Le monde de Pierre Bourdieu : Éléments pour une théorie sociale des Relations internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Cet article jette un regard original sur les débats contemporains en Relations internationales (RI) à la lumière de la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu. Sa riche théorie sociale permet d'établir des ponts entre les approches conventionnelles et celles qui sont issues de la mouvance critique en RI. Plus précisément, nous identifions six contributions que pourrait apporter une approche bourdieusienne. Sur le plan métathéorique, cette approche se caractériserait par une épistémologie réflexive, une ontologie relationnelle et une théorie de la pratique, trois axes qui s'inscrivent à la jonction des grands débats théoriques en RI. D'un point de vue plus centré sur l'application, la sociologie de Bourdieu permet l'étude de la politique mondiale en tant qu'imbrication complexe de champs sociaux, l'ouverture de l'État comme champ de pouvoir, de même qu'une meilleure prise en compte de la nature symbolique de la puissance. Abstract. This article takes a fresh look at current debates in International Relations (IR) in the light of Pierre Bourdieu's sociology. We argue that Bourdieu's social theory could help build bridges between conventional and critical approaches in IR. More specifically, we identify six contributions that a Bourdieusian approach can make. At the meta-theoretical level, such an approach would be characterized by a reflexive epistemology, a relational ontology and a theory of practice – three dimensions that address key theoretical debates in IR. On a more applied level, Bourdieu's sociology enables us to study world politics as a complex of “embedded social fields”, to open up the state's field of power, and to factor in the symbolic nature of power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".