Advertisement

The Media as the Neoliberalized Sediment: Articulating Laclau’s Discourse Theory with Bourdieu’s Field Theory

  • Sean Phelan
Chapter

Abstract

The work of Laclau and Bourdieu can, in one sense, be opposed. If Laclau can be characterized as a political theorist who is antagonistic to a “sociologistic descriptivism” (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, p. 2), Bourdieu can be described as a sociologist who is antagonistic to abstract theory. Laclau (1990) criticizes sociology for occluding the political logic of the social, while Bourdieu (1990) reproaches scholastic articulations of theory for disparaging a positivistic interest in the empirical. To frame the relationship between Laclau and Bourdieu in these blanket terms is simplistic, and we should question to what extent the work of either can be cast in the other’s generic projection. Nonetheless, to stylize their differences in discourse theoretical terms, we can say that while Laclau’s work has been preoccupied with emphasizing the “radical contingency” of social practices, Bourdieu has focused more purposefully on understanding their “sedimentation” and stickiness (Glynos & Howarth, 2007).

Keywords

Social Practice Discourse Theory Social Field Media Space Political Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aune, J. A. (2001). Selling the free market: The rhetoric of economic correctness. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, C. (2003). Culture and democracy. Media, space and representation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, C. (2005). The consolations of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 36(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson, R. (2004). Bringing the sociology of media back in. Political Communication, 21(3), 275–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson, R. (2009). What makes news more multiperspectival? A field analysis. Poetics, 37(5–6), 402–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson, R. & Neveu, E. (2005). Bourdieu and the journalistic field. Cambridge: PolityPress.Google Scholar
  7. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Blumler, J. & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1990). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television and journalism. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic Field (pp. 29–47). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bowman, P. (2007). Post-Marxism versus cultural studies: Theory, politics and intervention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Butler, J. (1999). Performativity’s social magic. In R. Shusterman (Ed.) Bourdieu: A critical reader (pp. 113–28). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Champagne, P. (2005). The “double dependency”: The journalistic field between politics and markets. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 48–63). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, J. (2008). Living with/in and without neo-liberalism. Focaal, 51(Summer), 135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collini, S. (2010). Browne’s gamble. London Review of Books, 32(21), 23–5. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gambleGoogle Scholar
  21. Connolly, W. E. (2005). Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Connolly, W. E. (2008). Capitalism and Christianity, American style. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corner, J. (1999). [Review of On television and journalism]. European Journal of Communication, 14(2), 251–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corner, J. (2003). Mediated persona and political culture. In J. Corner & D. Pels, Media and the restyling of politics. (pp. 67–85). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Couldry, N. (2003a). Media meta-capital: Extending the range of Bourdieu’s field theory. Theory and Society, 32(5–6), 653–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Couldry, N. (2003b). Media rituals: A critical approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Darras, E. (2005). Media consecration of the political order. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 156–73). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Dean, K. (2004). Laclau and Mouffe and the discursive turn: The gains and losses. In J. Joseph & J. M. Roberts (Eds.), Realism, discourse, and deconstruction (pp. 150–68). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Derrida, J. (1974). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ekström, M. (2003). Epistemologies of TV-journalism. A theoretical framework. Journalism: Theory Practice and Criticism, 3(3), 259–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frangie, S. (2009). Bourdieu’s reflexive politics: Socio-analysis, biography and self-creation. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(2), 213–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frank, T. (2000). One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism and the end of economic democracy. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
  33. Garnham, N. & Williams, R. (1980). Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: An introduction. Media, Culture & Society, 2(3), 209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gitlin, T. (2004). Reply to Rodney Benson. Political Communication, 21(3), 309–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glynos, J. & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hafez, K. (2007). The myth of media globalization. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, S. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Lawrence Grossberg. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. & Roberts, B. (1978/1999). Extract from Policing the crisis. Reprinted in H. Tumber (Ed.) News: A Reader (pp. 249–56). Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hallin D. C. (2008). Neoliberalism, social movements and change in media systems in the late twentieth century. In D. Hesmondhalgh & J. Toynbee (Eds.), The media and social theory (pp. 45–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Howarth, D. (2004). Hegemony, political subjectivity, and radical democracy. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 256–76). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, M. (2010). The rhetoric of hegemony: Laclau, radical democracy, and the rule of tropes. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(3), 253–83.Google Scholar
  45. Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  46. Laclau, E. (1996). Emancipation(s). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  47. Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony. In J. Butler, E. Laclau & S. Žižek (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony and universality (pp. 44–89). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  48. Laclau, E. (2004). Glimpsing the future. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 279–328). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  50. Laclau, E. (2006). Ideology and post-Marxism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy, 2nd edn, London: Verso.Google Scholar
  52. Lane, J. F. (2006). Bourdieu’s politics: problems and possibilities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Layton, L. (2010). Irrational exuberance: Neoliberal subjectivity and the perversion of truth. Subjectivity, 3(3), 303–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McChesney, R. W. & Nichols, J. (2010). The death and life of American journalism: The media revolution that will begin the world again. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  55. McNay, L. (2001). Meditations on Pascalian meditations. Economy and Society, 30(1), 139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McNay, L. (2003). Out of the orrery: Situating language. Journal of Political Ideologies, 8(2), 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meyer, T. (2002). Media democracy: How the media colonize politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  58. Miklitsch, R. (1995). The rhetoric of post-Marxism: Discourse and institutionality in Laclau and Mouffe, Resnick and Wolff. Social Text, 45(Winter) 167–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Mouzelis, N. (1988). Marxism or post-Marxism? New Left Review, 167 (Jan.–Feb.), 107–23.Google Scholar
  61. Myles, J. F. (2004). From doxa to experience: Issues in Bourdieu’s adoption of Husserlian phenomenology. Theory, Culture and Society, 21(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nash, K. (2002). Thinking political sociology: beyond the limits of post-Marxism. History of the Human Sciences, 15(4), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neveu, E. (2005). Bourdieu, the Frankfurt School, and cultural studies: On some misunderstandings. In R. Benson & E. Neveu (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 195–213). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. Norris, A. (2006). Ernesto Laclau and the logic of “the political.” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 32(1), 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Norval, A. (2007). Aversive democracy: Inheritance and originality in the democratic tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rancière, J. (2004). The philosopher and his poor. Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stäheli, U. (2004). Competing figures of the limit: Dispersion, transgression, antagonism and indifference. In S. Critchley & O. Marchart (Eds.), Laclau: A critical reader (pp. 226–40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Stanyer, J. (2007). Modern political communication. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  69. Steinmetz, G. (2006). Bourdieu’s disavowal of Lacan: Psychoanalytic theory and the concepts of “habitus” and “symbolic capital.” Constellations, 13(4), 445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture & power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Thomassen, L. (2005). Antagonism, hegemony and ideology after heterogeneity. Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(3), 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Topper, K. (2005). The disorder of political inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wacquant, L. (2004). Pointers on Pierre Bourdieu and democratic politics. Constellations, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wikileaks (2010). About wikileaks. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://wikileaks.org/media/about.html.

Copyright information

© Sean Phelan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean Phelan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations