What do you think?
Rate this book
Pierre Bourdieu
This short critical introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's thought is a model of clarity and insight. Where Bourdieu's own writings are often complex, even ambiguous, Richard Jenkins is direct, concise and to the point. He emphasizes Bourdieu's contributions to theory and methodology while also dealing in detail with his substantive studies of education, social stratification and culture. His book provides the best short English-language introduction to Bourdieu's work.
'As Jenkins points out in the final pages of his book, criticism can be the sincerest form of flattery. I particularly relished his critical approach to the work of Bourdieu and believe that he has written a timely introduction which both undergraduates and experienced teachers will find stimulating and enjoyable.' - Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen
'As Jenkins points out in the final pages of his book, criticism can be the sincerest form of flattery. I particularly relished his critical approach to the work of Bourdieu and believe that he has written a timely introduction which both undergraduates and experienced teachers will find stimulating and enjoyable.' - Mike Hepworth, University of Aberdeen
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 10, 1992
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 5, 2012
When I read the Kant and Hegel in 90 minutes books I knew (or probably ought to have known) that they would be crap. Admittedly, I don’t think I really could have anticipated that they would have been quite as bad as they turned out – but we really are going to have to get over the idea that something worthwhile can be summarised in 90 minutes worth of text and not lose just about everything that makes it worthwhile. All the same, I really expected more from this book.
If you want to find out why Bourdieu is a complete waste of space, then this is a great book to start with. And it is not just me that thinks this writer (who is he, exactly?) is overly critical. Listen to this:
“To some readers this may have seemed an unnecessarily critical appraisal of Bourdieu’s work. It could legitimately be argued that a brief introductory text should be positive rather than negative in its orientation.”
That’s right, the author wrote that about himself.
Look, maybe it is just me, but this series is called Key Sociologists. Now, someone decided Bourdieu deserved to be considered a key sociologist – that means he must have made some contribution to the field, although, this is just a subjective guess on my part, obviously, as I’m very new to sociology. This guy (who is he?) spends the whole book explaining why Bourdieu is either not as original as he makes himself out to be or is just plain wrong.
I even admit that some of his points against Bourdieu are telling and I will need to think about them more – particularly around Bourdieu’s insanely difficult use of language (which I have already raised as an ironic aside in my review of Academic Discourse) and some of what the author has to say about the use of statistics and the epistemological justification for them is very interesting and demands closer thought.
But you really do have to ask how fair this book is. The author (who is he again?) makes it clear in the introduction this book is intended for an undergraduate student audience who will be, “unlikely to want to turn to the originals” – now, to me, that means he should be under some sort of obligation to present Bourdieu’s ideas in as clear a light as possible. His overly critical style is all well and good for people already familiar with Bourdieu’s work – but I’m sure most people who have read this as their introduction to Bourdieu would never read another word by the man. He is framed as being completely inaccessible as a writer and whose ideas are trite, hackneyed or plagiarised from just about everyone else – including the Structuralists, Marxists, Weber and Durkheim. I think Bourdieu should have been offered the right of reply.
As I’ve tried to make clear – I’ve no idea who this author is, and as such can't guess how valid his criticism is. The point being that his criticisms of Bourdieu are also from within some ideological perspective – and his ideological perspective (as interesting as I’m sure he finds it) wasn’t the reason I read this book. I read this book for an introduction to BOURDIEU, as bizarre a notion as that may seem – not the destruction of Bourdieu's ideas by some two bit academic whose only claim to fame is that he wrote this nasty little book.
There really is something about fleas complaining about the dogs they are sucking the blood out of. I am not saying there is no role for books criticising Bourdieu – I’m saying that it would be quite nice to read a book that claims to be an introduction to someone’s ideas that spends as much time explaining those ideas as it does criticising them. That this needs said really says something very disheartening about our intellectual traditions.
Now, something I did get out of this book. I can be quite thick at times – this book mentions that structuralism is based on the idea of finding binaries: male/female, hot/cold, raw/cooked, day/night and using these as the basis of sociological investigations. I’ve been reading a bit of Barthes lately and now that this is made clear to me it is as obvious as daylight. But do you think I noticed on my own? That’s the kind of thing a good introduction ought to do – illuminate. More of this would have been greatly appreciated.
This could have been so much better. In fact, this should have been.
If you want to find out why Bourdieu is a complete waste of space, then this is a great book to start with. And it is not just me that thinks this writer (who is he, exactly?) is overly critical. Listen to this:
“To some readers this may have seemed an unnecessarily critical appraisal of Bourdieu’s work. It could legitimately be argued that a brief introductory text should be positive rather than negative in its orientation.”
That’s right, the author wrote that about himself.
Look, maybe it is just me, but this series is called Key Sociologists. Now, someone decided Bourdieu deserved to be considered a key sociologist – that means he must have made some contribution to the field, although, this is just a subjective guess on my part, obviously, as I’m very new to sociology. This guy (who is he?) spends the whole book explaining why Bourdieu is either not as original as he makes himself out to be or is just plain wrong.
I even admit that some of his points against Bourdieu are telling and I will need to think about them more – particularly around Bourdieu’s insanely difficult use of language (which I have already raised as an ironic aside in my review of Academic Discourse) and some of what the author has to say about the use of statistics and the epistemological justification for them is very interesting and demands closer thought.
But you really do have to ask how fair this book is. The author (who is he again?) makes it clear in the introduction this book is intended for an undergraduate student audience who will be, “unlikely to want to turn to the originals” – now, to me, that means he should be under some sort of obligation to present Bourdieu’s ideas in as clear a light as possible. His overly critical style is all well and good for people already familiar with Bourdieu’s work – but I’m sure most people who have read this as their introduction to Bourdieu would never read another word by the man. He is framed as being completely inaccessible as a writer and whose ideas are trite, hackneyed or plagiarised from just about everyone else – including the Structuralists, Marxists, Weber and Durkheim. I think Bourdieu should have been offered the right of reply.
As I’ve tried to make clear – I’ve no idea who this author is, and as such can't guess how valid his criticism is. The point being that his criticisms of Bourdieu are also from within some ideological perspective – and his ideological perspective (as interesting as I’m sure he finds it) wasn’t the reason I read this book. I read this book for an introduction to BOURDIEU, as bizarre a notion as that may seem – not the destruction of Bourdieu's ideas by some two bit academic whose only claim to fame is that he wrote this nasty little book.
There really is something about fleas complaining about the dogs they are sucking the blood out of. I am not saying there is no role for books criticising Bourdieu – I’m saying that it would be quite nice to read a book that claims to be an introduction to someone’s ideas that spends as much time explaining those ideas as it does criticising them. That this needs said really says something very disheartening about our intellectual traditions.
Now, something I did get out of this book. I can be quite thick at times – this book mentions that structuralism is based on the idea of finding binaries: male/female, hot/cold, raw/cooked, day/night and using these as the basis of sociological investigations. I’ve been reading a bit of Barthes lately and now that this is made clear to me it is as obvious as daylight. But do you think I noticed on my own? That’s the kind of thing a good introduction ought to do – illuminate. More of this would have been greatly appreciated.
This could have been so much better. In fact, this should have been.
September 10, 2017
Critical and charming analysis of Bourdieu. It has managed to rescue important aspects from his language, which is unnecessarily complex, obscure and filled with philosophical jargons. Definitely, one of the most useful short introductions to social theory.
June 9, 2021
۳.۵ ستاره 🌟
من خودم در این حد و اندازه نمی دانم که بخواهم درباره این کتاب نظری داشته باشم. فقط یک نکته کلی درباره ترجمه:
ترجمه کتاب خیلی بد بود. مترجم ها بی دلیل از کلمات سخت و ناملموس زیادی استفاده کردند. جملات را خیلی روان تر می توانستند بیان کنند. احتمالا خودشان به قدر کافی تسلط نداشتند. چون بعضی از جملات ساده تر را روان ترجمه کرده اند. این نشان می دهد که سبک ترجمه عمدا سنگین نبوده است، بلکه متوجه حرف های نویسنده نشده اند یا زیاد برای ترجمه کردن وقت سپری نکردند.
جنکینز در کل مقدمه متوسطی بر اندیشه های بوردیو نوشته است. نکات مفیدی را می توان در بین انتقادات فراوانی که بوردیو مطرح می کند پیدا کرد.
برایم جالب است که جنکینز اینقدر اعتماد به نفس دارد و خودش را باهوش تر و بی نقض تر از بوردیو فرض می کند.
من خودم در این حد و اندازه نمی دانم که بخواهم درباره این کتاب نظری داشته باشم. فقط یک نکته کلی درباره ترجمه:
ترجمه کتاب خیلی بد بود. مترجم ها بی دلیل از کلمات سخت و ناملموس زیادی استفاده کردند. جملات را خیلی روان تر می توانستند بیان کنند. احتمالا خودشان به قدر کافی تسلط نداشتند. چون بعضی از جملات ساده تر را روان ترجمه کرده اند. این نشان می دهد که سبک ترجمه عمدا سنگین نبوده است، بلکه متوجه حرف های نویسنده نشده اند یا زیاد برای ترجمه کردن وقت سپری نکردند.
جنکینز در کل مقدمه متوسطی بر اندیشه های بوردیو نوشته است. نکات مفیدی را می توان در بین انتقادات فراوانی که بوردیو مطرح می کند پیدا کرد.
برایم جالب است که جنکینز اینقدر اعتماد به نفس دارد و خودش را باهوش تر و بی نقض تر از بوردیو فرض می کند.
November 20, 2020
Academic but interestingly spiky.
October 20, 2023
The book provided what I was expecting—an overview of the work of Bourdieu.
July 28, 2013
A good summary and but a sad critique. In overturning structuralism, the author usefully compares Bourdieu to Marx, but then misunderstands Bourdieu in the same way that many misunderstand Marx. He sees key concepts, like reflexivity and "objectification of objectification" but fails to apply them within his own critique. The value in the book arises out of seeing how the author gets it wrong, in doing so vindicating Bourdieu's methodology and process.
April 15, 2014
The volume combines both an overview of Bourdieu's work, as well as a challenging criticism of Bourdieu, especially his style/language. Due to its brevity, it unfortunately doesn't do the overview nor the criticism justice. Still, I can recommend the book as an introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's sociology.
July 27, 2007
This is the best introduction to Bourdieu available; it covers his major contributions (though not much on his political economy, which gets ignored in the US) in clear, concise prose. Read before jumping into the deep end.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews