What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sociologist and the Historian
In 1988, the renowned sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and the leading historian Roger Chartier met for a series of lively discussions that were broadcast on French public radio. Published here for the first time, these conversations are an accessible and engaging introduction to the work of these two great thinkers, who discuss their work and explore the similarities and differences between their disciplines with the clarity and frankness of the spoken word.
Bourdieu and Chartier discuss some of the core themes of Bourdieu's work, such as his theory of fields, his notions of habitus and symbolic power and his account of the relation between structures and individuals, and they examine the relevance of these ideas to the study of historical events and processes. They also discuss at length Bourdieu's work on culture and aesthetics, including his work on Flaubert and Manet and his analyses of the formation of the literary and artistic fields. Reflecting on the differences between sociology and history, Bourdieu and Chartier observe that while history deals with the past, sociology is dealing with living subjects who are often confronted with discourses that speak about them, and therefore it disrupts, disconcerts and encounters resistance in ways that few other disciplines do.
This unique dialogue between two great figures is a testimony to the richness of Bourdieu's thought and its enduring relevance for the humanities and social sciences today.
Bourdieu and Chartier discuss some of the core themes of Bourdieu's work, such as his theory of fields, his notions of habitus and symbolic power and his account of the relation between structures and individuals, and they examine the relevance of these ideas to the study of historical events and processes. They also discuss at length Bourdieu's work on culture and aesthetics, including his work on Flaubert and Manet and his analyses of the formation of the literary and artistic fields. Reflecting on the differences between sociology and history, Bourdieu and Chartier observe that while history deals with the past, sociology is dealing with living subjects who are often confronted with discourses that speak about them, and therefore it disrupts, disconcerts and encounters resistance in ways that few other disciplines do.
This unique dialogue between two great figures is a testimony to the richness of Bourdieu's thought and its enduring relevance for the humanities and social sciences today.
100 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
12 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
About the author
Pierre Bourdieu
353 books1,326 followersBourdieu pioneered investigative frameworks and terminologies such as cultural, social, and symbolic capital, and the concepts of habitus, field or location, and symbolic violence to reveal the dynamics of power relations in social life. His work emphasized the role of practice and embodiment or forms in social dynamics and worldview construction, often in opposition to universalized Western philosophical traditions. He built upon the theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Georges Canguilhem, Karl Marx, Gaston Bachelard, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, Erwin Panofsky, and Marcel Mauss. A notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations.
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Bourdieu rejected the idea of the intellectual "prophet", or the "total intellectual", as embodied by Sartre. His best known book is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, in which he argues that judgments of taste are related to social position. His argument is put forward by an original combination of social theory and data from surveys, photographs and interviews, in an attempt to reconcile difficulties such as how to understand the subject within objective structures. In the process, he tried to reconcile the influences of both external social structures and subjective experience on the individual (see structure and agency).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 26, 2016
Pierre Bourdieu is perhaps one of the more formidable names in sociology. A prolific and influential thinker, his works have invited praise for its pioneering ethnological approach, grounded in the empirical and informed by the theoretical. Equally, his works have come under fierce criticism from those who oppose his structural homology that suggests individuals are defined by their social origins.
So it is refreshing to revisit the five narratives of these 1988 radio broadcasts in which historian Roger Chartier speaks with Bourdieu about the themes and practices underpinning his thinking. These discursive conversations explore the fields of sociology and history, presenting their overlaps, oversights and at times oppositional positions.
Bourdieu’s self-professed scientific approach has led him to uncover constants that go a considerable way to explaining why one path is taken by some individuals and not others. This, of course, has much to do with Bourdieu’s renowned concept of ‘cultural capital’, which he understands as a stock of cultural behaviours and competencies developed in a child’s social environment. For Bourdieu, this cultural currency is recognised and legitimised through social structures and institutions such as schools, conferring power on those who have inherited cultural capital, and similarly discriminating against those who have not.
As the discussions develop throughout the course of the book, Bourdieu criticises the epistemological approach taken by many historians. Their analysis of past times and characters rely on, rather than contest, accepted categorisations. Bourdieu argues that historians are one of the most likely groups to fall prey to anachronism, applying terms to eras in which they hold no meaning.
Taking politics as an example, Bourdieu explains, “The world of what I call the political field is practically an invention of the nineteenth century”. He argues that the concepts in today’s political landscape are inherited from the historical construct rather than being a contemporary reality. In later discussions, Bourdieu claims that it is anachronistic to say that Michelangelo was an artist. His job, indeed, was an artisan, but the artistic field as we understand it today only functions in a market society, an economic structure that did not exist at the time.
Likewise, Bourdieu admits that sociologists also fall prey to the misapplication of terms, and that false truths about the social world are reproduced at the same time as they are expressed. This makes it very difficult to speak about reality at all. “It is a discourse carrying a metadiscourse that constantly says ‘Be careful what you read’”.
These dialogues have been compiled for the first time in the English language and present a welcome return to Bourdieu’s groundbreaking thinking. They also do well to dispel misrepresentations of Bourdieu as a determinist. By contrast, Bourdieu comes across as a lively and multidisciplinary scientist who, in questioning the architecture beneath actions, has genuinely introduced the possibility for freedom.
So it is refreshing to revisit the five narratives of these 1988 radio broadcasts in which historian Roger Chartier speaks with Bourdieu about the themes and practices underpinning his thinking. These discursive conversations explore the fields of sociology and history, presenting their overlaps, oversights and at times oppositional positions.
Bourdieu’s self-professed scientific approach has led him to uncover constants that go a considerable way to explaining why one path is taken by some individuals and not others. This, of course, has much to do with Bourdieu’s renowned concept of ‘cultural capital’, which he understands as a stock of cultural behaviours and competencies developed in a child’s social environment. For Bourdieu, this cultural currency is recognised and legitimised through social structures and institutions such as schools, conferring power on those who have inherited cultural capital, and similarly discriminating against those who have not.
As the discussions develop throughout the course of the book, Bourdieu criticises the epistemological approach taken by many historians. Their analysis of past times and characters rely on, rather than contest, accepted categorisations. Bourdieu argues that historians are one of the most likely groups to fall prey to anachronism, applying terms to eras in which they hold no meaning.
Taking politics as an example, Bourdieu explains, “The world of what I call the political field is practically an invention of the nineteenth century”. He argues that the concepts in today’s political landscape are inherited from the historical construct rather than being a contemporary reality. In later discussions, Bourdieu claims that it is anachronistic to say that Michelangelo was an artist. His job, indeed, was an artisan, but the artistic field as we understand it today only functions in a market society, an economic structure that did not exist at the time.
Likewise, Bourdieu admits that sociologists also fall prey to the misapplication of terms, and that false truths about the social world are reproduced at the same time as they are expressed. This makes it very difficult to speak about reality at all. “It is a discourse carrying a metadiscourse that constantly says ‘Be careful what you read’”.
These dialogues have been compiled for the first time in the English language and present a welcome return to Bourdieu’s groundbreaking thinking. They also do well to dispel misrepresentations of Bourdieu as a determinist. By contrast, Bourdieu comes across as a lively and multidisciplinary scientist who, in questioning the architecture beneath actions, has genuinely introduced the possibility for freedom.
August 24, 2017
These radio conversations between French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and French historian Roger Chartier on the intersection of their disciplines crackle with moments of insight but don't really create a whole. They're probably read more fruitfully as a catalyst for one's own thoughts than as raw informational content.
Read
December 27, 2025Bilimsel bir topluluk gerçek için mücadele edilen bir yerdir.
Tarihci Roger Chartier, France Culture'de bir radyo programı hazırlar. Bu programın adı Fransızca apaçık net konuşma anlamına gelen À voix nue 'dir. Roger, bu programa Fransız sosyolojisinin en onemli ismi Pierre Bourdieu'yu davet eder. Sosyolog ve Tarihci kitabı bu programda konuşulan konuların bes bolum halinde toplanmasıyla oluşur. Kitapta sosyoloji-tarih, sosyoloji -felsefe, sosyoloji-edebiyat ilişkileri yer alırken, toplumsal olayları ele alış biçimiyle de tarih ve sosyoloji bilimi karşılaştırılır. Pierre Bourdie, 1990'lı yıllardan sonra muhalif kişiliğini eserlerinde daha açık bir biçimde göstermiştir. Bu kitapta tarihe olan eleştirilerini de okuruz. Sosyoloji ve edebiyat ilişkisinin incelendiği bölümdeki Flaubert ve Balzac tespitlerini çok sevdim. Balzac ve Flabuert'i bir sosyolog gibi değerlendiren Bourdieu, Flaubert'in Duygusal Eğitim adlı eserinin de bu konuda iyi bir metin olduğunu vurgulamış.İlgilisine tavsiye ederim. Herkesin okuyacağı bir kitap degil. İyi okumalar.
Tarihci Roger Chartier, France Culture'de bir radyo programı hazırlar. Bu programın adı Fransızca apaçık net konuşma anlamına gelen À voix nue 'dir. Roger, bu programa Fransız sosyolojisinin en onemli ismi Pierre Bourdieu'yu davet eder. Sosyolog ve Tarihci kitabı bu programda konuşulan konuların bes bolum halinde toplanmasıyla oluşur. Kitapta sosyoloji-tarih, sosyoloji -felsefe, sosyoloji-edebiyat ilişkileri yer alırken, toplumsal olayları ele alış biçimiyle de tarih ve sosyoloji bilimi karşılaştırılır. Pierre Bourdie, 1990'lı yıllardan sonra muhalif kişiliğini eserlerinde daha açık bir biçimde göstermiştir. Bu kitapta tarihe olan eleştirilerini de okuruz. Sosyoloji ve edebiyat ilişkisinin incelendiği bölümdeki Flaubert ve Balzac tespitlerini çok sevdim. Balzac ve Flabuert'i bir sosyolog gibi değerlendiren Bourdieu, Flaubert'in Duygusal Eğitim adlı eserinin de bu konuda iyi bir metin olduğunu vurgulamış.İlgilisine tavsiye ederim. Herkesin okuyacağı bir kitap degil. İyi okumalar.
September 1, 2015
Esse é um ótimo livro para ser introduzido ao pensamento de Bourdieu, dado que na verdade é uma transcrição de entrevistas, com um prefácio e posfácio bastante reveladores. Esse sistema tipicamente francês de publicar entrevistas de grandes pensadores é muito legal, gostaria que fosse mais generalizado.
February 21, 2024
Seguindo o fluxo de leitura dos livros técnicos (clássicos), cheguei ao fim deste material de relevância acadêmica. O que temos é uma publicação da editora autêntica de 2011 com o título original de “𝐿𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑒𝑡 𝑙’ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛”, tradução de Guilherme Teixeira e colaboração de Jaime Clasen. Posso dizer que “O sociólogo e o historiador” é um convite aos admiradores e atuantes na área de humanas, contendo em cada página uma imersão nas considerações de Roger Chartier e Pierre Bourdieu.
O livro de 134 páginas contém considerável aprofundamento intelectual, sendo possível uma releitura, com questões significativas em ambos os seguimentos. Basicamente, trata-se de reflexões, pontos de divergências e das responsabilidades nos campos de atuações, mediante suas respectivas disciplinas. O fator determinante de elaboração deste trabalho editorial é referente ao programa da rádio France Culture, levando o nome de “À voix nue”, com cinco encontros realizados em 1987.
Não existe mistério na leitura, o maior desconforto que o leitor poderá ter é obter informações nas linhas de pesquisas citadas pelos participantes. Vejo apenas pontos positivos caso exista necessidade na busca de maior conexão dos feitos de Bourdieu e Chartier. Recomendo também aos leitores que pensam em algum dia ingressarem nas graduações em sociologia e história, é um ótimo ponto de partida. O posfácio é todo dedicado ao debate de Roger Chartier com José Sérgio Leite Lopes, foi um evento realizado em 2002, um programa de Pós-Graduação em História Social da UFRJ.
O livro de 134 páginas contém considerável aprofundamento intelectual, sendo possível uma releitura, com questões significativas em ambos os seguimentos. Basicamente, trata-se de reflexões, pontos de divergências e das responsabilidades nos campos de atuações, mediante suas respectivas disciplinas. O fator determinante de elaboração deste trabalho editorial é referente ao programa da rádio France Culture, levando o nome de “À voix nue”, com cinco encontros realizados em 1987.
Não existe mistério na leitura, o maior desconforto que o leitor poderá ter é obter informações nas linhas de pesquisas citadas pelos participantes. Vejo apenas pontos positivos caso exista necessidade na busca de maior conexão dos feitos de Bourdieu e Chartier. Recomendo também aos leitores que pensam em algum dia ingressarem nas graduações em sociologia e história, é um ótimo ponto de partida. O posfácio é todo dedicado ao debate de Roger Chartier com José Sérgio Leite Lopes, foi um evento realizado em 2002, um programa de Pós-Graduação em História Social da UFRJ.
June 12, 2023
While the discourse was interesting, I think I would have gathered more with a stronger understanding of Bourdieu and Chartier as scholars. As a scholar in an adjacent field the discussions about scientific work in the social sciences, the role of the researcher and differences between differences were thought provoking.
February 6, 2017
in quoting pascal ("the world comprehend me but i comprehend it"), the book has tacitly professed its dialectical leaning, something that betrays its lazy and predictable dismissal of "totalizing" philosophies such as marxism.
December 4, 2018
Kimi yerlerde sorunlu çeviri, eksik redaksiyon, eksik dipnot, tutarsız imla.
October 1, 2018
Sirve más para pensar que para aprender, aunque hay conceptos importantes explicados y ejemplificados.
Es corto y vale la pena.
Es corto y vale la pena.
August 25, 2015
İçiçe geçmiş iki alan arasındaki araştırma yöntemlerinden tutun da algısına dek uzanan farklara değinen metin, iki akademisyenin arkadaşça ve saygı çerçevesinde gerçekleşen profesyonel bir sohbetinin, zevkle okunan bir kitabı haline gelmiş Tarihçi ve Sosyolog'da. Yazının tamamı ise blog'da.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews