26 Bourdieu offers a more extended analysis of Heidegger’s work in his book The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger, tr. P. Collier (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991). The material which forms the basis of this book was originally published in French in 1975 in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, and hence predates by more than a decade the debates triggered off in France and elsewhere by the publication of Victor Farias’s book Heidegger et Ie nazisme (Lagrasse: Verdier, 1987). Bourdieu’s approach to Heidegger’s work differs significantly from that of Farias and from the views expressed recently by philosophers such as Derrida, Lyotard and Lacoue-Labarthe.
27 The issues discussed by Bourdieu in this context, such as the opposition between distinguished and vulgar and the symbolic struggles waged by different classes in the social space, are examined in much greater detail in Distinction,
28 These points are brought out well in the work of Paul Willis, to which Bourdieu refers in this context. See P. E. Willis, Profane Culture (London: Routlege & Kegan Paul, 1978), and Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs (Westmead. Farnborough, Hants.: Saxon House, 1977).
29 See Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice. pp. 183ff; The Logic of Practice, pp. 122ff.
30 Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, p. 127,
31 The role of the educational system as an institutional mechanism for creating and sustaining inequality is examined by Bourdieu and his associates in a variety of publications. See especially P. Bourdieu and J-C. Passeron. Reproduction: In Education, Society and Culture, tr. R. Nice (London and Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977): P. Bourdieu and LC Passe ron, The Inheritors: French Students and their Relation to Culture. tr. R. Nice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); and Bourdieu, La noblesse d'etat.
32 See, for example, P Bourdieu ‘Le marche des biens symboliques’. L’ann/e sociologique, 22 (1971), pp. 49-126; Genese et structure du champ religieux\ Revue frangaise de sociologies 12 (19 71), pp. 295-334; and "Legitimation and structured interests in Weber’s sociology of religion’, tr. C. Turner, in S. Whimster and S. Lash (eds), Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity (London: Allen & Unwin* 1987), pp. 119-36.
33 Bourdieu has developed this approach in more detail in other contexts. See especially Bourdieu, Distinction, ch. 8; Bourdieu, La noblesse d'etat, part IV; and P, Bourdieu and L. Boltanski, "La production de Tideologic dominants’. Acres’ de la recherche en sciences sociales. 2-3 (June 1976), pp. 3-73,
34 In recent writings Bourdieu has given more attention to issues concerned with gender and relations of power between the sexes. Sec especially P. Bourdieu, La domination masculine'. 4c/w de la recherche en sciences socidles. 84 (September 1990). pp. 2-3 L
35 See P. Bourdieu. ‘Social space and the genesis of '‘classes’* \ ch. 11 in this volume. See also 'A reply to some objections’, tr. L L D Wacquant and M. Lawson, in Bourdieu. In Other Words^ pp 106-19.
36 For a recent and well known example of this interpretation, see L. Ferry and A. Renaut* La pens^e 68. Essai sur Tanti-humanisme conremporain (Paris: Gallimard, 1985). ch. 5.
Introduction to Part I
1 I have tnrd elsewhere to analyse the epistemological unconsciousness of structuralism, i.e. the presuppositions which Saussure very lucidly articulated in constructing the specific object of linguistics* but which have been forgotten or repressed by subsequent users of the Saussurian model (see P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, tr. R. Nice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), pp. 30ff).
2 See G. Mounin, La Communication Po&ique, precede de Avez-vous lu Char? (Pans: Gallimard, 1969), pp. 21-6L
