Skip to main content

Does Bourdieu “Extend” Marx’s Concept of Capital?

  • 233 Accesses

Part of the Marx, Engels, and Marxisms book series (MAENMA)

Abstract

Bourdieu had a fraught and ambivalent relationship to Marxism. In this chapter, I consider one particularly common interpretation of the relationship between Bourdieu and Marxism: that by extending the critical scope of the capital concept to include a variety of forms beyond economic capital, Bourdieu transcended the narrow economism of the Marxist concept of capital. Indeed, Bourdieu himself claimed to do exactly this. However, I argue that such a claim must be rejected for at least four reasons. First, Marx’s concept of capital is not economistic to begin with, denoting as it does the social and historical relations of class exploitation concealed by the fetishized economic forms of capitalism. Second, while Bourdieu’s earlier formulations of the concept of cultural capital could plausibly be seen as complementary to a Marxist theory of class reproduction, his concept of capital in fact became much less compatible with Marx’s as he developed it over time. Third, though Bourdieu relies on a superficially marxisant language to define his concept of capital, his definition ends up being ambiguous and confused from a Marxist point of view. Fourth, Bourdieu tends to take the economic field and economic capital for granted, evacuating the latter of any specific understanding of the capitalist form of exploitation, which Marx’s concept of capital was of course meant to reveal. I thus conclude that if Bourdieu’s different forms of capital are but extensions of economic capital, the concept of capital—and thereby the critical problematic—he extends is not a Marxist one. Consequently, we must also reject the notion that Bourdieu transcended Marxism’s economism. Rather, it is Bourdieu’s treatment of the economy that is itself liable to charges of economism. I end the chapter by suggesting that a more fruitful way of thinking about the relationship between Bourdieu and Marxism would be to abandon grandiose and totalizing claims of Bourdieu having transcended or surpassed Marxism and to look more modestly for possible points of articulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-06289-6_9
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-031-06289-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter is an edited version of Desan (2013).

  2. 2.

    Jacques Bidet and Anne Bailey (1979) make a similar point.

  3. 3.

    This is not to suggest that cultural capital is “objective” in an essentialist or substantialist way for Bourdieu.

  4. 4.

    See Erik Olin Wright (2009) for this distinction.

References

  • Bidet, Jacques, and Anne Bailey. 1979. Questions to Pierre Bourdieu. Critique of Anthropology 4 (13–14): 203–208.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1966. La transmission de l’héritage culturel. In Le Partage des bénéfices. Expansion et inégalités en France, ed. DARRAS, 383–421. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1977 [1972]. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984 [1979]. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society 14: 723–744.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J.G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990 [1980]. The Logic of Practice. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993 [1980]. Sociology in Question. Trans. R. Nice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998 [1994]. Practical Reason. Trans. R. Johnson. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000 [1997]. Pascalian Meditations. Trans. R. Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005 [2000]. The Social Structures of the Economy. Trans. C. Turner. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Symbolic Capital and Social Classes. Journal of Classical Sociology 13: 291–302.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015 [2012]. On the State: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1989–1992. Trans. D. Fernbach. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Terry Eagleton. 1992. Doxa and Common Life. New Left Review 191: 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Passeron Jean-Claude. 1977 [1970]. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Trans. R. Nice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, Franz Schultheis, and Andreas Pfeuffer. 2011. With Weber Against Weber: In Conversation With Pierre Bourdieu. In The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, ed. Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner, 111–125. London: Anthem Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, Robert. 2003. L’anthropologie économique de Pierre Bourdieu. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 150: 65–78.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Caillé, Alain. 1981. La sociologie de l’intérêt, est-elle intéressante? Sociologie du Travail 23: 251–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, Craig. 1993. Habitus, Field, and Capital: The Question of Historical Specificity. In Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, ed. Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone, 61–89. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convert, Bernard. 2003. Bourdieu: Gary Becker’s Critic. Economic Sociology. European Newsletter 4: 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desan, Mathieu Hikaru. 2013. Bourdieu, Marx, and Capital: A Critique of the Extension Model. Sociological Theory 31: 318–342.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Favereau, Olivier. 2001. L’économie du sociologue ou: Penser (l’orthodoxie) à partir de Pierre Bourdieu. In Le travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu, ed. Bernard Lahire, 255–314. Paris: La Découverte.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, Bridget. 2011. Pierre Bourdieu: Unorthodox Marxist? In The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, ed. Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner, 33–59. London: Anthem Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron, Johan. 2011. Practical Foundations of Theorizing in Sociology: The Case of Pierre Bourdieu. In Social Knowledge in the Making, ed. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 181–209. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans, and Wolfgang Knöbl. 2009 [2004]. Social Theory. Twenty Introductory Lectures. Trans. A. Skinner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebaron, Frédéric. 2003. Pierre Bourdieu: Economic Models against Economism. Theory and Society 32: 551–565.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1977 [1867]. Capital. Volume One. Trans. B. Fowkes. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulle, Bowen, Bart van Heerikhuizen, and Mustafa Emirbayer. 2011. Elias and Bourdieu. In The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, ed. Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner, 145–173. London: Anthem Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, David. 1997. Culture & Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Erik Olin. 2009. Understanding Class: Towards and Integrated Analytical Approach. New Left Review 60: 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Hikaru Desan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Desan, M.H. (2022). Does Bourdieu “Extend” Marx’s Concept of Capital?. In: Paolucci, G. (eds) Bourdieu and Marx. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06289-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06289-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06288-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06289-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)