From Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology to Farming: The Role of Habitus and Capital in Agricultural Production

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 91 - 117, 14.10.2025

İlhan Karmutoğlu , Burak Kesgin

https://doi.org/10.52613/ujhc.1651303

Öz

This article brings together studies that apply Pierre Bourdieu’s key sociological concepts to the agricultural domain, offering a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding farming and agricultural production. Traditional approaches based on economic rationality and profit maximization fall short in explaining why farmers continue agricultural activities despite economic challenges. In this context, the article examines how economic, social, cultural, and symbolic forms of capital influence farming practices and decision-making processes. By systematically evaluating the application of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework in agricultural sociology, this study provides a comparative analysis of various research efforts in the field. It explores how farmers construct their professional identities, shape their agricultural decisions, and position themselves within broader social structures through the concepts of habitus, field, and capital. This study contributes to the integration of Bourdieu’s theory into agricultural sociology by synthesizing existing research and offering a conceptual foundation for future studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agricultural production , Agricultural sociology , Capital , Farming , Habitus , Pierre Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu’nün Sosyolojisinden Çiftçiliğe: Habitus ve Sermaye Kavramlarının Tarımsal Üretimdeki Rolü

Öz

Bu makale, Pierre Bourdieu’nün sosyolojisindeki temel kavramları tarımsal alan bağlamında ele alan çalışmaları bir araya getirerek, çiftçiliği ve tarımsal üretimi daha kapsamlı bir teorik çerçevede değerlendirmektedir. Geleneksel ekonomik rasyonalite ve kâr maksimizasyonuna dayalı yaklaşımlar, çiftçilerin tarımsal faaliyetlerini sürdürme nedenlerini açıklamada yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, ekonomik sermayenin yanı sıra sosyal, kültürel ve sembolik sermaye biçimlerinin çiftçilik pratikleri ve karar alma süreçleri üzerindeki etkileri incelenmektedir. Makale, Bourdieu’nün kavramsal çerçevesinin tarım sosyolojisi literatüründe nasıl uygulandığını sistematik bir şekilde değerlendirerek, farklı ölçeklerde yapılan çalışmaları karşılaştırmalı olarak ele almaktadır. Çiftçilerin mesleki kimliklerini, tarımsal kararlarını ve toplumsal konumlarını nasıl şekillendirdiklerini anlamak için habitus, alan ve sermaye kavramlarının sunduğu analitik olanaklar tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, tarım sosyolojisi alanında Bourdieu’nün kavramlarını merkeze alan araştırmaların bütüncül bir çerçevede ele alınmasına katkı sunmakta ve gelecekteki çalışmalar için kavramsal bir temel oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çiftçilik , Habitus , Pierre Bourdieu , Sermaye , Tarımsal üretim , Tarım sosyolojisi

Kaynakça

• Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226217062.001.0001
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1996). Physical space, social space and habitus. Vilhelm Aubert Memorial Lecture, Report, 10, 87–101.
• Bourdieu, P. (2004). Structures and the habitus. Material Culture: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences, 1(Part 1), 107–134.
• Bourdieu, P. (2014). Simgesel sermaye ve toplumsal sınıflar. Cogito, 76(1), 192–204.
• Burns, L. (2021). Challenges to habitus: Scruffy hedges and weeds in the Irish countryside. Sociologia Ruralis, 61(1), 2–25.
• Burton, R. J. F., Kuczera, C., & Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 16–37.
• Burton, R. J. F. & Paragahawewa, U. H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001
• Burton, R. J. F. (2012). Understanding farmers’ aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: A Bourdieusian perspective. Landscape Research, 37(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397. 2011.559311
• Carlock, R. S., & Ward, J. L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business: Parallel planning to unify the family and business. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230508750
• Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.
• Conway, S. F., McDonagh, J., Farrell, M., & Kinsella, A. (2017). Uncovering obstacles: The exercise of symbolic power in the complex arena of intergenerational family farm transfer. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.007
• Conway, S. F., McDonagh, J., Farrell, M., & Kinsella, A. (2021). Going against the grain: Unravelling the habitus of older farmers to help facilitate generational renewal in agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 61(3), 602–622.
• Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press.
• Glenna, L. L. (1996). Rationality, habitus, and agricultural landscapes: Ethnographic case studies in landscape sociology. Agriculture and Human Values, 13, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01530521
• Glover, J. L. (2008). Why do dairy farmers continue to farm? Can Bourdieu’s theory aid our understanding and suggest how farmers could regain some control in their industry? [Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University]. Loughborough University Repository.
• Glover, J. L. (2010). Capital usage in adverse situations: Applying Bourdieu’s theory of capital to family farm businesses. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9225-0
• Ilbery, B.W. (1983). Goals and values of Hop farmers. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 8(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.2307/622048
• Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. Macmillan.
• Raedeke, A. H., Green, J. J., Hodge, S. S., & Valdivia, C. (2003). Farmers, the practice of farming and the future of agroforestry: An application of Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus. Rural Sociology, 68(1), 64–86.
• Riley, M. (2016). Still being the ‘good farmer’: (Non-)retirement and the preservation of farming identities in older age. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12063
• Setten, G. (2004). The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. Cultural Geographies, 11(4), 389–415.
• Stotten, R. (2016). Farmers’ perspectives on cultural landscapes in central Switzerland: How landscape socialisation and habitus influence an aesthetic appreciation of landscape. Society & Natural Resources, 29(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1058995
• Sutherland, L. A., & Burton, R. J. F. (2011). Good farmers, good neighbours? The role of cultural capital in social capital development in a Scottish farming community. Sociologia Ruralis, 51(3), 238–255.
• Sutherland, L. A. & Darnhofer, I. (2012). Of organic farmers and ‘good farmers’: Changing habitus in rural England. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.03.003
• Şenol, P., & Altuntek, N. S. (2017). Yapılaşmış kırsal habitusun değişimi: Üç köy okuması. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20(1), 201–236. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.308770
• Weininger, E. B. (2005). Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s class analysis. In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Approaches to class analysis (pp. 82–118). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511488900