DIFFERENT TYPES OF CAPITALS MOBILIZED TO STRENGTHEN LOCAL POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Abstract

Bourdieu founds his sociology of field on different types of capitals- namely economic, social, cultural and symbolic capitals- that need to be mobilized by social agents in order to dominate one specific field. According to Bourdieu, society is divided into various fields, such as political field, education, gender, art or economical fields, and each one constituting an arena of struggle of domination. In modern and fragmented societies, economic capital is no longer sufficient to dominate one field; social agents or groups has to therefore invest other type(s) of capital which is suitable for the field to be dominated. For instance, in order to dominate in the political field, it would be assumed that one should invest both social and symbolic capitals, which to be transformed into the “political capital”. This study aims to argue the role of local political leaders in the context of above described Bourdieuan framework of “capital”. More precisely, the study departs from the question “which types of capital do local political leaders (mayors) mobilize in dominating local political decision-making processes?” In order to respond to question, a field study has been conducted in Edirne, focusing on the local political decision-making processes and the dominating role of the mayor during these processes. Conducting the field study in a city where an opposition political party mayor is in force helps to identify more clearly the social and symbolic types of capitals mobilized by the mayor, since it would be undoubtedly stated that the political power of the mayor does not depend on central government. Local political decision-making processes in Edirne have been analyzed via in-depth interviews carried out with local politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and NGO representatives. Additionally, local press and local council decisions have been analyzed. Locally rooted social capital (local networks and relations) has significant impact on the political power of the mayor, as well as the symbolic capital he mobilizes via populist discourses and political attitudes that would be considered within the concept of “charismatic leadership”

Keywords

• Local political leadership, Local decision-making, Social capital, Bourdieu

References

1. Bourdieu, Pierre (1981), “La Représentation Politique”, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Vol.36-37, pp.3-24.
2. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986), “The Forms of Capital”, (in: J. Richardson- Ed, Handbook of Theory for the Sociology of Education,), Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241-258.
3. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993), Sociology in Question, London: Sage Publication.
4. Bourdieu, Pierre ve Loїc D. Wacquant (2003), Düşünümsel Bir Antropoloji İçin Cevaplar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
5. Burns, James MacGregor (1978), Leadership, New York: Harper and Row.
6. De Jong, Mart-Jan (2001), “Elias and Bourdieu. The Cultural Sociology of Two Structuralists in Denial”, International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 64-86.
7. Firdion, Jean-Marie (2005), A “Capital and “Social Field” Approach, http://www.docin.com/p-115391166.html, [Accessed 23.04.2011]
8. Kauppi, Niilo (2003), “Bourdieu’s Political Sociology and the Politics of European Integration”, Theory and Society, Vol.32, No.5/6, pp.775-789.

9. Stone, Clarence N. (1995), Political Leadership in Urban Politics, (in: David Judge, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman-Eds, Theories of Urban Politics), London: Sage Publications.