'Sociologist Bernard Lahire argues that "a veritable scientific dialogue with Pierre Bourdieu" is impossible, that Bourdieu's ideas cannot be "subject to discussion, criticism, or partial revision," because Bourdieu is simply too powerful. This awesome power has three sources. First, Bourdeiu holds *the* chair of Sociology in the College de France, where he alone represents the discipline as "France's sociologist." Second, he controls his own journal, *Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales*, and has his own collection ("Liber-Raisons") at the prestigious publishing house of Seuil. Third, Bourdieu has his own research center within the prestigious Ecloes des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), and has been awarded the gold medal from the state-controlled research monopoly, the Center Nationale de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).'
'Historian Jeannine Verdes-Leroux contrasts Bourdieu with Sartre - the 'grand intellectual' taking on established power. Sartre's literary-philosophical work was always disputable, she argues, and his symbolic authority depended on his readership. But Bourdieu's work is situated within an "objectively critical science which he founded for which he is the sole authentically qualified representative." Bourdieu's sociology is for her a fabric woven out of his opinions, prejudices, tastes, dislikes, philosophic options, and moral judgments - disguised as knowledge, and defended by Bourdieu and those who are beholden to him in the institutional fortress that he has constructed around himself.'
'Patrice Binell - Bourdieu's student at the EHESS in the 1970s - argues more sympathetically that point scoring has replaced dispassionate debate. *Ad hominem* attacks have turned reasoned discussion into whether one is "for" or "against" Bourdieu. Bourdieu has been called "profiteer" to "mandarin" to "demagogue" to "anarcho-gaullist" to "machist" and anon. Is this the critical process of scientific debate? Or is this just a pissing match among academic heavyweights? The legacy of Bourdieu, like that of Derrida, is yet to be defined.'
'Finally, the absence of a bibliography raises the question of sources. If, as his critics charge, Bourdieu reads only those with whom he agrees, then this would be evident in his citations and references. The book contains 176 footnotes, out of which 24 cites Bourdieu's other works, 11 cite articles published in his journal *Actes*, 17 cite works published by Seuil and Minuit (his principal publishers), and 22 cite Virginia Woolf. Thus 42% of the sources cited are either self-citations, citations of works Bourdieu published, citations of work by his publishers, and a novelist he likes. This does not recommend a work that calls itself a "scientific analysis."'
Michael Hoover