The Hegemony of Habitus: Locating the Role of

Domination and Agency in the Works of

Gramsci and Bourdieu
Mario Hernandez
Traditional theories of political order that focus on power through means of direct rule such as the
legal system or coercive force, fail to take into account the importance of culture in maintaining systems of
political domination. This paper seeks to engage with concepts of power operating through culture and

the possibility of social change. By using a comparative analysis of the works of Pierre Bourdieu and
Antonio Gramsci and their specific conceptualizations of how social order is maintained, not only can
we begin to formulate a critical perspective from which to view this debate, but also we can better
analyze several of the central ideas of each theorist. This analysis will focus on the parallels and
differences of Gramscis notion of hegemony on the one hand and Bourdieus conceptualization of
symbolic violence as a means of maintaining social inequalities on the other. Emphasis will be placed
on the work of Bourdieu, as his work allows for a more nuanced view of how people become vested in
particular roles, which emerge out of specific set of social relations, and which in turn shape,
constitute, and form the basis of individual identities. While Gramsci initiates greater complexity in
the Marxian notion of class structure in capitalist societies, I will argue that he still falls short of
explaining exactly how we know and understand the social order of society and reproduce it in our
everyday lives. On the contrary, through Bourdieu, it will be shown that it is only with this basis of
knowledge that we can begin to conceptualize the possibility of social change.
To begin, Gramsci and Bourdieu each wrote at length about the question of domination and
reproduction.1 It is important to note from the outset that both scholars emerge from a post-Marxist
line of thought. While Gramscis theoretical allegiances to Marxism are quite explicit, Bourdieus
work implicitly retains the spirit of Marxs materialist analysis by continuing to endorse the capitalist
market as the underlying force of social relations. By abandoning the deterministic nature of
materialist arguments, both Bourdieu and Gramsci avoid the pitfalls of their vulgar Marxist
counterparts. In this way, these theorists works do not present a radical break from Marx, so much as
they are critical extensions of post-Marxist thought. The sociologist Michael Burawoy writes that
both developed sophisticated notions of class struggle and focused on what Gramsci called the
superstructure of capitalism, what Bourdieu called the field of cultural domination, and both thereby
lost sight of the economy, dealing only with its effects. 2 For Burawoy, the importance of their
analysis is that they both emphasize social actions operation within constraints and challenge the false
oppositions of subjectivism and objectivism, further arguing that the two theorists returned to Marxs
Theory of Feurerbach in order to do so.3
Gramscis ideas about these issues are captured by the concept of hegemony, or rule by
willing consent, while Bourdieu uses the term symbolic violence to denote the subtle imposition of
systems of meaning that legitimize and thus solidify structures of inequality. 4 Developing Bourdieus
work, sociologist Loic Wacquants articulation of symbolic violence bears close resemblance to
Gramscis definition of hegemony, as he describes it further as an explanatory account of the
manifold processes whereby the social order masks its arbitrariness and perpetuates itself by extorting
from the subordinate practical acceptance of, if not willed consent to, its existing hierarchies. 5 But as

1 Burawoy, Michael. 2008 Hegemony and Symbolic Domination: Gramsci Meets Bourdieu:
Weblink: burawoy.berkeley.edu/Bourdieu/Lecture%202.pdf, 2.
2 Burawoy, 2.
3 Ibid., 2.
4 Wacquant Loic. Bourdieu in Rob Stones (ed.) 2008, Key Contemporary Thinkers. New York
University Press, New York, 264.
5 Wacquant, Bourdieu, 264.

both Bourdieu and Gramsci had fundamentally different conceptions of how social order operates, so
too did they have very different implications of how these terms were applied 6.
In his work, From Ideology To Symbolic Violence,7 Wacquant states that it cannot be
denied that Bourdieu in fact presents a second rupture with objectivism (the original being Marxs
tracing of the mystifying character of ideology and origins of fetishism in the production process) by
locating the native experience of the social world within a structural model, where cultural
production functions as an autonomous sphere in the struggle over symbolic power through the
molding of everyday experiences.8 Bourdieu acknowledges capitalism as a social space regulated by
the overall volume of capital and the relations that dictate its distribution (composition), but he admits
to the influence of important cultural elements in the spirit of Max Webers interpretations of status
groups and political parties. Taking the form of social and cultural capital, these types of value take on
particular (and independent) meaning in analyzing how and why an individuals or groups interests
are not realized within purely market relations. While these forms can be inherently rooted in the
material base being developed, they are irreducible to the material forces of production. By situating
this alternative axis, Bourdieu takes this crucial cultural dimension into account.
In seeking to analyze how the proletariat fails to recognize their immediate class interests in
the absence of overt force, Gramsci also devises an alternative to a purely materialist argument
through the notion of hegemony. Defined as rule by consent, the insight of this concept suggests a
psychological dimension, as force is internalized as inequalities are preserved under a false semblance
of peace, if not order. And yet, as Burawoy explains, for Gramsci, this form of domination does not
reside in any psychological or unconscious realm at all and is instead an explicit and overt
phenomenon to be struggled over in the political realm. 9 I contend that this logic of reasoning does not
make adequate use of the large body of social science research that has uncovered how social norms,
such as habits, beliefs, and customs, operate within culture and are influenced and shaped, as well as
influence, shape and/or reject, macro-institutional structures of power. It is only by applying this body
of knowledge that we can come to a meaningful understanding of domination and its reproduction as
well as the capacity for social change.
A thorough investigation would seek to analyze how power is infused within the values and
logics of meaning within a given society and the subsequent processes by which it is conveyed,
communicated, and internalized on a purely cognitive, as well as societal level. It is only then that a
proper understanding of political or economic domination can be properly analyzed within a specific
context by delineating exactly how these institutions of power identify with, appropriate, and embed
themselves within society. Gramscis great contribution was to shift the notion of power from a topdown model to one of rule from below through the notion of hegemony. His shortcoming was to
assume that this power was an entity or a yoke that could be shrugged off primarily at the level of
ideology through consciousness and overt political action. Indeed, he was hostile to the notion of
locating this struggle anywhere else.10 Bourdieu, on the other hand, dismissed this kind of analysis as
mere surface reasoning and deemed it inadequate to grasp the bodily inscription of social structure as
a habitus that is so at home with domination that it does not recognize it as such. 11 I will clarify this
statement below as I explain in more detail the notion of habitus, fields, and symbolic violence, but

6 Burawoy emphasizes the personal life and social position of two men in understanding their radically divergent
platforms, agendas, and implications of their work. I will not do so here but for a more detailed discussion in this
matter, please see Burawoys article and audio lecture of the same title as the written work at:
http://www.havenscenter.org/audio/michael_burawoy_durable_domination_gramsci_meets_bourdieu
7 Wacquant, Loc J. D. 1993. From Ideology To Symbolic Violence: Culture, Class
And Consciousness in Marx And Bourdieu. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 30: 125-142.
8 Wacquant, From Ideology, 136.
9 Burawoy, 21.
10 If political science means science of the State, and the State is the entire complex of practical and theoretical
activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the
active consent of those over whom it rules, then it is obvious that all the questions of sociology are nothing other
than questions of political science. If there is a residue, this can only be made up of false problems, i.e. frivolous
problems. Gramsci, PN, 244, quoted in Burawoy, 21.

here I would like to indicate that the problem with this line of reasoning is that it cannot be assumed
that actors can ever recognize their immediate interests (or that any single or set of interests
constitute an immediate interest for that matter). Social actors are motivated by all sorts of factors,
and even seemingly obvious forces can become shrouded by the unrecognizable logic of others.
Thus and on the contrary, by integrating Pierre Bourdieus notions of habitus, field analysis
and symbolic violence, we can draw out a much more critical perspective of social relations and
domination. The notion of habitus is simultaneously a micro- as well as macro-interpretation of how
individuals produce, and are produced, by their social milieus. Being structural without being overly
deterministic, habitus incorporates the structured reality one is born into that in turn structures
perception. The key is that it is also malleable, as ones perception is inevitably adjusted by social
interaction and experience. A conductor-less conductor, or regulated improvisation, habitus seems
to structure life chances without determining them. 12 Some important implications emerge as a result
of this conceptualization in terms of power and the prospect of change. It is significant to note that
Bourdieu mediates simultaneously between subjective/objective and micro/macro conceptions of
reality in this formulation. It is with his notion of habitus that we should situate the individual within
various fields of social life in order to come to a critical understanding of the reproduction of
inequality and the social system as a whole.
With his articulation of field theory, Bourdieu shows how differentiation characterizes the
social space through a process of distinction rooted in consumption. Fields operate within the broader
social structure but with their own sets of rules and values that form the habits and norms which create
the vested interests of individual members (illusio). In this way, habitus results in the development of
distinct dispositions that shape both individual and collective identities. This runs counter to the logic
that assumes that individuals are subjected to false consciousness. Indeed, Burawoy notes,
Submission is not a matter of consciousness but of habitus, those deeply embedded perceptions and
appreciations, inaccessible to consciousness. 13 Further, in their purist and strongest form, fields can
provide a shelter from naked market transactions and thus produce their own rationale for mobility.
Once established, fields seek to operate within their own internal logic as much as possible, though
out of necessity, they will draw on external forces. In this conflict to balance the maintenance of
autonomy with the need to draw on external resources, poles emerge, that on one hand, try to
preserve the purity of the field by keeping as far a distance from external pressures or concerns as
possible. At the opposite extreme though, are those who seek to build external links, be it for capital,
or simply for broader support. For new members within a field, this is particularly the case, since it is
in their interest to destabilize (through a heterodox ideology) the status quo (orthodox), which is
typically defended by those who have higher positions and thus an investment in the current system
With reference to Gramscis organic Intellectuals, though, Bourdieu was deeply cynical of this latter
possibility, as he notes that whenever a minority is empowered to speak in the name of a group, they
will seek to consolidate and institutionalize that power to their own ends. 14
Finally, Max Weber noted that the judicial system of laws, as with the customs of a society,
are never more then a secondary principle of the determination of practices, intervening when
the primary principle, interest, fails. 15 Thus we must look below Gramscis conception of hegemony,
that is, at the level of rules or of conscious action for the primary source. The notion of symbolic
violence is extremely important in understanding how systems of inequality are reproduced in the
ideological realm and maintained through habitus. With its much greater implications than Gramscis
notion of hegemony, this legitimation of a system of inequality works to make the relations of the
status quo seem universal and natural. Articulated through the orthodox ideology, it serves the interests
of the dominant class, whose members seek to maintain the systems of relations as they are. What is
important in Bourdieus work is that this system of relations operates within the logic of the cultural

11 Burawoy, 20.
12 Wacquant, Bourdieu, 268.
13 Burawoy, 21.
14 Ibid., 16. For an extended list of Bourdieus commentary on Gramsci see Burawoys footnote on this page.
15 Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 76.

field, in consumption patterns, symbolic meaning and thus the habitus of a given individual or group.
Disguised behind the mask of moral ties, cultural prowess, and meritocratic symbolismstatus
groups are classes that manage to hide themselves behind the veil of culture they are misrecognized
classes.16 Indeed Wacquant goes on to stipulate how culture becomes the opiate of the masses as
much as religion was for Marx, as it serves to mystify social relations.17
Bourdieus body of work then can be said to extend the capacity of understanding the
domination of hegemony from below to within individual subjects. Bourdieu understood that social
relations (paying particular emphasis on class exploitation and inequality in this case) are internalized
and shape individual dispositions, which in turn shape the individuals sense of reality. This is a
process that seems to happen below the level of consciousness. Thus, Bourdieu had a strong disdain
for normative theories that advocated conscious manipulation of anything because of their shared
assumption that an individual could have the distance from his or her social milieu or habitus to affect
any sort of revolutionary dissonance.18 Instead, he encouraged theorists to seek to describe the full
extent of how identities and institutions of power are mutually reinforcing (a process outlined through
the notions of habitus, field analysis, and symbolic violence), attempting to construct a general theory
of practice from this foundation.
In this discussion, I have attempted to outline some of the major themes of Pierre Bourdieus
work by comparing them to those of Antonio Gramscis and to show how power operates in and
through culture in various ways. My goal was to show why the study of culture comprises a crucial
sphere of analysis in its own right in order to gain a critical understanding of how social order is
produced, maintained and/or subverted. While, Antonio Gramscis work initiates this process by
recognizing the importance of understanding this social sphere as a place of contention where issues
related to ideology and consciousness are accentuated through the notion of hegemony, it is the work
of Pierre Bourdieu that refines this analysis by integrating a range of intellectual disciplines related to
both social psychological factors on an individual level and disciplines related to macro-institutions of
power and the process of legitimation and reproduction on another. By integrating these large bodies
of thought, Bourdieus work adds and invigorates ongoing discussions related to power, domination,
societal reproduction, and change.

16 Waquant, From Ideology, 133.

17 Ibid., 133.
18 Burawoy, 19