The contribution of Pierre Bourdieu’s thought to the socio-spatial perspective in geography: space, spatial practices, and spatial capital

Abstract

The approach proposed in this study goes beyond the limited view that considers spatial practices merely as formal and visible actions. It emphasizes the importance of a broader understanding that does not confine itself to economic aspects and seeks to transcend the dichotomy between agency and structure. Inspired by Pierre Bourdieu's ideas, the study analyzes social fields and different types of capital, such as social and spatial capital, which are determinants of spatial practices. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of not reducing space to a simple reflection of society, acknowledging its complexity and active role in social interactions. The bourdieusian approach offers a comprehensive and profound perspective on the generative aspects of spatial practices.

Keywords:
Geography; Social space; Spatial practices; Spatial capital; Bourdieu; Agency and structure

Resumo

O que se propõe neste trabalho é uma abordagem que vai além da visão limitada que considera as práticas espaciais apenas como ações formais e visíveis. Destaca a importância de uma compreensão mais abrangente, que não se limite aos aspectos econômicos e busca transcender a dicotomia entre agência e estrutura. Inspirado nas ideias de Pierre Bourdieu, o estudo analisa os campos sociais e os diferentes tipos de capital, como o social e o espacial, que são determinantes das práticas espaciais. Além disso, enfatiza a importância de não reduzir o espaço a um simples reflexo da sociedade, reconhecendo sua complexidade e seu papel ativo nas interações sociais. A abordagem bourdieuna oferece uma perspectiva abrangente e profunda sobre os aspectos gerativos das práticas espaciais.

Palavras-chave:
Geografia; Espaço social; Práticas espaciais; Capital espacial; Bourdieu; Agência e estrutura

Resumen

El enfoque propuesto en este estudio va más allá de la visión limitada que considera las prácticas espaciales simplemente como acciones formales y visibles. Destaca la importancia de una comprensión más amplia que no se limite a los aspectos económicos y busca trascender la dicotomía entre agencia y estructura. Inspirado en las ideas de Pierre Bourdieu, el estudio analiza los campos sociales y los diferentes tipos de capital, como el capital social y espacial, que son determinantes de las prácticas espaciales. Además, enfatiza la importancia de no reducir el espacio a un simple reflejo de la sociedad, reconociendo su complejidad y su papel activo en las interacciones sociales. El enfoque bourdieusiano ofrece una perspectiva amplia y profunda sobre los aspectos generativos de las prácticas espaciales.

Palabras clave:
Geografía; Espacio social; Prácticas espaciales; Capital espacial; Bourdieu; Agencia y estructura

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is based on the need for an articulated discussion between the theoretical assumptions and empirical application of the notion of spatial practice and other equally central analytical terms that derive from its understanding, such as the variety of capitals and contexts in which agents act. In many works related to the socio-spatial perspective in geography, the notion of spatial practice has appeared frequently. However, this use does not usually encompass a breadth that could suggest a heuristic gain in approaching the different types and strategies that social agents achieve in the forms of spatial production in society.

In general, studies are limited to a unidirectional use around the centrality of agents¹ as mere reproducers of a certain economic order or whose resources only revolve around variations in economic capital (land, financial, commercial capital). In other words, spatial practices are seen only from the economic side, serving only to confirm some superior logic that imposes itself on the social production of space.

Although the economic dimension plays an important role in socio-spatial analysis, it should not be the only one considered. Social agents develop a variety of spatial strategies, using different resources, coalitions and specific contexts. However, there is a tendency in spatial analysis not to consider this multiplicity of agency that occurs in various spheres of social life, as well as the diverse mechanisms that underpin their spatial practices.

In other words, it is crucial to recognize that spatial practices are not only driven by economic factors, but are also influenced by social, political and cultural factors. Furthermore, it should not be ignored that agents build and/or reproduce their spatial practices in a society with various pre-existing structures, not just the economic one, but which encompass various structures that broaden or restrict their decisions, as well as diverse and diffuse interests within their spheres of action.

However, the idea that agents' choices, decisions and negotiations are simply the result of a spontaneous or purely rational practical sense, driven solely by individual goals or factors, such as motivations, selfishness, beliefs and values, is also limited. If spatial practices are considered in this sense, we are limited to describing their morphologies, restricting our understanding to identifying the agents and their pragmatic motives, without taking into account the other factors or determinants that influence the emergence of their agency and constitute a certain social reproduction and structure.

So here's the question: how do we consider spatial practices between these two poles? One that emphasizes the influence of structures on agents and the other that highlights the independence of agents in relation to pre-existing structures or transfactual logic?

Linked to this question is the role of space itself in agency. This means that, as well as considering spatial practice in the context of the duality between agency and structure, the question arises as to whether space is merely a reflection of individual or collective actions, or whether it plays a constitutive role in the relationships between agents and their spatialities.

For this reason, the discussion of the empirical operationalization of spatial practices is central to overcoming these spatial conflicts, in order to contribute to a more robust spatial analysis that encompasses the visible and invisible (underlying) aspects that determine agency in and through space, without restricting itself to unidirectional or reductionist interpretations, going beyond a simple action in space, whether spontaneous or conditioned

It is in this context that this work turns to the contributions of Pierre Bourdieu, who investigated in detail in his spatialiology and praxeology how practices originate from a relational space, populated by classes, class fractions and social positions whose distances are determined by the practical sense of the agents in the articulation of interests and capitals. Thus, Bourdieu's practices are not limited to identifying individual or collective actions; it is through them and their generative mechanisms that agents dispute positions. Furthermore, it is through these practices that society can be understood as a constantly changing structure.

Such an approach should not be seen as a disciplinary transgression, as Bourdieu did not ignore space, and his contributions allow spatial analysis to articulate both the visible and invisible (underlying) aspects of the production of space, as well as unfolding what Lefebvre (2013) also observed as the webs of social relations, interests and contradictions that make up the space produced.

However, it is impossible to cover the full breadth of Bourdieu's critical thinking in a single article. Given this limitation, we will focus on some crucial points of his studies and their implications for socio-spatial research. We will begin with the dualism between agent and structure and the analysis of spatial conflations. Next, we will investigate Bourdieu's concept of space and how his spatialiology contributes to socio-spatial analysis in geography. Finally, we will explore the constitution of practices, highlighting specific concepts such as field, capital and habitus, as well as the role of spatial capital in shaping the practices of social agents

The problem of agency and structure and spatial conflicts

The way in which the concept of spatial practices has been reflected upon and operationalized in geography denotes a link with the ongoing ontoepistemic challenge faced in the other social sciences, which is the duality of agency and structure. Entities that constitute any model of social action or reproduction (Archer, 1995)² .

Despite the various definitions and theories that support them, in general terms a structure can be understood as a set of rules, regularities and norms that constitute the foundations of the reproduction of a society in supra-individual terms, such as roles, classes and social status, which are also associated with a symbolic structure of beliefs, representations and expressions (Arboleya, 2013). In turn, agency refers to the actions of individuals and their interests, even when they play social roles or are part of collective entities. These actions are generatively attributed to individuals.

However, these two approaches are often perceived as irreconcilable for understanding social reality. Many proponents of action or agency theories dispute the notion that social structures play a causal role in society; at most, they are seen as impositions that restrict the freedoms or autonomies of individuals. Consequently, for those who support action theories, the totality of society is always reduced to individual actions and choices, conceiving of society as a simple sum of parts.

On the other hand, there are proponents of the idea that the market, capitalism, totemism, the homeland and other entities exert significant causal determinations. The central argument is that these institutions, systems and symbols become so deeply embedded in individuals' dispositions through processes of socialization, education and habits that they end up constituting a structure that shapes their actions and social relations. However, these conflations can be problematic within sociology, as one tends to exclude the other in understanding and explaining social phenomena.

In geography, the duality between agency and structure is sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit in various geographical research and theories. However, these approaches also consider the role of space as the result of both individual actions and a structure or system that predefines space.

For example, when Werlen (1993) states that social actions define space, or when Santos (2006) considers space as a system of actions and objects, these statements not only imply an ontological foundation of space, i.e. the nature of its reality, but also reflect the epistemic direction of research in relation to the duality between agency and structure. This can lead to a preference for one side or the search for a middle ground.

For example, the time-geography line of research tends to emphasize a more individualistic and objective vision, while phenomenological or representationist theories generally highlight agents in a more subjective way. On the other hand, Marxist and economic theoretical currents in geography tend to emphasize the causal role of totalizing entities. And Miltonian theory - and even David Harvey's latest works - seem to try to find a middle ground between accepting the causal power of a transfactual economic system and the subjects who, in their relations of place (neighborhood and solidarity), create other alternatives to hegemonies.

Although, as Archer (1995) points out, any ontological status adopted alters the epistemic and methodological commitment to the thing studied, in this work we are not going to call into question the discussion of whether space is the result of actions or whether space is first and foremost a structure or system that predefines some kind of action. However, without losing these references, the central focus of this work lies in analyzing the analytical uses of spatial practices in geography and how their understanding can both limit and broaden our understanding of social reality.

It is essential not to ignore this issue, since empirical research in geography is increasingly incorporating concepts such as practices, strategies and spatial processes. In addition to describing and analyzing the morphologies of these practices, it becomes necessary to question which causal entities and social/economic mechanisms are being considered in the analysis of these practices.

And in the theoretical field of sociology, the question of the duality between agency and structure has also been discussed with the incorporation of space. Of particular note is Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, in which space is not treated as an isolated physical or geographical entity, but rather as a fundamental dimension of social practices in various contexts. Giddens emphasizes the interconnection between social structure and individual actions, arguing that social practices occur under specific spatial contexts that are both shaped by and shape human interactions. In this sense, space and time are part of this game in which agents develop their coordinates of action or spatial practices (Souza, 2013).

However, it is worth highlighting the criticism from geographers such as Edward Soja (1989), who recognized the importance of space in Giddens' structuration theory. However, Soja also pointed out the limitations of this approach, highlighting its tendency to ignore the complexity of space, often reducing it to a mere situational instance and subjugating it to the primacy of time and history as in many other sociological and philosophical works.

In turn, Benno Werlen (2004), also based on Giddens' structuration theory, highlights the contextual relevance of space in the context of agents' choices. However, he argues that space should be understood as a means of guiding individual actions and relationships, rather than being seen as a reified entity, in other words, a power in itself. From this perspective, it is the actions of individuals that take center stage in spatial analysis (Strohmayer, 2014).

Although it is not possible to go into the reasons given by the above authors in detail at this point, it is crucial to emphasize the close relationship between the discussion on space and the duality between agency and structure. However, just as in sociology, when one of the elements of this duality excludes the other, spatial conflations occur, leading to a situation in which one of the aspects becomes indistinguishable or disappears. This is evident in the arguments of those who claim that spatial characteristics are exclusively the result of individual actions, while others argue that space is an essential entity or component of social actions.

However, in addition to these spatial conflations, there is another conflation that reduces space to a mere reflection of society. From this perspective, space is seen neither as a causal entity, as a coercive spatial structure, nor as an instance that acquires meaning through the actions of individuals, as proposed by Benno Werlen. Instead, space is seen as the material reflection of both individual intentions and representations and transindividual entities. In other words, spatial morphologies and structures are perceived as legible mirrors of these higher-level instances. In effect, space is understood as a kind of epiphenomenon, i.e. something that occurs only as a consequence.

The methodological result of space as a social reflection is that, from the spatial arrangements and organization, it would be possible to identify the social and economic causes, unlike the sociologist, who starts from social relations to understand space. However, the question arises as to how the various trans-individual (invisible) structures or subjectivities inherent in social relations find their reflection in space, considering the many variations in meanings and purposes attributed to spatial characteristics by society itself (Werlen, 2004). Adding to this problem is the fact that space doesn't always mirror some kind of mononuclear system, but is usually made up of places where encounters take place, the entanglement of lives, projects, exchanges and ways of life that juxtapose, rub up against each other or even diverge (Massey, 2017).

And it is within the framework of the duality between agency and structure, as well as the conception of space as a reflection, that the problem of spatial practices is situated. After all, do they emerge from a rational or spontaneous sense at the individual and intersubjective level, or are they the result of a constructivist and transindividual (collective) process? Or perhaps they are determined superveniently by entities such as a socio-historical dialectical movement that transcends agents, making space a reflection of history? Furthermore, what defines these practices as spatial and not another type of practice? And what method allows us to understand how these practices are articulated in objective terms, including their operations, strategies and relationships?

Faced with these questions, this study seeks to offer an alternative approach to understanding spatial practices and their challenges. Inspired by Bourdieu's sociological studies, this perspective not only avoids conflating agent and structure, but also incorporates other elements for analyzing practices that broaden the spectrum of objective and subjective factors related to them.

The scope of Pierre Bourdieu’s work

Before we explore Pierre Bourdieu's contributions in the context of space, it is essential to understand that his main objective was to elucidate the mechanisms that perpetuate inequalities of power and status in social relations. To this end, Bourdieu advanced both the theory of social classes and the structuralisms that stiffened individuals into predefined social roles. He also questioned atomistic conceptions of society, such as methodological individualism, which prioritizes individual agents as if they were isolated from the social context.

Although he is mainly recognized for his work in sociology, Bourdieu's work dialogues with a wide range of disciplines and fields of knowledge. Bourdieusian work incorporates elements of the philosophy of science, exploring epistemological and methodological issues. In the arts, Bourdieu analyzes how cultural practices reflect and reproduce the structures of power and inequality in society. In addition, his work covers education, examining how educational institutions shape and reproduce social hierarchies. In economics, Bourdieu investigated the relations of power and capital in terms of economic practices and their inequalities. It can be said that his work transcends the boundaries of sociology and extends to a variety of areas of knowledge, offering valuable insights into the complexities of social and cultural life.

Currently, we can observe post-Bourdieusian studies in which many of his concepts and contributions are being refined and criticized, such as in the work of Lahire (2002) and Wacquant (2006), the latter of whom even highlights space in the context of the concept of territorial stigmatization. This situation demonstrates the need not to ignore these contributions, since, as geographers move further and further towards a multifaceted understanding of space, we become more immersed in social theory.

Bourdieu’s space

When investigating the processes that generate social disparities and distinctions, Pierre Bourdieu had to consider the relationship between social agents and the position they occupy in the social structure. To this end, he developed a way of visualizing this distribution of resources and the power relations that result from it, based on a conception of space.

Bourdieu's conception of space starts from the principle that society is not simply the sum of its parts, but rather parts in a constant asymmetrical relationship with each other. As the center of his analysis is relationships, he needed to conceive an instance from which they could be analysed, and this is where his spatialiology emerges, which distances itself from substantialized spatial approaches.

More than just a place where relations and agents are located, for Bourdieu, space transcends this simplistic conception, being perceived as a complex field of relations and distinctions, shaped by its distances and the asymmetrical distribution of goods and capital. Thus, space is a relational entity that is shaped by the dynamics of these relationships and is not an entity in itself, whose forms can only be analyzed functionally and descriptively.

Thus, the first point to consider is that, for Bourdieu, space is defined by the relationships between things, their distances and positions, in a similar way to Leibniz's perspective. The second point is that he uses a method he calls “homology”, which is similar to the principle of analogy often used by geographers. Thirdly, Bourdieu makes a distinction between spaces, starting his sociological analysis with social space and addressing its homology with physical space, where agents and goods occupy a place and position.

Starting with the social space (Figure 1), which is, so to speak, the matrix from which his analysis starts, Bourdieu considers this space to be unobservable and relational. In it, hypotheses are established about social classes, class fractions and professions, which, despite coexisting, are positioned in relation to each other under mutual distances and exclusions. These social distances are determined by three factors:

Figure 1
– Bourdieu’s social space.

1. The total volume of the agents' capital (economic, social, cultural, etc.) which distances, for example, rich and poor;

2. The structure of capital, which differentiates the different class fractions in terms of cultural and economic capital, for example, separating professors from small businessmen in the same social class;

3. The temporal evolution of this structure, i.e. how these distances and positions change over time in social space (Jourdain; Naulin, 2017). Below is Bourdieu's diagram of the coordinates of social space, where the positions of agents and social classes are found:

From Bourdieu's perspective, social space is dynamic and theoretically virtual. Classes and class fractions only become real when agents mobilize them in a practical way, using their capital and strategies in the various fields of struggle in society. Thus, classes and social positions are objectified in various forms, such as social groups, families, associations, parties, unions, institutions and political disputes (Jourdain; Naulin, 2017).

In turn, Bourdieu conceives of physical space in an analogous way to social space, as an externality made up of positions and locations. For Bourdieu (2013), physical space ends up reifying social space. There are affinities and similarities between the two, so much so that social space uses metaphors based on the empirical reality of physical space, such as terms derived from place and location (up, down, above, high, etc.).

In reality, Bourdieu treats social and physical space as two worlds interconnected through what he calls homology, which can be understood as a similarity or correspondence between them. He states that “[…] the place and space occupied by an agent in physical space are excellent indicators of their position in social space”, in other words, there is a connection between social position and physical space. Bourdieu uses this relationship to explain how inhabited space can express social hierarchies, albeit in a distorted or subtle way, in relation to social space (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 134).

A crucial aspect of physical space is its ability to reify social hierarchies and distances. According to Bourdieu, physical space is not neutral; on the contrary, it is shaped and used by social structures to strengthen inequalities and power relations. He highlights how spatial characteristics, such as buildings, borders and toponyms, often end up legitimizing and perpetuating social hierarchies, reinforcing distinctions between social groups and even promoting symbolic violence.

The reification of inequalities in space is also intrinsically linked to the concept of naturalization. As defined by Bourdieu (2001), this process causes elements of physical space to be perceived as legitimate and normal, without recognizing that such spatializations are designed to reaffirm dominations, distinctions and even ideological coercions. Often, this results in the imposition of separations or exclusions based on gender, social class, age, among others, as evidenced in the divisions of homes, schools and private spaces.

Another aspect of Bourdieu's homology concerns the capacity of physical spaces to mediate and alter the relations of appropriation and use of places. For example, structures such as podiums, tribunes, boxes and stages highlight hierarchies, bodies and social distinctions. Likewise, monumentality in religious, state or corporate contexts, as well as certain types of architecture that diminish bodies or keep them down in order to induce respect, obedience or submission. All these practices show how physical spaces are mediators of power relations, which often result in subtle, imperceptible but effective violence. It is interesting that these homologies in Bourdieu are observed on different spatial scales.

Bourdieuno’s homology between geographical space and social space

The homology between physical space and social space in Bourdieu raises a fundamental question: can we legitimately claim that physical space, referred to by Bourdieu even as “physical geography” (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 136), encompasses the entire ontological and epistemic dimension of geographical space? Although Bourdieu criticized the approach of geographers who limited themselves to the visible and perceptible, arguing that this did not fully capture the complexities of social space (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 108), it is plausible to suggest that he may not have fully followed the advances in the understanding of geographical space that were taking place in his time.

Such as critical geography, whose approaches seek to understand not only the physical aspects of space, but also the economic, political and social aspects that underlie socio-spatial production. In addition, other strands of geography, such as systems analysis and spatial models, which have expanded the scope of study to consider aspects that go beyond what is directly observable. In addition, he may not have been fully familiar with the very principles of traditional geographical analysis, which still remain empirically valid and bear great similarity to his theory, such as the principles of analogy, distribution, connection and order.

In any case, by overcoming the simplification of physical space merely in terms of location, we can draw significant contributions from Bourdieu, both from his spatialiology and his praxeology. Starting with his reflections on homology in relation to the naturalization and mediation of space, as mentioned above, which can be explored on various geographical scales. However, the greatest heuristic gain of his theory lies in the aspects that address the issues of spatial conflations and the generative and causal nature of practices.

As we have seen, Bourdieu does not ignore the materiality of physical space, but it is a relational materiality, which is inscribed in a space of coexistence. That’s why his social space endowed with relations between social positions and distances makes perfect sense. These are positions and relationships that are not determined solely by the economic dimension, but also include the cultural, social and educational dimensions in the structuring of social space.

Thus, according to Bourdieu (1996a), social space consists of a set of symbolic or unobservable relations, but how does this topology manifest itself in geographical space, given that spatialities go beyond the location of things and agents as they are present in his notion of physical space?

The first point to highlight here is that Bourdieu seeks to move away from the concept of reflexive spatial conflation, i.e. the idea that interpreting spatial morphologies is equivalent to understanding and synthesizing the associated social and symbolic relations. Although he recognized that the materialization of space can reflect these relationships more or less directly, the cornerstone of his approach lies in the idea of homology, which identifies similarities or analogies between social and geographical space. The leap here is that we don't need to find fixed coincidences or mirrorings, but rather causal connections and/or convertibility between the two.

A practical example of this can be found in research into the geography of nightlife conducted by geographers. Although it is common to find young people from different classes frequenting opposing places in the city, or even in the same environment, but with distinctions, such as at the micro-territorial level when observing that the majority of the most expensive boxes or tables are predominantly occupied by young people from the upper social classes. However, they produce their own spatial practices in different ways. Poor young people are not absolutely segregated in spaces, but they are producing scales and leisure circuits. They are often present in places frequented by young people from the more affluent classes and make themselves visible through motorized mobility or the use of other resources in and through space (Turra Neto, 2021; Ramos, 2024).

Therefore, although there is a homology in relation to distances between classes that can be observed in reflexive and locational terms, what often exists is a transitivity or interconnection between space in the sense of class and group distinctions and the geography of spaces in a relational sense. This undermines the idea of a simple spatial reflection of classes and highlights the importance of considering the geography of spaces in a relational and dynamic way in terms of varieties of spatial practices and coexistences.

Another aspect of Bourdieu's spatialiology that contributes to geographical research is that his relational space does not fit into structuralisms that predetermine practices, nor into agents who act independently of them. As we have already discussed, for Bourdieu, social positions and classes are not considered to be real, objective entities. Instead, they become empirically tangible from the agents and their contexts of competition and struggle. It is in these contexts that social positions and classes are defined in social topology (Bourdieu, 1996b; Jourdain; Naulin, 2017).

The main implication for geographical space is that its materiality is not simply a direct reification of social classes or transhistorical and transcultural entities. This is because geographical space cannot be a reflection of virtual or theoretical entities. These entities do not have the power to pre-determine space, because it is the mutual and asymmetrical relations of social agents through their practices that shape and define it objectively. Spatialities are part of social disputes, exchange relations, the conversion of capital, the constitution of heritage, the projection of power and the affirmation of social distinctions and hierarchies. In this way, geographical space acquires a relational, transitive and constitutive sense of the agencies and structures of society.

An example of how space participates in social structuring by being part of its change in a practical sense comes from Bourdieu's own work. When he studied Kabylian society in Algeria, he identified that geographical changes, such as the great distances between villages, were influencing traditional social practices, such as the prescriptive customs of marriage between cousins by paternal descent. These changes in space led to the emergence of more flexible marriage arrangements, adapting to new circumstances. This example illustrates how space plays a constitutive role in social structuring and how changes in geographical conditions can lead to changes in social practices (Bourdieu, 1979).

Another implication of this is that the concept of space does not need to be limited to a context, as in Giddens, or even determined solely by its content and functional meaning. On the contrary, space becomes central to socio-spatial analysis, since it reproduces itself as society and not just as a physical externality. Elements such as geographical proximity, forms of accessibility, cinema attendance and the location of schools constitute a spatialized society, forming part of relations of mediation, exchange and social distinction.

Bourdieusian praxeology

In the previous section, the enriching potential of the combination of Bourdieu's spatialiology and geographical analysis was highlighted. However, it is crucial to gain a more detailed and analytical understanding of how these spatial practices come about and can be investigated.

From the outset, in Bourdieu, practices are not simply schemes or actions that arise only in the present or derive exclusively from rational calculation. In Bourdieu's praxiology, practices constitute the way in which social structures are perpetuated and also transformed. Both as forms and contents, they emerge through social agents and are inscribed in their previous socializations. But they are not only guided by the past, agents also deal with the present, competitions, struggles, constituting their existences and objectives in a projective way. Practices therefore contain the agents' dispositions and intentions and are also the generative instances that make society a structure in the making.

The mechanism that explains this generative nature of practices is the habitus, which is the way in which all past experiences, learning, living, conditioning and other interactions are internalized and shape the mental and bodily dispositions of individuals, influencing their perceptions, values, behaviours and choices. The habitus is both inscribed in subjectivity and externalized individually and collectively, in other words, it contributes to the reproduction and transformation of social practices on a broader level, influencing cultural patterns, social norms and institutional structures.

For example, we learn to get around and orient ourselves in an established urban environment with its own norms, but we don't just reproduce these existing norms. Instead, we modify our interaction with urban space, developing our own spatial routines and even creating new forms of spatial organization. While these practices are influenced by pre-existing social and spatial structures, they also reflect our ability to reinterpret and transform these structures as we interact with them.

In this sense, it is valid to say that social and spatial structures are not static entities, but are in a constant process of restructuring through the practices of social subjects. It follows that space and time are not just inert contexts where these practices take place, but hold within them and in their elaborations the dispositions and intentions that constitute them. In this sense, empirical research plays a crucial role in understanding the mechanisms that generate these social restructurings. Therefore, the study of practices is not limited to confirming existing patterns, but seeks to understand how social reproduction and transformation occur, as well as the power games between agents, their resources and their objectives (Thiry-Cherques, 2006).

It is in social fields that agents' habitus becomes an effective resource or capital in a practical sense. At first, Bourdieu's notion of social field can sometimes be confused with the concept of social space. However, while social space highlights the potential distribution of the relative social positions of agents, classes and groups theoretically inscribed in a system of coordinates (see Figure 1), the social field has a more objective nature, related to specific types of social conflicts and disputes, in other words, it is where agents, their actions and habitus acquire concrete tangibility.

And social life is full of disputed fields (education, health, defense of rights, environmental policy, etc.) on various spatial scales, so it is in the fields that we find the daily life of individual and collective struggles, which either preserve or alter social structures (Peters, 2013).

In social fields, agents form coalitions or conceal themselves in order to achieve their goals, taking into account the general composition of their capitals, which can cover different dimensions (economic, social, cultural, spatial, symbolic). It is in these fields that practices acquire objectivity and provide a solid analytical basis, as they are not only endowed with objectives and strategies, but derive from the conversion of capitals and dispositions for various purposes, such as profit, power, dominance, influence, change, spatialization, among others.

It is therefore through social fields that it becomes possible to understand how agents' practices are legitimized or become effective. This means that practices have varied purposes and meanings, depending on the different time-spaces in which they take place, each with its own rules and regulations. Another important aspect is that practices are redefined based on adjustments made by agents, changes in strategies and the very composition of the social field, which contributes to the constant transformation and reconfiguration of social relations and the practices that take place in them.

Hence the dialectic between the objective and subjective aspects of Bourdieu's practices, as highlighted by Peters (2013), since this allows us to understand not only the changes in the practices themselves, but also the transformations in the social agents who carry them out. As practices change and adapt, for example in relation to a dispute over spatialization, they also influence the perception, intention and disposition of the agents, leading to a continuous redefinition of the relationships between individuals, social and geographical space. This dynamic interaction between objective and subjective elements helps to enrich social and spatial analysis.

Spatial practice and spatial capital

One question that emerges is what defines a spatial practice from other practices. Souza (2013), based on Giddens' structuration theory, had pointed out that spatial practice is, by definition, a social practice, but “dense with spatiality”. This makes sense, but there is a danger of substantializing actions or spatializations, or blurring the lines between what is the thing and what is the predicate. To overcome this, it is important to understand that spatial practices acquire meaning in relational terms, for at least two reasons: through their articulation with other practices (legal, economic, military, corporate, family, etc.) and with geographical space. In other words, spatial practice is also social, considering the homology between social space and geographical space as two instances in mutual relation. However, what makes spatial practices have specific properties in relation to other social practices is that they are agencies that can only acquire spatial form and meaning in relation to geographical space.

In this way, geographical scales, territorialities, locational choices and socio-spatial segregations, among other concepts and typologies, have spatial properties and meanings in their direct relationship and effects in and through geographical space. An agent who establishes a territoriality does so in relation to specific locations in space, on which they imprint their material and/or symbolic appropriation.

Likewise, segregation is a type of spatial practice, as it materializes from the homology between social space (differences and oppositions between social classes) and geographical space. This occurs not only because it is identified in geographical space, but also because it is in this space that it acquires form and concrete social effects.

Within the context of the homology between social and geographical space, it is important to highlight Bourdieu’s (2007b) work on museums and how they are appropriated and visited in Europe. He highlights how cultural practice is intertwined with spatial practice. Although Bourdieu does not explicitly address spatial practice, we can consider it, given the breadth of his study, which highlights dispositional aspects and presumptions of accessibility or barriers to visiting museums. In this sense, whether on regular visits, during vacations or through tourist agencies, Bourdieu observes how cultural predispositions, or the “education of the gaze”, stemming from family, social class and level of education, impact not only access to and attendance at museums, but also consumption and appreciation of their content in artistic and aesthetic terms.

So, beyond the visible geography that covers density, distribution and location of museums in relation to countries and cultural policies, there are invisible elements that enrich spatial analysis. This includes the behaviors and dispositions of different social groups and classes when they frequent these spaces, reaffirming their habitus and references typical of their social backgrounds. This also challenges the idea that aesthetic attitudes and experiences in these places are restricted to the purely subjective and spontaneous sphere.

Another essential aspect of Bourdieu's praxeology is the concept of “capitals”, which are the different forms of resources that individuals/agents possess and which can be used to gain advantages in different social fields. These capitals include not only material resources such as money and property, but also social, cultural and symbolic resources such as networks, educational skills, cultural knowledge and prestige. Habitus is an integral part of this process, as the dispositions internalized by individuals shape both practices and influence how they use these capitals in different contexts.

As well as representing tangible resources, in Bourdieu's theory capital plays a decisive role in the position of individuals in the social space, as well as in the relations of difference and distance between classes, social groups and professions, as we saw in his concept of social space. This is because capitals are valued and legitimized in the fields as the source of exchanges, acquisitions, changes in social status and power. Each social field requires its own forms of capital negotiation. Capitals therefore play a central role in analyzing the dynamics of power and inequality in society, since they determine not only the relative position of agents in the social space, but also their capacity for action and success.

From the conceptual framework defined by Bourdieu, which encompasses the importance of capitals, what could be understood as spatial capital in relation to geographical space stands out.

In a strict sense, spatial capital can be understood as a skill, resource or asset that enables agents to develop spatial practices. This ability to capitalize on resources and skills for practices in geographical space can take place in various ways, such as developing geographical orientation skills, or even obtaining a driver's license, which not only provides job opportunities, but also autonomously expands scales and movement in space.

Location can also be seen as spatial capital, for example, living in favorable areas of urban space makes this location a source for expanding other capitals or even gaining advantages, such as reducing transport costs or increasing accessibility to cultural and educational goods.

A concrete example of this is the spatial practices of young people from the peripheries in relation to leisure. Despite being located in regions far from the areas with the greatest concentration of leisure and consumption, these young people manage to overcome these limitations and establish their own territorialities. They do this by articulating various types of capital - spatial, social and economic. Spatial capital, in this context, refers to knowledge of the urban space, including its shortcuts and means of motorized mobility, which enables them to circumvent the barriers that arise in their spatial and leisure practices (Ramos, 2018).

Similarly, the idea of capital and spatial practice is similar to Doreen Massey’s (2000) geometry of power, which also emphasizes how elements such as location, technologies that provide speed in space or even knowledge of space are used differently by groups and how this is responsible for asymmetries in space, affecting economies, accessibility, as well as restricting or expanding access for social agents in terms of social and cultural opportunities.

An example of this geometry and practical use of capital is related to economic agents, such as companies, which can use not only their economic capital, but also their spatial capital. This includes privileged knowledge of unoccupied areas and future public improvement projects, in order to make strategic decisions about real estate investments or business expansion. This combination of economic and spatial capital can give entrepreneurs a significant competitive advantage in the market over other competitors and social agents.

From an understanding of practices and capital, we can infer that spatial analysis becomes more refined when we seek to understand not only the actions themselves, but also the agents behind them and how they acquire or generate their resources in a given context. It is these mechanisms that allow us to understand the content of the typologies and spatialities constructed in everyday life, without losing sight of the possibility of identifying regularities or socio-spatial entities.

Multipolar social field and capitalization strategies

As can be deduced from Bourdieu's theory of capitals, agents not only possess different forms of capital, but also often combine and apply them synergistically to gain advantages in different social fields. In this way, spatial capitalization can be related to other types of capital. However, not only can they combine different capitals, but it is also possible to consider, from Bourdieu's perspective, that agents do not act in isolation, but are inserted in a complex network of social relations and contexts under different social positions and distances. Although Bourdieu highlighted the relative autonomy of the different social fields, he also considered the interconnection and interdependence between them.

This presupposes a broader understanding of the contexts in which agents operate, recognizing that their practices and strategies are shaped not only by the internal characteristics of a given field, but also by relations and interactions with other adjacent or distant fields. It is therefore essential to consider not only the specific field in which agents are inserted, but also the connections and interrelationships with other fields and broader socio-spatial frameworks. This provides a more complete understanding of the practices and processes of social reproduction and transformation.

In this way, agents can be in various fields and potentially have the capital to act in various disputes or competitions. What defines their positions in these disputes is the composition and global and specific scope of their capitals. It is not the field that circumscribes the agents, but the capitals that limit them or not in their actions in one or more fields.

From a socio-spatial perspective, a social movement focused on the struggle for land in an agrarian context or the search for urban housing, needs to consider that its social field involves opposing social and economic agents. In general, this implies not only relying on the resources of its militants, but also articulating political capital, often with parties, institutions or other social movements that, although they are in different places and social fields, are connected by common interests and objectives. Therefore, the social movement is in a relationship with other fields and, at the same time, strengthening its agency in the territory. From this analysis, it can be deduced that agents and their agency are multiple and can articulate themselves for a particular struggle or search for better social positions by adding more capital to their cause or agency (Rodriguez, 2018).

Another case is that of real estate companies which, in order to realize their projects, seek to manipulate the Executive and Legislative branches of government or join forces with them to release urban land for highly profitable subdivisions. There are many intertwined social and spatial practices in this type of enterprise, such as the need to break up plots of land, create access roads and infrastructure before consolidating the saleable plots.

These practices, in turn, involve various corporate, institutional and social agents, as they do not depend on a single agent, even if they act jointly. It is necessary to collaborate with other agents or lobby to coordinate actions. In this context, contractors and outsourced companies stand out, who can make a profit from the subdivisions and subsequent construction, as well as trade associations and professionals who support the urban and real estate expansion of the city in order to guarantee their interests.

In practice, all of this makes for a multipolar social field, as the effects of the practices affect various agents interested in the control or use of urban land, including potentially more vulnerable groups. This includes irregular settlements that occupy these lands and, more actively, resistance groups and alliances that, through their capital and practices, resist the pressures of the real estate sector and public governance.

The proposal developed in this work, from a Bourdieusian perspective, does not deviate from the tendencies increasingly present in geographical analysis, which go into both the sphere of agents' subjectivities and the interpretation of changes in space, taking into account the various factors and resources that, in their material and symbolic pre-existence, are shaped and redirected in a specific and effective way by agents in the most diverse contexts of life, constituting new restructurings of spatialized society.

Final considerations

Pierre Bourdieu rejected the concept of space as a static and substantialized entity, preferring to see it as a dynamic field of social relations and positions. Another aspect of space in Bourdieu is its dynamism, which, unlike reifications, highlights how classes and class fractions become real through the mobilization of capital and strategies in society's fields of struggle.

From Bourdieu's spatialiology, we can understand the interconnection between social and physical space, arguing that physical position finds homology with social position, often naturalizing inequalities and power relations in physical space. Although Bourdieu limits himself to thinking of physical space in terms of location alone, his reflections nevertheless advance geographical spatial analysis in terms of its homology and in overcoming the duality between agencies and structures, as well as weakening spatial conflations.

In relation to its praxiology, it can be conceived that spatial practices are shaped by the interaction between agents in their social fields and the geographical space. These practices are recognized in their forms and intentions, always in relation to their concrete effects in and through geographical space. In turn, spatial capitals denote assets, locations or skills that enable agents to carry out their spatial practices, taking into account the contexts of life and the fields in which the agents are positioned.

Finally, the importance of considering agents and their capitals within a multipolar social field was highlighted. Agents' practices and strategies are shaped not only by the internal characteristics of a specific field, but also by interactions with other adjacent or distant fields. This underscores the need to understand not only the specific field in which agents operate, but also their connections with other broader contexts, providing a more comprehensive view of socio-spatial practices and processes.

• 1
  It is worth mentioning the work of Vasconcelos (2012) in surveying the various conceptions surrounding this concept.
• 2
  Despite the classics, such as Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Lévi-Strauss, who focus on the social dimension of practices and structures, in the more contemporary period there is a wide range of authors who have broadened the discussion, such as Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, Jürgen Habermas, Erving Goffman, Alan Warde and Löic Wacquant.
• How to cite this article: RAMOS, E. The contribution of Pierre Bourdieu’s thought to the socio-spatial perspective in geography: space, spatial practices, and spatial capital. Geousp, v. 28, n. 2, e213809. 2024. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2179-0892.geousp.2024.213809en

Referências

• ARBOLEYA, A. Agência e estrutura em Bourdieu e Giddens pela superação da antinomia “Objetivismo-Subjetivismo”. Sociologias Plurais, Curitiba, v. 1, n. 1, p. 6-27, 2013. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5380/sclplr.v1i1.64705.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.5380/sclplr.v1i1.64705
• ARCHER, M. Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• BOURDIEU, P. Desencantamento do mundo: estruturas econômicas e estruturas temporais. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1979.
• BOURDIEU, P. Espace social et espace symbolique. In: BOURDIEU, P. Raisons pratiques: sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Seuil, 1994. p. 13-29.
• BOURDIEU, P. Physical space, social space and habitus Oslo: Vilhelm Aubert Memorial Lecture, University of Oslo, 1996a. p. 13. Available from: https://bityli.com/ztokP Access in: 18 Jan 2024.
  » https://bityli.com/ztokP
• BOURDIEU, P. Espaço social e espaço simbólico. In: BOURDIEU, P. Razões práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. Campinas: Papirus, 1996b.
• BOURDIEU, P. O poder simbólico Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2001.
• BOURDIEU, P. A distinção: crítica social do julgamento. São Paulo: Edusp; Porto Alegre: Zouk, 2007a.
• BOURDIEU, P. Amor pela arte: os museus de arte na Europa e seu público. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo (Edusp); Porto Alegre: Zouk, 2007b.
• BOURDIEU, P. O senso prático 3. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2013.
• GIDDENS, A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
• JOURDAIN, A., NAULIN, S. A teoria de Pierre Bourdieu e seus usos sociológicos Petrópolis: Vozes, 2017.
• LAHIRE, B. Homem plural: os determinante da ação. Trad. Jaime Clasen. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002.
• LEFEBVRE, H. La producción del espacio Madrid: Capitain Swing, [1974] 2013. (Coleção Entrelíneas).
• MASSEY, D. Um sentido global de lugar. In: ARANTES, A. (ed.). O espaço da diferença Campinas: Papirus, 2000. p. 177-186.
• MASSEY, D. A mente geográfica. Geographia, Niterói, v. 19, n. 40, p. 36-40, 2017. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2017.v19i40.a13798.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2017.v19i40.a13798
• PETERS, G. Habitus, reflexividade e o problema do neo-objetivismo na teoria da prática de Pierre Bourdieu. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 28, n. 83, p. 47-71, 2013. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092013000300004.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092013000300004
• RAMOS, E. M. A construção do capital espacial e da visibilidade social pela microcultura juvenil do Low na cidade de Marília/SP. GEOgraphia, Niterói, v. 20, n. 44, p. 84-97, 2018. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2018.v1i44.a14392.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2018.v1i44.a14392
• RAMOS, E. C. M. O empoderamento espacial dos jovens da periferia ao direito do lazer na cidade: capital espacial, escalas, territorialidades e visibilidades na noite. Contribuciones a Las Ciencias Sociales, Málaga, v. 17, n. 1, p. 8211-8233, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.17n.1-496.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.17n.1-496
• RODRÍGUEZ, M. C. Compreender a Bourdieu: las estrategias sociales de capitalización. Revista Colombiana de Sociologia, Bogotá D.C., v. 41, n. 2, p. 219-237, 2018.
• SANTOS, M. A natureza do espaço: técnica e tempo, razão e emoção 4. ed. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2006.
• SOJA, E. Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social theory. London and New York: Verso, 1989
• SOUZA, M. L. Os conceitos fundamentais da pesquisa sócio-espacial Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2013.
• STROHMAYER, U. Social spatiality: some rudimentary thoughts on the epistemology of Benno Werlen. Geographica Helvetica, Göttingen, v. 69, p. 139-143, 2014. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5194/gh-69-139-2014.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.5194/gh-69-139-2014
• THIRY-CHERQUES, H. R. Pierre Bourdieu: a teoria na prática. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 40, n. 1, p. 27-53, 2006. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122006000100003.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122006000100003
• TURRA NETO, N. Diversão noturna e fragmentação socioespacial: o caso de Ribeirão Preto (SP). In: TURRA NETO, N. Geografias da noite: exemplos de pesquisas no Brasil. 1. ed. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2021. p. 317-358. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7476/9786557140550.0007.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.7476/9786557140550.0007
• VANDENBERGHE, F. “Pierre Bourdieu”, por Frédéric Vandenberghe [s.l.]: Laboratório de Estudos de Teoria e Mudança Social, 2017. (Série Verbetes). Available from: https://blogdolabemus.com/2017/05/29/verbete-pierre-bourdieu-por-frederic-vandenberghe/ Access in: 18 Jan 2024.
  » https://blogdolabemus.com/2017/05/29/verbete-pierre-bourdieu-por-frederic-vandenberghe/
• VASCONCELOS, P. A. A utilização dos agentes sociais nos estudos de geografia urbana: avanço ou recuo? In: CARLOS, A. F. et al. (ed.). A produção do espaço urbano: agentes e processos, escalas e desafios. 1. ed. São Paulo: Contexto, 2012. p. 41-53.
• WERLEN, B. Society, action, and space: an alternative human geography. Trad. G. Walls. London: Routledge, 1993.
• WERLEN, B. Human geographies without space? A view from the perspective of action theory. Travaux de l'Institut de Géographie de Reims, Reims, v. 30, n. 119, p. 9-22, 2004. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3406/tigr.2004.1477.
  » https://doi.org/DOI: http://doi.org/10.3406/tigr.2004.1477
• WACQUANT, L. A estigmatização territorial na idade da marginalidade avançada. Sociologia: Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Porto, v. 16, p. 25-39, 2006.

Edited by

Article editor

Rodrigo Ramos Hospodar Felippe Valverde

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Sept 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  18 Jan 2024
• Accepted
  22 Apr 2024