Habitus and Utopia in Science: Bourdieu, Mannheim, and the Role of Specialties in the Scientific Field

Richard M. Simon

Abstract


Abstract: Pierre Bourdieu has claimed that his concept of the habitus resolves the objectivism/constructivism debate in the sociology of science. While institutional norms require that scientists maintain a disinterested attitude, studies have revealed that scientists often fail to live up to the normative standard of disinterestedness, sometimes becoming highly tendentious to promote their own work. Bourdieu resolves the interested/disinterested paradox by claiming that scientists promote their own personal interests through objective science. This is supposed to be the consequence of the scientific habitus, which ensures that the biases of the scientific field remain invisible to scientists who operate within it. The concept of the habitus is central to Bourdieu’s theory of science. However, it has suffered from two major shortcomings: 1) the scientific field is made up of clusters of specializations which are shaped by interactions with each other, and the habitus does not account for these mesolevel interactions; 2) it can only account for reproduction of the scientific field and therefore ignores the mechanisms which produce change. I argue that Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge may be employed to better understand how the properties of scientific specialties both reproduce interested and disinterested behavior among scientists and facilitate change in particular specialty areas.
Key words: Pierre Bourdieu; Karl Mannheim; Habitus; Utopia; Field Theory; Specialization; Constructivism; Objectivism; Scientific Change

References


Alexander, J.C.(1995). The reality of reduction: the failed synthesis of Pierre Bourdieu. InAlexander, J.C.(Ed.), Fin de Si`ecle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of Reason. London, UK: Verso. 128-217.

Arthur, M., & Lemonik, M.(2009). Thinking Outside the Master’s House: New Knowledge Movements and the Emergence of Academic Disciplines. Social Movement Studies, 8, 73-87.

Bloor, D.(1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Böhme, G.(1975). The Social Function of Cognitive Structures: A Concept of the Scientific Community within a Theory of Action. InKnorr, K.D., Strasser, H., and Zilan, H.G.(Eds.). Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development. New York, NY: Springer. 205-25.

Bourdieu, P. (1975). The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Social Science Information, 14, 19-47.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). Animadversiones in Mertonem. InClarke, J., Modgil, C., &Modgil, S. (Eds.), Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy. New York, NY: Falmer Press. 297-301.

Bourdieu, P.(1991).Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York, NY: Fawcett Crest Books.

Collins, H.M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem: What You Should Know About Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crow, J.F. (1968). Chemical Risk to Future Generations. Scientist and Citizen, 8, 14-19.

Frickel, S. (2004). Chemical Consequences: Environmental Mutagens, Scientist Activism, and the Rise of Genetic Toxicology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Frickel, S., &Gross, N.(2005). A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements. American Sociological Review, 70, 204-232.

Fuchs, S., &Plass, P.S. (1999). Sociology and Social Movements. Contemporary Sociology, 28, 271-7.

Gartman, D. (1991). Culture as Class Symbolization or Mass Reification? A critique of Bourdieu’s Distinction. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 421–47.

Glaser, J. (2001). Macrostructures, Careers and Knowledge Production: A Neoinstitutionalist Approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 698-715.

Griffith, B.C., &Mullins, N.C. (1972). Coherent Social Groups in Scientific change: ‘Invisible Colleges’ may be Consistent Throughout Science. Science, 177, 959-64.

Griswold, W. (1998). Review of The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field by Pierre Bourdieu. American Journal of Sociology,104, 972–75.

Hargens, LL., Mullins, N.C., &Hecht, P.K. (1980). Research Areas and Stratification Processes in Science. Social Studies of Science, 10, 55-74.

Jacques, R.S. (2002). What is Crypto-Utopia and why does it Matter? In Parker, M.(Ed.), Utopia and Organization, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 24-39.

Kettler, D., &Meja, V.(1994). ‘That Typically German Kind of Sociology Which Verges towards Philosophy’: The Dispute about Ideology and Utopia in the United States. Sociological Theory, 12, 279-303.

Kettler, D, Meja, V., &Stehr, N.(1990). Rationalizing the Irrational: Karl Mannheim and the Besetting Sin of the German Intellectuals. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1441-73.

Knights, D., &Willmott, H. (2002). Autonomy as Utopia or Dystopia In Parker, M. (Ed.), Utopia and Organization, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 59-81.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kumar, K. (2006). Ideology and Sociology: Reflections on Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 169-81.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Lermaine, G., MacLeod, R., Mulkay, M., &Wiengart, P. (eds). 1976. Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Mannheim, K. (translated by Wirth, L. and Shils, E.A.). (1936). Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harvest/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mannheim, K.(Kecskemeti, P., ed.). (1952). Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Martin, J.L. (2003). What is Field Theory?. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1-49.

Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Mullins, N.C. (1972). The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology. Minerva, 10, 51-82.

Mullins, N.C. (1973). Theory and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology.New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Mullins, N.C.(1975). A Sociological Theory of Scientific Revolution. In Knorr, K.D., Strasser, H., &Zilan, H.G. (Eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, New York, NY: Springer. 185-203

Rayner, J. (1989). A Plea for Neutrality: Karl Mannheim’s Early Theory of Ideology. History of the Human Sciences, 2, 373-88.

Ricoeur, P. (Taylor, G.H. ed.). (1986). Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sallaz, J.J., &Zavisca, J. (2007). Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980-2004. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 21-41.

Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. New York, NY: Mariner Books.

Tillich, P. (1965). Critique and Justification of Utopia. InManuel, F.E. (Ed.),Utopias and Utopian Thought: A Timely Appraisal, Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 296-309

Turner, B. (1995). Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia. Political Studies, 43, 718-27.

Wallerstein, I. (1998). Utopistics: or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: The New Press.

Wray, K.B. (2005). Rethinking Scientific Specialization. Social Studies of Science, 35, 151-64.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Reminder
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:
caooc@hotmail.com; sss@cscanada.net; sss@cscanada.org

Copyright © 2010 Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures
Address: 758, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada

Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
Http://www.cscanada.net
Http://www.cscanada.org
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com