This e-special issue explores the reception of Bourdieu’s work in one journal, Theory, Culture & Society, which commenced at about the same time that Bourdieu was beginning to acquire an international reputation. It offers a case-study of the English representation of Bourdieu’s work through almost 40 years and focuses on the role of the journal in carrying Bourdieu’s work across cultural boundaries. It introduces the scope of that work but, primarily, it is designed to encourage reference to his texts in the contexts of their production and reception in order to invite new reflection and new evaluation in relation to contemporary problems.

This book seeks to offer a chronological account of the development of Pierre Bourdieu's thinking. It is intended to guide readers towards and through the original texts and attempts to represent the French meaning of Bourdieu, hence the concentration on the French chronology.

only be accounted for by a very particular and truncated understanding of the political, one that emerges in much critical thinking but is remote from the more complex treatments of the political that have gained currency in recent decades. One of the main difficulties of the depoliticization theory is the assumption that politics is invariably about dissent or agonism, so that stability, consensus and co-operation must signal the erosion of a society’s political markers. To a political theorist, that is absurd and untenable. Certainly, political life includes the above. But contra Anabela Carvalho, techno-managerial discourses do not depoliticize climate change perspectives (p. 493); they are different ways of reformulating the political through managerialism, markets and technology. The political is also about the mechanisms and discourses that enable collective action, solidarity, drawing in the marginalized into the political centre, and weaving creative social visions, as De Fina recognizes. If depoliticization means the end of politics, it would entail the collapse of social order and the establishing of chaos. If it merely means the weakening of critique and of radicalism, it simply registers the constant ebb and flow of social forces, whether constructive or dislocatory, rather than a permanent phenomenon. The study of political language and discourse wrongly lures some of its practitioners into a suspicion, even an abhorrence, of politics, as if it could be eradicated, as if co-operation were an indicator of social malaise, or a chimerical delusion. That theme is given its due corrective in the chapter by Matthew Flinders and Matt Wood, in which they expose the notion of ‘depoliticization’ as a tendentious strategy that serves its own ideological and debunking ends. This far more modest claim rightly replaces the kind of analysis that simply denies or obscures the ingrained political features of discourse. As many scholarly perspectives and traditions continue to intersect and to converge on one another, the very notion of a discipline makes way for ‘undisciplines’ – flexible and permutating bodies of knowledge that freely and fruitfully exchange insights and interpretative tools and that are not bound to a rigid foundational legacy. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics is an eloquent testimony to that creative casting off of shackles.

Transport policy agendas have long sought to bring about more sustainable transport at tourism destinations. Whilst there are examples of successes, it remains unclear what inroads have been made towards creating a sustainable transport future. Policy directions have evolved over a number of years and in many tourism destination contexts, it is far from clear what a desirable transport future looks like. When translated to implementation, the aims of initiatives can be unclear and baseline measures inconsistent, making success difficult to judge. This paper analyses how sustainable travel has been implemented in practice at a destination level. The focus is rural tourism and data are derived from a specific case, the New Forest National Park, UK, where a wide range of transport initiatives have been implemented since the Park's designation in 2005. The study adopts a social practice theory perspective. Data are derived from a visitor survey, interviews and observations. It finds there is scope to improve sustainable transport provision at destinations through understanding visitor practices, but limited scope to influence meanings associated with visitor travel and travel skills. Policy meets the needs of some visitors more than others.

The commentary provides contextual information about the seminar which Bourdieu and Passeron gave in the École Normale Supérieure on 6 December 1963. It appears that the intended series of seminars was curtailed, perhaps because the initial seminar of 6 December exposed the extent to which Althusser was formally managing the intentions of his guest speakers and resisting the implications of their ongoing research on students and their studies. The commentary argues that the conflict between Althusser and Bourdieu/Passeron was inter-generational in that Althusser’s attitudes had been shaped by his experience as a victim of Nazi oppression whereas those of Bourdieu/Passeron were defined, instead, by their unwilling participation in the French colonial oppression of indigenous Algerians. Althusser was intent on examining philosophically the validity of various contemporary versions of social science whereas Bourdieu and Passeron were engaged in educational research which was scrutinizing sociologically the validity of precisely this supposedly detached philosophical perspective. In short, the commentary is aligned with the Bourdieu/Passeron position in that it seeks to offer an historical sociology of the encounter of December 1963.

in which I argued that the inspiration for Pierre Bourdieu's post-structuralist social science lay in his absorption of the legacy of Husserl's phenomenology.My concern increased when I found that Angermuller's analysis is heavily dependent on Bourdieu's conceptual framework.Indeed, the book consists of five chapters, the first four of which were originally published in French (in 2013) as Le champ de la Théorie: Essor et déclin du structuralisme en France [the field of Theory: rise and fall of structuralism in France], explicitly acknowledging, in other words, the application of Bourdieu's 'field' theory to consideration of Theory.

La publication de La Reproduction en 1970 est l’aboutissement de plus de cinq ans d’approfondissement d’une recherche entreprise au sein du Centre de sociologie europeenne, au debut des annees 1960, par une equipe de chercheur·e·s dirigee par Pierre Bourdieu et Jean-Claude Passeron, et qui avait deja abouti a la publication des Heritiers en 1964. Separement ou ensemble, Bourdieu et Passeron ont ecrit des articles qui anticipaient les evenements de Mai 1968. Les contestations etudiantes vis-a-vis des conditions universitaires, associees a un mouvement syndical plus vaste, avaient alors debouche sur le depart de de Gaulle du pouvoir. Ces chercheurs avancaient que l’enseignement des sciences sociales et de la philosophie dans les universites francaises presupposait une familiarite avec les valeurs culturelles traditionnelles et dominantes, ce qui favorisait la reussite des etudiant·e·s qui possedaient deja a leur entree dans les etudes superieures le capital culturel necessaire. Cette imposition arbitraire d’une seule culture occultait l’existence de cultures populaires valables, et perennisait l’echec des etudiant·e·s qui n’etaient familier·e·s que de cultures differentes. C’est en association avec Jean-Claude Chamboredon que Bourdieu et Passeron publient, en 1968, Le Metier de sociologue, ouvrage pense comme un manuel destine a aider de jeunes chercheur·e·s a surmonter leur desavantage culturel, en elaborant et en menant des projets de recherche qui s’appuieraient sur leurs ex

Rancière published two substantial criticisms of the work of Bourdieu in the early 1980s. It is possible that these were provoked by his sense that he needed to oppose what he considered to be the sociological reduction of aesthetic taste offered by Bourdieu in Distinction (Bourdieu 1986 [1979]) at precisely the moment when he (Rancière) was beginning to articulate his commitment to the potential of aesthetic expression as a mode of political resistance. Except in so far as it draws upon some of the retrospective reflections offered by Rancière in his introductions to the re-issues of his early texts, this paper examines the parallel development of the thinking of the two men up to the mid-1980s--but not beyond. The discussion is situated socio-historically and, by definition, does not seek to offer comparatively any transhistorical assessment of the values of the positions adopted by the two men. I argue that Rancière misrepresented the character of Bourdieu's sociological work by failing to recognize the underlying phenomenological orientation of his thinking. Bourdieu suppressed this orientation in the 1960s but, after the May events of 1968, it enabled him to expose the extent to which the practices of both science and art operate within constructed 'fields' in strategic distinction from popular primary experience. The challenge is to introduce an ongoing dialogue between primary and constructed cultures rather than to suppose that either social science or art possesses intrinsic autonomy.