According to Bourdieu a field is a space in which people compete for a form of capital specific to that field. Upon entering the field Bourdieu states that the players of the field must have a habitus, or understanding of the field, in order to recognize how to function and prosper within that particular field. He also indicates that there are certain laws of functioning for a field. Specifically, he indicates that there are four laws of functioning. The first being that a field has rules. The rules of the field are things such as how the competition is to take place and perhaps an understanding and even acceptance that the ruling party or orthodoxy maintain control over, as well as establish the rules of the game for, the subordinates or heterodoxy. The second law of functioning is that a field has boundaries, which implies that not everyone is entitled to partake in the game. Again upon entering the field it is expected that a player has a habitus of the field. If the player is not knowledgeable about how and why a field operates, it is highly unlikely that he will even be admitted into the field. In addition, the player may even be required to provide certain forms of capital upon entering the field, which is what Bourdieu referred to as the new player’s “entry fee” thus illustrating the player’s recognition of the value of the game. The third law of functioning is that a field must have stakes. We can think of the stakes as primarily the specific form of capital over which the players compete. Lastly, Bourdieu reiterates that each field has a specific form of capital. That is, that though the other forms of capital may be valued and perhaps even requested as an entry fee, there is a dominant form of capital that is the be all end all. Applying Bourdieu’s theory of field, I will demonstrate how our labor field is in fact a “field,” and will also explore how the enactment of the affirmative action policy changed “the game.”
The labor field is in fact a field as it fulfills all of Bourdieu’s laws of functioning. The labor field has rules. Because we already have a habitus of how the labor field operates, we know that there are rules or appropriate ways of acting, dressing, and talking when on the job or in an interview. I know not to show up in a mini skirt, 6 inch stilettos, and a low cut blouse for an interview lest I want to be mistaken for a hooker. We also know that depending on our position in the field we may have to take orders and directions from people who are above us. We know that part of the rules for this field is that we should never respond to our bosses with “no I won’t do that… and you have no clue how to do your job cause you’re just an idiot” unless we are really trying to get fired and thrown out of the field. There are also boundaries of the labor field. Who gets admitted into the field largely depends on the player’s cultural and social capital. What do you know? What degree do you have? Is your network and list of references impressive? Has someone referred you to the position? This is often how general society chooses to understand the boundaries of the labor field, but as studying sociologists we also know that things including but not limited to race, gender, sexuality, and citizenship status are major determinants in whether we are even allowed entry into the field. (This will be further discussed later on). The labor field of course has stakes. Money!!!! Everyone wants it and everyone has to have it. Literally, they have to have it in order to survive and provide for the families in our capitalist society. The stakes are high for every day working people like you and me for the reason mentioned above and also high for the billion trillionaires who seek to maintain their wealth and power over us little people. Lastly, the specific form of capital for the labor field again is money as it is the dominant form of capital in the market.
So hopefully, it should now be evident as to why the labor field is in fact a “field.” When first thinking about Bourdieu’s concept of field and my application of his field to labor, I got hung up on this notion of boundaries and rules. Almost immediately, I began to think about how affirmative action challenges these notion of boundaries and rules of the labor field. Historically, it has been illustrated that women and people of color have purposefully been denied access to the labor field in order to ensure that paying jobs remained reserved for the white male population because the stakes of the game money was very high. It was because that this white male population was the orthodoxy, or ruling party, that they were able to establish the rules and boundaries of the field in the first place. As women and people of color slowly entered the work force we also witnessed rules and boundaries put in place by the orthodoxy as to what kind of jobs they had access to ie. “servant’s work” and “women’s work.” The concept of affirmative action was first introduced during the civil rights movement of the 60’s in order to address and combat such discriminatory hiring practices by white males. Women and people of color wanted access to the labor field because they too understood the stakes at risk. Affirmative action remains a debate for many, because now that employers are required to fulfill hiring quotas some people argue that it has created a sort of reverse discrimination. It has been my experience that many of the people who argue reverse discrimination tend to be white and most often male (though not excluded to white males). When thinking about the argument of reverse discrimination I am reminded about Bourdieu’s explanation of the entry fee and that new players may be accused of using “strategies of subversion,” or strategies which don’t follow the rules of the game and try to contribute to the destruction of the game. Often times it is argued that these women and people of color aren’t actually qualified and so on and so forth. Though affirmative action was put in place only to make sure that everyone has equal access to the field. Though affirmative action may seem to challenge the rules of the labor field it is possibly an example of Bourdieu’s concept of partial revolution, as it challenges the rules and boundaries of the field but not the field itself.
The labor field is in fact a field as it fulfills all of Bourdieu’s laws of functioning. The labor field has rules. Because we already have a habitus of how the labor field operates, we know that there are rules or appropriate ways of acting, dressing, and talking when on the job or in an interview. I know not to show up in a mini skirt, 6 inch stilettos, and a low cut blouse for an interview lest I want to be mistaken for a hooker. We also know that depending on our position in the field we may have to take orders and directions from people who are above us. We know that part of the rules for this field is that we should never respond to our bosses with “no I won’t do that… and you have no clue how to do your job cause you’re just an idiot” unless we are really trying to get fired and thrown out of the field. There are also boundaries of the labor field. Who gets admitted into the field largely depends on the player’s cultural and social capital. What do you know? What degree do you have? Is your network and list of references impressive? Has someone referred you to the position? This is often how general society chooses to understand the boundaries of the labor field, but as studying sociologists we also know that things including but not limited to race, gender, sexuality, and citizenship status are major determinants in whether we are even allowed entry into the field. (This will be further discussed later on). The labor field of course has stakes. Money!!!! Everyone wants it and everyone has to have it. Literally, they have to have it in order to survive and provide for the families in our capitalist society. The stakes are high for every day working people like you and me for the reason mentioned above and also high for the billion trillionaires who seek to maintain their wealth and power over us little people. Lastly, the specific form of capital for the labor field again is money as it is the dominant form of capital in the market.
So hopefully, it should now be evident as to why the labor field is in fact a “field.” When first thinking about Bourdieu’s concept of field and my application of his field to labor, I got hung up on this notion of boundaries and rules. Almost immediately, I began to think about how affirmative action challenges these notion of boundaries and rules of the labor field. Historically, it has been illustrated that women and people of color have purposefully been denied access to the labor field in order to ensure that paying jobs remained reserved for the white male population because the stakes of the game money was very high. It was because that this white male population was the orthodoxy, or ruling party, that they were able to establish the rules and boundaries of the field in the first place. As women and people of color slowly entered the work force we also witnessed rules and boundaries put in place by the orthodoxy as to what kind of jobs they had access to ie. “servant’s work” and “women’s work.” The concept of affirmative action was first introduced during the civil rights movement of the 60’s in order to address and combat such discriminatory hiring practices by white males. Women and people of color wanted access to the labor field because they too understood the stakes at risk. Affirmative action remains a debate for many, because now that employers are required to fulfill hiring quotas some people argue that it has created a sort of reverse discrimination. It has been my experience that many of the people who argue reverse discrimination tend to be white and most often male (though not excluded to white males). When thinking about the argument of reverse discrimination I am reminded about Bourdieu’s explanation of the entry fee and that new players may be accused of using “strategies of subversion,” or strategies which don’t follow the rules of the game and try to contribute to the destruction of the game. Often times it is argued that these women and people of color aren’t actually qualified and so on and so forth. Though affirmative action was put in place only to make sure that everyone has equal access to the field. Though affirmative action may seem to challenge the rules of the labor field it is possibly an example of Bourdieu’s concept of partial revolution, as it challenges the rules and boundaries of the field but not the field itself.