Rupture and crisis in Bourdieusian sociology. Introduction

During the twenty years since Pierre Bourdieu's death, his work has become the subject of an extensive secondary literature. Consequently, Bourdieu's corpus has been transformed into what contemporary scholars sometimes characterize as a "modern classic." However, his work is far from being a closed sociological system confined to the past. On the contrary, Bourdieu's concepts, insights, and methodologies have stimulated and enriched a diverse range of empirical research across numerous disciplinary fields. In this way, his influence continues to have a transformative effect globally (Sapiro & Bustamante, 2009). Focusing on "crisis" and "rupture" may help break away from a scholastic perspective, as it draws attention to the complexity of Bourdieu's sociological work. The overarching project that drove his work was explicitly designed to account for both changes and continuities—at both institutional and individual levels—while considering their interconnections. To avoid the "museumification" of his conceptual framework, we will not dwell too much on scholastic debates. Instead, we aim to emphasize the vitality and dissemination of Bourdieu's ideas across various research fields that address the crises and ruptures impacting contemporary life experiences. Firstly, we will highlight the central role of rupture and crisis in shaping Bourdieu's sociology. Furthermore, dismissals of Bourdieu's work on the grounds of its supposed "structuralism" or "reproductionism" often overlook one of its most significant features: its clear concern with processes of symbolic revolution. Indeed, from the hundreds of pages he dedicated to figures such as Heidegger, Flaubert, and Manet, one may reasonably infer that Bourdieu saw himself as the sociologist of symbolic revolutions par excellence. In conclusion, we will demonstrate that Bourdieu's conception of social action is dynamic by analyzing the problem of practice as temporalization. For Bourdieu, the intelligibility of any action emerges from the intersection of a particular habitus and a particular social world—both of which are products of history. When habitus and the social world share the same historical roots, their interaction becomes even more significant.