good, and simple. It is only once neoliberalism is implemented and its associated practices and language affect our understanding of human beings, modifying social relations, institutions, and their functioning, that it becomes a proper subject for anthropology. Once it becomes involved in the concrete structuration of the world of social interaction and experience, and exerts a real influence over the way that agents think and problematise their lives, investigations can be undertaken in the field, and theories emerge that seek to analyse it and establish its effects, while avoiding its reification.In the debates broadly shaped by economics and the political sciences, the importance and particularity of the anthropological approach is to highlight dimensions that these other disciplines leave in shadow. The impact of neoliberalism is not confined to aspects directly linked to the market, institutional reforms, or political practices. One of the main questions the anthropologists seek to explore is that of how what can be termed neoliberal practices and representations are produced and disseminated on the global scale. Starting from this question, this article shows that, beyond their great diversity, these different investigations are built on three forms of anthropological knowledge. Each documents the phenomenon empirically in its own way and proposes theoretical advances that enable us to look with new eyes at neoliberalism and its expansion across the globe. This article highlights the conception of neoliberalism and the epistemology on which the three approaches are based, also considering their shared presuppositions. It then goes on to examine these approaches critically and analyses the way that they have theorised the spread of neoliberalism. In this way, the article shows that, beyond describing known effects (such as deregulation, flexible working, the liberalisation of capital, restriction of public spending, and erosion of the social state), anthropological analysis has a real contribution to make to multidisciplinary discussions in which it sometimes has difficulty making its voice heard. Differing approaches with shared presuppositionsBefore considering the three approaches, it is important to identify the presuppositions they
The question of freedom is recurrent in the theory of habitus. In this paper I propose that the notion of freedom is an essential and necessary component for the coherence of the analyses which mobilize habitus both in terms of their theoretical articulation and in terms of their grounding in empirical reality. This argument can seem surprising considering that the theory of habitus has often been accused of being deterministic. Yet I show that, from an epistemological point of view, habitus theory is not deterministic. Bourdieu’s treatment of this concept implies at least three principles that exclude determinism: (1) the production of an infinite number of behaviors from a limited number of principles, (2) permanent mutation, and (3) the intensive and extensive limits of sociological understanding. After identifying and describing these principles, I show the reason for their incompatibility with a deterministic perspective and consider their implications for the corresponding model of action. I illustrate this analysis by a discussion of Loïc Wacquant’s carnal sociology of the pugilistic universe which reveals why it is essential to understand and explain the relation between habitus and freedom.
This article is about the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and its actors. It analyses the development and role of PISA as a 'cultural product' from the perspective of Bourdieu's field theory. The authors attempt to answer the following questions: Of which field is PISA the product? In which field and by whom is PISA used and 'consumed'? The authors argue that the development of PISA is part of a broader transformation of equilibria within the field of (education) knowledge -i.e. a move away from its autonomous pole towards its heteronomous pole. Such a move transforms the very form and shape of the field of knowledge: it has expanded and attracts a growing number of internal and external actors around its heteronomous pole. This (cor)responds to a transformation of the equilibrium within the general field of power, where the intellectual bourgeoisie (artists, professors, academics, writers) is increasingly subordinated to -indeed, sometimes working for -economic and political interests. The authors further argue that the incorporation of PISA at the level of education policy fields also transforms their form and shape in two main ways. Within policy fields, the diffusion and reception of PISA reinforces a heteronomous understanding of education which is defined mostly in terms of its contribution to external interests. The diffusion of PISA also extends and, in a sense, dissolves the very boundaries of (national) education policy fields. Specifically, the authors underline that such an internationalisation of the education policy fields progresses mainly at their heteronomous poles and through a heteronomous definition of education.This article deals with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and analyses the role and development of PISA by using a specific theoretical framework -that of Pierre Bourdieu's field theory (especially as developed in Bourdieu, 1989Bourdieu, , 1992. Analysing PISA with the aid of field theory helps us characterise and understand the different types of actors contributing to its development, and the specific situations and tensions they are faced with. It helps us make sense of their trajectories and understand their positions vis-à-vis other actors.The uses of the concepts of cultural capital and habitus developed by Pierre Bourdieu have been much discussed in education research (see, for example, Atkinson, 2011), but, strangely, the literature has long remained silent on his theory of fields, although it lies at the heart of his work (Hilgers & Mangez, forthcoming). There have been a few attempts to use Bourdieu's concept of the field to study changes in the education sector. Grenfell and James (2004) offer an interesting perspective on how to use Bourdieu's concept of the field to study education research. They argue that it is possible to understand different research methodologies by studying the structure of their interrelations and the history of this structure. They further argue that the field of (education) research can be more or less...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.