In this study we focus on two different university disciplines in Icelandic academia 1) a highly impractical discipline, philosophy and one of these canonical disciplines (Bourdieu 1983); and 2) a high-status discipline that is central to the field of power (Bourdieu 1983), jurisprudence.

The elites are the dominant agents in a certain social space; the field of power. Elite identity formation is shaped differently from one nation to another, but generally, the secondary and higher education system has an important role in its (re-)production (Bourdieu, 1996; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Philosophy is a part of the reproduction of the cultural elite whereas jurisprudence is tied to the peak of the field of power (Magnúsdóttir & Kosunen, 2022).   

In this study, we focus less on the disciplines in an abstract sense than on individuals of flesh and blood choosing and dedicating themselves to one of these disciplines. We analyse their (cultural, social, economic, and symbolic) capital composition and the habitus of these individuals that have made a career in one of the two disciplines and pose the following questions: What kind of capital composition and habitus strengthen the chances of success in these different disciplines? In the case of individuals, who originally had a disadvantage regarding habitus and capital composition, what factors allowed them to succeed despite their original disadvantages? We for instance ask to what extent factors such as cultural capital (on the scale e.g. from having a parent that is a professor down to being a first-generation university attendant), social capital (from being of the Reykjavik cultural elite down to being from the countryside) and gender influence the positions and dispositions individuals are situated in within the field of the chosen university discipline and compare the varying significance these capitals have in each of these university disciplines to understand the role of social origins and different educational paths leading to a career as a university professor.

Habitus is one of the main analytical concepts throughout this study. It can be understood as a social disposition that forms early on through practice and personal experience. It demarcates a person’s horizon, that is the actions, aspirations, and possibilities which are considered either attainable or out of reach, and involves a person’s identity which is created through routine embodied practice and is shaped by the social fields in which the individual has participated. Therefore it is relevant to explore how individuals feel like fitting in or standing out in the selective school paths and how this influences their aspirations in higher education and later on in their academic career. From the perspective of the habitus of those choosing one of the disciplines and later becoming professors, we do not only ask what the composition of their cultural and social capital is but also the extent to which their habitus influences the position they assume within the field of their discipline. Here we follow Bourdieu (1991) who, in his study on Heidegger, analyses how this son of a craftsman (cooper) has a very different habitus from the dominant bourgeois philosophers, which to some extent influences his theoretical position within the field of philosophy.

In addition to the central questions, we in the end seek to compare the situation today to earlier decades. How much has changed in the last decades concerning the social origins and gender segregation in these subfields of Icelandic higher education? Has diversification taken place, and if so, which factors have influenced this evolution? And how has the development been in Iceland compared to other Nordic countries?

This is a Bourdieusian study of two different university disciplines, collecting and analysing qualitative data. We interview 4 faculty professors of each discipline and additionally analyse focus group interviews with MA- and Doctoral students of these disciplines. The semi-structured interviews are done in the first part of the year 2025 and last about an hour each. The analysis is led by Bourdieu’s conceptual framework (capital, habitus, distinction, taste, lifestyle) focusing on participants’ narrative of childhood, work and school experience, educational choices, friendship, and career path. As a way to minimise the predisposition of this disciplinary study, we see it as an advantage that we derive from different disciplines and have different positions in the hierarchy of the academic field. Bourdieu suggests that there exist three types of bias: The social origins and coordinates of the researcher (the researcher’s habitus), the researcher’s position in the academic field, and the intellectualist bias ‘which entices us to construe the world as spectacle, as a set of significations to be interpreted rather than as concrete problems to be solved practically’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 39). We expect that our different origins and distinct academic positions, as an adjunct lecturer of philosophy and a professor of sociology of education will reduce the bias when analysing the field of philosophy. In the case of the other discipline, jurisprudence, both researchers have some insight but also the necessary distance to this discipline.

Preliminary findings regarding the discipline of philosophy suggest that professors coming from lower social background have had crucial identity formation during their selective upper-secondary education that directed their choice to the discipline. Seen from a historical perspective there seems to have been little diversification in the field of philosophy concerning the social background of the majority of faculty philosophers. In the first years of the philosophy department (established in 1971) the faculty members were dominantly socially privileged, sons of government ministers, deans, painters, etc. – with one exception of a son of a rural worker. In the case of the younger generation, this is partly unchanged. At the same time, the role played by female philosophers has increased significantly, which points to the fact that in the case of a discipline associated with the cultural elite changes concerning the proportion of women are easier than an increase in professors originating from families with low cultural capital. In the case of jurisprudence, the research is still in a preliminary stage which makes it difficult to forecast outcomes.

Börjesson, M., Broady, D., Le Roux, B., Lidegran, I., & Palme, M. (2016). Cultural capital in the elite subfield of Swedish higher education. Poetics (Amsterdam), 56(56), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.004 Bourdieu, P. (1983). The philosophical institution. In Alan Montefiore (ed.), Philosophy in France Today. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1--8. Bourdieu 1983 Bourdieu, P. (1991). The political ontology of Martin Heidegger. Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility : elite schools in the field of power. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage Publications. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity. Magnúsdóttir, B. R., Kosunen, S. (2022). Upper-Secondary School Choices in Reykjavík and Helsinki: The Selected Few in the Urban North. In A. Rasmussen & M. Dovemark (Eds.), Governance and Choice of Upper Secondary Education in the Nordic Countries (pp. 77–95). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08049-4_5 Maton, K. (2005). A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500238861 Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. (2001). Making a Difference?: Institutional Habituses and Higher Education Choice. Sociological Research Online, 5(4), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.548 Reay, D., David, M., & Ball, S. J. (2005). Degrees of Choice: Class, Race, Gender and Higher Education. Trentham books.