Fields and Social Networks: Comparable Metaphors of Social Space?

Bourdieu’s Field and the American Sociology’s Network concepts have been considered incompatible from an ontological and epistemological point of view. While the former stresses the one’s position in a social space based on volumes and types of capital and exercise of symbolic power, the latter assumes an individualistic approach, taking the number of controlled ties as a proxy of capital, and power dimension would be underscored. Harrison White is among the sociologists who harshly criticize the latter approach, for its emphasis on individuals. White recovers the idea of ‘social space’, deemphasizing the hegemonic methodological individualism in social network analysis. This article seeks to compare Bourdieu’s and Harrison White’s theories, showing the elements that are irreducible to each other, as well as some common intuitions. Rather than offering a synthesis of these theories, I propose that they are complementary in understanding the dynamics of a social space. Bourdieu’s capital-based Field construct leads us closer to explain one’s interests in connection to her actions. White’s focus on ambiguous action within social networks is relevant to understand how actors uncouple recurrent patterns of social reproduction. Finally, I recover empirical examples where it is possible to combine both approaches.