Abstract
In this chapter, by reflecting upon the structural dimensions of the previously outlined paradigm of “mate choice as agency within structures” (MAS) and its core analytical elements, a Bourdieusian conceptualization of mating will be developed. The purpose of this procedure is twofold. The potential of a Bourdieusian approach to mating processes will be motivated by illustrating its theoretical and conceptual spectrum compared to the MAS model. At the same time, the well-defined traditions of MAS are used to concretize Bourdieu’s somewhat sporadic and unsystematic reflections on couple formation. The main argument will be that the conceptual building blocks of MAS – such as mating preferences, utilities, strategies, chance, mate choice, dyadic exchange, and markets – can be conceptualized as functions of the social space. It will be shown that the conceptual tools of ‘social space’, ‘habitus’, and ‘practice’ enable both the utilization of the insights of the MAS model and the relational generalization of its analytical concepts. Consequently, the model of mate choice as agency in structures will be characterized as an analytical sub-category of relational structuralism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Social space and social fields construct the same thing: society. Whereas the first perspective applies the view point of social inequality, the second one conceptualizes society as (quasi-)functionally differentiated. Schmitz et al. (2016) critically discuss Bourdieu’s concept of the ‘field of power’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 104 ff.) and elaborate on the relations between social space and the field of power.
- 3.
Symbolic capital – that is, the acknowledgment of the habitus and hence of the goods of an agent – could be interpreted as what Schoen and Wooldredge (1989) and Klein (1996: 211) refer to as ‘total attractiveness’. However, as symbolic capital is structured by social class and gender (amongst other things), it cannot be represented by a linear, unidimensional unit applicable to all classes.
- 4.
Thus, lifestyle in mating addresses two aspects: first, lifestyle as one of many ‘variables’ relevant in mating processes, such as gender, age, income, occupational status, educational degree, etc.; second, as a latent principle of taste comprising and undermining the impact of every single variable.
- 5.
Usually, the maximization of utility is discussed in the context of two central dichotomies: whether it can be thought of as genuinely factual or merely hypothetical, and whether it manifests itself consciously or unconsciously.
- 6.
A similar development can be identified in modern rationalist approaches. Freese proposes to extend the preference concept within analytical sociology (which is a currently discussed version of methodological individualism), by means of “abstract tastes that are pertinent to choices across many situations” in order “to make sense of heterogeneity in larger individual patterns of action” (Freese 2009: 107).
- 7.
Here, the perspective of social fields can be useful in further disentangling the impacts of the economic, political, scientific, etc., fields on particular classes and their strategies.
- 8.
Consequently, ‘amor fati’ (Bourdieu 2000: 143) then means not only seeing one’s own trajectory epitomised in a partner, but also seeing one’s destiny in the difference another symbolizes.
- 9.
This was also recognized by Thibaut and Kelley (1959: 28), early proponents of exchange theory in mating, who state that “mating is not governed by anticipations or consequences, covert calculation of the relative merits of different actions, or the deliberate attempt to maximize outcomes”. However, this concession makes it difficult to conceptualize mating processes as separate from exchange itself, inasmuch as the character of exchange is more imputed theoretically than considered directly relevant for the praxis of the agents involved.
- 10.
It would be a comparatively small (but greatly important) analytical operation to extend this analytical scheme to categories of ethnicity, heteronormativity, or age.
- 11.
Three forms of historicization can be derived from this insight: the historicization of the agent ‘looking for a mate’, the historicization of the space of the categories he applies on the market, and the historicization of the space of the positions in the partner market, that is, his structure of opportunity. A fourth historicization is the one of the scientists’ categories and their ways of constructing the research object.
- 12.
Lindenberg (2013) also sees the historicization of the actor as a current need for development of rational action theories, and proposes types of personality to this end.
- 13.
References
Alexander, J. C., Giesen, B., Münch, R., & Smelser, N. (Eds.). (1987). The micro-macro link (1st ed.). Berkeley: University of California.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch, & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro-link (pp. 71–85). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blossfeld, H.-P. (1996). Macro-sociology, rational choice theory, and time. A theoretical perspective on the empirical analysis of social processes. European Sociological Review, 12(2), 181–206.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Drobnic, S. (2001). Theoretical perspectives on couples’ careers. In H.-P. Blossfeld & S. Drobnic (Eds.), Careers of couples in contemporary societies. From male breadwinner to dual earner families (pp. 16–50). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (1997). Das Bildungssystem als Heiratsmarkt: Eine Längsschnittanalyse der Wahl von Heiratspartnern im Lebenslauf. Sonderforschungsbereich 186. Vol. 43, Bremen: University of Bremen.
Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (European studies of population, Vol. 12). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bok, S. (1979). Lying. Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Random House.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. K. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education (pp. 71–112). London: Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (1974). Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge studies in social anthropology (Vol. 16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Unpublished interview with Maria Iser. In M. Iser (Ed.), Der Habitus als illegitimer Normalfall gesellschaftlicher Reproduktion. Die soziale Bedeutung von symbolischer Gewalt und strukturgesteuertem Lernen und Handeln in der Theorie von Pierre Bourdieu, pp. 242–279.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1–17.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Vive la crise!: For heterodoxy in social science. Theory and Society, 17(5), Special Issue on Breaking Boundaries: Social Theory and the Sixties, 773–787.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press/B. Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P. (1996a). On the family as a realized category. Theory, Culture & Society, 13, 19–26.
Bourdieu, P. (1996b). State nobility. Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford: Stanford University.
Bourdieu, P. (1996c). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996d). Physical space, social space and habitus. Lecture at the University of Oslo.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Wie eine soziale Klasse entsteht. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Der Tote packt den Lebenden (Schriften zu Politik & Kultur, Vol. 2, pp. 102–129). Hamburg: VSA.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). The weight of the world. Social suffering in contemporary society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination (1st ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2002a). Le bal des célibataires. Paris: Seuil.
Bourdieu, P. (2002b). On marriage strategies. Population and Development Review, 28(3), 549–558.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). Principles of an economic anthropology. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd ed., pp. 75–89). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2008). The Bachelors’ ball. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2010). Sociologists of belief and beliefs of sociologists. Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 23(1), 1–7.
Bourdieu, P. (2014). The future of class and the causality of the probable. In A. Christoforou & M. Lainé (Eds.), Re-thinking economics: Exploring the work of Pierre Bourdieu (pp. 233–269). London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Chartier, R. (2011). Der Soziologe und der Historiker. Wien: Turia + Kant.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. P. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Polity Press.
Bozon, M. (1991). Women and the age gap between spouses: An accepted domination? Population. An English Selection, 3, 113–148.
Bozon, M., & Héran, F. (1989). Finding a spouse: A survey of how french couples meet. Population. An English Selection, 44(1), 91–121.
Breiger, R. L. (2000). A tool kit for practice theory. Poetics, 27(2–3), 91–115.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.
de Paulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995.
de Singly, F. (1987). Théorie critique de l’homogamie. L’Année sociologique, 37, 181–205.
Dupré, J., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Against reductionist explanations of human behaviour. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 72(1), 153–171.
Elster, J. (1986). An introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freese, J. (2009). Preferences and the explanation of social behavior. In P. Hedström & P. Bearman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of analytic sociology (pp. 94–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.
Hakim, C. (2010). Erotic capital. European Sociological Review, 26(5), 499–518.
Hertog, E. (2012). Hedged bets: Preferences for future marriage partners’ earning power in contemporary Japan. Unpublished working paper.
Huinink, J., & Feldhaus, M. (2009). Family research from the life course perspective. International Sociology, 24(3), 299–324.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
Kara, A. (2009). Implications of multiple preferences for a deconstructive critique and a reconstructive revision of economic theory. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 11(1), 69–78.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Klein, T. (1996). Der Altersunterschied zwischen Ehepartnern. Ein neues Analysemodell. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 25(5), 346–370.
Lamaison, P., & Bourdieu, P. (1986). From rules to strategies: An interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), 110–120.
Lebaron, F. (2001). Toward a new critique of economic discourse. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 123–129.
Lindenberg, S. (2013). Social rationality, self-regulation, and well-being: The regulatory significance of needs, goals, and the self. In R. Wittek, T. Snijders, & V. Nee (Eds.), The handbook of rational choice social research (pp. 72–112). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Lizardo, O. (2014). Taste and the logic of practice in distinction. Sociologický ústav, AV ČR.
Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32.
McPherson, M. (1983). Ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48, 519–532.
Popper, K. R. (2002). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.
Schmitt, D. P., Jonason, P. K., Byerley, G. J., Flores, S. D., Illbeck, B. E., O’Leary, K. N., & Qudrat, A. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality new studies reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 135–139.
Schmitz, A. (2012). Elective affinities 2.0? A bourdieusian approach to couple formation and the methodology of E-dating. Social Science Research on the Internet (RESET), 1(1), 175–202.
Schmitz, A., & Riebling, J. (2013). Gibt es erotisches Kapital? Anmerkungen zu körperbasierter Anziehungskraft und Paarformation bei Hakim und Bourdieu. Gender- Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft, 2, 57–80.
Schmitz, A., Witte, D., Gengnagel, V. (2016). Pluralizing field analysis: Toward a relational understanding of the field of power. Social Science Information/Information sur les sciences sociales (forthcoming).
Schoen, R., & Wooldredge, J. (1989). Marriage choices in North Carolina and Virginia, 1969–71 and 1979–81. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(2), 465–481.
Skopek, J. (2011). Partnerwahl im Internet: Eine quantitative Analyse von Strukturen und Prozessen der Online-Partnersuche. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
South, S. J. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 928–940.
Stigler, G. J., & Becker, G. S. (1977). De Gustibus non est Disputandum. The American Economic Review, 67(2), 76–90.
Streib, J. (2015). Explanations of how love crosses class lines: Cultural complements and the case of cross-class marriages. Sociological Forum, 30(1), 18–39.
Swedberg, R. (2011). The economic sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 67–82.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Wacquant, L. (2016). A concise genealogy and anatomy of habitus. The Sociological Review, 64(1), 64–72.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Weber, M., & Roth, G. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: University of California Press.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-Ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.
Winter, L., & Kron, T. (2009). Fuzzy thinking in sociology. In R. Seising (Ed.), Views on fuzzy sets and systems from different perspectives: Philosophy and logic, criticisms and applications (pp. 301–320). Berlin: Springer.
Witte, D. (2014). Auf den Spuren der Klassiker. Pierre Bourdieus Feldtheorie und die Gründerväter der Soziologie. Konstanz: UVK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schmitz, A. (2017). A Bourdieusian Approach to Mating Processes. In: The Structure of Digital Partner Choice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43530-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43530-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43529-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43530-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)