Symposium: ‘Giving an account or being accountable’

Symposium: ‘Rendre compte ou rendre des comptes’

David Guéranger

Contradictions and conflicts in sociological

writing: the rewriting of an interview by
Pierre Bourdieu

Abstract.   This article aims at categorizing the practical problems posed by sociological
writing and, more generally, the epistemological issues raised by such problems. It is based on
two successive versions of a single interview made and transcribed by French sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu. Looking at changes made between the two written versions, we attempt to
shed light on specific constraints that influence the act of writing, answering three partially
contradictory needs: to describe, to explain and to communicate.

Key words.   Communication – Epistemology in social sciences – Interview transcription –

Pierre Bourdieu – Sociological writing

Résumé.   Cet article a pour objectif de catégoriser les problèmes pratiques posés par l’écriture
sociologique, et de les inscrire plus largement dans des débats d’épistémologie des sciences sociales.
Il s’appuie pour cela sur deux versions successives d’un même entretien réalisé et retranscrit par
le sociologue français Pierre Bourdieu. En étudiant les transformations opérées d’une version à
l’autre, il s’agit de mettre à jour les contraintes qui pèsent sur la restitution de cet échange,
prise entre trois nécessités partiellement contradictoires: rendre compte, expliquer et communiquer.

Mots-clés.   Communication – Ecriture sociologique – Epistémologie des sciences sociales – Pierre

Bourdieu – Retranscription d’un entretien

Although writing is usually a key day-to-day component of sociological

research (how much time do we actually spend writing?), it is nevertheless
viewed as an anodyne and standardized activity – an attitude linked no doubt
to the very frequency of the activity itself. This theme has been the focus of

© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Social Science Information, 0539-0184; Vol. 48(4): 615–629; 344783
DOI: 10.1177/0539018409344783 http://ssi.sagepub.com
616   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

numerous publications over the past few years, particularly in France, where
the recent and long-overdue translation of the work by the American
sociologist, Howard Becker (1986), would appear to have stimulated such
reflections.1 While more research time is definitely being devoted to writing,
we feel that it is characterized by a certain ‘writing fetishism’, i.e. a propensity
to use texts as a basis for reflecting on writing. Thus texts are analyzed in
themselves, in terms of their overall economy, relations and style used, etc.
The textual and iconographic analytical methods deployed may draw on
semiotics (Latour & Bastide, 1996), linguistics, bibliometrics and sometimes
even literary analysis (Hallyn, 2004). Research focusing on writing practices
and related concrete problems, as well as the individual and collective
means of resolving these, is a far scarcer commodity.
It is this still relatively virgin territory that we would like to explore here
by examining the social constraints inherent in sociological writing. We
want to replace the writer in his social universe (and not to remove him from
it). More precisely, this article (and the others in this section) seeks to high-
light the communication imperative that underpins all writing and places the
reader in a relationship that is frequently polarized by the head-on meeting
between the researcher and the research object. We aim to develop a frame-
work for analyzing sociological writing that will reintroduce the question of
the researcher’s social insertion vis-à-vis communication imperatives.
Our reflection will be based on an analysis of the transcription of an inter-
view carried out by Pierre Bourdieu and published in two different forms:
the definitive version that appears in La misère du monde (1993) and a pre-
vious version, but which was published only three years later in Revue de
littérature générale (1996), accompanied by a short research memo drafted
by the sociologist concerning the problems of transcription. Our approach
consists in comparing the two French versions of this research, identifying
the changes to which the text was subjected and relating these to the practi-
cal problems referred to in the memo.2 However, before we begin, we would
like to make two preliminary remarks.
First, we should point out the singular nature of this research object. On
the one hand, preparing, conducting and using interviews are crucial issues
in sociology, as borne out by the remarkable number of manuals and publi-
cations given over to developing and standardizing practices in the area. At
the same time, formatting practices are confined to the research laboratory’s
anteroom, far removed from any criticism. It is the accessible, finished prod-
uct that the anonymous reader ultimately gets. The comparison between the
two versions demonstrates what this opening-up involves in terms of
changes and, conversely, the freedom offered by the confines of a sociology
research institute. As such, this example provides convincing evidence of
the link between writing practice and its insertion into the social space.
Guéranger Symposium   617

Second, we should explain the choice of this interview, which was carried
out and transcribed by Pierre Bourdieu, one of the leading – and most con-
troversial – figures in the world of French sociology. This choice was more
of a coincidence – and this is of key importance here – than any deliberate
initial strategy. Having two versions of the same transcript and research notes
is both a rare opportunity and an instructive medium. The fact that the inter-
view was carried out and transcribed by the renowned sociologist himself
adds his own individual experience to the mix, and undoubtedly provides a
symbolic dimension and a more ‘fundamental’ basis for the issues at stake.
In any case, we should stress that the purpose here is not to discuss and not
to criticize either the method chosen or the uses to which it was put, as others
have done before (Mayer, 1995; Grunberg & Schweisguth, 1996) but to
pinpoint the problems that an experienced researcher is confronted with
when writing – or rewriting to be more precise. We have adopted a two-step
approach: first we qualify the changes made to the work, before going on to
study the practical and scientific problems that these changes entail.

From the effects of rewriting … to the functions of writing

In attempting to classify the functions of writing, we begin with the changes

made by the author between the first and the second versions of the text,
and update the resulting impacts on the document and how the document
now reads.

Comparing two versions of the same transcript …

The inventory of the changes made to the text is based on progressive detailed
snapshots ranging from the document taken as a whole, down to an analysis
of the individual terms actually used. This relatively fastidious descriptive
work is a prerequisite to appreciating the extent of the changes made.
At first glance, the more recent version is presented in a more polished
two-column format. The researcher’s questions and comments figure in italics,
which distinguish them from the rest of the text. Certain passages are high-
lighted in a periodical/magazine style by the use of special type, larger
characters and bold print.
We also note that the large number of ‘prompts’ that figured in the original
version have disappeared. These provided indications of both the behavior
of individuals during the interviews (‘with a nod of the head’, ‘drumming
their nails on the table’); the behavior of the interviewer himself (‘Yee-hee! –
with a sort of laugh’, ‘interrogative’); the tone of various contributions
618   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

(‘observational tone’, ‘rising intonation’, ‘interrogative’, ‘falling intonation’,

‘confident tone of voice’, ‘murmuring’, ‘loud’); the nature of exchanges
(‘claiming that Denis could back up what he said’, ‘blushed when looking
at his friend’, ‘moved closer to me while speaking in a low voice’, ‘turning
towards Ahmed’, ‘they looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders
with a smile’); the difficulties in deciphering the recording (‘barely audible’,
‘difficult to distinguish voices and accents’, ‘unintelligible upon a first
listening’). Some of these indications also provide a phonetic transcription
of what the interviewer heard (mêmin: even …; desfillin: girls, habitchué:
used to, pô: not …) while trying to render the interviewees’ accents.
Other information present in the body of the text has also disappeared in
the rewriting process: the numerous long silences that punctuated the
first transcript, represented by suspended periods of varying length
(‘………………...’); interjections (‘eh!’), repetition (‘the most oldest’),
expressions indicating the interviewer’s incomprehension (‘eh! …’, ‘what
do you mean …’), a request for clarification (‘but where … what kind of
a place is that?’), as well as a suggestive remark (‘the cops are also a little
like that …’).
To conclude, the text in its definitive form has undergone a series of refor-
mulations. A first group comprises numerous syntactical and grammatical
corrections made by the writer in order to move from a literal to a more
literary transcription. The first version does not claim to render the oral qual-
ity of the comments gathered in a rigorous, phonetic manner, although cer-
tain indications appear to be striving to do this: i s’en fout (they couldn’t
give a damn!) is rewritten with its correct spelling Ils s’en foutent, as is Pis
nous (and then us …), which becomes Et puis nous, Y zont (they have)
which becomes Ils ont, etc. This more ‘literary’ approach is bolstered by the
use of punctuation, which was almost non-existent in the original document.
A second group of reformulations concerns the content of the comments
transcribed. In one instance, the change has a relatively minor impact: On a
déjà essayé avec des filles ben … (We have already tried with girls, and
umm …) becomes on m’a dit ‘essaie avec des filles’, ben … (I was told, ‘try
with girls’, and umm …). However, in other cases, the comments have been
completely transformed: on a pas le temps et tout (we haven’t the time and
all) becomes on reste pas longtemps avec eux (we don’t stay very long with
them); or they even introduce a new explanatory link: C’est à cause de ça
qu’ils ont détruit plein de mecs … L’alcool et puis la drogue … (that’s why
they destroyed lots of guys … Alcohol and drugs …) becomes C’est ça qui
a détruit plein de mecs, l’alcool et puis la drogue (That’s what destroyed lots
of guys … alcohol and drugs), or even … alors le soir qu’est-ce qu’on fait
Guéranger Symposium   619

quand eux i’rent’ … c’est l’bordel … (so in the evening, what do we do when
they go home … it’s a complete mess …) becomes Alors le soir qu’est-ce
qu’on fait quand ils rentrent? On fait le bordel (so what do we do in the
evening after they go home? We trash the place). Finally, it should be noted
that in this second group the first names of the youths themselves have been
changed to protect confidentiality, although the operation does maintain a form
of implicit distinction as Ahmed becomes Ali and Denis becomes François.

… to identify the functions of writing

What do these changes ultimately tell us? What are the impacts of this new,
corrected form? We have identified three.
The first is the depletion of the material. Although the oral/written transi-
tion necessarily involves this type of reduction, the rewriting process as
practiced here undeniably reinforces this still further. Firstly, the author has
removed all of the interview context indicators thus deleting the descriptions
of individual behavior as well as the tone underlying the comments made by
both the interviewees and the interviewer, the silences and the indications of
their length, repetitions, etc. Insofar as these indicators provide information
on the state of mind of all concerned (nervousness, hesitation, joy, astonish-
ment), as well as the nature of their relationship (conflict, incomprehension,
confidence), rewriting encumbers the interview framework and turns indi-
vidual relationships into mere exchanges of words. To use the classification
of the functions of language proposed by R. Jakobson (1963), we could say
that rewriting only holds onto the elements of digital language and deletes
references to analog language.
The second impact of the changes is that they produce a whole series of
pointers and markers in the document that considerably enhance readability.
The form of the final document is much clearer, the interviews are laid out
and ranked in importance, and the overall layout is much nicer. The
punctuation clearly differentiates questions from answers and distinguishes
pauses for breath from other pauses. Grammatical and syntactical corrections
also have a similar effect: the author began with a phonetic transcription that
attempted to reconstitute the accents of the two youths but ultimately settles
for words from the written language, i.e. from the dictionary. The decision
to remove the comments, requests for clarification and repetition, as well as
one or two brief digressions, ultimately focuses the reader’s attention on the
underlying exchanges and does away with digressions that are deemed of
little use.
620   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

Lastly, rewriting points up causality and logical links between events in a

clearer manner. The choice of the highlighted passage stresses the link
between a lack of money and certain plundering-type practices that were not
clearly stated at the outset. Elsewhere, in the course of reformulating the
interview, the author introduces a link – one which was initially unclear –
between the frustrations that arise from young people being turned away
from nightclubs and other types of vandalism, which are not specifically
stated. Another example concerns alcohol and drugs, which may be consid-
ered in the initial document as part of a list of stolen items but which are
ultimately the cause of the decline (or death) of certain individuals. While
the initial formulation is ambiguous in several respects concerning the
related interpretation, the rewritten version leaves no room for doubt and
sometimes even differs considerably from the previous version.
Our analysis of the impacts of rewriting ultimately highlights three dis-
tinct functions of writing. In the first place, writing makes it possible to
describe a reality that has been observed, or, more practically, to assess
empirical observations made in the present case by the writer. Second, it
enables information to be communicated to a third party; in this case, writ-
ing takes the form of a specific medium. Finally, it enables situations to be
explained, i.e. to highlight a system of relationships between several events
or several aspects of a reality. Although these different functions can be
distinguished for the purposes of our analysis, we use the following section
to show that they rarely occur separately.

From theoretical functions to practical problems:

contradictions in sociological writing

In actual fact, we would like to focus more on the tensions that writing pro-
duces than on the functions highlighted. Put simply, the distinction proposed
between describing, communicating and explaining is bound up with the
intentions and attentions of the person writing. In wanting to describe, the
author is tackling his subject – in this case two young people from northern
France. In wanting to communicate, he turns to his eventual readers, i.e. the
people who will read the forthcoming publication. In wanting to explain, he
holds an intense debate with himself, all the while reflecting on the best way
of interpreting the forms and causes of social suffering. Because these three
functions of writing disperse intentions in different directions, they are
almost in contradiction. In this second section, we intend to illustrate these
practical tensions and to place them within the context of a broader debate.
Guéranger Symposium   621

Describing or explaining?

The author lets us know right at the beginning of his notes: ‘The cassette only
actually records a small part of the exchange’. Typically, the person tasked
with copying the interview is faced with a practical problem from the outset:
what should figure in the final transcript? Faced with this problem, Pierre
Bourdieu decided to delete the elements that provide information in respect
of the context of the exchange: attitudes during the interview, marked tonality
of certain reflections, length of silences, etc. This masks a substantial part of
the information delivered up in the course of the exchange, as Bourdieu him-
self notes with regard to tone and intonation: ‘Very important, frequently
guides the very meaning of the sentence. Always says something essential
about the relation to what is said, e.g. the tendency of both Ahmed and Denis
to back each other up.’ It also eliminates any traces of embarrassment (blush-
ing) and complicity (shared looks) between the interviewees that could be
taken as a sign of mutual control or self-censorship and which assume such
particular importance in the case of a collective interview. Moreover it masks
the specific related emotions (indignation, tenderness, shared sense of revolt,
‘naïve identification’) and their consequences for the development of the
interview.3 Lastly, it masks any signs of communication difficulties: inaudi-
ble passages, requests to repeat comments or to describe a place more clearly,
or jerky/broken rhythms.
For the author, the importance lies elsewhere. His choices focus more on
reconstituting the daily situations experienced by these young people than
on the manner in which they express them: the more ‘literary’ transcription,
the clarification of the terms used or the simplification of the formulations
and manners of expression pursue this objective, i.e. rendering visible what
is not initially so. What needs to be shown and demonstrated are these past
experiences and daily frustrations and the contingent reactions. It is less the
individual that is described – in all the uniqueness and richness of his modes
of expression, for example – than the history of these specific situations that
regularly demean and stigmatize him. This choice forms part of the author’s
singular sociological orientation, i.e. a comprehensive sociology that points
up the interviewees’ motives and reasons for acting instead of looking to
objectify their comments for the purpose of characterizing inter alia a sys-
tem of values or a cultural form. This scientific project, and the associated
method known as participant objectivation,4 demonstrates how the descrip-
tive positions adopted are also underpinned by a clear explanatory thread.
This writing tension, caught between the needs to describe and to explain,
is not new. It is a partial throwback to the epistemological debates that stress
622   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

a small number of specific properties of writing in the social sciences: the

inseparable nature of thought and writing that distinguishes them from the
natural sciences (Passeron, 2004);5 or the dual descriptive and nomothetic
orientation (Grignon & Passeron, 1990). This latter idea was elegantly
debated by Howard Becker (2001). In order to challenge the -graphy/-ology
distinction proposed by these authors,6 he draws on three descriptive works
by Georges Perec which demonstrate three ways of describing social occur-
rences by illustrating an ideal type,7 a cultural backdrop8 or a ‘common
perception’.9 Consequently the explanatory systems that underpin these
descriptive undertakings illustrate the tensions between the desire to explain
and the desire to describe. In our opinion, this question was posed in more
fundamental terms by Jack Goody in his study of ‘graphical rationality’
(1977). The use of graphical forms (tables, lists, formulae, etc.) locks rea-
soning into a rigid framework underpinned by a binary logic, principles of
contradiction and equivalence, and classification and hierarchical impera-
tives. Thus writing is incapable of reflecting the modes of thought of so-
called ‘primitive’ societies. Indeed attempting to describe such societies
using graphical forms domesticates their thinking, to a certain extent. By
extension we can point up the constraints of sociological writing that force
the writer into making a constant trade-off between ‘excessively descriptive’
criticism and the risk of over-interpretation.

Explaining or communicating?

The second tension that we want to analyze concerns the wish to enter into an
explanatory and a communicative undertaking simultaneously. This can be
illustrated by a number of examples of rewriting. In the case in point, stressing
an extract from the interview ostensibly aims at putting forward an expla-
nation: ‘When they have no money to buy some (drugs) they start to wreck
things’. Elsewhere on the basis of a reformulation, the author introduces a link
that was not initially apparent between daily frustrations and snubs (being
turned away from a nightclub, for example) and practices of vandalism. What
could be interpreted as rhetoric (an expression or exclamation) in the first
instance (c’est l’bordel – it’s a complete mess), ultimately becomes the conse-
quence of what precedes it (on fait l’bordel! – we trash the place). In another
instance, it is the status of alcohol and drugs that is modified: they are initially
included as part of a list of stolen objects but subsequently become the symp-
toms of a swift decline that drags down certain individuals.
What interests us here is not pointing up the deception in which rewriting
and therefore the author act as accomplices. For that matter, would we really
Guéranger Symposium   623

be able to demonstrate this? How can we tell, for example, whether this
rewriting results from a new closer listening or a subsequent clarification?
What matters here is demonstrating the shift that takes place between a
formulation or interpretation that remains open and a rewritten version that
closes it. The communicative function of writing comes into conflict with its
explanatory role; certain causal links need to be made more explicit and
more visible through work that focuses on presentation (simple presentation,
legitimate style, unambivalent reformulations). The interviewees’ comments
are more poignant, their interpretation is less equivocal and immediate,
and alternative explanations less obvious. In other words, the clarity of
the text is enhanced and it becomes more convincing even as it loses its
‘explicative potential’.
This analysis appears to hark back to the old debate over the question of
style in social science writing. What style should be adopted? What status
should be accorded to rhetoric? Different authors have answered these ques-
tions in different ways, and we analyze two opposing positions. On the one
hand, the publication objectives assigned to writing act as ‘style commands’.
The guidelines set down by a researcher and referee for an American review
(Thunder, 2004) bear this out: state the purpose of the article right away so
as not to frustrate the reader; strike a balance between a risk-free uninterest-
ing hypothesis and another more audacious but unrealizable one; develop a
logical, simple and easy-to-read structure; anticipate and respect potential
criticisms; pitch one’s comments in relation to academic literature; take
account of the ‘market for ideas’; draft a stimulating conclusion; have your
paper reread. The position adopted by Howard Becker (1986) in this respect
is nearly diametrically opposed. He successively rejects anticipation that
inhibits, references that pollute, rhetoric that seduces and style that obscures.
In his opinion, this leads on to a need to cleanse writing of all rhetorical
devices, such as the passive mode, syntagmes, metaphor, synecdoche, etc.
While the first approach favors the identification function of writing,10 the
second favors reflexiveness, objectification and criticism. Our intention is
not to plump for one or other set of guidelines, but rather to illustrate this
second practical problem.
The research of Wolf Lepenies (1990) gives an interesting angle to the
debate over the status of style in sociological writing. This author demon-
strates how, ever since it emerged, the nascent discipline of sociology has
come in for a wide range of criticism, especially from ‘literary’ authors who
advocate an alternative to the Durkheimien conception of sociology: instead
of the rational approach of the latter revolving around measurement and
calculation, they favor a ‘literary’ approach deemed to be of a more intuitive
and clairvoyant nature.11 As such, the austere style associated with sociology
624   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

appeared to offer a dual means of distinction, both vis-à-vis the literature with
which it was competing at the time and as a means of affirming its scientific
credentials by imitating the sciences that were known as the physical sciences.
It is a number of years since this founding period, and science and technology
studies have helped to ‘decomplexify’ the social sciences vis-à-vis the
experimental sciences.12 However, the issue of style in social science literature
still remains a key factor in the identity of the discipline.13

Describing or communicating?

The writer is confronted with one last problem, namely simultaneously tack-
ling the twin concerns of describing and communicating. Certain reformula-
tions made by Pierre Bourdieu are exemplary in this respect. The reflections
set down by the sociologist demonstrate how the shadow of the anonymous
reader of the work-in-progress constantly hangs over the comments of the
two young interviewees. As regards punctuation, he wonders: ‘Should we
punctuate sentences? A single comma can change the whole meaning. The
absence of punctuation makes it difficult to understand.’ The two alterna-
tives of descriptive consistency and accessibility of the document are clearly
set out here. The issue is the same as regards phonetic transcription: ‘Should
we make a phonetic transcription? This would be unintelligible for the reader.
Moreover, what is the positivist ideal of literal consistency?’ The question is
formulated once again but immediately resolved in favor of the reader and
to the detriment of ‘positivist’ strict and formal transcription.
The question re-emerges a little later and gives rise to a new consider-
ation. The literal transcription runs the risk of not being ‘very literary’,
even though the author would like ‘these accounts to be read with the same
attention as we normally reserve for “literary” things, – without claiming to
be producing “literature” ’. Not content merely to make the document read-
able, he also wishes to capture the reader’s ‘attention’ by using a more
‘literary’ style (the quotes are Bourdieu’s, not mine) designed to hook the
reader and to get him/her to adhere to the opinions of the interviewees.
Later the author wonders about the stigmatizing effects produced by the
spoken language and the ‘danger of pigeon-holing’ inherent in a literal
transcription: ‘Obviously, I can transcribe my interviews in the same
manner: izont or jai pas fait (literally ‘they’ve’ and ‘I ‘aven’t’). However, this
risks leaving a residual stigmatizing effect and also extending it to myself!’;
and later: ‘do silences – sometimes very long silences – need to be recorded
Guéranger Symposium   625

at the risk of bogging the interviewers down and stressing their difficulty
in expressing themselves?’
Work carried out on punctuation, grammar and syntax is ultimately driven
by a wish to make the document simple, easy to read, attractive and persua-
sive. However, while the content gains in accessibility and legitimacy, it
loses in terms of verisimilitude and moves away from the previous version,
reserved for a more personal use. In particular, the choice of a ‘literary’ style
standardizes observations, smoothes out differences, reduces the contrast
between different modes of expression and euphemizes the violence of cer-
tain formulations. Of course, the young people are still there close to the
reader with their stories and problems – so close that the reader can hear and
understand them – but they are no longer the same young people. Therefore
rewriting explicitly favors communication over literary fidelity. This posi-
tioning must be seen in the context of the ‘wider general public’ that the
interview now wishes to reach. If scientific writing may ultimately be con-
sidered as a succession of intermediary writing from narrative summary
through to publication, it appears to us that this process goes hand in hand
with greater accessibility to a progressively wider public: writing is initially
reserved for individual use before gradually encompassing the actors that
have to be taken into account, the close circle of colleagues, the anonymous
evaluators and, finally, the readers of the review or publication.14
This type of reflection must be linked to certain sociological reflections
concerning writing, especially those of Howard Becker (1986). Those interested
in ‘useful tips’ will appreciate the generosity with which he hands out advice
that draws on his experience as a lecturer as well as his writing workshops. By
exposing all of the stop-gap solutions and doubts inherent in writing, he gets
behind this frequently taboo aspect of scientific research. More importantly,
he seeks to banish all rhetorical devices, ornaments and semantic fog which,
like synecdoche,15 are used more for the purpose of persuasion than to further
reflection. Similarly Bruno Latour (1987) identifies the key importance of
data collection in analysis and the techniques that facilitate their dissemina-
tion, comparison and combination. Insofar as data shed light on the phenomena
being studied, they constitute objective allies for demonstration in a similar
vein to bibliographical references. Refuting the distinction between science
and rhetoric, Bruno Latour considers these alliances to be a rhetorical form
specific to scientific activity. These two sociological approaches ultimately
come together in the idea that stylistic effects and rhetoric are strategies inherent
to the scientific field: the former is bent on seeking out allies, while the latter
makes it possible to identify peers and gain their recognition.
626   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4

Conclusion

In the course of this article, we have sought to reflect upon the practical
problems posed in sociological writing by analyzing a specific example, the
rewriting of an interview conducted by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu for
the purpose of disseminating his work to a wider public. We have identified
three functions ascribed to writing and demonstrated the conflicts that may
exist between them. As well as the conflict already identified by Howard
Becker between the descriptive and explicative functions, we have added an
additional dimension of particular relevance to our study, namely, the objec-
tive of communication. Our analysis ultimately leads to a classification of
the practical problems inherent in sociological writing into three categories
that bring together these distinct and largely contradictory necessities, i.e.
describing, explaining and communicating, in different forms.
Thus, our reasoning is of more use in reflection than for writing strictu
sensu. It does not result in any advice or useful tips that may facilitate the
work of writing and bring relief to the writer. As regards the analytical
dimension itself, our categorization of problems is valid as a classification.
In practice, each ‘conflict’ in writing is inextricably linked to the others, as
we would like to show by means of a final example. In order to make the
interview anonymous, Pierre Bourdieu changed ‘Denis’ to ‘François’ and
‘Ahmed’ to ‘Ali’, thus conserving the consonance of the interviewees’ first
names. The answer to a simple question (how do we translate the first names
to make the interview more anonymous?) focuses simultaneously on the
three aforementioned conflicts, which can be summarized in the following
syllogism: if I reproduce distinct consonances between first names (describ-
ing), this implies that they are of relevance (explaining); but if I imply that
they are of relevance, I take little account of the risk of any related stigma-
tization (communicating). The problem posed by this simple substitution
shows how the three dimensions of describing, explaining and communicat-
ing are inextricably linked and thus need to be thought out, or at the very
least resolved in a practically similar manner.
Our reflection can therefore be used to build a sociological analytical frame-
work. In this sense, it is a continuation of the research previously referred to
that places the activity of writing in a social and technical space comprising
professional relations, specialist communities, symbols, measuring instruments
and registration techniques. This perspective has the advantage of making
sociological writing a social act and breaking with the image of the one-on-one
relationship between researchers and their research objects. However, this
break appears to us to be only partial, as the social space is treated from a
scientific perspective: obviously the researcher writes (primarily) in order to
be read – essentially by other researchers. By favoring an approach based
Guéranger Symposium   627

on protocols and modi operandi, these authors limit explanations of internal

epistemological implications, i.e. concerning the constraints specific to sci-
ence itself. They set aside a series of explanatory factors relating to external
epistemology, i.e. relating to the possible conditions for carrying out scientific
activity in general and writing in particular: the means allocated to science,
its links to various segments of society, the political properties of statements,
etc. In order to remove the border between science and society, we consider
it essential to reposition writing and its inherent problems in a scientific space
included in a broader social and political context, which therefore activates
rarely specified cultural, linguistic and political relations. This is exactly the
purpose of this article (and of those comprising this section), i.e. highlighting
the effects of these relationships on the practices of writing.
Translated by Neil O’Brien
David Guéranger is a sociologist with the Laboratory Techniques, Territories and Societies
(LATTS) at the University of Paris Est. His research focuses on local institutions and
political and administrative effects of the decentralization reforms in France. Recent publi-
cations include: (2007) ‘L’administration parisienne face à la concertation: le cas du pLU’,
in Paris sous l’oeil des chercheurs, pp. 157–67 (with F.-M. Poupeau); (2008)
‘L’intercommunalité, créature de l’Etat’, Revue française de science politique 58(4); and
L’intercommunalité en questions (Paris: La Documentation Française; coll. Problèmes
politiques et sociaux, no. 951–2). Author’s address: LATTS – Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
Chaussées, 6 et 8 avenue Blaise Pascal, Cité Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, 77455 Marne-
la-Vallée cedex 2, France. [email: david.gueranger@enpc.fr]

Notes
  1. We have limited ourselves to the most recent publications in French: (2006) Sciences de
la société 67: 17–30; ‘Sciences et écriture’; Revue des sciences sociales, 36; ‘Ecrire les sciences
sociales’, Methodos, ‘Science et littérature’. Indeed this article, along with the other papers in
this section, follows on from the two workshops held in September 2006, devoted to the practi-
cal problems involved in writing in the social sciences (Enjeux (et) pratiques de l’écriture en
sciences sociales, Journées d’étude, 22–3 September 2006, Paris 1 – Centre Panthéon).
  2. Unless specifically stated, unreferenced quotations are extracts from one or the other French
version of this interview. They were translated into English by the author of this article himself.
  3. Here again, Pierre Bourdieu is under no illusion about these effects, and his notes refer
to the emotions and even the ‘naïve identification’ he experiences that ‘contributed to determin-
ing what my interviewees said (in terms of the provocative impact of some of my contributions
that people found shocking …)’.
  4. As Pierre Bourdieu explains in the ‘Methods’ chapter, for the researcher, participant
objectivation consists in ‘[assisting] the interviewee in what is simultaneously a painful and
gratifying effort to expose the social determinants of the opinions and practices that may be the
most difficult to admit to and to accept responsibility for’ (1993: 912–13). Hence the interviewees
themselves provide the clues that help explain their suffering while the interviewer plays the
role of ‘midwife’. The terms of the analysis may be clearly stated by the parties themselves
without any need for recourse to sociological formalism and formulations.
628   Social Science Information Vol 48 – no 4
  5. The common-sense idea whereby ‘what is well conceived can be clearly expressed’ is
pitted against ‘the view, which is currently reflected in a large body of human science research
work, of the reciprocal inheritance of frameworks of thought and of oral or written expression,
whether these are in common or scientific languages’ (Passeron, 2004: xvii).
  6. In Bourdieu’s opinion, these terms characterize two types of social-science activity. The
term ‘graphy’ – as in ethnography, for example – denotes detailed descriptive work according
to a systematic inventory, whereas ‘ology’ – as in ethnology or sociology – designates a more
or less totalizing summarizing approach conducted on the basis of a comparison with other
methodological problems, inter alia, that of representativeness (Grignon & Passeron, 1990).
  7. The novel Les choses (Perec, 1965) describes the lives of a young couple locked into the
repetitive daily routines similar to those of many others and symptomatic of an increasingly
materialistic consumer society.
  8. In Je me souviens (1978), in 480 paragraphs of varying length, Perec describes a series
of small events, images and remembered sensations that provide access to a collective memory
of a period or a generation.
  9. In Tentative d’épuisement d’un lieu parisien (1975), Perec uses a vantage-point located
in Paris to describe the succession of unimportant, almost imperceptible and unnoticed events
which he records in the most neutral and factual way possible.
10. We should note that this function operates at three levels: identification of the author
within a scientific community; identification of an issue within a family of questions; and
identification of a clear position and line of reasoning.
11. ‘On the one hand sociology – if it wanted to be a sociography – competed with the real-
ist novel as it also strived to reproduce the ‘prose of situations’. On the other hand, if it wished
to become a social theory, it ran the risk of turning into a mere ‘administrative science’, i.e.
becoming one of those disciplines criticized by Nietzsche for the narrowness of their horizons
and their lack of ‘major cultural goals’. This ‘worn out’ science would later be contrasted with
literature capable of expressing the ‘poetry of the heart’ (Lepenies, 1990: 12).
12. Such research shows how style and rhetoric underpin the construction of papers in these
disciplines (Latour, 1987; Latour & Bastide, 1996).
13. Those who hold to the ‘rhetorical turning point’ in sociology maintain that scientific writing
is a political and poetic act. In situations where there has been a paradigmatic break, for example
in the absence of any dominant theory, rhetorical advantage becomes a real condition for the devel-
opment of the science. Concerning this school of thought, see Richard Harvey Brown (1990).
14. Concerning this point, the science historian Christian Licoppe (1996) has demonstrated
that this tendency to take account of an increasingly wider public has become more pronounced
over time. In particular, developments in the physical sciences have gone hand-in-hand with
changes in the system of validation encompassing a much wider public now recognized as
being part of the validation process.
15. A synecdoche consists of speaking of mortals to designate human beings, iron to designate
a sword, or the Elysée Palace or the White House to designate executive power. By taking more
to represent less or the material for the object, this stylistic device exemplifies this simplification
process that facilitates readability while hampering sociological reflection.
Guéranger Symposium   629

References
Becker, H. S. (1986) Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your thesis, book, or
article. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Becker, H. S. (2001) ‘Sociologie, sociographie, Perec, and Passeron’, in J.-L. Fabiani (ed.) Le
goût de l’enquête: pour Jean-Claude Passeron, pp. 63–76. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bourdieu, P., ed. (1993) La misère du monde. Paris: Le Seuil. (English transl. The weight of the
world: social suffering in contemporary society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999)
Bourdieu, P. (1996) ‘Juin 1991. Ahmed X’, Revue de littérature générale, chap. 2. Paris: POL.
Brown, R. H. (1990) ‘Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in sociological theory’,
Sociological theory 8(2): 188–97.
Goody, J. (1977) The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Grignon, C. & Passeron, J.-C., eds (1990) Le savant et le populaire. Paris: Le Seuil.
Grunberg, G. & Schweisguth, E. (1996) ‘Bourdieu et la misère: une approche réductionniste’,
Revue française de science politique 46(1): 134–55.
Hallyn, F. (2004) Les structures rhétoriques de la science de Kepler à Maxwell. Paris: Seuil.
Jakobson, R. (1963) Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. & Bastide, F. (1996) ‘Essai de science-fabrication: mise en évidence expérimentale
du processus de construction de la réalité par l’application de méthodes socio-sémiotiques
aux textes scientifiques’, Etudes françaises 19(2): 111–33.
Lepenies, W. (1990) Les trois cultures: entre science et littérature, l’avènement de la sociolo-
gie. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. (Transl. from the German, Die drei Kulturen:
Soziologie zwischen Literatur und Wissenschaft. Munchen: Hanser, 1985)
Licoppe, C. (1996) La formation de la pratique scientifique: le discours de l’expérience en
France et en Angleterre (1630–1820). Paris: La Découverte.
Mayer, N. (1995) ‘L’entretien selon Pierre Bourdieu: analyse critique de La misère du monde’,
Revue française de sociologie 36(2): 355–70.
Passeron, J.-C. (2004) ‘Ecrire, réécrire et “dire vrai” en sociologie’, in H. S. Becker (ed.) Ecrire
les sciences sociales: commencer et terminer son article, sa thèse ou son livre, pp. vii–xxv.
Paris: Economica.
Perec, G. (1965) Les choses: une histoire des années soixante. Paris: Juillard. (English transl.
Things: a story of the sixties. London: Vintage, 1999)
Perec, G. (1975) Tentative d’épuisement d’un lieu parisien. Paris: Christian Bourgois.
Perec, G. (1978) Je me souviens. Paris: Hachette. (English transl. Memories. London: Harper
Collins, 1986)
Thunder, D. (2004) ‘Back to basics: twelve rules for writing a publishable article’, Political
science and politics 37: 493–5.