布迪厄的徒孙，对布迪厄的五点批评（Lahire, 2019）
荐读：Lahire, Bernard. 2019. “Sociological Biography and Socialisation Process: A Dispositionalist-Contextualist Conception.” Contemporary Social Science 14(3–4):379–93.
谁是Bernard Lahire（1962—）？
这位还没有中译本的当代法国社会学理论、教育社会学家，是里昂高师的教授，导师是Guy Vincent（已故），而Vincent的导师是布迪厄。
粗暴地讲，布迪厄将社会结构—行动者的关系，进一步理解为“场域—惯习”。惯习作为个人层次的概念，被理解为disposition,或者内在的结构，常常被批评过于决定论式，没有给行动者自己的反思性。
这种批评，在英语社会学界常常出现，比如Elder-Vass, Stephen Kemp等等，见下：
法语界呢？
Lahire作为布迪厄的徒孙，在1998年出版专书：L'Homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l'action, Paris, Nathan, 也有英译本，Lahire, Bernard. 2011. The Plural Actor. 1 edition. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity，可谓是专门和布迪厄的惯习理论对话的一本著作（感觉康师惠赠扫描版）。
他的英译/英文的期刊论文很少，但都是在谈individual层次的社会学，反映了他一贯的思路。不过，他都不在纯美国化期刊上发表论文，比如就文化社会学，只在Poetics，不在American Journal of Cultural Sociology，有三篇：
Lahire, Bernard. 2003. “From the Habitus to an Individual Heritage of Dispositions. Towards a Sociology at the Level of the Individual.” Poetics 31(5–6):329–355.
Lahire, Bernard. 2019. “Sociological Biography and Socialisation Process: A Dispositionalist-Contextualist Conception.” Contemporary Social Science 14(3–4):379–93.
Lahire, Bernard. 2020. “Sociology at the Individual Level, Psychologies and Neurosciences.” European Journal of Social Theory 23(1):52–71.
Lahire讽刺社会学家（当然包括布迪厄）对心理学、认知科学不加思索地直接借用，而他也往往绕到布迪厄的背后，从布迪厄借用皮亚杰等心理学家的作品那里，反枪一击。
作为一名法国理论家，Lahire也坦陈自己从北美的社会科学家那里借鉴颇多——尤其是心理学研究。同时，他也受到埃利亚斯的不少影响。
这里介绍他的2019年一篇作品。总的来说，Lahire认为，布迪厄拒绝biographical method，认为它是将人孤立出来的，是错误的，因为sociological biography并不是去寻找统一的generative form，也不是找什么united personality（历史学传记常犯的错误），而是分析dispositions-contexts之间多重/动态关系。
However, rejecting the biographical method, which is perceived as a method for isolating the individual, for withdrawing them into themselves, for seizing them in their free or voluntary acts or to make it seem as though their journey was the linear progression of a kind of singular destiny present from the beginning, seems to be in total contradiction with the theory of the habitus, which can be put forth empirically in a precise manner only by the rigorous practice of the biographical method.
具体来说，Lahire对布迪厄提出了五点批评：
1. 如果从初级社会化（家庭）和次级社会化（学校、公司……），布迪厄的惯习（habitus）概念，完全忽视了前者，只看后者。
The fact that family socialisation is both early, intense, lasting and, for a relatively long time, without competition, explains the weight of social origin (even when it is roughly apprehended from the socio-professional category of the parents) in a large number of behaviours or preferences studied (educational, professional, cultural, sportive, dietary, aesthetic, etc.). That is why we cannot approach habitus with lightness to explain any effects of socialisation.
2. 布迪厄用惯习概念时，强调“同构/同源”（homology），但即使是“家庭社会化”，经验上也不可能是这样的同构的。
However, different empirical facts contradict this scheme. First of all, the homogeneity of the family universe is too often presupposed and rarely observed. Yet, whether the heterogeneity is relative or leads to the most exacerbated contradictions – family conflicts, it is always irreducibly present at the heart of the family configuration which never succeeds in being a ‘total institution’ of socialisation
3. 布迪厄在讨论场域—惯习关系时，惯习似乎变成了独立于场域的，不会带来场域的转型。
However, even in certain balanced formulations where Pierre Bourdieu evokes the dialectic of dispositions and contexts (institutions or fields), everything happens as if the dispositions were independently constituted from their relations to the context of considered action, that is before his meeting. The only questions addressed are those of their satisfaction or their expression within the framework of the institution or field, but never that of their possible transformation within this institution
4. 布迪厄所说的“存在论上的共谋”，不切实际，因为人的社会化是同时且混合了不同场域的知识，形成的经验是十分异质，能够往深处去挑战所谓的“误识”。
The complexity of the socialising experiences and of the foliated structure of the patrimonies of dispositions allows us to question deeply the model of the perfect adjustment of the habitus to the contexts in which they are brought to evolve. There are rarely ideal correspondences or ontological complicity between incorporated mental and behavioural structures and contextual structures.
Lahire建议，在这种过程中，人具有别样的潜能，包括：
（1）已形成但没呈现的内在多重性；
（2）已成问题了的外在多重性
（3）已成问题了的承诺多重性
(1) because each of us can carry a multiplicity of dispositions that do not always find the context of their actualisation (unappeased internal plurality),
(2) because we can be devoid of the right dispositions allowing us to face certain situations, avoidable or not, that are part of our multi-differentiated social world (problematic external plurality)
and (3) because the multiplicity of objectively possible social investments (family, work, friendship …) can ultimately become incompatible (problematic plurality of investments or of commitments), so that we can experience discomfort, crises or personal disconnections with the social world.
5. 布迪厄表面上说，要促成精神分析和社会学的联盟，但实际上并没有这样做。但如果一旦这样做的话，哪能不把精神分析上对于个人早期经验（儿童、家庭）的社会化给带进来呢？否则，行动者的形象，最终只变成了field agents了。
Why, then, miss the occasion, through precise biographical studies, to establish the link between sociology and psychoanalysis or, at the least, to observe in a precise and thorough manner, the constituent social relationships of the individual, which are not limited to their relationships with other ‘field agents’, but that of course begin at the heart of the family universe – a favourite study field of psychoanalysis – and keep evolving through school, within groups of friends, within the professional environments, etc.? Even though he does recognise the importance of psychoanalysis, even calling for sociology and psychoanalysis to ‘unite their strengths’ by ‘overcoming their mutual preventions’ (Bourdieu, 2000), Pierre Bourdieu, however, mostly reduces the actors to the position they occupy in a field and to some synthetical elements concerning their trajectories, their objective social attributes and their dispositions so as not to give the impression of giving in to the ‘biographical illusion’.
就好比布迪厄在《艺术的规则》（Rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field）一书中，研究波德莱尔，描述他在那个文学场域如何重要，只不过是占据着一些field position而已，和文学、和这个人，没什么关系。
以下，摘自WIKI百科，Lahire的词条中的作品集
《书写的文化和学业表现的不平等》（Culture écrite et inégalités scolaires）
《最弱者的理由》（La Raison des plus faibles）
《家族肖像》（Tableaux de familles）
《学习的方法》（Les Manières d'étudier）
《多元的人》（L'Homme pluriel）
《“文盲”概念的发明》（L'Invention de l'illettrisme）
《皮耶·布迪厄的社会学工作》（Le Travail sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu）
《社会学的素描》（Portraits sociologiques）
《社会学要作什么用？》（À quoi sert la sociologie ?）
《阅读的社会学》（Sociologia de la lectura）
《个体的文化》（La Culture des individus, 2004）
《社会学的精神》（L'Esprit sociologique）
《文学的条件》（La Condition littéraire, 2006）
（Sociological理论大缸第390期）