Share

I am Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist, and they say that my thought has exerted considerable influence in the social sciences.
I come from Béarn, the peasantry, a small village at the foot of the Pyrenees, where they spoke Occitan, and I studied in Pau and then I joined Normale Sup. In fact, I was going to philosophy. I actually started an argument with Georges Canguilhem on the temporal structures of the emotional life … but a set of circumstances made me change direction. The first break in a life that will have some! Indeed, like all the French at the time I had to do my military service. Except then it was the war in Algeria. Canguilhem had found a quiet assignment near Paris, so I can continue my thesis, but here … I was caught in possession of a number of censored L’Express on the Algerian question. In fact, I received France Observer, a newspaper that denounced the repression and torture and do not hide my opinions on the pro-independence Algeria … The claim that the war was imposed on the Algerian people by a handful of leaders using coercion and trick was to deny that the struggle to find its strengths and its intentions in a deep popular sentiment, feeling inspired by an objective situation.
And I found myself in the heart of the Algerian question in Algeria for two years! And then I decided to observe, understand, and I coined the concepts that would address the realities that would otherwise remain obscure or confused. Concepts that will take their consistency and coverage throughout my new life as a sociologist, and are now part of the vocabulary of educated people: symbolic violence, capital, habitus …
In Algeria, I was faced with the wrenching is that the settlement for people who lived in self-sufficiency and a conception of time which is that traditional societies. I put in place a critical and perhaps somewhat pessimistic, companies and especially of modernity, rather than later I will develop in various areas of community life today.
Of course, I supported the independence of Algeria. But I did not agree with Franz Fanon and the revolutionary utopia of liberation of the peoples of the Third World. Durkheim writes, « This is because the environment in mind imagination does not resist that one, not feeling content with nothing, surrenders to the boundless ambitions and believes can be built or, rather, rebuild the world by its own forces and according to his desires.  » If Franz Fanon has seized and expressed the momentum of the oppressed against a colonial system unbearable, it does not realize that the resulting imaginary enchanted reality much more than it actually transforms. It allowed the mobilization for the nationalist struggle, he did not give the ability to build and institutionalize the policy, its autonomy, its balances. I really explained why, in 1995 (« Friends », in Awal, 21, EHESS, 2000): « Algeria as I saw it and was far from the revolutionary image that gave in militant literature and works of battle, was made of a large peasantry under proletarianized, a huge underclass and ambivalent, a mainly working class living in France, a little unfamiliar with the bourgeoisie profound realities of society and of an intelligentsia whose characteristic was unfamiliar with his own company and not understanding things ambiguous and complex. For the Algerian peasants like Chinese peasants were far from the imagined themselves as the intellectuals of the time. They were revolutionary at the same time they wanted to traditional structures as they hedge against the unknown.  »
I taught at the University of Algiers, led a program of statistical surveys and field studies until 1960.
Rushed back to France because of the conspiracy of the generals in Algiers, I taught at the Sorbonne and in Lille. Then I was able to assemble a research team at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and I founded the Centre for European Sociology, assisted by Raymond Aron … and the Ford Foundation. The topics were very diverse. But they obeyed the principles that sums up an article on Internet that a visitor to the cemetery to my attention: « first to show the relationship between culture, power and social inequality, and then combine theoretical rigor constantly at the systematic observation, as opposed to double empiricist tendencies of American sociology on the one hand, and leaning « theoreticism » a French intellectual milieu forever fascinated by the literary model, on the other, and finally fully recognize the « double objectivity « of the social in that it consists of distributions of material resources and positions on the one hand and, on the other classifications incorporated through which workers live and symbolic construct the world subjectively days the day.  »
In ten years I am interested in the education system that contributes to the perpetuation of social inequality (the heirs) to the analysis of other cultural practices (an art medium) to social uses of photography in Love the art, European art museums and their public and I made a series of investigations into microcosms of religion, literature, science, philosophy, law, politics and couture . My concerns are for my time.
And then in 1981 I was elected to the chair of Sociology at the Collège de France.
In the 90 years I agree much more in public life.
But it is not possible to summarize all that. Check out this piece of Loïc Wacquant, and this piece of Lahouari Haddi and of course the page of excerpts from Wikipedia

Today, I watch the public visiting the cemetery. For now, I can not interview … Should I re-examines my theoretical approaches and concepts? Death, in fact, deconstructs the social fields in which to deploy the habitus of the living. I happily discovered that the dead, at least those of Pere Lachaise, did not live through the struggle but to communicate mind to mind with a view to smooth symbolic (as opposed to symbolic violence). We all aspire to a spiritual knowledge and cosmic co-constructed, and want, through the father-site research lachaise.fr share this wisdom with the living!