Debates and Battles around Bourdieu and Phenomenology

Abstract

This paper analyzes some debates on the relationship between Bourdieu’s theory of practice and the phenomenological tradition. It begins by reviewing Throop & Murphy's critique of Bourdieu's reading of Husserl and Schutz, and the French sociologist's response. Then a critical analysis of this debate is proposed, showing advantages and failures of each position. We consider Haber's and Bimbenet's studies, which show the foundation of Bourdieu's perspective in Merleau-Ponty -underestimated by Throop & Murphy- and point out the limits of the theory of practice. It is concluded that the above mentioned objections to Bourdieu are mainly aimed at “determinism” and his little attention to "reflexive practices". These criticisms are answered through a reworking of Bourdieu's anthropology based on a deep integration of Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology, focused on the dialectic between habitual and actual body, reflexivity and bodily countertraining.