Field Theory by Pierre Bourdieu
Explained by Ronda Rousey
Welcome to Originus. We take ideas that changed the world and explain them with simple, modern-day analogies. New ideas every Tuesday + Thursday.
If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can subscribe here:
Summary
Fields are contexts in which people operate and are hierarchically positioned. Field Theory examines how fields influence the way that people behave and struggle for power.
When is it acceptable to hit a woman?
“If she hits me first.”
But is it ever acceptable to hit her first?
“No, that would be assault.”
But what if I told you that your name is Ronda Rousey and you’re defending your Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) title against Holly Holm in front of thousands of spectators?
In this scenario, you’d be silly to not hit her first. You might even attempt to kick her in the head for good measure. (Spoiler: she got you first 🤕).
Field Theory
People used to think about behavior as cause-and-effect. Changing variable A causes a change in variable B. Holly hit you which caused you to hit her back. But that explanation is insufficient. It doesn’t explain why in one scenario, you wouldn’t hit Holly first but in another, you’d go so far as trying to kick her in the head. Why do you behave differently in different situations?
Pierre Bourdieu proposed a solution to that problem: context influences behavior. You didn’t hit Holly because she hit you first. You hit her because there was a wider system of forces at play – your job is to hit people and people pay to watch you two fight. There were multiple forces in your environment that shaped your behavior.
This is called Field Theory.
“Fields are social and professional contexts in which agents operate and in which they are hierarchically positioned. Fields are any context in which agents compete for reputation.” [1]
The field that you’re in affects the way you behave. UFC is a field, academia is a field, and politics is a field. Each field has a set of rules, spoken or unspoken, that agents within that field abide by. In academia, people write with a focus on precision, utilizing jargon (as they assume some background understanding of the subject in question), and often use verbose, impersonal sentences that leave their readers feeling incompetent for being unable to comprehend what they have said. On the other hand, people in tech write with a focus on clarity [2]. But, the field that you’re in isn’t the only thing that affects your behavior.
Your position within a field also influences your behavior. In any field, there is a social order. Your position in a field is determined by your economic capital (money) and cultural capital (how well you understand the field that you’re in). Those with the most power (and the best position) in a field can behave in ways that others can’t. For UFC fighters, those who make the most money for the UFC (economic capital) and those who are most loved by fans (cultural capital) are those with the most power. Those with the most power are usually champions and whenever a champion loses their title, they get an automatic rematch, regardless of who else is waiting in line.
Ronda, even though you had the most power of any female UFC fighter, your position in the field wasn’t guaranteed forever. Wherever there is a hierarchy, there are people that try to climb it. And Holly did climb it. She even managed to completely remove you from the field in the process.
Ouch.
Why Field Theory Matters
In every field that you’re in, people want to be at the top. But, to get there you have to first choose the fields and then try to advance your position within these fields.
At the field level: Choose a field that suits you. Don’t go into a field where you have no ability to improve your position. Ex. Don’t work at Berkeley if you’re white and working class.
Within the field: Learn the rules of the game. Understand how to leverage your capital (economic and cultural) to get more power in the field. Ex. In the academic field, being ‘woke’ is valued while freedom of speech is not.
Recap
People behave differently in different contexts (fields)
Behavior in a field is constrained by “rules of the game”
Behavior within a field is constrained by one’s power in that field
Notes:
[1] Pierre Bourdieu's Field Theory
[2] A better sentence would have been: “People in tech write with a focus on clarity but disregard nuance.”
Disclaimer: We open track rates.
Thoughts? 🤔 Reply directly to this email and let us know!