Bourdieu in Contention and Deliberation
Response to Lamont and Lizardo
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12135253 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ann Mische (0000-0003-1432-0171, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 245-250 |
| Publication date | 2012-02-06 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Sociological Forum (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0884-8971 • E-ISSN: 1573-7861 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01311.x |
| OpenAlex | W2129815546 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 19 |
This essay responds to Lamont’s (2011) article “How Has Bourdieu Been Good to Think With? The Case of the United States,” and Lizardo’s (2011) essay “The Three Phases of Bourdieu’s U.S. Reception,” both of which appear in this issue
Cultural capital · Deliberation · Epistemology · Habitus · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Gender Studies · Law · Philosophy · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Social Capital and Networks
Human nature and conduct
Contentious Performances
Never Saw It Coming
Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency
Theorizing the Standoff
The Minds of Marginalized Black Men
How Has Bourdieu Been Good to Think With? The Case of the United States
The Three Phases of Bourdieu’s U.S. Reception
Tilly and Bourdieu
Projects and Possibilities
Poor People's Politics
What People Want
Politics and Institutionalism
Motivation and Justification
What Is Agency
Celebration and Suppression
Parliamentarization of popular contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834
Why are professors liberal
| Citations per year | 0.36 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2012 - 2021 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |