Breaking from the Field: Participant Observation and Bourdieu’s Participant Objectivation

What is it about?

In this chapter, I explore the method of participant observation vis-à-vis Bourdieu’s field theory. Whilst it hasn’t been widely explored within critiques of Bourdieu’s work, this methodology is of particular interest to Bourdieu, who refers to it as ‘participant objectivation’ and ‘the highest form of the sociological art’ (1992, p. 260). In many ways, Bourdieu’s participant objectivation encapsulates the sociologists task—to engage with the social; critique the field that produces relational and structural power; and to ‘give us a definite mastery of the social aims ... that we immediately seek’ (1992, 259). Participant objectivation reveals formative ‘thinking tools’ (1989, p. 50) for the sociologist and is critical for an analysis of Bourdieu’s field theory. Utilizing this lens, this chapter extrapolates upon three central concepts—the notions of objectivity, ‘objectivation’ and epistemic reflexivity. The central motif is the critique of power and the (in)visible mechanics of power which are produced, structured and constructed within the research field.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

In this chapter, I will explore participant observation as a method within the academy, through a framework of Bourdieu’s field theory. There is a long history to the contentious and contested nature of participant observation within the academy—one only need to look at the work of Carolyn Ellis (1984, 1995) or James Patrick (1973)—which is, of course, a pseudonym. Gans (1999) criticises the subjective and introverted uptake of participant observation, particularly when associated under a broad umbrella of ‘ethnography’ and ‘autoethnography'. Bourdieu’s work reflects his profound interest in ‘ethnography’, but also participant observation. In the widely circulated Handbook of Ethnography—which tends to be widely endorsed for graduate students—Emerson, Fretz and Shaw (2001) describe participant observation as …establishing a place in some natural setting on a relatively long-term basis in order to investigate, experience and represent social life and social processes that occur in that setting… [This] comprises one core activity in ethnographic fieldwork. (p. 352) In these accounts, the sociologist participates in the very research space they are observing, and becomes a ‘kind of member of the observed group’ (Robson, 2002, p. 314), by sharing life experiences and learning the group’s social conventions and habits. A membership would imply a sense of belonging and acceptance within the research space. But, Bourdieu presents a contrasting account of participant observation, as distinct from the ‘natural setting’ and orderly process that ethnographic texts depict. In An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Bourdieu (1992) writes, What I have called participant objectivation (and which is not to be mistaken for participant observation) is no doubt the most difficult exercise of all because it requires a break with the deepest and most unconscious adherences and adhesions. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 253, emphasis in original) For Bourdieu, ethnography is ethically precarious and fundamentally political.