Habitus, capital and fields

Conceptualizing the capacity of actors in local politics

Kristian Stokke
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo

ABSTRACT
Focusing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu this paper explores the relevance of certain
thinking tools for concrete research on the political capacities of actors in local politics in
developing countries. Bourdieu argues that social practices are constituted by and
constitute dispositions for practice, general and specific forms of capital and the fields
within which these practices take place. The paper seeks to unpack these key notions and
explore their relevance for the question of actor capacity in local politics in developing
countries. This is done through an examination of sources of political power for popular
movements. Here, attention is drawn to the notions of social capital, forces within fields
and symbolic (political) capital and the parallel focus on mobilizing structures, political
opportunity structures and cultural framing in political analyses of social movements.

Keywords
Social practice, habitus, capital, fields, local politics, social movements, Pierre Bourdieu

This hastily written paper is obviously – and in the spirit of Bourdieu – an

exploratory work in progress. Constructive criticism will be appreciated!

1
 Thinking tools for studies of actors in local politics

As far as I’m concerned, I have very pragmatic relationships with authors: I

turn to them as I would to fellows and craft-masters, in the sense those words
had in the mediaeval guild – people you can ask to give you a hand in
difficult situations. (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 28).

Scientific theory as I construe it emerges as a program of perception and

action … which is disclosed only in the empirical work that actualizes it. It is
a temporary construct which takes shape for and by empirical work.
Consequently, it has more to gain by confronting new objects than by
engaging in theoretical polemics that do little more than fuel a perpetual, self-
sustaining, and too often vacuous metadiscourse around concepts treated as
intellectual totems. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 161, emphasis in
original)

The purpose of this paper is in full agreement with the pragmatism advocated in these
quotes – namely to explore the relevance of certain thinking tools for concrete research
on the political capacities of actors in local politics in developing countries. Given such a
pragmatic agenda, it seems pertinent to start with a brief outline of the rationale for this
research.1
The point of departure for the research on local politics is the observation that the
contemporary world is characterized by glocalization, i.e. simultaneous tendencies
towards economic and cultural globalization and localization (Castells, 1996, 1997; Cox,
1997; Held, 2000; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton, 1999). This situation has,
among other things, produced a hollowing out of nation-states in the sense that certain
regulatory capacities have been reduced and transferred to institutions operating primarily
at global or local scales (Jessop, 1994). Simultaneously, local identities and identity
politics are constructed anew in a context of global transformations. Thus, glocalization
has yielded a reconfiguration of political scales and inter-scalar relations (Collinge, 1999;
Cox, 1998; MacLeod & Goodwin, 1999; Marston, 2000). These transformations are also
reflected in development theories and practices, which have increasingly turned to ‘the
local’ as a prime site of development in the context of globalization (Mohan & Stokke,
2000). Common institutional reforms aimed at this goal include policies for

1
For more information, see http://www.sum.uio.no

2
decentralization, local developmental states, participatory development and good
governance. The general assumption is that mutually enabling partnerships between
decentralized state institutions, private corporations and local civil society will generate
economic growth, poverty alleviation and good governance.
Paradoxically, there are few process-oriented studies of the kinds of development
and governance that really emerge when various actors are confronted with and adapt to
structural changes and institutional reforms that generate new and widened local political
spaces.2 On the contrary, much of the mainstream development discourse is marked by a
tendency to essentialize and romanticize local communities and to downplay questions of
power and inequality (Mohan & Stokke, 2000; Nederveen Pieterse, 2001). This means
that there is a need for critical examinations of local power relations and politics. Local
politics is here taken to mean all politics that are carried out locally, not just in relation to
local organs of the state or local governments but also, for instance, struggles over
national or global issues that take place in local contexts (Törnquist & Stokke, 2001).
The research project on local politics and democratization in developing countries
seeks to fill this gap through an analytical focus on the conjunction of factors that
generate widened local political spaces and the capacities of the actors to make use of
these local political spaces and thereby further a process of substantial democratization.
The main concern in this paper regards the question of political capacity for local actors.
Obviously, there is a range of actors in local politics, e.g. local elites (Brass, 1997; Sidel,
1999), non-governmental organizations (Nelson & Wright, 1995), social classes and trade
unions (Andræ & Beckman, 1999) and local state institutions and government (Tendler,
1997). This paper discusses certain basic ‘thinking tools’ that can inform concrete studies
of diverse actors in local politics, namely Bourdieu’s (1977; 1984; 1986; 1990; 1990;
1991; 1996) conceptualization of practice as constituted by different forms of habitus,
capital and fields. The remaining sections of the paper review these concepts and discuss
their relevance for concrete analyses of the political power of popular movements. This is
in agreement with Bourdieu’s own insistence on the practical side of theory, yet avoiding
conceptual eclecticism. I do not pretend to cover or comprehend the complexity of

2
Obviously, there are exceptions from this general tendency, for instance Oldfield (2000).

3
Bourdieu’s work, but will deliberately relate to the author and his work with the same
pragmatism that he advocates in the quotes above.

(Habitus * Capital) + Field = Practice

The complexity of Bourdieu’s work renders any attempt at shorthand summary futile.
Bearing this in mind, I will start out by highlighting the author’s own characterization of
his project as constructivist structuralism or, alternatively, as structuralist constructivism
(Bourdieu, 1990). This refers to an attempt to transcend the dichotomies between
objectivism3 and subjectivism4 by examining the ways in which social structures and
actors are inextricably bound together, i.e. the ways in which structuring structures and
acting actors are mutually constitutive.
Bourdieu’s approach contrasts with the inclination within subjectivism to reduce
structures to interactions and the tendency within structuralism to deduce actions and
interactions from structures (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). There are
obvious similarities between his project and the structuration theory developed by
Giddens (1979; 1984). However, there are also important differences between the two,
especially in the ways they conceive of structures. Harker, Mahar & Wilkes (1990)
summarize Giddens’ conceptualization of structures as rules and resources in
institutional contexts. Structures are seen as:
Sets of rules and resources which govern transformations. These sets of rules
and resources are organised into institutions. Whether transformation takes
place or not is governed by a set of conditions which Giddens calls
structuration, which mediates the contingent acts of agents to produce social
systems. Structures … are properties of social systems of collectivities, not of
the situated activities of subjects. (Harker, 1990, p. 202, emphasis in original)

3
Objectivism refers to approaches that seeks to identify objective regularities that are independent of
individual consciousness and behavior and that explain social practices in terms of such structural
regularities.
4
Subjectivism refers to approaches that ”locate the prime causes of social behaviour in individual free will,
conscious decision-making and lived experience” (Painter, 2000, p. 241).

4
Harker, Mahar & Wilkes see this as a static and simplistic conception which abstracts
structures from the social practices of individual actors. Compared to Giddens’
structuration theory, they portray Bourdieu’s project as a threefold conceptual
substitution: from rule to strategy (governed by the habitus); from resources to forms of
capital; and, from institutions to fields:
Firstly, he (substitutes) … the idea of strategy for that of rule … People adopt
strategies which are the result of other social practices; they do not follow
rules. Second, Bourdieu’s analysis of what Giddens calls resources is greatly
facilitated by his insight into the different forms of capital, over which people
struggle. … Thirdly, the rather static notion of institution in Giddens’ work, is
replaced in Bourdieu’s work by the idea of field, as a dynamic field of forces
and of positions. Positions in fields constitute one of the forms of capital over
which agents struggle, and utilise various strategies to attain. (Harker, Mahar
& Wilkes, 1990, p. 202, emphasis in original)

This means that what people do – their social practices – are constituted by and constitute
their dispositions (habitus), the capital they possess and the fields within which they
operate. Bourdieu summarizes this conception by describing the field as a game (a site of
struggles for certain stakes) with the participants’ habitus and capital defining the
possibilities and style of play for different players. As the game and the positions within
the game change, so do the participants’ understanding of the game as well as the
strategies they employ. This understanding of social practice is schematically represented
as: (Habitus * Capital) + Field = Practice (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101). The equation should
clearly be understood as a heuristic device rather than a universal key to understanding
social practice. It nevertheless identifies the key elements in Bourdieu’s understanding of
practice. The challenge is to unpack these notions and explore their relevance for the
question of actor capacity in local politics in developing countries.

Habitus
Bourdieu’s main concern is to understand everyday social practices and especially their
regularities. He insists that social practice neither can be understood as a matter of
individual decision-making and behavior nor as a product of supra-individual structures.
His notion of habitus constitutes a mediating link between these two principles of
determination. Habitus is a structuring mechanism for social practices that operates from

5
within actors. The habitus is conceived as a system of internalized social norms,
understandings and patterns of behavior, or, in more general terms, embodied
dispositions that incline actors to act in certain ways. It is structuring but not fully
determinant of conduct, and located within individuals but not strictly individual
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
Habitus can be defined as “a system of lasting and transposable dispositions
which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of
perceptions, appreciations and actions and makes possible the achievements of infinitely
diversified tasks” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 95 or 72?). Thompson (1991) observes that these
dispositions of the habitus are acquired, structured, durable and transposable. First, they
are acquired, particularly through childhood socialization, and constituted through
unreflexive and mundane processes of habit-formation. Second, dispositions are
structured by the social conditions where they were acquired. This means that an
individual from a middle-class background will hold dispositions that differ from those
produced in a working-class environment. This also means that habitus may be relatively
homogenous among individuals from similar backgrounds. Third, dispositions are
durable in the sense that they are embodied in individuals and operate at the sub-
conscious level. This means that they are not readily available to conscious reflection and
modification. Fourth, dispositions are generative and transposable in the sense that they
can generate practices and perceptions, also in other fields than those where they were
acquired.
The dispositions of the habitus function at the practical level as classificatory
principles and organizing principles of action (Bourdieu, 1990). These principles
generate practices, not as a simple outcome of conscious intentional strategies but as a
product of an embodied practical sense. Thompson observes that this practical sense is a
state of being rather than just a state of mind since the body “has become a repository of
ingrained dispositions (which make) certain actions, certain ways of behaving and
responding seem altogether natural” (Thompson, 1991, p. 13). All of this means that the
habitus, consisting of dispositions and practical classificatory schemes and organizing
principles of action, is itself both the product of social conditions and past practices and
the producer of strategies acting upon those conditions.

6
Fields
Obviously, when individuals act they do so in specific contexts – settings that may allow
some to operate with power and ease whereas others find themselves disempowered and
‘out of place’. Particular perceptions or practices are not merely products of the habitus,
as may have seemed to be the implication in the previous section, but rather the outcome
of the relations between the habitus and the specific context within which individuals act
(Thompson, 1991).
Bourdieu conceives of the social world as comprising of multiple fields with
varying degrees of autonomy in regard to each other. Fields should not be understood as
bounded domains but rather as a relational space of positions (occupied by actors) and
relations of power (forces) between these positions. Positions grant access to different
general forms of capital (economic, social, cultural or symbolic) as well as field-specific
forms of capital (e.g. political capital) which define relations of domination,
subordination or equality between the positions. Jenkins (1992) summarizes these
characteristics in the following way:
A field … is a structured system of social positions – occupied either by
individuals or institutions – the nature of which defines the situation for their
occupants. It is also a system of forces which exist between these positions; a
field is structured internally in terms of power relations. Positions stand in
relationships of domination, subordination or equivalence (homology) to each
other by virtue of the access they afford to the goods or resources (capital)
which are at stake in the field. … The nature of positions, their ‘objective
definition’, is to be found in their relationship to the relevant form of capital.
(Jenkins, 1992, p. 85, emphasis in original)

The positions and power relations, defined by the forms of capital that are allocated to
those occupying positions, yield field-specific stakes. The existence of a field
presupposes and creates a belief in the value of the capital at stake in the field. Struggles
over these legitimate stakes may be aimed at simply safeguarding or improving the
positions of individual or collective actors or they may also entail more general goals of
preserving or transforming the configuration of positions and forces within the field. The
strategies of the actors depend on their positions in the field and their perceptions of the

7
field, i.e. “the point of view they take on the field as a view taken from a point in the
field” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 101, emphasis in original).
Bourdieu commonly likens the field to a game. Fields, like games, have stakes,
players, strategies and trump cards. Bourdieu & Wacquant summarizes this game
metaphor in the following way:
We can indeed, with caution, compare a field to a game … although, unlike
the latter, a field is not the product of a deliberate act of creation, and it
follows rules or, better, regularities that are not explicit and codified. Thus we
have stakes … which are for the most part the product of the competition
between players. We have an investment in the game …: players are taken in
by the game, they oppose one another, sometimes with ferocity, only to the
extent that they concur in their belief … in the game and its stakes … Players
agree, by the mere fact of playing, and not by way of a “contract”, that the
game is worth playing … We also have trump cards, that is, master cards
whose force varies depending on the game: just as the relative value of cards
changes with each game, the hierarchy of the different species of capital
(economic, social, cultural, symbolic) varies across the various fields.
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 98, emphasis in original)

Finally, fields vary in terms of their relative autonomy in regard to other fields, i.e. the
degree to which actors within a field can ‘follow their own rules’. Fields with a high
degree of autonomy have high barriers of entry for newcomers. For instance, as politics
develop into a more autonomous field, entry into political life requires that new actors
know and accept the rules of the game in order to gain access to positions of power.

Forms of capital
Capital, understood as a social relation, plays a key role in Bourdieu’s conceptualisation
of practice. Indeed the key aspects of a field – positions and forces – are defined by the
various forms of capital. These forms of capital also constitute and are constituted by the
dispositions in the habitus. Thus capital, in its various forms, is dialectically related to the
constitution and operation of both the field and the habitus (Figure 1).
Bourdieu (1986) argues that capital presents itself in three fundamental forms:
economic capital (material wealth in the form of property, money, shares etc.), social
capital (social resources in the form of networks and contacts based on mutual

8
 Habitus
Dispositions.
Principles of action
and classification.
Capital
Economic, social,
cultural, symbolic.
Field-specific forms.

Field
Positions.
Forces (relations
between positions).

Figure 1. The genesis of social practice.

recognition)5 and cultural capital (informational assets in the form of knowledge and
skills acquired through socialization and education etc.). These fundamental forms of
capital are different forms of power, but the relative importance of the different forms
will vary according to the field (Bourdieu, 1984; 1996). For instance, economic capital is
not in itself enough to gain power within the fields of art or education but economic
capital may be used to acquire the specific cultural capital that is the basis for legitimate
authority within these fields. This brings up the question of the relationship between
different forms of capital.
Bourdieu emphasizes that one form of capital can be converted into another
(Figure 2). This convertibility of capital means, for instance, that educational
qualifications (cultural capital) or social networks (social capital) can be converted into
an attractive job (economic capital). Bourdieu (1984) observes that the exchange rate
varies according to the power of those holding different forms of capital. Indeed such
exchange rates are among the fundamental stakes within fields as they define “the
dominant principle of domination (economic capital, cultural capital or social capital)”
(Bourdieu, 1984, p. 125). The most powerful conversion to be made is to a fourth form of
capital: symbolic capital (legitimate authority in the form of prestige, honor,

5
Bourdieu’s actor-centered and relational notion of social capital should not be confused with Putnam’s
(1993) societal and static conception or the subsequent popularisation of the term within contemporary aid
parlance (Fine, 1999; Mohan & Stokke, 2000).

9
 Economic capital
Material wealth

Socal capital Symbolic capital

Social networks Legitimate authority

Cultural capital
Informational assets

Figure 2. General forms of capital (arrows indicate conversions).

reputation, fame). Such conversion into symbolic capital means that the different forms
of capital are recognized as legitimate – or, in other words, the arbitrariness of capital is
misrecognized as natural – and granted a special symbolic efficacy (Bourdieu, 1990). To
be seen as a person or class of status and prestige is to be accepted as a legitimate
authority: “Such a position carries with it the power to name (activities, groups), the
power to represent commonsense and above all the power to create the ‘official version
of the social world’ Such a power to represent is rooted in symbolic capital” (Harker,
Mahar & Wilkes, 1990, p. 13).
This conceptualization of capital is also important for the understanding of the
formation of collectivities, especially social classes. Bourdieu sees classes as categories
of people who occupy positions that are similar in terms of the capital allocated to those
holding the positions (Figure 3). Individuals are stratified according to the volume and the
composition of the capital they possess (Bourdieu, 1984; 1991). This yields an ‘objective’
definition of class, which is sometimes referred to as ‘classes on paper’. Figure 3 shows a
mapping of such class positions based on empirical research in France.6 Since Bourdieu
sees the different forms of capital as forms of power, this mapping of social classes is
also a mapping of power. The field of power is delimited to those

6
Figure 3 is based on an empirical examination of the relationships between social stratification and
lifestyle in France. Here, Bourdieu (1984) documents that ”value judgements about ’good’ and ’bad’ taste
are deeply entwined with social divisions of class, wealth and power” (Painter, 2000, p. 241).

10
 Capital volume (+)

Economic FIELD OF POWER Economic

capital (-) Professions capital (+)
I
Cultural Professors n Cultural
capital (+) Private sector execs
d C capital (-)
u o
Artistic producers s m
t m
Engineers r e
i r
Secondary Public a c
teachers sector l i
execs i a
s l
t
s h
e
a
d
s
Medical and social
Cultural services
intermediaries
Mid-level commercial
mgrs, office staff

Primary teachers Technicians S

m F
T a a
Mid-level admin. l
managers r r
a l m
d
e c o
Office Commercial s o w
clerical clerical m m n
e m e
Foremen n e r
r s
c
Skilled workers e
Semiskilled workers

Laborers
Farmworkers

Capital volume (-)

Figure 3. Social stratification according to composition and volume of

capital. Source: Bourdieu (1996, p. 267).

positions that grant control of substantial volumes of capital. The positions within this
field of power do not make up a unified elite but rather diverse elite groups – based on
different forms of capital – struggling over the relative weight of capital and the
legitimate principle for domination. The transition from classes defined in such objective

11
terms, to subjectively constituted classes is probable but not inevitable:7 “The closer the
positions are, the more likely is the participation of their occupants in a shared habitus,
the possibility of their constitution as a social group through political struggle and the
collective recognition of their identity as distinct from other groups or classes” (Jenkins,
1992, p. 88).
The power relations between occupants of different positions are embedded and
reproduced through key institutions within the field. Most notably, Bourdieu’s (1988;
1996) demonstrates that elite educational institutions in France play a crucial role in
producing and reproducing the cultural and political elite. The elite schools take the
habitus of the dominant group as the norm and thereby systematically favour those who
possess cultural capital in the form of that habitus:
The culture of the élite is so near to that of the school that children from the
lower middle class (and a fortiori from the agricultural and industrial working
class) can only acquire with great effort something which is given to the
children of the cultivated classes – style, taste, wit – in short, those attitudes
and aptitudes which seem natural in members of the cultivated classes and
naturally expected of them precisely because … they are the culture of that
class. (Bourdieu, 1974, p. 39, emphasis in original, quoted from; Harker,
Mahar & Wilkes, 1990, p. 87)

This institutional embodiment of the dominant group’s habitus functions to produce and
reproduce groups within the field of power.

The political field and political capital

Bourdieu does not provide any comprehensive examination of politics, although he
moves towards a conceptualization of the political field in some of his later works
(Bourdieu, 1991; 1996). A few key pointers can be extracted from these preliminary
discussions.
Most importantly, Bourdieu identifies the major stake within the field of politics as
the power of ‘the spokesperson’, i.e. the legitimate right to speak on behalf of ‘the
people’:

7
This resembles the Marxist distinction between an objective class-in-itself and a subjective class-for-
itself. Bourdieu criticizes this tradition for being deterministic and teleological, ignoring the complex and
unpredictable ways in which ”a ’group in struggle’, as a personalized collective, a historical agent setting
its own aims, arises from the objective economic conditions” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 233).

12
 The political fields is thus the site of a competition … for the monopoly of the
right to speak and act in the name of some or all of the non-professionals. The
spokesperson appropriates not only the words of the group of non-
professionals, that is, most of the time, its silence, but also the very power of
that group, which he helps to produce by lending it a voice recognized as
legitimate in the political field. (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 190)

The power of the ideas proposed by the spokesperson is not measured by their value as
truth, but rather by their ability to produce and mobilize a group of people. This means
that political capital, as a field-specific form of capital, is a kind of symbolic capital.
Political capital can be the personal capital of the spokesperson (e.g. fame and
popularity). However, it can also reside as ‘objectified political capital’ within permanent
institutions – accumulated in the course of previous struggles and institutionalized in
positions and instruments for mobilization – and be granted to individuals as political
delegates. This objectification of political capital is especially clear in political parties:
It is the party which, through the action of its officers and its militants, has, in
the course of history, accumulated a symbolic capital of recognition and
loyalties and which has given itself, for and through political struggle, a
permanent organization of party officials (permanents) capable of mobilizing
militants, supporters and sympathizers, and of organizing the work of
propaganda necessary to obtain votes and thus jobs (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 194-
195, emphasis in original)

Symbolic systems fulfil a political function as instruments for perceiving and describing
the social world. This construction of reality is itself subordinated to the logic of the
conquest of power (i.e. the logic of mobilization of ‘the people’). The political field also
imposes a degree of censorship by limiting the universe of potential political discourses:
In concrete terms, the production of stances adopted depends on the system of
stances that are conjointly proposed by the set of antagonistic political parties,
in other words on the political problematic as a field of strategic possibilities
objectively offered to the choice of agents in the form of positions that are
actually occupied and stances that are actually proposed in the field.
(Bourdieu, 1991, p. 184, emphasis in original)

The centrality of symbolic power – the power of constituting reality through utterances –
makes the political field the prime site of legitimate symbolic violence. Different actors
are involved in a symbolic struggle – directly or through professionals – to impose and

13
normalize a representation of the world that suits their own interest. One cannot
understand the objectification (of practices, groups etc.) in discourse without taking into
consideration the positions occupied by those involved in the struggle for the monopoly
of symbolic power. Hence, symbolic systems are both structured and structuring political
instruments.
Finally, Bourdieu characterizes the sphere of formal politics as a field with a high
and increasing degree of autonomy in regard to other fields. Entry into this field requires
thorough familiarity with what is politically thinkable and sayable as well as investments
in institutions that possess and delegate objectified political capital (Bourdieu, 1991).
This produces a situation where, for most of the time, the politically effective and
legitimate forms of perception and expression are the monopoly of professionals and
parties, with ordinary citizens largely reduced to consumers choosing between different
political products.

The relevance of Bourdieu for local politics in developing countries

Bourdieu insists on the practical relevance of theory for empirical research and, hence,
that his conceptions grow out of encounters with empirical realities rather than self-
referential metadiscourses. The concrete reality examined in most of Bourdieu’s work is
the field of power, i.e. those groups and classes possessing substantial volumes of capital
in France. The production and reproduction of these groups have been studied within
education, art and consumption. The political field, however, remains under-researched,
both theoretically and empirically. Moreover, Bourdieu’s notion of practice is more
geared towards individual social practice than collective political action. Thus it may
seem somewhat farfetched and possibly and exercise in ethnocentric universalism to seek
inspiration in Bourdieu for research on popular collective actors in local politics in
developing countries. Against this criticism, I will maintain that the conception outlined
above must be understood as relatively open thinking tools, pointing towards some
possible sources of power and certain principles for social practice. They should not be
understood as a comprehensive substantivist theory but rather as analytical guidelines

14
that can inform more concrete theoretical and empirical investigations. The following
section will provide some pointers towards such concrete studies with special reference to
the power of popular movements in local politics in developing countries.
The research project on local politics emphasizes the meeting between political
spaces and political actors. Regarding the former notion, Bourdieu clearly presents a
relatively weak theory of the political field in general and especially of the characteristics
and functioning of political institutions. Except for his emphasis on the importance of
symbolic legitimation, categorization and mobilization in regard to ‘the people’, his
conceptualization of the political field seems to be of relatively limited value in studies of
local politics in developing countries. Bourdieu does, however, present a revealing
discussion of the sources of power, emphasizing positions (defined in terms of different
forms of capital) and the relations (forces) between these. Unfortunately his singular
focus on dominant groups (the field of power) leaves a pessimistic impression of the
political power of subordinate groups. A review of studies of collective action would
demonstrate that popular movements can make a political difference. The sources for
domination within a field that have been identified by Bourdieu can, it seems, be reversed
an constitute sources of political power also for subordinate actors.

Approaches to collective action

The literature on collective action has traditionally been marked by a dichotomy between
structure- and actor-orientated approaches. Whereas theories of new social movements
have focused on the structural basis for collective mobilization (i.e. why movements
emerge), resource mobilization theories have emphasized the concrete emergence of
organizations through the workings of mobilizing structures and political opportunity
structures (i.e. how movements develop). The last decade has seen a growing realization
of the complementary, rather than mutually exclusive, character of these approaches
(della Porta & Diani, 1999; Foweraker, 1995; Klandermans, 1991). Simultaneously, there
have also been various attempts to address aspects that have been left out from both
perspectives, most notably processes of cultural framing and collective

15
 C
O Collective action Events
N
C
R Contingent
E conditions
T
E
Mobilizing Political Cultural Mechanisms
structures opportunity framing
structures
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T Production of grievances Structures

Figure 4. A realist approach to collective action.

identity formation (Johnston & Klandermans, 1995; Melucci, 1989; 1996; Nash, 2000).
This leads della Porta and Diani to the identification of four themes in studies of social
movements: “the conflicts of which they are protagonists, and their structural bases; the
production of shared beliefs and collective identities; organizations and social networks;
and political opportunities for protest to develop” (della Porta & Diani, 1999, p. 21).
Using the epistemological framework of realism8, these themes could be said to address
different levels of causation (Figure 4). New social movements theories address the
structural production of grievances and assume a direct causal link from grievances,
through collective identity formation to collective action. Resource mobilization theories
and the new cultural approaches take the existence of grievances for granted, but

8
The core of realist epistemology is a search for causal mechanisms rather than empirical regularities.
Realism replaces the positivist regularity model of causation with an understanding “in which objects and
social relations have causal powers which may or may not produce regularities, and which can be explained
independently of them” (Sayer, 1992, p. 2-3). Sayer distinguishes between necessary causal relations and
contingent conditions. The necessary causal powers are mutually constituted internal relations. Contingent
conditions refer to the time- and place-specific context within which the necessary relations operate. These
conditions determine whether and how the necessary causal relations are activated. This conceptualization
of causality provides the basis for Sayer’s notions of structures, mechanisms, contingent conditions and
events. Structures are seen as sets of necessary relations, which are realized through mechanisms. These
causal powers are activated under specific contingent conditions and manifested in concrete events. This
means that the necessary causal powers can be activated through different mechanisms. Variations in the
contingent conditions mean, in turn, that the same mechanisms can produce a multitude of events. The
researcher can identify the necessary relations through abstraction. Concrete research, on the other hand,
involves theory-informed case studies that seek to identify the contingent conditions under which the
necessary causal powers are activated.

16
problematize how these are translated into collective actions through the mechanisms of
mobilizing structures, political opportunity structures and cultural framing.9

Sources of political capacity for popular movements

Studies of social movements have focused on why and how collective action emerge, but
have to a much lesser extent examined movement politics and the political outcomes of
collective action (Törnquist, 1999). The review of Bourdieu’s conception of positions (in
terms of volume and composition of capital) and forces (relations of domination,
subordination or equivalence) within a field now allow us to place the identified key
themes and concepts in the literature on social movements within a more general
conception of power. Three prominent sources of political capacity for collective actors
can now be identified, namely: (1) the constellation of forces within the political field; (2)
the volume and composition of social capital, and; (3) the possession of symbolic capital.
Forces within the political field: A prime source of capacity lies in a movement’s
relations with key positions and actors in the political field. Tarrow (1994) observes that
there are complex relationships between various organizations and actors within a social
movement and state actors and institutions. This creates complex and dynamic political
opportunity structures that social movements utilize to achieve their goals. Although this
concept is used in a number of different ways in the literature, McAdam, McCarthy &
Zald identifies a high degree of agreement around the factors that constitute political
opportunities for social movements. These are:
1. The relative openness or closure of the institutionalized political system, 2.
The stability or instability of that broad set of elite alignments that typically

9
Each of these approaches lend themselves to different understandings of the spatiality of collective action
(Miller, 2000; Routledge, 1992; 1993; 1997; Stokke & Ryntveit, 2000). This can be illustrated with
Agnew’s (1987) distinction between location, locale and sense of place. ‘Location’ refers to the ways in
which social and economic processes at a wider scale create uneven regional development. Such economic
and political relations produce place-specific bases for collective action. ‘Locale’ refers to place as an arena
for formal and informal social relations, interactions, networks and organizations. This creates place-
specific mobilization structures and political opportunity structures for collective action. ‘Sense of place’
refers to socially constructed systems of meaning and identity associated with a locality. This produces
place-specific cultural framing processes for collective action. Miller (1997) points to the importance of
scale in geographic analyses of social movements. With reference to political opportunity structures, he
argues that collective actions may be directed towards the state level with the most favorable political
structure. Similar arguments regarding the importance of scale could be developed about the socio-spatial
basis of collective action (location) and systems of meaning and identity (sense of place).

17
 undergird a polity; 3. The presence or absence of elite allies; 4. the state’s
capacity and propensity for repression. (McAdam, McCarthy & Zald, 1996,
p. 27)

The first dimension emphasizes the importance of formal legal and institutional structures
within the political system, e.g. questions of the presence of formal economic, social and
political rights and institutions upholding these rights (Heater, 1999; Kymlicka, 1995).
The second and third points regard the importance of formal and informal channels
for access, control and contestation of policy formulation and implementation. While
rights and institutions might provide a formal framework for participation, political
channels may be decisive for actual access to and transformation of rights and institutions
(Holland & Mohan, 2000; McEwan, 2000). Whereas these dimensions of political
opportunities point towards the formal sphere of politics, movement theorists also
emphasize that social movements exist within a political context of collaborating and
competing organisations in society. Thus, Klandermans points to the existence of
complex alliance and conflict systems among movement organizations and in regard to
other actors, for instance state institutions and international NGOs:
The multi-organizational field of a social movement organization has both
supporting and opposing sectors. We can describe these two sectors as (1) a
social movements organization’s alliance system, consisting of groups and
organizations that support the organization, and (2) its conflict system
consisting of representatives and allies of the challenged political system,
including countermovement organizations … The boundaries between the
two systems remain vague and may change in the course of events. Specific
organizations that try to remain aloof from the controversy may be forced to
take sides. Parts of the political system (political parties, elites, government
institutions) can coalesce with social movement organizations and join the
alliance system. Coalitions can fall apart, and previous allies can become part
of the conflict system (Klandermans, 1991, p. 36).

The alliance system, consisting of enabling actors in society and/or within the state,
supports a collective movement through organizational resources and through expanded
political opportunity structures. The conflict system, on the other hand, undermines
organizational resources and reduces the political space for collective action.
Social capital: Another source of political capacity is found in a movement’s
ability to organize civil society. This question of social capital draws attention to the
theme of mobilizing structures within social movement theories. This term is commonly

18
used to refer to (1) social networks and institutions that may not be aimed at mobilization
but nevertheless serve as an important arena for collective mobilization, and (2)
organizational forms within a movement. Regarding the first point della Porta and Diani
observe that:
Just as with conventional political participation, people seem more likely to
join a protest movement if they are connected to others who are highly
sensitive to particular causes, or prone to become involved in collective
action generally. It is through these links that potential activists develop a
certain vision of the world, acquire information and the minimum
competences necessary for collective action, and learn from the example of
those already involved, receiving both stimuli and opportunities. (della Porta
& Diani, 1999, p. 113-114)

Along the same line of inquiry, McCarthy (1996) identifies multiple forms of enabling
networks and institutions. He categorises these according to two main dimensions;
organizational formalization and centralizations, and dedication to social change, i.e.
mobilizing structures can be formal or informal in character and exist as social movement
or as a nonmovement. The least organized structures include families and networks of
friends, neighbors and colleagues in local everyday life. Informal mobilizing structures in
everyday life also include networks of activists as well as memory communities, i.e.
networks of demobilized activists, and subcultures of dissent within movements. Such
social infrastructures can facilitate communication and solidarity prior to and during
collective mobilization. Collective actions are also facilitated by a wide variety of more
formal organizations and institutions. These include, among several others, churches,
unions and professional associations that are outside the movements themselves, and
social movement organisations, protest committees and movements schools within
movements.
Symbolic capital: A third source of movement capacity can be found in a
movement’s ability to participate in the struggle over symbolic capital, i.e. the cultural
framing of rights, responsibilities, policies and implementation of decisions. Melucci
(1989; 1996) argues that collective actions are based on a continuous construction of
alternative systems of meaning. Therefore, means of mass communication are crucial
resources for collective mobilization, and collective actions are based on reflexivity
among the actors. This insight has produced a new orientation within studies of social

19
movements towards the cultural framing of collective action (Snow & Benford, 1988).
Klandermans (1991) observes that movement researchers have become aware of two
important principles. First, individual participation in collective action is not based on an
objective reality but rather perceptions and interpretations of it. Second, social
movements themselves play an active role in constructing and communicating
interpretations of society. This means that social movements utilise culturally constructed
repertoires of contention: “They draw on the cultural stock for images of what is an
injustice, for what is a violation of what ought to be” (Zald, 1996, p. 266). Such repertoirs
of contention include cultural stock of how to protest and how to organize. Moreover,
cultural framing of injustice and political goals, of rights and responsibilities are
contested and changeable. This means that there is an active and competitive process of
strategic framing that occurs in a variety of arenas, within movements as well as between
movement activists and authorities.
What then about other form of capital and especially economic and cultural
capital? A degree of economic capital may be crucial to facilitate the building and
operation of a movement. Beyond that, the importance of economic capital may primarily
be a question of the degree to which it can be converted into symbolic capital. Here it
seems that the role of economic capital may be ambivalent since large volumes of
economic capital may indeed call into question a movement’s claim to authenticity.
Popular movements that are granted access to economic capital by external aid agencies
and NGOs might for instance find themselves accused of no longer being legitimate
representatives of the groups and interests they are claiming to represent. As for cultural
capital, it seems obvious that informational assets, in the form of knowledge about actors,
positions and forces within the political field, may be crucial to a popular movement.
These are the informational assets emphasized by Bourdieu and studied within the field
of power in France. Equally important, however, may be knowledge about ‘ground level
realities’ (held by ‘organic’ rather than ‘traditional intellectuals’) that can be converted
into symbolic capital and authorizes a movement as an ‘authentic voice of the people’. in
developing countries.
Finally, as we move from general thinking tools, through general sources of
political power for popular movements, to concrete research design, Törnquist’s work on

20
movement politics should be mentioned. Törnquist (1999; 2000; 2000) proposes three
questions that he sees as especially central to the analysis of movement politics. These
regard: (a) where in the political terrain the actors choose to work; (b) what issues and
interests they promote and politicize; and (c) how people are mobilised into political
movements and the political sphere. His main point is that the political capacity of
popular movements to promote democratization is contingent on their strategic decisions
and practices in regard to political terrain, politicization of issues and interests and
political inclusion of people – seems valid. Thus, concrete research on movement politics
should investigate the views and strategies within a movement regarding these questions.
These questions, it seems, largely correspond to the sources of movement capacity
identified above.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the relevance of Pierre Bourdieu’s for concrete research on the
political capacities of actors in local politics in developing countries. With inspiration
from Bourdieu’s conception of social practices – constituted by and constituting
dispositions for practice, general and specific forms of capital and the fields – three
prominent sources of political capacity for popular movements have been identified: (1)
the constellation of forces within the political field (political opportunity structures); (2)
the volume and composition of social capital (mobilizing structures), and; (3) the
possession of symbolic capital (cultural framing). These potential sources of political
capacity may provide analytical guidelines, but the actual practices, political capacities
and outcomes must be examined concretely through contextualized case studies
(Millstein & Stokke, 2001).

References

Agnew, J. A. (1987). Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society.
Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

21
Andræ, G., & Beckman, B. (1999). Union Power in the Nigerian Textile Industry: Labour
Regime and Adjustment. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Bourdieu, P. (1974). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In J.
Eggleston (Ed.), Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education. London:
Methuen.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of Capital.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Brass, P. R. (1997). Theft of an Idol: Text and Context in the Representation of Collective
Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Collinge, C. (1999). Self-organisation of society by scale: a spatial reworking of regulation
theory. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 17(5), 557-574.
Cox, K. R. (Ed.). (1997). Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. New
York: Guilford Press.
Cox, K. R. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or:
looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17(1), 1-23.
della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Fine, B. (1999). The developmental state is dead - long live social capital? Development and
Change, 30, 1-19.
Foweraker, J. (1995). Theorizing Social Movements. London: Pluto Press.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in
Social Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Harker, R., Mahar, C., & Wilkes, C. (Eds.). (1990). An Introduction to the Work of Pierre
Bourdieu: The Practice of Theory. London: Macmillan.
Heater, D. (1999). What is Citizenship? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics,
Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, D. (2000). A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. London: Routledge.
Holland, J., & Mohan, G. (2000). Citizenship and rights-based development: The new hegemonic
discourse on (local) development. Oslo: Paper, Workshop on "Local Politics and
Democratisation in Developing Countries", University of Oslo, November 16-18.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Jessop, B. (1994). Post-Fordism and the state. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Johnston, H., & Klandermans, B. (1995). Social Movements and Culture. London: UCL Press.

22
Klandermans, B. (1991). New social movements and resource mobilization: The European and
the American approach revisited. In D. Rucht (Ed.), Research on Social Movements:
The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Frankfurt am Main: Campus
Verlag.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon Press.
MacLeod, G., & Goodwin, M. (1999). Reconstructing an urban and regional political economy:
on the state, politics, scale, and explanation. Political Geography, 18(6), 697-730.
Marston, S. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219-
242.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social
Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting, and inventing. In D.
McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social
Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McEwan, C. (2000). Engendering citizenship: Gendered spaces of democracy in South Africa.
Political Geography, 19(5), 627-651.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in
Contemporary Society. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, B. A. (1997). Political Action and the Geography of Defense Investment: Geographical
Scale and the Representation of the Massachusetts Miracle. Political Geography, 16(2),
171-185.
Miller, B. A. (2000). Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Antinuclear Activism in the
Boston Area. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Millstein, M., & Stokke, K. (2001). Local movement politics: The South African Homeless
People's Federation and the post-Apartheid state. Geoforum (submitted).
Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory Development and Empowerment: The Dangers of
Localism. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 247-268.
Nash, K. (2000). Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2001). Development theory: deconstructions/reconstructions. London:
Sage.
Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and
Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Oldfield, S. (2000). State Restructuring and Urban Transformation in South Africa: A
Negotiation of Race, Place and Poverty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
Ph.D. dissertation.
Painter, J. (2000). Pierre Bourdieu. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking Space. London:
Routledge.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Routledge, P. (1992). Putting politics in its place: Baliapal, India, as a terrain of resistance.
Political Geography, 11(6), 588-611.
Routledge, P. (1993). Terrains of Resistance: Nonviolent Social Movements and the Contestation
of Place in India. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Routledge, P. (1997). A spatiality of resistance: Theory and practice in Nepal´s revolution of
1990. In S. Pile & M. Keith (Eds.), Geographies of Resistance. London: Routledge.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. (2 ed.). London: Routledge.

23
Sidel, J. (1999). Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization.
In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From Structure to Action: Social
Movement Participation Across Cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Stokke, K., & Ryntveit, A. K. (2000). The struggle for Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Growth and
Change, 31(2).
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Mass Politics
in the Modern State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tendler, J. (1997). Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1991). Editor's Introduction. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Language and Symbolic
Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Törnquist, O. (1999). Politics and Development: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Törnquist, O. (2000). Dynamics of Indonesian Democratisation. Third World Quarterly, 21(3).
Törnquist, O. (2000). Of New Popular Politics of Development: The Kerala Experience. In G.
Parayil (Ed.), The Kerala Model. London: Zed.
Törnquist, O., & Stokke, K. (2001). Local Politics and Democratisation in Developing
Countries: Project Proposal. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, Centre for
Development and the Environment.
Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, &
M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political
Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

24