Bourdieu and researching race - Hot Stuff

Bourdieu’s concept of field is important for me because of my interest in how things are interrelated. Field is described as a “corrective against positivism” (p. 119), however, I think it would be best described as another tool in the toolkit. Field nor positivism are correctives of each other, but they have different purposes. In regards to how I see research, I think using the concept of field when conducting research is useful when thinking about cultural/racial allies. One reason is because it “encourages the researcher to seek out underlying and invisible relations” (p. 119). I am going to use the example of racial ally to illustrate this point because (again) this is where my research and theoretical interest focus. When considering the role of a racial ally, sometimes these allies are invisible in their relations. Oppressed people do not always know where or who these allies are. The use of field to examine this concept would be a very good match because it encourages seeking out these kinds of relations (interactions among actors) for research. Who are racial allies for people they do not know or will never meet? How and why do they consider themselves allies? Why do they choose to do work in an “invisible” way?

The notion of fields of struggle can also be used to thinking about race research. It is defined as sites of resistance as well as domination and are linked (p. 121). This is also an important concept for me because as I am thinking about Omi and Winant’s racial formation, I am struck by how they historically looked at racial formation (“sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabitated, and transformed” p. 55 in Omi & Winant) and racial projects (how people are situated, in Omi & Winant) historically. Bourdieu, Omi & Winant theories overlap because, many fields of struggle took part within racial projects. As described in the Bourdieu book, we are all part of these fields of struggle and that is why he is calling for a “reflexive practice of sociology” (p. 122). This call for practice of reflection, I would argue critical reflection, is very important because we cannot escape society and these racial projects and racial formation within it, so we need to be able to engage critical reflection on race and racism as researchers in order to be able to step back and look at our own bias. Bourdieu also calls for researcher critical reflection on theoretical practices as part of his metatheory of social knowledge (p. 58). I wonder if Bourdieu is using the concept of reflection and reflexivity the way Schön (reflective practitioner) and some of the earlier scholars uses it? I wonder how Bourdieu suggests facilitation of critical reflection and does he write more about this? I wonder how Omi and Winant think about researcher critical reflection the way Bourdieu calls for it? This is how I’m thinking of fields of struggle and why I think it can be so useful in researching race.