Journal of Sociology 59 (2023), 2

The Journal of Sociology traditionally publishes individual articles or special issues where articles addressing a particular topic are grouped together. This edition presents a unique opportunity for our readers to benefit from a review symposium ‘Fields, capitals, habitus: What next?’ convened by Tony Bennett and David Rowe.

The symposium begins with a detailed and engaging introduction by Rowe and Bennett, who review the concepts of fields, capitals, and habitus in Bourdieusian sociology in an historical context. Titled ‘Introduction: Surveying the survey’, Rowe and Bennett discuss the Australian Cultural Fields project involving six cultural fields – art, literary, sport, television, heritage and music. They then present the main findings from survey and interview data reported in Fields, Capitals, Habitus: Australian Culture, Inequalities and Social Divisions (Bennett et al., 2021). Following the introductory article, the review symposium presents a set of five linked but distinctively different contributions addressing various aspects of the overarching topic of fields, capitals, habitus.

First, we are presented with ‘Bourdieu's habitus clivé in voicing, feeling, being Aboriginal’. Authored by Julie Andrews, Edgar Burns, Claire James, and Adam Rajčan, the article discusses Bourdieu's concept of habitus clivé in relation to Aboriginal Australians and their experience with dominant White society. The authors point to the importance of the concept's contribution to highlighting Indigenous experience while also cautioning that it may become yet another avenue for theorising about Aboriginal people rather than giving voice to their stories. The article brings to light the usefulness of the term ‘habitus clivé’ in explaining shifts across cultural lines of White and Aboriginal Australia.

Next, Steven Threadgold writes about ‘What comes after fields, capitals, habitus? Suggestions for future cultural consumption research in Australia’. This article notes the importance of hierarchies both within and between cultural fields and how they are key to producing and reinforcing inequalities. The author uses the findings of the book to reimagine the future of cultural consumption research in contemporary Australia in terms of technological advances and social changes. Considerations include young people, inequality, cultural production, and emotions and affect in Bourdieusian sociology.

Gisèle Sapiro's work on ‘The metamorphoses of cultural capital in a neoliberal and multicultural era: Towards a comparative approach’ follows next. Sapiro focuses on yet another aspect of Fields, Capitals, Habitus. Namely, how lifestyles and cultural practices in contemporary Australia and France contribute to discussions relating to Bourdieu's Distinction. In the contexts of neoliberalism and multiculturalism, the article indicates three research directions: the rise of Indigenous capital; the ways that national habitus is challenged by Indigenous and migrant cultures; and gendered practices across fields and countries and the influence of the feminisation of cultural intermediaries.

The next article in this review symposium is authored by Naoki Iso. Titled, ‘Legitimate culture, field of power, and domination’, the article discusses the potential application of Fields, Capitals, Habitus to a forthcoming study in Japan. Beginning with four interrelated perspectives, it first aims to define Fields, Culture, Habitus theoretically as a sociological and Australian study. Second, it considers the notion of legitimate culture and how it varies from other forms of culture. It then identifies what it considers to be shortcomings in how the field of power is addressed in Fields, Culture, Habitus. Finally, Iso presents the early stages of a recently commenced study of culture and inequality in Japan. This latter study is currently a work in progress.

To close this series of review articles, Tony Bennett and David Rowe present: ‘Coda: The last cultural capital survey?’ Bennett and Rowe's final review symposium article considers critical assessments of the extent to which Bourdieu's sociology can usefully engage with escalating inequalities of class, age, race and gender. Their reflection provides a pathway to indicate how cultural capital surveys could be adjusted to remain meaningful rather than be decommissioned.

This book review symposium is presented for all who engage with the work of Bourdieu and all who wish to further their understanding of the many dimensions of Bourdieu's work, as well as of cultural sociology in general. Thank you to Tony Bennett and David Rowe for convening this symposium and bringing together this group of articles, and thank you to all the contributing authors. Also, I gratefully acknowledge the work of Allegra Schermuly at Journal of Sociology for guiding this review to completion stage.