Toward an Empirical Comparison of Bourdieu and Latour: Relational Theories in the Sociology of Poverty

This article undertakes a comparative exploration of Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory (ANT) in the context of poverty research. Drawing on various empirical studies derived from a larger qualitative project—based on 216 in-depth interviews with long-term poor households—it examines how each framework accounts for capital conversion, constrained agency, and the reproduction of structural exclusion. Although both theorists promote relational and anti-essentialist perspectives, they differ markedly in ontological orientation and analytic focus. Bourdieu highlights the structuring effects of fields, habitus, and symbolic violence, while Latour centres on translation, mediation, and the generative power of heterogeneous networks. Through four thematic case studies—debt, welfare bureaucracy, neighbourhood stigma, and the informal economy—the analysis demonstrates that each framework reveals distinct yet complementary dimensions of poverty. Whereas Bourdieu offers powerful tools to explain the institutional reproduction of inequality, Latour draws attention to the situated agency of actors navigating complex material and social assemblages. The article argues for a relational synthesis that acknowledges both enduring field structures and contingent actor-networks. It concludes that poverty persists not through structure or contingency alone, but through the recursive entanglement of both.