Fields and Social Networks: Comparable Metaphors of Social Space?

dc.contributor.authorCHARLES KIRSCHBAUM
dc.coverage.cidadeSão Paulopt_BR
dc.coverage.paisBrasilpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-25T03:38:25Z
dc.date.available2023-07-25T03:38:25Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractBourdieu’s Field and the American Sociology’s Network concepts have been considered incompatible from an ontological and epistemological point of view. While the former stresses the one’s position in a social space based on volumes and types of capital and exercise of symbolic power, the latter assumes an individualistic approach, taking the number of controlled ties as a proxy of capital, and power dimension would be underscored. Harrison White is among the sociologists who harshly criticize the latter approach, for its emphasis on individuals. White recovers the idea of ‘social space’, deemphasizing the hegemonic methodological individualism in social network analysis. This article seeks to compare Bourdieu’s and Harrison White’s theories, showing the elements that are irreducible to each other, as well as some common intuitions. Rather than offering a synthesis of these theories, I propose that they are complementary in understanding the dynamics of a social space. Bourdieu’s capital-based Field construct leads us closer to explain one’s interests in connection to her actions. White’s focus on ambiguous action within social networks is relevant to understand how actors uncouple recurrent patterns of social reproduction. Finally, I recover empirical examples where it is possible to combine both approaches
dc.description.otherBourdieu’s Field and the American Sociology’s Network concepts have been considered incompatible from an ontological and epistemological point of view. While the former stresses the one’s position in a social space based on volumes and types of capital and exercise of symbolic power, the latter assumes an individualistic approach, taking the number of controlled ties as a proxy of capital, and power dimension would be underscored. Harrison White is among the sociologists who harshly criticize the latter approach, for its emphasis on individuals. White recovers the idea of ‘social space’, deemphasizing the hegemonic methodological individualism in social network analysis. This article seeks to compare Bourdieu’s and Harrison White’s theories, showing the elements that are irreducible to each other, as well as some common intuitions. Rather than offering a synthesis of these theories, I propose that they are complementary in understanding the dynamics of a social space. Bourdieu’s capital-based Field construct leads us closer to explain one’s interests in connection to her actions. White’s focus on ambiguous action within social networks is relevant to understand how actors uncouple recurrent patterns of social reproduction. Finally, I recover empirical examples where it is possible to combine both approaches.pt_BR
dc.format.extent17 p.pt_BR
dc.format.mediumDigitalpt_BR
dc.identifier.issueBEWP 155/2012
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.insper.edu.br/handle/11224/5935
dc.language.isoInglêspt_BR
dc.publisherInsperpt_BR
dc.publisherIBMEC - São Paulopt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInsper Working Paperpt_BR
dc.rights.licenseO INSPER E ESTE REPOSITÓRIO NÃO DETÊM OS DIREITOS DE USO E REPRODUÇÃO DOS CONTEÚDOS AQUI REGISTRADOS. É RESPONSABILIDADE DO USUÁRIO VERIFICAR OS USOS PERMITIDOS NA FONTE ORIGINAL, RESPEITANDO-SE OS DIREITOS DE AUTOR OU EDITORpt_BR
dc.titleFields and Social Networks: Comparable Metaphors of Social Space?pt_BR
dc.typeworking paper
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.subject.cnpqCiências Sociais Aplicadaspt_BR
local.typeWorking Paperpt_BR
relation.isAuthorOfPublication6a78e139-d40f-41eb-b258-6922f24afda5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery6a78e139-d40f-41eb-b258-6922f24afda5

Arquivos

Pacote original

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
N/D
Nome:
BEWP_155_2012_Fields_and_social_networks_comparable_metaphors_of_social_space_TC.pdf
Tamanho:
199.64 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format