Nathalie Heinich practice the art of right words and phrases that identify issues closer. Unlike others who have denounced only in the person of Bourdieu the grip of a dictatorship, it simultaneously shows the other side, why we let ourselves so fascinating. So what these often convoluted reasoning but so sure of themselves brought to followers, colleagues, students, circles gradually as the years passed, widened to representatives of other academic disciplines and to the general public in France and abroad. Nathalie Heinich first traces his own young student course attracted by the charisma and the epistemological promises of master and disciple making his thesis with him, to come off very gradually the "critical paradigm" by slow reformulation of the approach sociological that led her to think for herself. This part of the book is moving and at the same time she offers us a few anecdotes experienced that appear as highly comical in retrospect, but are so revealing the small academic world. More than long theoretical reasoning, they show us the "charismatic domination" Bourdieu at work. But no disclosure or settling here, that would meet the company mirrored the sociologist, but a comprehensive approach to patient (in the sense of Weber and not common sense) of the life and work of the sociologist, it is true enamelled few claws worn mine not to touch it. Then it's a very careful record of what, in the mid-68, then the questioning of "neo-liberalism conqueror" of the 80 and 90, could explain the vast success of Bourdieu. The unveiling of hidden worlds that camouflage background strategic interests, material and symbolic dominant players, including social science master the keys of understanding with conceptual tools, empirical and sometimes sophisticated statistical (though the statistics in Reproductive are quite poor, simple tables of percentages, how does one was able to "believe"?) A constant denunciation of "enemies" by analyzing and dissecting a speech the other, but always putting the speaker in free from suspicion. A pleasurable effect for the speaker to see or imagine the stunning of those who learn that they have been cheated by the dominant groups, but some representatives of the social science better equipped than they knew how the system works .. . In the end, she leaves something positive to the contribution of Bourdieu in sociology? Yes, certainly, "Draft, contextualization, the symbolic role, hierarchical stratification: these are concepts without which, to me it seems, no sociologist can not work today, although they are not necessarily in the forefront its tools and it is even, moreover, this conceptual background position which marks the strength of a thought pattern, a "paradigm" intellectual, all the more effective it is barely conscious, by force of evidence. In any case, for me, the essence of what I take from the lesson of Bourdieu. This is not nothing. "
