Bourdieu, the media and cultural production

This article evaluates Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural production in terms of its effectiveness for understanding contemporary media production. I begin by outlining the main features of Bourdieu’s work on cultural production, with an emphasis on the potential advantages of his historical account over other, competing work. In particular, I stress the importance of his historical account of ‘autonomy’ and of the emphasis on the interconnectedness of the field of cultural production with other social fields. I then draw attention to two major problems in the work of Bourdieu and others who have adopted his ‘field theory’ for the media: first, that he offered only occasional and fragmented analyses of ‘large-scale’, ‘heteronomous’ (to use his terms) commercial media production, in spite of its enormous social and cultural importance in the contemporary world; second, that Bourdieu and his key associates provide only a very limited account of the relationships between cultural production and cultural consumption. In this latter context, I briefly discuss recent debates in cultural studies about cultural intermediaries. I refer to examples from recent media production to provide evidence for my arguments. The article argues that, as practised so far, Bourdieu’s field theory is only of limited value in analysing media production. However I close by discussing the potential fruitfulness of research based on a dialogue between, on the one hand, field theory’s analysis of cultural production and, on the other, Anglo-American media and cultural studies work on media production.

[1]  Érik Neveu,et al.  Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field , 2005 .

[2]  J. O’Connor Cities, culture and “Transitional Economies”: Developing cultural industries in St Petersburg , 2004 .

[3]  N. Anand,et al.  THE PRODUCTION OF CULTURE PERSPECTIVE , 2004 .

[4]  P. Mancini,et al.  Comparing Media Systems: Comparing Media Systems , 2004 .

[5]  Nick Couldry,et al.  Media meta-capital: Extending the range of Bourdieu’s field theory , 2003 .

[6]  James Curran,et al.  POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY: The press, broadcasting, and new media in Britain , 2003 .

[7]  Keith Negus THE WORK OF CULTURAL INTERMEDIARIES AND THE ENDURING DISTANCE BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION , 2002 .

[8]  D. Hesmondhalgh The Cultural Industries , 2002 .

[9]  Rodney Benson,et al.  Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies , 1999 .

[10]  D. Hesmondhalgh Indie: The institutional politics and aesthetics of a popular music genre , 1999 .

[11]  Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson,et al.  The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society , 1999 .

[12]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  The rules of art : genesis and structure of the literary field , 1997 .

[13]  S. Ellis Power without Responsibility , 1997, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[14]  David Hesmondhalgh,et al.  Flexibility, post-Fordism and the music industries , 1996 .

[15]  Sarah Thornton Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital , 1995 .

[16]  P. Champagne,et al.  L'information médicale sous contrainte. A propos du «scandale du sang contaminé» , 1994 .

[17]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  The Field of Cultural Production , 1993 .

[18]  Bill Ryan,et al.  Making Capital from Culture , 1991 .

[19]  M. Featherstone Consumer Culture and Postmodernism , 1991 .

[20]  Janet Wolff,et al.  The social production of art , 1981 .

[21]  N. Garnham,et al.  Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: an introduction , 1980 .