The global field of power as “Tertium Comparationis”

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Wir schlagen eine feldtheoretische Erweiterung der HabitusFeldtheorie auf die Ebene der Weltgesellschaft vor. Zu diesem Zweck analysieren wir einen integrierten Datensatz auf Länderebene (n = 181 Staaten) aus verschiedenen Feldern mit Hilfe einer multiplen Faktorenanalyse. Wir zeigen, dass das globale Feld der Macht über zwei Dimensionen beschrieben werden kann: Meta-Kapital und interne Funktionalität. Insbesondere die Dimension der internen Funktionalität von Staaten kann dabei einen wertvollen analytischen Bezugsrahmen für die vergleichende (Umfrage-)Forschung liefern.Abstract We propose a field-theoretical elaboration of the habitus-field-theory towards the level of the 'world-society'. For this purpose we analyze an integrated data set from different social fields on country level (n = 181 countries) applying multiple factor analysis. We demonstrate that the global field of power can be described by two dimensions: meta-capital and internal functionality. Especially internal functionality can provide a valuable analytical frame of reference for comparative (survey) research.

Pluralizing field analysis: Toward a relational understanding of the field of power

“…The field of power, as it has been developed up to here, is a global field of power in the last consequence (Schmitz et al, 2015), as social fields and their power relations do not end at the boundaries of nation-states. On the contrary: the nation-state itself can also be conceptualized as a field (or even nation and state as two concurring fields) within the field of power.…”

Field theory beyond the nation state

“…Two empirical foci are of particular importance in post-national field analysis. First, contributions are often concerned with political entities, among them nation states and their transnational colonial pasts (Go 2008, Steinmetz 2008, Wilson 2016, relations between nation states (Adler-Nissen 2013, Schmitz, Heiberger, and Blasius 2015), or the emergence of political entities on the supranational scale (Adler-Nissen 2011, Cohen 2011, Büttner and Mau 2014, Kauppi 2018. Second, perhaps the most prevalent empirical focus for post-national field analysis are fields of education and higher education.…”

“…Some contributions draw on established forms of capital, revealing, for example, how cultural and economic capital structure the transnational field of education policy (Mangez and Hilgers 2012), how transnational fields translate professional expertise into political capital (Schmidt-Wellenburg 2017), or how central bankers' positions in the global field of power are structured by political and economic capital (Lebaron 2008). Other studies identify new forms of capital, for example, ethnographic capital in the transnational field of colonial states (Steinmetz 2008), informational capital structuring the European field of security agencies (Bigo 2007), macro capital structuring the positions of countries, regions, or cities in a global field of cultural production (Buchholz 2018), literary capital in the global field of literature (Casanova 2004), and meta-capital structuring the relation among nation states in a global field of power (Schmitz, Heiberger, and Blasius 2015).…”

“…For example, Bourdieu Beyond different approaches to geo-spatial scales and the use of complementary field theoretical concepts, two additional levels of distinction can contribute to an analytical topology of the field of post-national field analysis: A third level of distinction concerns the methodological design of the respective studies. Many post-national field analyses are conceptualized as single case studies concentrating on one transnational or global field, for example, the transnational field of higher education (Marginson 2008, Münch 2014, the transnational field of European social law and social policy (Feritkh 2020), or the global field of power (Lebaron 2008, Schmitz, Heiberger, andBlasius 2015).…”

The Role of Argumentation and Institutions for Labour Migration in the European Union – Exemplified by Spanish labour migration to Germany

“…Therefore, fields are usually constituted on the national level (Bourdieu/Wacquant, ), while social space transcends national borders (Bernhard/Bernhard, ). However, fields may also transcend national borders just as does social space (Schmitz et al., ). In our case, by entering another national context, the social construction of the national structures becomes obvious, e.g.…”