17/2/2014

heterodoxy
RSS

Sociological Thoughts
Re-thinking everyday life through the sociological imagination
Authors Biography

HETERODOXY
NOV
2012

14

2 COMMENTS

C A L E ND A R

BOURDIEUS FIELD THEORY AND TEXAS HOLDEM

Like

Share

Search

Welcome to the inside of my head

February 2014
M

48

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jan

SO C I O L O G I C A L T HO UG H T S

Picture credit: https://twitter.com/bourdieu

Sociological Thoughts
Me gusta

When I first encountered Bourdieu in my undergrad life (not literally), I was merely
taught some of his prominent concepts such as habitus and the various capital. Back
then it was something that I could relate with, being someone who comes from a
working class background and finally learning about a framework that allowed me to
frame up the symbolic violence that I could have gone through in the education system.
Fortunately, though my trajectory had its bumps along the way, I did not really see
myself as a victim of our education system. I should consider myself lucky to be blessed
with strong family support which provided me with the cultural capital that Bourdieu

Sociological
Thoughts
"Pessimism of the
intellect, optimism of
the will." - Antonio
Gramsci
12 de febrero a la(s)
18:43

was less interested in the working class values and strengths.

Later on in my academic life (not so long after in my not so long academic life), I learnt
about the interpretive aspects of Bourdieus work. It was then that I encountered his
concept of fields which he used to conceptualise the inner workings of institutional
realms as well as their relationships with one another. The general characteristics of
institutional realms hold within the theory of field for example, these fields or
realms are loosely coupled (but there are homologies among them); they are thought of

Sociological
Thoughts
The function of
Sociology, as of every
Science, is to reveal
that which is hidden. Pierre Bourdieu

A 1035 personas les gusta Sociological Thoughts.

as independent from the rest of society; they have their own set of meanings, rules and
norms, etc. To give a brief introduction to this concept, I shall go through what
Bourdieu conceptualise as the inner dynamics and mechanism within the fields.

Plug-in social de Facebook

FO L L O W T H I S SI T E V I A
EM A I L
Enter your email address to subscribe to
this website and receive notifications of
new posts by email.
Join 18 other subscribers

http://www.sociologicalthoughts.com/tag/heterodoxy/

1/5

17/2/2014

heterodoxy
Email Address
Subscribe

C O M M E N T S A ND FE E DBA C K
For any comments and/or feedback,
please send your email to
feedback@sociologicalthoughts.com

A R C HI V E S
Select Month
Picture credit:
http://rockytopberchot.blogspot.sg/2009/09/who-let-doxaout.html

Imagine the diagram above as a representation of the space the actors can negotiate
within a given field. Each of them begin their endeavours within the field from a
different starting position based on how similar their habitus matches that of the field
and how much capital their possess (economic, social, cultural, symbolic). These
positions are simplified and discussed as dominant or dominated positions.
Those who struggle within fields accept them as non-problematic, self-evident
givens.Those who occupy dominant positions in fields and those who are in
subservient positions share a silent acceptance of the field, their role in it and the rules
of engagement. Bourdieu terms this attitude doxa. The concept of doxa is, apart
from Lebenswelt, in the image of which it was formed, also close to the Durkheimian
concept of collective conscious, except that doxa is specific to each individual field and
does not represent a system of beliefs characteristic of an entire society. All participants
in the struggle in the fields share the conviction that the stakes for which they fight are
valuable and that the maintenance of the fields themselves is important (although they
differ in terms of who and on the basis of which principles should play the decisive
role). This acceptance of the value of the game is termed illusiu by Bourdieu, really a
more precise definition of his concept of interest. From this acceptance of fields results
the acceptance among all actors in the field as some forms of struggle as legitimate and
others as unacceptable in a given field (for example, the contestation of someones
objectivity in the scientific field is considered legitimate, while giving offense and
arguments that turn physical are considered incongruous to the field) (Cveticanin,
2012).
Bourdieu considers doxa as beyond question and which each agent tacitly accords
by the mere fact of acting in accord with social convention, is itself a fundamental
objective at stake in that form of class struggle which is the struggle for the imposition
of the dominant systems of classification.
Using the above definition, we can understand it as a system that would benefit the
dominant class but disadvantage the dominated class. As such, the dominated classes
have an interest in pushing back the limits of doxa and exposing the arbitrariness of the
taken for granted; the dominant classes have an interest in defending the integrity of
doxa or, short of this, of establishing in its place the necessarily imperfect substitute
orthodoxy.
Hence, we can understand orthodoxy as an imperfect substitute of doxa. Doxa is the
unquestioned innocent form of a unanimous system within a field. Orthodoxy
aims, without ever entirely succeeding, at restoring the primal state of innocence of
doxa, and exists only in the objective relationship which opposes it to heterodoxy, that
is, by reference to the choice heresy made possible by the existence of competing
possibles and to the explicit critique of the sum total of the alternatives not chosen that
the established order implies.

http://www.sociologicalthoughts.com/tag/heterodoxy/

2/5

17/2/2014

heterodoxy

Picture credit: http://www.plentypoker.com/post-flop-poker-strategy/

Let me now illustrate this with the example of a poker game. Imagine poker (more
specifically Texas Holdem if youre familiar with it) as a field. You enter the game
with different cards from the next person. We all know the rules of the game if we are
playing it (I am assuming the norm here. I understand that some people play games
they have absolutely no idea how to play at all. But under usual circumstances, people
who get together to play poker would already know the rules). We dont question these
rules they are a given. You know that three of a kind beats a pair or two pairs. You
know that straight beats three of a kind. You know that flush beats straight. You know
that a flush with spades beats a flush with hearts. You know that a full house beats
flush but a royal flush beats everything. Lets call this attitude towards the rules doxa.
This doxa is not just a set of rules for the game, but also a basic notion of how to play it
- a simple framework of betting, raising and folding in accordance to the cards you have
in play and the probability that you could win based on the flop, the turn and the river
cards.
When we play Texas Holdem, we dont question these rules and notion of playing. If
we are constantly dealt good hands that fit the table, we can abide by the doxa and
easily win the game consistently. However, this doxa is an ideal that players can follow
the ideal is something that those who benefits from it will try to uphold while those
who doesnt will strategise to circumvent. This is where strategies come in. The most
significant element of the game that could arise out of the doxa of Texas Holdem is the
notion of bluffing. Bluffing allows you to win the game without abiding by the doxa.
But before I illustrate the symbolism of the
strategies, lets talk about position within
the field of poker. I know that in poker,
every hand you get is different and random
so it cant have much to do with capital or
habitus. But for the sake of argument, I
would illustrate habitus and capital in such
a way that a person who has greater capital
Picture credit:
http://www.wildnatureimages.com/

will consistently be dealt good hands while

a person whose capital and habitus pale in
comparison will be dealt cards that are
frequently poorer but not all the time.

Given this scenario, you can now imagine how these players (actors) would strategise
differently within the field (game).
There are many ways to play the game. You can choose to always represent your hand
with your bets. That is to only bet out or raise your opponents when you think your
cards are better. You dont ever bluff meaning you wont bet big when you have
nothing to try to cheat your opponent into folding. This way of playing would be
categorised under orthodoxy. Now, lets contextualise this. Who would adopt

http://www.sociologicalthoughts.com/tag/heterodoxy/

3/5

17/2/2014

heterodoxy
orthodoxy more readily? Rationally, it is the actors who have greater capital since they
are constantly dealt good hands to play with. There is very little reason for them to
bluff and risk getting caught and losing big. However, actors who start at a poor
position may also choose to play the orthodoxy manner as they may choose not to risk
losing and rather constantly fold their hands when they feel that they are beaten at a
hand. Contextualising in this manner would make it clear that majority of the players
would subscribe to orthodoxy as they have the intention to win as much money as
possible out of the game.
Of course, there will be some players who choose the risky way to play and constantly
bluff with weak cards in order to win the pot. These are players who adhere to the doxa
(the rules of the game and understanding of the most basic way of playing) but contest
it with the motivation of winning eventually. We can argue that given their erratic
hands (due to their lack of capital and incompatible habitus), they were forced to
circumvent the doxa, but they could have chosen to minimise their losses like the rest of
the players.
Hence, the moment the notion of bluffing enters the field, we move from doxa to
orthodoxy and heterodoxy as the dominated class tries to influence the doxa by bluffing
(heterodoxy) and in contrast, we have the dominant class playing tight that is
making minimal risks in term of their playing style and utilising their good hands
(orthodoxy).
This is not the most ideal example to illustrate Bourdieus concept of fields but it more
or less sums up my understanding (after some corrections from a good friend). This is
what Bourdieu perceives to be constantly ongoing within different fields and
institutional realms such as education, religion, politics, economy, etc. Every field is a
struggle and strategies are employed by the actors who try to move around, seeking
greater positions within the field. Symbolic violence is part and parcel of participation
within these fields and in the modern era, participation is often non-voluntary we are
all in various fields, strategising, manoeuvring and competing to stay ahead of one
another. Its certainly not pretty but its one way to look at social reality and think
about it.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Cveticanin, P. (2012). Bourdieus theory of Practice. In, P. Cveticanin (Eds), Social and

Cultural Capital in Serbia (pp. 25-52). Serbia: Sven, Nis.

http://www.sociologicalthoughts.com/tag/heterodoxy/

4/5

17/2/2014

heterodoxy

Picture credit: mysite.verizon.net

Like

Share

48

By: J Category: General Reflections Tags: Bourdieu, doxa, field theory, fields, heterodoxy, orthodoxy

Sociological Thoughts 2014

http://www.sociologicalthoughts.com/tag/heterodoxy/

Powe re d by WordPre ss The mify WordPre ss The me s

5/5