<i>Politeia’s</i> place in our practical life: Pierre Bourdieu on the modern state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pierre Bourdieu’s account of the modern state’s emergence has affinities with the analyses of legal systems offered by Herbert Hart and Hans Kelsen. Bourdieu, Hart, and Kelsen each describe normative spaces within which practical life unfolds. While Bourdieu’s account of the state as ‘a space of spaces’ is less systematic than the analyses of Hart and Kelsen, he augments their contributions in important ways. He conveys a more definite sense of the texture of lived experience within the space he describes than either Hart or Kelsen on the modern state. Bourdieu’s analysis also affords a basis on which to draw out the significance of institutions that rarely feature in jurisprudential works on the state or legal systems. This article illustrates this point by reference to the public inquiry. It also finds at work within On the State an ideal that gives expression to an egalitarian philosophy of government. This is the ideal of politeia, which, on the view offered here, identifies legal, political, and economic institutions and practices as constituents of ‘community.’
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".