Adler-NissenR. (ed.), (2012), Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking IR, London: Routledge.
2.
ArrighiG., (1994), The Long Twentieth Century, London: Verso.
3.
BarmanE., (2013), ‘Classificatory struggles in the nonprofit sector: The formation of the national taxonomy of exempt entities, 1969–1987’, Social Science History, 37 (1): 103–141.
4.
BeckU., (2006), The Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity.
5.
BensonR., (2005), ‘Mapping field variation: Journalism in France and the United States’, in BensonR. and NeveuE., Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, 85–112, Cambridge: Polity.
6.
BensonR., (2013), Shaping Immigration News: A French American Comparison, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BerlingT. V., (2012), ‘Bourdieu, international relations and European security’, Theory & Society, 41: 451–478.
8.
BigoD. (ed.), (2007), The Field of the EU Internal Security Agencies, Paris: Centre d'études sur les conflits/l'Harmattan.
9.
BigoD., (2011), ‘Pierre Bourdieu and international relations: Power of practices, practices of power,’International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 225–258.
10.
BockmanJ. and EyalG., (2002), ‘Eastern Europe as a laboratory for economic knowledge: The transnational roots of neoliberalism’, American Journal of Sociology, 108 (2): 310–352.
11.
BohnC., (2006), ‘Une société mondiale. Les concepts de société opératories dans les théories sociales de Bourdieu et Luhmann’, in MullerH. P. and SintomerY. (eds), Pierre Bourdieu, théorie et pratique. Perspectives freanco-allemandess, 101–12. Paris: La Découverte.
12.
BoliJ. and ThomasG. M., (1997), ‘World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization’, American Sociological Review, 62 (2): 171–190.
13.
BoliJ. and ThomasG. M., (1999), Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
BourdieuP., (1959), ‘Le choc des civilisations’, in Secrétariat social d'Alger (ed.), Le Sous-Développement en Algérie, 52–64, Algiers: Secrétariat social.
15.
BourdieuP., (1961 [1958]), The Algerians. Translated by RossAlan C. M. with a preface by Raymond Aron, Boston: Beacon Press.
16.
BourdieuP., (1971), ‘Intellectual field and creative project’, in YoungM. F. D. (ed.), Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education, 161–188, London: Collier-Macmillan.
17.
BourdieuP., (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BourdieuP., (1984a), Homo Academicus, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
BourdieuP., (1984b), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
BourdieuP., (1986), ‘The forms of capital’, in RichardsonJ. (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 241–258, New York: Greenwood Press.
21.
BourdieuP., (1990), In other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
BourdieuP., (1991a), ‘Epilogue: On the possibility of a field of world sociology’, in BourdieuP. and ColemanJ. (ed.), Social Change for a Changing Society, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23.
BourdieuP., (1991b), ‘Genesis and structure of the religious field’, Comparative Social Research, 13: 1–44.
24.
BourdieuP., (1993), The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, New York: Columbia University Press.
25.
BourdieuP., (1994), ‘Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field’, Sociological Theory, 12 (1): 1–18.
26.
BourdieuP., (1996), The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field Pierre Bourdieu, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
BourdieuP. (1999), On Television. New York: The New Press.
28.
BourdieuP., (2002), ‘Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 145: 3–8.
29.
BourdieuP., (2003), Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market2, London: Verso.
30.
BourdieuP., (2005), ‘The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field’, in BensonR. and NeveuE. (eds), Pierre Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, 29–47, Cambridge: Polity Press.
31.
BourdieuP., (2000), The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
BourdieuP. and PassersonJ. C., (1977), Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
BourdieuP. and WacquantL., (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
BrandU.DemirovicA.GörgC. and HirschJ. (eds), (2001), Nichtregierungsorganisationen in der Transformation des Staates, Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
35.
BreitmeierH.YoungO. R. and ZürnM., (2007), Analyzing International Environmental Regimes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
BuchholzL., (2008), ‘Feldtheorie und Globalisierung’ (‘Field theory and globalization’), in von BismarckB.KaufmannT. and WuggenigU. (eds), Nach Bourdieu: Visualität, Kunst, Politik, Vienna: Turia & Kant.
37.
BuchholzL., (2013), ‘The global rules of art’, PhD Dissertation, Department of Sociology, New York: Columbia University.
38.
BurawoyM., (2000), ‘Introduction: Reaching for the global’, in BurawoyM.BlumJ. A.GeorgeS.GilleZ.GowanT.HaneyL.KlawitterM.LopezS. H.RiainS. O. and ThayerM. (eds), Global Ethnography, 1–40, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
39.
BurawoyM., (2008), ‘Rejoinder: For a subaltern global sociology?’Current Sociology, 56 (3): 435–444.
40.
CalhounC., (1993), ‘Habitus, field, and capital: The question of historical specificity’, in CalhounC.LipumaE. and PostoneM. (eds), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, 61–88, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
ChandlerD., (2001), ‘The road to military humanitarianism: How the human rights NGOs shaped a new humanitarian agenda’, Human Rights Quarterly, 23 (3): 678–700.
42.
ChandlerD., (2002), From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention, London: Pluto Press.
43.
ChandlerD., (2004), ‘The responsibility to protect? Imposing the liberal peace’, International Peacekeeping, 11 (1): 59–81.
44.
ChomskyN., (1999), The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo, Monroe: Common Courage Press.
45.
ChorevN., (2012), ‘Changing global norms through reactive diffusion: The case of intellectual property protection of AIDS drugs’, American Sociological Review, 77 (5): 831–853.
46.
CohenA., (2011), ‘Bourdieu hits Brussels: The genesis and structure of the European field of power’, International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 335–339.
47.
DesanM., (2013), ‘Bourdieu, Marx, and capital: A critique of the extension model’, Sociological Theory, 31 (4): 318–342.
48.
DezalayY. and GarthB. G., (1995), ‘Merchants of law as moral entrepreneurs: Constructing international justice from the competition for transnational business disputes’, Law and Society Review, 29: 27.
49.
DezalayY. and GarthB. G., (1998), Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
DezalayY. and GarthB. G., (2002a), Global Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
51.
DezalayY. and GarthB. G., (2002b), The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
DezalayY. and GarthB. G., (2011), ‘Hegemonic battles, professional rivalries, and the international division of labor in the market for the import and export of state-governing expertise’, International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 276–293.
53.
Di MaggioP. and PowellW., (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
DuffieldM., (2001), Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security, London: Zed Books.
55.
EliasN., (2000 [1939]), The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell.
56.
EmirbayerM. and JohnsonV., (2008), ‘Bourdieu and organizational analysis’, Theory and Society, 37 (1): 1–44.
57.
FinnemoreM., (1996), ‘Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights from sociology's institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (2): 325–347.
58.
FligsteinN., (2001), ‘Social skill and the theory of fields’, Sociological Theory, 19: 105–125.
59.
FligsteinN. and McAdamD., (2011), ‘Toward a general theory of strategic action fields’, Sociological Theory, 29 (1): 1–26.
60.
FligsteinN. and McAdamD., (2012), A Theory of Fields, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
FoucaultM.BurchellG.GordonC. and MillerP., (1991), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62.
FourcadeM., (2006), ‘The construction of a global profession: The transnationalization of economics’, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (1): 145–194.
63.
FrankA. G., (1967), Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, New York: Monthly Review Press.
64.
FurediF., (1994), The New Ideology of Imperialism: Renewing the Moral Imperative, London: Pluto Press.
65.
GartmanD., (2002), ‘Bourdieu's theory of cultural change: Explication, application, critique’, Sociological Theory, 20 (2): 255–277.
66.
GeorgakakisD. (2011), ‘Don't throw out the “Brussels bubble” with the bathwater: From EU institutions to the field of eurocracy’, International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 331–334.
67.
GingrasY., (2002), ‘Les formes spécifiques de l'internationalité du champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 141–142: 31–45.
68.
GoJ., (2008), ‘Global fields and imperial forms: Field theory and the British and American empires’, Sociological Theory, 26 (3): 201–229.
69.
GorskiP. S., (2013a), ‘Bourdieusian theory and historical analysis: Maps, mechanisms, and methods’, in GorskiP. S. (ed.), Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, 327–367, Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.
70.
GorskiP. S. (ed.), (2013b), Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.
71.
GuilhotN., (2001), ‘Les professionnels de la d'emocratie’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales4: 53–65.
72.
GuilhotN., (2005), The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order, New York: Columbia University Press.
73.
GuilhotN., (2007), ‘Reforming the world: George Soros, global capitalism and the philanthropic management of the social sciences’, Critical Sociology33 (3): 447–477.
74.
GuilhotN., (2014), ‘The international circulation of international relations theory’, in KeimW.ÇelikE.ErscheC. and WöhrerV. (eds), Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences: Made in Circulation, 63–87, London: Ashgate.
75.
HaganJ., (2005), ‘Crimes of war and the force of law’, Social Forces83 (4): 1499–1534.
76.
HardtM. and NegriA., (2000), Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
HasencleverA.MayerP. and RittbergerV., (1997), Theories of International Regimes, New York: Cambridge University Press.
78.
HeilbronJ., (2014), ‘The social sciences as an emerging global field’, Current Sociology, 62 (5): 685–703.
79.
HeilbronJ.GuilhotN. and JeanpierreL., (2008), ‘Toward a transnational history of the social sciences’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 44 (2): 146–160.
80.
HessD. and FrickelS., (2014), ‘Introduction: Fields of knowledge and theory traditions in the sociology of science’, Political Power and Social Theory, 27: 1–30.
81.
HilbertR. A., (1990), ‘Ethnomethodology and the micro-macro order’, American Journal of Sociology, 794–808.
82.
HilgersM. and MangezE., (2014), ‘Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social fields’, in HilgersM. and MangezE. (ed.), Bourdieu's Theory of Social Fields, 1–37. London: Routledge.
83.
HolstiK. J., (1985), The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin.
84.
HolzerB.KastnerF. and WerronT. (eds.), (2014), From Globalization to World Society: Neo-Institutional and Systems-Theoretical Perspectives, London; New York: Routledge.
85.
HulmeD. and EdwardsM., (1997), NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort?, New York: St Martin's Press.
86.
IriyeA., (1989), ‘The internationalization of history’, American Historical Review, 94 (1): 1–10.
87.
KeckM. E. and SikkinkK., (1998), Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
88.
KeohaneR. O. and MartinL. L., (1995), ‘The promise of institutionalist theory’, International Security, 20 (1): 39–51.
89.
Knorr-CetinaK., (2007), ‘Microglobalization’, in RossiI. (ed.), Frontiers of Globalization Research: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches, 65–92, New York: Springer.
90.
KrasnerS. D. (ed.), (1983), International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
91.
KrauseM., (2014), The Good Project: Humanitarian NGOs and the Fragmentation of Reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LahireB., (2014), ‘The limits of the field: Elements for a theory of the social differentiation of activities’, in HilgersM. and MangezE. (eds), Bourdieu's Theory of Social Fields, 1–37, London: Routledge.
94.
LarnerW. and WaltersW., (2004), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces, London: Routledge.
95.
LatourB., (2005), Reassembling the Social, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
96.
LatourB.JensenP.VenturiniT.GrauwinS. and BoullierD., (2012), ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts: A digital test of Gabriel Tarde's Monads’, British Journal of Sociology, 63 (4): 590–615.
97.
LeanderA., (2011), ‘The promises, problems, and potentials of a Bourdieu-inspired staging of international relations’, International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 294–313.
98.
LeavittP. and SchillerGlick N., (2004), ‘Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society’, International Migration Review, 38 (145): 595–629.
99.
LebaronF., (2008), ‘Central bankers in the contemporary global field of power: A “social space” approach’, Sociological Review, 56 (1): 121–144.
100.
LebaronF., (2010), ‘European Central Bank leaders in the global space of central bankers: A geometric data analysis approach’, French Politics, 8: 294–320.
101.
LewinK., (1975), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
102.
LippertR., (1998), ‘Rationalities and refugee resettlement’, Economy and Society, 27: 380–406.
103.
LovemanM., (2005), ‘The modern state and the primitive accumulation of symbolic power’, American Journal of Sociology, 110 (6): 1651–1683.
104.
MarginsonS., (2008), ‘Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher education’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 (3): 303–315.
105.
MartinJ. L., (2003), ‘What is field theory?’, American Journal of Sociology, 109: 1–49.
106.
McKinnonA.TrzebiatowskaM. and BrittainC. C., (2011), ‘Bourdieu, capital, and conflict in a religious field: The case of the “homosexuality” conflict in the Anglican Communion’, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 26 (3): 355–370.
107.
MérandF., (2010), ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense’, Security Studies, 19 (2): 3342–3374.
108.
MeyerJ., (1980), ‘The world polity and the authority of the nation-state’, in BergesenA. (ed.), Studies of the Modern World-System, 109–137, New York: Academic Press.
109.
MeyerJ. W., (2010), ‘World society, institutional theories, and the actor’, Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 1–20.
110.
MeyerJ. W.BoliJ.ThomasG. M. and RamirezF. O., (1997), ‘World society and the nation-state’, American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 144–181.
111.
MudgeS. L. and VauchezA., (2012), ‘Building Europe on a weak field: Law, economics and scholarly avatars in transnational politics’, American Journal of Sociology, 118 (2): 449–492.
112.
NeumannI. B., (2002), ‘Returning practice to the linguistic turn: The case of diplomacy’, Millennium, 31 (3): 627–651.
113.
O'MalleyP.WeirL. and ShearingC., (1997), ‘Governmentality, criticism, politics’, Economy and Society, 26: 501–17.
114.
RankinK. N., (2001), ‘Governing development: Neoliberalism, microcredit, and rational economic woman’, Economy and Society, 30: 18–37.
115.
RisseT., (2002), ‘Transnational actors and world politics’, in CarlsnaesW.RisseT. and SimmonsB. A. (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
116.
SapiroG., (2013), ‘Le Champ est-il national? La theorie de la differenciation sociale au prisme de l'histoire globale’, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 200: 70–86.
117.
SendingO. and NeumannI. B., (2006), ‘Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, states, and power’, International Studies Quarterly50 (3): 651–672.
118.
SlaughterA.-M., (2011), ‘International relations, principal theories’, in WolfrumR. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
119.
StamatovP., (2013), The Origins of Global Humanitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
120.
StampnitzkyL., (2011), ‘Disciplining an unruly field: Terrorism experts and theories of scientific/intellectual production’, Qualitative Sociology, 34 (1): 1–19.
121.
SteinmetzG., (2007), The Devil's Handwriting, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
122.
SteinmetzG., (2008), ‘The colonial state as a social field: Ethnographic capital and native policy in the German overseas empire before 1914’, American Sociological Review, 73: 589–612.
123.
SteinmetzG., (2011), ‘Bourdieu, historicity, and historical sociology’, Cultural Sociology, 5 (1): 45–66.
124.
SwartzD., (1997), Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
125.
ThomasG., (2007), ‘World polity, world culture, world society’, International Political Sociology, 3 (1): 115–119.
126.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. and LounsburyM., (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
127.
TomlinsonJ., (1991), Cultural Imperialism, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
128.
VauchezA., (2008), ‘The force of a weak field: Law and lawyers in the government of the European Union (for a renewed research agenda)’, International Political Sociology, 2 (2): 128–144.
129.
VauchezA., (2011), ‘Interstitial power in fields of limited statehood: Introducing a “weak field” approach to the study of transnational settings’, International Political Sociology, 5 (3): 340–345.
130.
WallersteinI., (1974), The Modern World-system, New York: Academic Press.
131.
WallersteinI., (2001), Unthinking Social Science: The Limits of Nineteenth-Century Paradigms, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
132.
WallersteinI., (2004), World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
133.
WaltzK., (1979), A Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw Hill.
134.
WapnerP., (1996), Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
135.
WilletsP. (ed.), (1996), The Conscience of the World, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.