Global Fields and Imperial Forms: Field Theory and the British and American Empires

Abstract

This article develops a global fields approach for conceptualizing the global arena. The approach builds upon existing approaches to the world system and world society while articulating them with the field theory of Bourdieu and organizational sociology. It highlights particular structural configurations ("spaces of relations") and the specific cultural content ("rules of the game" and "symbolic capital") of global systems. The utility of the approach is demonstrated through an analysis of the different forms of the two hegemonic empires of the past centuries, Great Britain and the United States. The British state tended toward formal imperialism in the 19th century, characterized by direct territorial rule, while the United States since WWII has tended toward informal imperialism. The essay shows that the difference can be best explained by considering the different historical global fields in which the two empires operated.

The Roots of Polish Culture-Centered Politics: Toward a Non–Purely Cultural Model of Cultural Domination in Central and Eastern Europe

“…The dependent or peripheral status of the region allows us to relate this analysis to approaches relying on the colonial and postcolonial paradigm. In this way, the proposed adaption of the theory of field of power may also constitute an attempt at supplementing the emerging field of interdisciplinary research known as sociology of empires 21 and a comparative analysis therein. 22 In this text, in particular, we propose a tentative sketch for a theory of a peripheral field of power.…”

The Voldemort of Imperial History: Rethinking Empire and US History

“…Most likely, further study will reveal that there were peripheral factors that help to explain how, why, and when events occurred. Some might be systemic (Go 2008(Go , 2012, but others might be idiosyncratic. President Thomas Jefferson's emissaries to France in the very early 1800s, for instance, were not supposed to buy all of French North America, but only to safeguard US trading rights along the Mississippi.…”

Global ends, local means: Cross-national homogeneity in professional service firms

“…Such analyses lead to a sceptical view of professionalism as a struggle to naturalise the arbitrary via the accumulation of professional prestige (Schinkel and Noordegraaf, 2011). Whereas institutionalist thinking on professionalism focuses on conformance with professional 'norms' as an end in itself, Bourdieusian thinking on professionalism views the accumulation of professional prestige (symbolic capital) more critically as a means to some other end (Go, 2008). Indeed, by using Bourdieu to understand professions we are uniquely placed to introduce power back into institutional theory given that professions "are the most influential contemporary creators of institutions" (Clegg, 2010: 9).…”

“…Bourdieusian, rather than instutionalist, field analysis emphasises stratification (Savage et al, 2005) or processes of domination as opposed to a more benign coexistence of multiple logics. In this respect, attention is paid to the way in which powerful actors come to dominate global fields and facilitate the privileging of certain factors over others (Go, 2008). Essentially, Bourdieu's thinking can complement institutional theory by introducing notions of power and politics into what has all too often been an insufficiently critical theoretical space (see, for example, Oakes et al, 2008, Cooper et al, 2008and Willmott, 2011 arguments to this effect).…”