Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2010 Tilly and Bourdieu PDF
2010 Tilly and Bourdieu PDF
2010 Tilly and Bourdieu PDF
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Sociologist.
http://www.jstor.org
AmSoc(2010)41:40(M22
DOI 10.1007/s12 108-010-9114-x
Tillyand Bourdieu
MustafaEmirbayer
Publishedonline:14 December2010
Science+Business
Springer
Media,LLC 2010
similarities
AbstractThe firstpart of this essay discussesthe most important
betweenthesociologicalvisionsof PierreBourdieuand CharlesTilly;thesecond
a criticalassessment
The conclusionthenoffers
of
partsurveysthekeydifferences.
to social science.
contributions
thesetwothinkers'
respective
Political
sociology Civilsociety Modernity
Keywords Tilly Bourdieu Historical
conflictCollectiveaction Cultural
analysisRelationalsociologyFields
Social
Pragmatism
Interaction
order Socialpsychology
Mechanisms
stratification
Symbolicviolence
Bornhardlya year
is irresistible.
CharlesTillyand PierreBourdieu:thecomparison
largelybereftof
apart,raisedin familiesof middlingmeansand in circumstances
with
culturalrefinement
and sophistication;
academically
giftedand accomplished,
of theirrespective
educationalinstitutions
degreesearnedat the mostprestigious
and government
countries
aid); imbuedfroma
(thanksin largepartto scholarships
ofthe
andself-importance
theprtentions
skepticism
regarding
youngage withhealthy
their
scholasticlife,a traitthatwouldmarktheirlaterworkas well,notto mention
obliviousto
wholeapproach
totheinstitution;
withpeersandstudents
andtheir
relations
within
the
themselves
andreluctant
to confine
thepressures
ofacademicspecialization
in
andevenheterodox
andsubdisciplinary
boundsofdisciplinary
domains;innovative
of social inquiry;
to theenterprise
committed
theirthinking
yetalwaysprofoundly
as well as
theoretical
of theircraftin all its dimensions,
practitioners
exemplary
of their
eventhemostaccomplished
to a degreethatastonished
substantive;
prolific
of
theforemost
becamearguably
thesetwosocialthinkers
sociologists
contemporaries:
similarities
In thisessay,I considerthemanyremarkable
thelate-twentieth
century.
betweentheirrespective
sociologicalapproachesas well as some of thesubtlebut
in mind,I also offersome closing
Withsuch comparisons
differences.
important
reflections
on Tilly'slife'sworkinparticular.1
of his familyoriginsand childhoodin Tilly(1985), as well as in Stave(1998).
^illy spokebriefly
Bourdieudiscussedthosesametopicsat greatest
lengthin (2007 [2004]).
M. Emirbayer
(El)
of Sociology,University
of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison,WI, USA
Department
e-mail:emirbaye@ssc.wisc.edu
& Springer
401
I
Both Tilly and Bourdieu came of age intellectuallyin the 1950s, at a time when, at
least in American sociology- and to a considerable extentin France as well- the
scene was dominatedby what Bourdieu would later call the "Capitoline triad" of
TalcottParsons, Robert Merton,and Paul Lazarsfeld, embodimentstogetherof the
opposition then extantbetween theoreticismand empiricism(with Merton as the
mediatingfigure).2Far away in France, Bourdieu sought deliberatelyto resisttheir
influence, which he disdained, while Tilly, not afforded the same benefits of
geographic distance, nonethelessrefrainedwhile at Harvard fromhaving Parsons
serve on his dissertationcommittee.3Both developed a lifelongaversion to abstract
theorizing,even as they also eschewed the positivistictendenciesso prominentin
theirday. Both plunged into studiesof concretehistoricalprocesses, studies focused
on specificinstancesof political dominationand struggle,all the while evincingno
"disdain for patient,painstakingempirical work," as Bourdieu would later put it
(Bourdieu 2007 [2004], 103). In his earlyresearchesin themidstof theAlgerianwar
of independence,such as those collected in Algeria 1960 (1979 [1963]), Bourdieu
invested "the same interestand attentionin drawing up a coding schedule or
conductingan interviewas in constructinga theoreticalmodel" (Bourdieu 2007
[2004], 103), while Tilly spentnine long years in the archivespreparingThe Vendee,
his firstmajor work (Tilly 1964).4 (Ironically,the fourcore chaptersofthat workon the "foursystemsof social relationshipswithinthe [southernAnjou] community,
- nonetheless would
essentially political, economic, religious, and affiliational"
Parsons
's
AGIL
schema
closely parallel
[Tilly 1964, 82].)
- one
From the beginning,Tilly and Bourdieu shared a profoundlyhistorical
better
historicist
As
I
shall
later
discuss
in
might
say
sensibility(Steinmetz2010).
this
extended
even
to
the
of
greaterdetail,
sensibility
problem sociological concept
formation,
althoughin different
degrees in the two thinkers.Bourdieu never tiredof
were "issued out of the historicalwork of succeeding
stressingthatsocial structures
while
even
habitus
were nothing if not history embodied and
generations,"
and
incorporated(Bourdieu
Wacquant 1992, 139). Time was his great obsession,
the elaborationof a radicallytemporalizedtheoryof social life: "The separationof
sociology and history,"he wrote in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, "is a
disastrousdivision" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 90). Such a division could not
be rectifiedsimplyby positinggrand historicaltrajectoriesand then building one's
own sociological theoriesatop them.It is truethatBourdieu conceived of the rise of
the modernworld as a process of the differentiation
and autonomizationof fieldsof
"At
the
foundation
of
the
practice.
very
theory of fields," he wrote, "is the
observation(which is alreadyfoundin Spencer,Durkheim,Weber. . .) thatthe social
world is the site of a process of progressivedifferentation.
. . . The evolution of
2 Bourdieu
402
societiestendsto makeuniverses
(whichI call fields)emergewhichareautonomous
and have theirown laws" (Bourdieu1998a, 83).5 However,he also stressedthat
dedifferentiation
can easilyoccur- andwas alreadyin dangerofoccurring
in certain
realmsof contemporary
culturaland intellectual
life.6
Tilly,too, fromthestartof his career,was an implacablefoe of dehistoricized
ways of thinkingin sociology.These includeda fortiorithe variousformsof
in thesocialsciences,suchas modernization
"historical"
thenfashionable
reasoning
whichhe deridedas "nineteenth-century
in a new
theory,
evolutionary
thinking
was a highlyusefulconcept,"no
garb"(Tilly 1984,48).7 Althoughdifferentiation
he asserted;"we have no warrantfor thinkingof
process is fundamental,"
in itselfas a coherent,
differentiation
general,lawlikesocial process"(Tilly 1984,
irreversible.
49, 48; boldfacein original).Norwas differentiation
(Laterinhiscareer,
he would make the same pointin respectof democratization.)
As farback as
mindedthinkers
at
graduateschool,Tilly cast his lot withthe mosthistorically
suchas GeorgeHomans,Barrington
Harvard,mentors
Moore,Jr.,PitirimSorokin,
and SamuelBeer (Steinmetz
his life,he stressed,
as George
2010). And throughout
Steinmetz
betweenhistory
and
(2010) has notedin thisvolume,thatthedistinction
sociologyis an artificialone- as is, indeed,the verycategoryof a "historical
"thatthe
sociology."8"To theextent,"Tillywrotein As SociologyMeetsHistory,
. . . [any] analysisis
place and timeof the actionenterinto its explanations,
historical"
(Tilly 1981a, 6).9 Sociologicalanalyses"shouldbe concretein having
realtimes,places,and peopleas theirreferents
and in testingthecoherenceof the
structures
and
the
ofrealtimes,places,and
postulated
processesagainst experiences
should
be
historical
in
to
their
people.They
limiting
scope an era boundedby the
of
out
certain
well-defined
and
in
fromtheoutsetthat
playing
processes,
recognizing
- thatwhenthings
timematters
within
a
how
affects
happen
sequence
theyhappen.. . .
at
Outcomesat a givenpointin timeconstrain
outcomes
later
possible
pointsintime"
in
boldface
1984,
14;
(Tilly
original).
BothTillyandBourdieudirected
theiranalyticattention
to theempirical
nexusof
modernstatesand classes.(Thiswouldlead manylaterto associatetheirideaswith
Marxianpoliticaleconomy.)"In the case of Westerncountriesover the last few
5 See also Bourdieu
(2000 [1997], 17-24).
of theculturalfield,see
For a statement
of Bourdieus concernsaboutthepotential
loss of autonomy
Bourdieu(2003 [2001]).
' As AndreasKoller
October2010) has pointedout, this assertionof
(personalcommunication,
Tilly's "implacable"oppositionto modernization
theorydoes not apply as far back as his Ph.D.
in whichthedehistoricized
of thatapproachwerestillmanifest:
dissertation,
"Tilly
ways of thinking
was not as 'implacable'as he himselfwishedto be in retrospect."
Tillyhimselfsaid as muchin a
but it's
"I had a stupididea, whichI refutedin rewriting
laterinterview:
my doctoraldissertation,
view. ... By the
stilltherein thedissertation[.]
... I meanI reallyhad a verysimplemodernization
I was halfwayout of it,but there'sstilla lot of thatapparatusin it"
timeI finishedthedissertation,
the eventual
Stave (1998, 192). It mightalso be notedthat,at least accordingto one commentator,
- The Vendeitself
- stillbore tracesin its conceptualframework
of unhistorical,
publishedversion
"teleological"reasoning.See Sewell (1996).
8 "I wouldbe
It impliestheexistenceofa separatefieldof
happierifthephrasehad neverbeeninvented.
- parallel,say, to politicalsociologyor the sociologyof religion....
I object to having
study
coherentsubject
subdisciplines
emergefromtechniquesand approachesratherthanfromtheoretically
matters"
(Tilly1981b,100).
9
Quotedalso in Steinmetz
(2010, 19).
Springer
403
Springer
404
and citizenship. States needed to extract the means of rule from their subject
populations,and this helped to accord the lattera capacity to gain in returnnew or
enhanced rights,privileges,and benefits.Where was civil society in any of this?
"The concept of civil society,"Tilly once declared, "is normativelyadmirablebut
analyticallyuseless" (Tilly 1992).13 Even his (not inconsiderable)contributionsto
the historicalsociology of democracy were pitched more in terms of bargaining
processes thanof voluntarismor any imputationto citizens of a commitmentto the
common good.14 In late works such as Contentionand Democracy in Europe, Trust
and Rule, and Democracy, Tilly argued thatthe integrationof trustnetworksinto
public politics was a crucial factorin the growthof democracy.15But not only did
thisinsightdivergefromcivil societytheoryin depictingtrustas a propertyof social
ties ratherthan as an individualattitude,it also retainedTilly's earlierconcernwith
strategic,interest-basedinteraction:statescould be expected to be more accountable
to citizenspreciselywhen the latterorganized themselvesinto extensive,politically
well-connected networks. Like Bourdieu, Tilly approached many of the same
- but in a fashion decidedly unsympatheticto
problemsas did civil society theory
many of its claims.
Tilly and Bourdieu bothfocusedmuch of theirlife's work on thestudyof political
conflict.Even when the specificobject of Bourdieu's investigationshappened not to
not only the respects
be thepolitical fieldper se, he remainedintenton illuminating,
in which that field was a structureof power and a space of (at least implicit)
contestation,but also how politics and the statewere (at least indirectly)influential
in shaping the field's historicaltrajectoryand present-daydynamics.Not even the
most sacralized and loftyrealms of high art- one thinkshere of Flaubert's literary
world- could properlybe understoodwithoutgraspinghow theywere implicatedin
largerand more encompassing scenes of political conflict(Bourdieu 1996 [1992]).
As for Tilly, the signatureobject of his scholarly work was always contentious
politics,the area of studyhe made his own throughsuch classic, paradigm-shaping
works as his primeron collective action, From Mobilization to Revolution (Tilly
1978). Whereas Bourdieu devoted only partof one major work,Homo Academicus
(1988 [1984]), to discussing episodes of political conflict(and even then with a
conspicuous emphasis on "maladjusted expectations,"precisely the sort of socialpsychological explanationthatalways made Tilly nervous), Tilly focused in study
and organizationalelementsunderlyingcollectiveaction.
afterstudyon the structural
mobilization
to
resource
approachesthatunderscoredthematerialbases
Sympathetic
in takingseriouslythe political structures
of social movements,he wenteven further
withinwhich collective action unfolds. One senses that this, too, is the direction
13The occasionof this
talk,as thepresentauthorrecallswell,was a New School forSocial Research
forumto honorthe publicationof Cohen and Arato's finetreatiseon civil society(1992). Tilly's
remarks
stirred
antagonistic
up intensecontroversy.
14Forone
to someotherworksbyTillyon
see Tilly(1990,ch.4). Citations
exampleofsucha discussion,
footnote.
are givenin thesubsequent
thehistorical
sociologyof democracy
15
ofpublicpoliticsfromcategorical
inequality
Tilly(2004a,2005a,2007). Tillyaddedthattheinsulation
to
and the reductionof autonomouspowercenterswere two otherimportant
processescontributing
ofthisview,see thesectionon "PublicPolitics:Civil Society
Fora condensedsummary
democratization.
and DemocracyRevisited,"in Tilly (2009). In sum, trustnetworksand publicpoliticswere Tilly's
alternative
meansof dealingwithcivilsociety.
j Springer
405
Springer
406
407
408
409
II
However intriguingmay have been the similaritiesbetweenTilly and Bourdieu, it is
instructiveas well to note theirsignificantdifferences.These may be categorized,
roughlyspeaking, as theoretical,methodological,substantive,and moral-practical,
with additional differencesas well in terms of intellectual styles and temper.
Theoretically,the key differencebetween Tilly and Bourdieu has to do with their
respective understandingsof relational sociology. As we have noted, Bourdieu
stressedthat configurationsof objective relations among positions in a social or
culturalspace were of paramountimportance.Interactionsbetween discreteentities
or actors(individualor collective) matteredfarless. Indeed, Bourdieu never tiredof
over interaction,
stressingthepriorityof structure
declaringrepeatedlythat"the truth
of the interactionis not to be foundin the interactionitself."27Occupants of one or
several objective positions could have no directrelationswith one anotherbut still
26More
side of pragmatist
complexwas theirrelationto the democratic-participatory
thought,
given
ofthecivilsocietyconcept(and alongwithit,workon democracy
Tilly'sandBourdieu'ssharedrejection
and thepublicsphere),as discussedabove.
l
See, e.g.,Bourdieu(2005, 148).
Springer
410
411
t Springer
412
413
his own later works of historical analysis, with subtitles such as "1768-2004,"
"1492-1992," "1650-2000," and even "AD 990-1990," were themselves no less
expansive in temporalscope.38) What one finds in Tilly are historicallygrounded
accountsof large-scaleshiftsin the characterand structureof states;in repertoiresof
contentiondrawnupon by actorsinvolved in political conflict;and in the extentand
scope of processes of democratization.He was far too ambivalent toward grand
theorizingto conceive of anythinglike a comprehensivetheoryof themodernworld.
A second substantivedifference
betweenTilly and Bourdieu has to do with their
of
modes
engagementwith Durkheimiansociology. For Tilly,
sharplycontrasting
Durkheimunequivocallysignifiedstructural-fiinctionalism,
and he respondedto the
former
as negativelyas he did to thelatter,
evenpenningin the 1970s a vigorouslyworded
critiqueentitled"Useless Durkheim"(Tilly 1981b). Meanwhile,Bourdieu,like so many
othersin the Frenchintellectualscene, was deeply influencedby Durkheimand never
feltthe need to repudiatehim. On the contrary,
he made frequentempiricaluse of
Durkheimianconcepts, fromthat of habitus itself(deployed by Durkheim in The
Evolutionof Educational Thought[Durkheim1977 (1938)]) to such ideas as organic
solidarity(Bourdieu characterizedthe innerlife of the field of power as an "organic
in thedivisionof thelaborof domination");39
or thesacredand theprofane(a
solidarity
crucial idea in his theoryof social stratification;
indeed,referencesto "consecration"
processes abound in Bourdieu's writings);or the ritualprocess (in analyses of what
of institution,"
or boundary-formation
Bourdieutermed'*rites
processesthatseparatethe
consecratedfromtheprofanized).40
TheirrespectiveattitudestowardDurkheimalso had
profoundconsequencesforTilly's and Bourdieu's effortsat culturalanalysis.Even as
Tilly moved toward a greater appreciationof culture, he tended to emphasize
performance(symbolic actions) over systemsof classification(symbolic structures).
Bourdieu,by contrast,was concernedas earlyas his youthfulexercisesin ethnology,
Indeed,thebinaryimage
inspiredby Claude Levi-Strauss,to analyzeculturalstructures.
the
Forms
1995
of
(in
[Durkheim
Elementary
(1912)])
religious systems of
classificationprovedof lastingimportanceto him,even as his own laterwork shifted
to the studyof modernEuropeansocieties.
A finalset of substantivedifferencesbetween Tilly and Bourdieu has to do with
their markedly contrastingdegrees of interestin collective action and societal
on the one hand, and social stratification,
on the other. Perhaps
transformation,
has
Bourdieu
been
at
least
in
the
wrongly,
depicted,
Anglo-Americanscene, as a
theorist"
on
account
of
his
relentless
focus on the mechanisms
"reproduction
dominants
in
various
kinds
of
social
worlds
maintain
theirascendancy.His
whereby
work was actually full of engagementswith historicalprocesses and social change,
Homo Academicus set fortha compellingview of historicalruptures
and,in particular,
as proceedingfromtheconvergenceof (originallycausally independent)field-specific
developments(Bourdieu 1988 [1984], chs. 4-5). As mentionedearlier,however,this
was his only sustainedwork on an episode of politicalcontention.And clearly,Tilly
was far more concerned over the course of his career with studyingcontentious
politics than was Bourdieu. The former'scontributionsto the sociological under38See
Tilly(2004b, 1993a,2004a, 1990).
39
discussion
inBourdieu(1996 [1989],386-88).
See,e.g.,Bourdieu
(1993a,25); see also themoreextended
see Bouraieu(jyyib, c); see also (lwo Livyj,102-15).
Springer
414
415
416
417
418
Ill
One is temptedto assign Bourdieu to the highest rank of sociological thinkers,
alongside such canonical mastersas Marx, Weber,and Durkheim while consigning
Tilly to the second tier, alongside such influentialand enduring contributorsas
Merton,White,and Goffinan.In Bourdieu, one encountersa remarkableconfluence
of qualities- sheer philosophic and analytic depth, substantivescope, and moralpolitical insightand relevance that Tilly simply cannot match, despite his own
formidableaccomplishmentsof an empiricaland methodologicalnature.58Indeed,
in reading Bourdieu's work, one feels oneself in the presence of an intellectof
superiorrank, one possessed of a degree of subtletyand sophisticationthatmake
social thought.Perhaps the difference
him all but peerless in twentieth-century
can be ascribed to theirrespective formativemilieux, which allowed Bourdieu to
develop intellectually in ways that Tilly could not, to cultivate those added
dimensions one fails to discern in his American counterpart.Perhaps the answer
lies in the tacit expectations Bourdieu encounteredwithin his own professional
context, the peculiar academic consecration (combined with isolation from
graduate students) bestowed upon him by his lofty perch at the Collge de
France. Or perhaps it was the special burden, the unique fate or destiny,he felt
(despite himself)to become a matred penser on the model of a Sartreor a LeviStrauss, on account of the profound obsession with (intellectual) kingship so
distinctiveof French culturallife.
There is also the fact that, in one other crucial respect, these two master
thinkersevolved in differentdirections. It is not simply that, in his later years,
Tilly produced too much too quickly,as is oftensaid of him partlyin admiration
(tinged with envy) and partlyin lament. (He probably did produce too much, but
the dropoffin quality was nowhere near as significantas his detractorswould
have it.) Rather,it is thatthe natureof the work he produced shiftedimportantly
afterthe early triumphof The Vende,his greatmasterpiece.In Sewell, Jr.'swords,
"Althoughhe never ceased to prowl the archives,his laterwork was much more in
57
See, de Tocqueville(1981 [1835/1840]).
basedin considerable
Thisis,ofcourse,an evaluative
parton scholasticvalues,as Bourdieu,
judgment
wouldhavebeenamongthefirstto emphasize.
everthereflexive
sociologist,
& Springer
419
59Fora
thiswork,see Bourdieu(1993b).
paperthatanticipates
Forthisanalogy,see Bourdieuand Wacquant(1992, 220); see also Bourdieu(1993a), by Beate Krais,
in Bourdieuet al. (1991 [1968],256).
1 Martin
to AdamAshforth.
(2008). The quotationis attributed
& Springer
420
References
J.C. (1982). Theoretical
two:Theantinomies
Alexander,
logicin sociology.Volume
ofclassicalthought:
of California
Marxand Durkheim.
Press.
Berkeley:University
Bhaskar,R. (1975). A realisttheory
ofscience.London:Verso.
A philosophicalcritiqueof thecontemporary
human
Bhaskar,R. (1998). Thepossibility
of naturalism:
sciences.London:Routledge.
Bourdieu,P. (1977 [1972]). Outlineof a theoryof practice,translated
by RichardNice. Cambridge:
Press.
University
Cambridge
Bourdieu,P. (1979 [1963]).AlgeriaI960, translated
by RichardNice. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
A social critiqueofthejudgement
Bourdieu,P. (1984 [1979]).Distinction:
oftaste,translated
by Richard
Press.
Nice. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
and structured
interestsin Weber'ssociologyof religion.In S.
Bourdieu,P. (1987). Legitimation
Whinster
& S. Lash (Eds.), Max Weber,
and modernity
rationality,
(pp. 119-136). London:Allen
and Unwin.
translated
Stanford
Bourdieu,P. (1988 [1984]).HomoAcademicus,
by PeterCollier.Stanford:
University
Press.
Bourdieu,P. (1998 [1989]). Social space and fieldof power.In PracticalReason(pp. 31-34).
A middle-brow
art,translated
Bourdieu,P. (1990 [1965]). Photography:
by ShaunWhiteside.Stanford:
Press.
Stanford
University
Bourdieu,P. (1990 [1980]). The logic of practice,translated
by RichardNice. Stanford:Stanford
Press.
University
of a fieldof worldsociology.In P. Bourdieu& J. S. Coleman
Bourdieu,P. (1991a). On thepossibility
(Eds.), Social theory
for a changingsociety(pp. 373-387). New York:RussellSage Foundation.
Bourdieu,P. (1991b). In J. B. Thompson(Ed.), Language and symbolicpower,translated
by Gino
HarvardUniversity
Press.
Raymondand MatthewAdamson.Cambridge:
In Languageand symbolic
Bourdieu,P. (1991c). Ritesof institution.
power(pp. 117-226).Cambridge:
PolityPress.
Bourdieu,P. (1991 [1988]). Thepoliticalontologyof MartinHeidegger,translated
by PeterCollier.
Stanford:
Stanford
Press.
University
withPierreBourdieuon La
Bourdieu,P. (1993a). Fromrulingclass to fieldof power:an interview
noblessed'Etat. Theory,
and Society,10, 19-44.
Culture,
of anomie.In R. Johnson(Ed.), Thefield of
Bourdieu,P. (1993b). Manetand the institutionalization
Press.
culturalproduction
(pp. 238-253). New York:ColumbiaUniversity
offields.In Sociologyin question(pp. 72-77), translated
Bourdieu,P. (1993 [1984]). Some properties
by
RichardNice. New York:Sage.
Eliteschoolsin thefieldofpower,translated
C.
Bourdieu,P. (1996 [1989]). Thestatenobility:
byLauretta
Press.
Stanford
University
Clough.Stanford:
Bourdieu,P. (1996 [1992]). The rulesof art: Genesisand structure
of theliterary
field,translated
by
SusanEmanuel.Stanford:
Stanford
University
Press.
actpossible?In Practicalreason:On thetheory
Bourdieu,P. (1998a). Is a disinterested
ofaction(p. 75Press.
Stanford
91). Stanford:
University
field.In Practical
of thebureaucratic
thestate:Genesisand structure
Bourdieu,P. (1998b). Rethinking
reason(pp. 25-63).
translated
Bourdieu,P. (1998c). Actsofresistance:Againstthetyranny
by RichardNice.
of themarket,
New York:New Press.
translated
Bourdieu,P. (2000 [1997]). Pascalian meditations,
by RichardNice. Stanford:Stanford
University
Press.
translated
Bourdieu,P. (2001 [1998]). Masculinedomination,
by RichardNice. Stanford:Stanford
University
Press.
2 (pp.
Bourdieu,P. (2003 [2001]). Cultureis in danger.In Firingback:Againstthetyranny
ofthemarket
66-81), translated
by Loie Wacquant.New York:New Press.
translated
Bourdieu,P. (2004 [2001]). Science of science and reflexivity,
by RichardNice. Chicago:
of ChicagoPress.
University
translated
Bourdieu,P. (2005). Thesocial structures
Polity.
Cambridge:
oftheeconomy,
by ChrisTurner.
of
Bourdieu,P. (2007 [2004]).Sketch
fora selfanalysis,translated
by RichardNice. Chicago:University
ChicagoPress.
Springer
421
422
Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures,large processes, huge comparisons.New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Tilly,C. (1985). CSSC Working
Paper Series22 (September1985).
Press.
French.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Tilly,C. (1986a). Thecontentious
Tillv.C. 0986b). Writing
wronesin sociology.SociologicalForum.L 543-552.
Tilly,C. (1990). Coercion,capital,and Europeanstates,AD 900-1990. Cambridge:Basil Blackwell.
at "Conference
on civil society."New
Paperpresented
Tilly,C. (1992). Civil societyand revolutions.
New School forSocial Research,April.
York:GraduateFaculty,
1492-1992.Oxford:Blackwell.
Tilly,C. (1993a). Europeanrevolutions,
Tilly,C. (1993b). Blandingin.SociologicalForum,8, 497-505.
Tilly,C. (1995). To explain politicalprocesses.AmericanJournaloj Sociology,100, 1594-1610.
in Tilly,ExplainingSocial Processes,ch. 7.
Reprinted
Tilly,C. (1996). Invisibleelbow.SociologicalForum,11,589-601.
in GreatBritain,1758-1834. Theoryand
of popularcontention
Tilly,C. (1997). Parliamentarization
va.RoadsfromPast toFuture(Lanham,MD: RowmanandLittlefield,
26, 245-273. Reprinted
Society,
1997,217-44.
of California
Press.
Berkeley:University
Tilly,C. (1998). Durableinequality.
Paper presentedat "Conferenceon emotionsand social
Tilly,C. (1999). Emotionsand strategies.
20.
New York:New YorkUniversity,
movements."
February
In Predictions
and commentaries.
reflections,
(September17, 2001). http://
Tilly,C. (2001). Predictions,
essavs.ssrc.org/septl
1/essays/tilly.htm
and politicalchange(pp. 111-122).
In Stories,identities,
conversation.
Tilly,C. (2002a). Contentious
Lanham:Rowmanand Littlefield.
In Stories,identities,
and politicalchange(pp. 57-68).
in history.
Tilly,C. (2002b). Politicalidentities
Lanham:Rowmanand Littlefield.
and political change (p. 16). Lanham:
Tilly,C. (2002c). SoftcoreSolipsism.In Stories,identities,
Rowmanand Littlefield.
and politicalchange (pp. 25-42).
Tilly,C. (2002d). The troublewithstories.In Stories,identities,
Lanham:Rowmanand Littlefield.
and democracy
in Europe,1650-2000.Cambridge:Cambridge
University
Tilly,C. (2004a). Contention
Press.
1768-2004.Boulder:Paradigm.
Tilly,C. (2004b).Social movements,
Press.
Cambridge
University
Tilly,C. (2005a). Trustand rule.Cambridge:
and social ties.Boulder:ParadigmPublishers.
boundaries,
Tilly,C. (2005b).Identities,
Tilly,C. (2005c). Violentconflict,social ties, and explanationsof social processes.In Identities,
boundaries,
and social ties(do. 13-32).
Press.
Princeton
University
Tilly,C. (2006a). Why?Princeton:
of ChicagoPress.
Tillv,C. (2006b).Regimesand repertoires.
Chicago:University
Press.
Tilly,C. (2007). Democracy.Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
New York:Cambridge
University
Tilly,C. (2008a). Contentious
performances.
Tilly,C. (2008b).Explainingsocialprocesses.Boulder:Paradigm.
Press.
Princeton
University
Tilly,C. (2008c). Creditand blame.Princeton:
consent.Social ScienceResearchCouncil,May 27.
Tilly,C. (2009). Grudging
of themiddlerange.In C. Calhoun(Ed.), RobertK. Merton:Sociologyof
Tilly,C. (2010). Mechanisms
Press.
scienceand sociologyas science(pp. 54-62). New York:ColumbiaUniversity
S. (2007). Contentious
Tilly,C, & Tarrow,
politics.Boulder:Paradigm.
in GreatBritain,1828-34. In M. Diani & D.
connections
Tilly,C, & Wood,L. J.(2003). Contentious
Relationalapproachesto collectiveaction(pp.
and networks:
McAdam(Eds.), Social movements
Press.
147-172).Oxford:OxfordUniversity
HarvardUniversity
1830-1930.Cambridge:
Tilly,C, Tilly,L., & Tilly,R. (1975). Therebelliouscentury,
Press.
F. (1999). The real is relational':An epistemological
analysisof PierreBourdieu's
Vandenberghe,
17, 32-67.
structuralism.
SociologicalTheory,
generative
inanes
and empowering
mechanisms
Voss,K. (20 1).Understanding
agencyin tnestudyoi inequality:
TillvandDurableInequality.TheAmericanSociologist,in thisvolume.
by E.
Weber,M. (1949 [1904]). In Methodology
ofthesocial sciences(pp. 50-112),editedand translated
A. Shilsand H. A. Finch.Glencoe:Free.
Princeton
and control:A structural
White,H. C. (1992). Identity
theoryof social action.Princeton:
Press.
University
& Springer