Thecalculativereproductionofsocialstructures–ThefieldofgemmininginSriLanka

ChandanaAlawattage

UniversityofAberdeenBusinessSchool,Aberdeen,Scotland,UK

AbstractDrawingonBourdieu’spoliticaleconomyofsymbolicformsandsymbolicpower,and on an ethnography of gem mining rituals in Sri Lanka, this paper aims toprovide an empirical illustration of the connectionbetween calculative practicesand the social structure of capital. It shows how capital is socially structuredaround particular fields of reproduction, how the field‐specific organisation ofcapital is implicated in the presence and absence of calculative and controlpractices, and how calculative templates and procedures, as symbolic systems,simultaneously perform interrelated but distinct functions of cognition,communicationanddomination.Thepaperadvancestheargumentthatcalculativetemplates and procedures constitute a field‐specific logic and they are thesymbolic means through which structural properties of the social systems arecognised, communicated, reproduced and transformed into a set of practicaldispositionsthatorientday‐to‐dayworkpractices,dominationandresistance.Keywords:Bourdieu;Calculativepractices;Absenceofaccounting;Ethnography;Formsofcapital;Gemmining;Habitus;Symbolicforms;Symbolicpower;SriLanka

1.IntroductionRecently,therehasbeenarevitalisationofsocialstructuralapproachestothetheoreticalanalysesof organisational practices. In particular, Bourdieu’s conceptions of field, practices, habitus andformsofcapitalhavebeenmakingincreasinginroadsintosuchanalyses(e.g.Everett,2003,2004;Fogarty, 1998; Goddard, 2004; Kurunmaki, 1999b; Lounsbury, 2008; Lounsbury and Ventresca,2003;LukkaandGranlund,2002;Neu,2006;Neuetal.,2003;Ramirez,2001;ShenkinandCoulson,2007;XuandXu,2008).Followingthistrend,thispaperaimstoprovideanempiricalillustrationoftheconnectionbetweencalculativepracticesandthesocialstructureofcapital.UsinganempiricalcaseofgemminingritualsinSriLanka,thepapershowshowcapitalissociallystructuredaroundparticular fieldsofreproduction,howthefield‐specificorganisationofcapital is implicatedin thepresence and absence of calculative and control practices, how calculative templates andprocedures, as symbolic systems, simultaneously perform interrelated but distinct functions ofcognition, communication and domination and, after all, how domination, subjugation andresistance are scripted into day‐to‐day work practices. The paper advances the argument thatcalculative templates and procedures constitute a field‐specific logic and they are the symbolicmeans through which the structural properties of social systems are cognised, communicated,reproduced and transformed into a set of dispositions that orient day‐to‐day work practices,dominationandresistance.

2  

In doing so, with a view to locating it in its literary context, the paper will first introduce theaccounting and control literature that draws on Bourdieu. Second, it will introduce Bourdieu’ssociologyofsymbolicformsandsymbolicpowerasthetheoreticalfoundationofthepaper.Third,thepaperwilldiscuss itsmethodologicalpropositionsandprocedures, followedby theempiricalwork in four separate sections. Empirical sections are organised around the relations in and ofproduction to reveal how field‐specific properties of habitus, bodily hexis, doxa and capital areimplicated in the presence and absence of calculative and control practices. Finally, the paperconcludeswithatheoreticalsynthesisoftheempirics.2.BourdieuinaccountingliteratureThere isanextantbodyof accountingand control literature thatdrawsonBourdieu’s ideas (seenextsectionforabriefelaborationofhisideas).Thisbodyofliteraturedemonstratesawidevarietyin its empirical focus anddeploymentofBourdieu’s concepts.Not surprisingly,muchaccountingandcontrolresearchdrawsmainlyonBourdieu’sconceptof‘field’toexplainhowtheconstitutionofculturalandsocialcapitalisimplicatedinselectedaccountingphenomena.Lee(1995,1999)andLeeandWilliams(1999),forexample,drawingonBourdieu’s(1988)studyoftheFrenchacademyin the late 1960s, and on the history of the American Accounting Association as an empiricalfoundation, explain how the existence of an elite group of researchers within the ‘field’ of USaccounting education has contributed to the stratification of itsmembers according to a pole ofcultural capital. They also look at the ways in which this stratification has had the potential toinfluence the knowledge production process and reproductive order of the accounting academy.Ramirez(2001)alsodrawsontheconceptsoffieldandcapital,lookingespeciallyathowthelackofsolidity within the inner hierarchy of the professional accounting field vis‐à‐vis the overallhierarchy of social fields, helps in an understanding of the failure of a French project of theinstitutionalisation of accounting before the Second World War. Again concentrating on theaccountingprofession,Jacobs(2003)drawsonBourdieu’sconceptionsofeducation,distinctionandclasstodemonstratehowclassdiscriminationsarereproducedwithintherecruitmentpracticesoftheScottishaccountingprofession.Neuetal. (2001)andCooperetal. (2005)drawonBourdieu’sworktoanalysearatherdifferentissue:thefunctioningofaccountingwithinpublicpolicystrugglesandtheinterventionalstrategiesthat critical accounting researchers can pursue in making a socio‐political critique of thedominatingideologiesofstateandcorporatecapitalism.DrawingmainlyonBourdieu’sanalysisofthe functioning of intellectuals and the politics of cultural production, they emphasise theimportanceof “universal intellectualism” in thisregard(seeBourdieu,1991a;Neuetal.,2001,p.740).Thecontemporarypoliticalroleofcriticalacademicaccountants(i.e.activeengagementintheoutsideworld)hasalsobeenthepointoffocusforCooper(2002).Sheturnstowardstheacademicand political work of Bourdieu (especially TheWeight of theWorld, Bourdieu, 1999) to offer apersuasive critique on our apathy towards active political engagements in policy critiques andsocialreformations.Taking thecaseofClydesbankasbestossufferers, thetuition feecampaign inScotland and also the political role that the Centre for Social and Environmental AccountingResearchplaysinpromotingcriticalideologiesasillustrations,shearguesthatrealworldpoliticalengagementsshouldhavethe“doublebenefitofallowingustohoneourtheoreticalunderstandingandgainthesatisfactionofknowingthatourworkisofsocialbenefit”(Cooper,2002,p.461).ShenkinandCoulson’s(2007)paperexaminesasimilartheme:theideaofsocialactivismdirectedagainst the corporate hegemony. Based on the Boudieuian idea that communication is seen toreflect an asymmetrical power relationship between social agents who constantly struggle overlimited resources in a field, they conceptualise the academic field of Social and EnvironmentalAccounting (SEA) as a discursive space within which two philosophical positions compete for

3  

recognition:theproceduralschoolofSEAand“socialactivism”.However,contrarytothepositionof Neu et al. (2001) that discourses of pragmatism, appeals to “commonsense”, and calls to be“practical”arethedangersofthecriticalaccountingodyssey(seealsoCooper,2002,pp.460–461),Shenkin and Coulson (2007) seek possibilities for converging the two ideological positions.Accountingacademiahasalsobeenthe‘field’ofstudyforEverett’s(2008)analysisofhoweditorialproximity is implicated inpublication success.He relies onBourdieu’s conceptsof “rational self‐interest”anda“good‐faitheconomy”,whichheutilises toseehowactors inaccountingacademiacultivate “preferred taste”, the inculcation of which is argued to be a key factor in publicationsuccess (pp. 1150–1151). The notion of the “economy of symbolic goods” (Bourdieu, 1998) hasbeentheexplanatorytoolfortheanalysismadebyNeuetal.(2003)intoethicaldiscoursesintheCanadian accounting profession. By conceptualising character‐based and rule‐based ethicaldiscoursesastypesofembodiedandobjectiveculturalgoods,respectively,andbylinkingthesetwotypes of cultural goods to two different cultural goods markets (restricted, anti‐economic andwidespreadeconomic),respectively,theyexplainhowandwhyethicaldiscoursesfulfilbindingandlegitimacyfunctions.Thus,analysisofthefieldsofaccountingacademiaandprofessionshasbeenapopularempiricalfieldforthoseaccountingresearcherswhodrawonBourdieu.Kurunmaki (1999a, 1999b) also draws on the notions of field and capital to conceptualise theFinishhealthcaresectorasasiteofcontinuousstruggleforpowerandcontrol.Shedemonstrateshow the field is structured as a game between those involved in the functions of financing,productionandconsumptionofhealthcare,howthedistributionofdifferentlyvaluedcapitalinthefield is implicated in their chances of winning and losing the game and how that particulardistributionofcapitalisenactedinatransitionfromprofessionalplanningandcontroltomarket‐based control. In a recent publication, Oakes and Young (2010) argue that accounting andaccountabilityconvertanysocialspaceintoacontestedfieldinwhichstrugglesoversymbolicandculturalcapitalareinevitableand,inrelationtotheaccountabilitydiscoursesaroundtheAmericanIndian Trust Fund debacle, they demonstrate how symbolic and cultural capitals enable theirholders to generate and control discourse around accountability, and use that discourse withauthorityandease.Neuetal.(2006)combineFoucauldianliteratureongovernmentalitywithBourdieu’sideasoffieldandhabitustoexaminehowtheWorldBankhasusedanassemblageofinformationandreportingpractices,withinaccounting/financialexpertise,toinfluenceadministrativepracticesinthefieldofLatinAmericaneducation.Theydemonstratehowinformationcanbefabricated,inafield‐specificmanner, via the intersection of the newly implanted financial technologies, the pre‐existinginformation systems, and the taken‐for‐grantedhabitusof the field.The samesynthesisbetweenFoucauldian and Bourdieuian ideas has also been the sociological framework for Neu’s (2006)examination of how accounting is implicated in the ordering of the public space. His analysishighlights how the financial and accountability mechanisms used by a Canadian provincialgovernment as part of its educational reform initiatives facilitated changes in the types andamounts of capital of certain field participants, encouraged the partitioning of generic socialgroupings(suchasparentsandacademic labour) intomore finelydistinguishedsocialgroupings,and introducednewwaysof saying anddoing into the field (p.391).Rahamanet al. (2007)alsomobilisethesametheoreticalsynthesistodemonstrate,usingthecaseoftheprivatisationofwaterservicesinGhana,howaccountinganditsusersprovideexternalagencies,suchastheWorldBank,withasourceofsymboliccapitalasameansofcontrollingthefieldfromadistance.BaxterandChua(2008)takeBourdieuiananalysis inaccountingtoadifferentdomainwhentheytake up Bourdieu’s practice theory, especially the notion of habitus, to examine how one enactsbeingachieffinancialofficer(CFO),usingacasestudyofaCFOinalargeAustralianorganisation.

4  

Althoughtheytendtoneglectthedialecticsofhispositionandhisnotionofembodiedcapitalwithwider relationsof power, their analysis demonstrates the CFO’s day‐to‐day engagementwithhisposition and how his “self‐professed high profile”, as a sort of cultural capital, enabled him toposition himself as CFO. In an interesting attempt to attribute the notion of habitus to anorganisationalentity,FreeandMacintosh(2009)explainthedemiseofEnronthoughtheevolutionofitssystemofhabitusovertwodistincterasofleadership.Theiranalysisnotonlyconcentratesonhowcorporateleadersenactthemselvesintheirpositionsthroughtheirculturalcapitalandhabitusbutalsohowsuchenactment is implicatedinthecorporatecontrolstructuresandadministrativepractices,aswellasinthegamesthatfieldincumbentsplayagainstbotheachotherandthecontrolstructuresthataremeanttogoverntheirbehaviour.Businessplanningandbudgetinghavebeenthefocusoftwootherstudies.Oakesetal.(1998)drawonBourdieu’sconceptsoffield,capitalandpedagogicalpracticetoanalysebusinessplanningintheprovincialmuseumsandculturalheritagesitesofAlberta,Canada.Theyshowhowsuchbusinessplanning, as a mechanism of control and a form of symbolic violence, works subtly throughlanguageandtheconstructionanduseofknowledge.Inanattempttosynthesisegroundedtheory(Strauss and Corbin, 1990) and Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, Goddard (2004) examines therelationshipbetweenthebudgetprocess,accountability,trustandpowerinlocalgovernmentintheUK. Habitus, here, can explain how perceptions of accountability are constructed and how theyinfluencebudgetpractices.A recentpaperbyHamiltonandÓhÓgartaigh (2009) comes rather closer to theway I intend todeployBourdieuinthispaper.Theirattentionisonhowaccountingdoctrines,especiallythenotionoftrueandfairview(TFV),becomewhattheyare:systemsofsymbolicviolencethatmaintainandreinforce the institutionalised hierarchy of the accounting field. Together with certain (implicit)notionsofsymbolicsystemsandviolence,theydrawonBourdieu’sconceptionofhabitustoexplorehow professional rites and rituals of “native virtuosos”who have a “feel for the game” produce“legitimatelanguage”ofaccountingandhowthatlanguageinturnreproducesstructuralpropertiesof the field within which such rites, rituals and agential bodies that perform those rituals aresituated. This is akin to my argument in this paper that calculative templates and proceduresconstitute a field‐specific logic and they are the symbolic means through which structuralpropertiesof thesocialsystemsare cognised,communicated, reproducedandtransformed intoasetofpracticaldispositionsthatorientday‐to‐dayworkpractices,dominationandresistance.MostofthepriorliteratureissubjecttoacommoncriticismthatitfailedtoincorporateallthreeofBourdieu’s master concepts – habitus, capital and field – into a single study (see Free andMacintosh, 2009; Swartz, 2008). As Free and Macintosh (2009) argue, Bourdieu (1998, p. 85)identifies all three concepts as indispensable, and there is a danger of missing his ‘relationalapproach’whenthoseconceptsareappropriatedpiecemeal.Asaresult,muchoftheirexplanatorypowerislostandtherichnessofafull‐blownanalysisisunderachieved(FreeandMacintosh,2009,p. 4). That said, as Emirbayer and Johnson (2008) argue, in this kind of analysis the dynamicpropertiesofthetheoryandtherelationbetweentheconceptsislost.However,thisliteratureneednotbedemeanedsimplyas a resultof itsviolationof the relational tenantsofBourdieu’s theorybecause,asVaughan(2008)argues,excisingaconceptandexaminingitindifferentsocialsettingshascontributedtoourbodyofknowledgeonaccountingandcontrol.Even though a theory by definition requires the interdependence of parts to formulate anexplanation,asVaughan(2008,p.67)argues,aconceptbecomesseparatedfromitswholemainlydue to the “scholar preference”, which is a conditioned outcome of the competition among

5  

alternative theoretical frameworks, the complexity of the theory in question, the researcher’sspecialisationanddataavailability.Thus,

Itisnotthatorganizationalsociologistshavefailedtograsptherelationalaspectsof Bourdieu’s theory. One or all – competing paradigms, theory complexity, andspecializationanddataavailability–canbeobstaclestoincorporatingafulltheoryinto an empirical analysis because any or all of the threemay prevent us fromseeingtherelevanceofthewhole,evenasthesesamefactorsmayenableustoseetherelevanceofoneormoreofthetheory’sparts(Vaughan,2008,p.67).

Withregardtothispaper,Iwasfortunatetogaindeepethnographicaccesstoaparticularfieldthatofferedthechancetoincorporate,interalia,Bourdieu’skeyconcepts–field,capitalandhabitus–ina relational manner to demonstrate how they explain collectively the presence and absence ofcalculative and control practices. The analysis, while fundamentally grounded on ethnographicdata,usesBourdieu’s‘politicaleconomyofsymbolicformsandsymbolicpower’,whereemphasisisplacedontheroleofsymbolicformsandprocessesinthereproductionofsocialinequalities.Thisisnottheonlyfeaturethatdistinguishesthispaperfromotheraccountingandcontrolresearchthatdraws on Bourdieu. The paper also differs in terms of the cultural political specificities of theethnographicfield:anethnographyofapre‐capitalisticmodeofproductionthatsurvivesinaless‐developedcountry,providinganopportunity to contribute to thestreamofaccounting literaturethatdealswiththe‘absenceofaccounting’(Choudhury,1988;JacobsandKemp,2002).3.PoliticaleconomyofsymbolicformsandpowerBourdieu’sworkcanbetaken,hebelieves(Bourdieu,1989,p.14),as“constructiviststructuralism”or“structuralistconstructivism”,withinwhichhetriestoreconciletwoaspectsofsocialgenesis;ontheonehand,theschemesofperception,thought,andactionthatareconstitutiveofwhathecallshabitusand,on theother, thesocial structuresofwhathe terms fieldsandclasses/groups.Thus,through a reconceptualisation of the relations between the symbolic (subjective) and material(objective)dimensionsofsociallife,hedevelopsapoliticaleconomyofsymbolicformsandpowerthat attempts to provide a theoretical and empirical analysis of how social inequalities arereproduced through practices of symbolic power and symbolic violence. At the centre of thistheoreticalconstructionliestheroleofsymbolicsystems(whichincludearts,science,religionandlanguage)asstructuringstructuresthatmediatepracticesbyconnectingindividualsandgroupstoinstitutionalised hierarchies (see Swartz, 1997, p. 1). Systems of calculations are such symbolicsystems, which mediate the effects of wider power structures to produce various forms ofcalculativeandcontrolpractices.ForBourdieu, thesocialisedbodydoesnotstand inoppositiontosociety; it isoneof its formsofexistence.Socialrealityexistsbothinsideandoutsidesocialactors,inbothourcognitivestructuresandobjectivesocialstructures,manifestedbythematerialexistenceofthingsoutsideourcognitivestructures. Thus, in our sociological analyses, the individual and society should be constructedrelationally, as if they are two dimensions of the same social reality (see Swartz, 1997, p. 96).Bourdieu constructs this inseparable connection between the socialised body and the structurallogicsofthesocialspacethroughasetofconceptualdevices:someofwhicharemorerelatedtothesocialisedbodywhileothersaremoreameansofunderstandingthestructurallogicofthe“field”.There is also another set that is related to social processes and the relations throughwhich oneclass/group of social actors would exercise symbolic power over others. The “practical logic”(Bourdieu,1990b)ofcalculativeandcontrolpracticesneedstobeunderstoodwithinthisrelationaldynamicbetweenthesocialisedbodyandthestructurallogicofthefield.Thus,theattempthereisto grasp the totality of his theoretical construct and to locate the ‘logic of calculative practices’

6  

therein. Fig. 1 provides an outline for my conceptualisation of Bourdieu’s political economy ofsymbolicformsandsymbolicpower.

Fig.1.Bourdieu’spoliticaleconomyofsymbolicformsandpower.In Bourdieu’s political economy, ‘field’ is the structure of a conflictual social setting or ‘field ofstruggle’, in the context ofwhichhis other concepts are to be located andunderstood.A field ismeant toencompassa structural logicaccording towhichspecific typesof capitalare competingagainsteachotherforastakeinthegame;everyfieldhasitsownself‐definingstakesandinterests,whichareirreducibletothestakesandinterestsspecifictootherfields(Bourdieu,1995,p.72).Assuch,afieldbecomesastructuredspaceofdominantandsubordinatepositionsbasedontypesandamountsofcapital(Swartz,1997,p.123).Thestructurallogicofafieldimposesonactorsspecificformsofstruggle,whichtheyinternalisethroughvariousformsofembodiment;theythenmobilisesuchembodiedorobjectifiedpropertiesasaformofcapitaltopursuetheirspecificinterestsinthefieldaswellastoresistthedominatinginfluencesstemmingfromtheotherformsofcapitalinthefield.3.1.FormsofembodimentReadingthroughFig.1,thesetofconceptsinBoxAshowsthedifferentwaysinwhichindividualsandgroupsembodythestructurallogicofthefield.Theyarethemodeofreproducingtheobjectivesocialstructureswithinthecognitiveschemataofthesocialisedbody,andthemediathroughwhichthesocialisedbodyisfacilitatedtoproduceactionsaccordingtothelogicofthefield.However,such

Socialised body (individuals and groups)

Structural logic of the field (institutionalised social hierarchies)

Symbolic systems as instruments of 1. cognition 2. communication 3. domination

Forms of embodiment Symbolic interests Habitus Doxa Bodily hexis Illusio

Forms of capital

7  

actions are not mechanical responses to external determining structures. Instead, symbolicinterests,habitus,andotherformsoftheembodimentoftheculturalandsociallegaciesofthepastfilterandshapeindividualandcollectiveresponsestothepresentandfuture(seeSwartz,1997,p.69). In other words, structural ‘distinctions’ manifested by the institutionalised hierarchies areembodieddistinctivelybyindividualsbelongingtodifferentsocialcategoriesinordertoreproducedifferentmindsetsandbehavioursindistinctivesocialsituations/fields.As Swartz (1997, pp. 66–73) also argues, Bourdieu posits that all actions are patterned andinterest‐oriented at a tacit, prereflective level of awareness that occurs over time. However,Bourdieu’sconceptofsymbolicinterestsshouldnotbereadasanindependentprincipleofactionwithinhisconceptualframework.Instead,materialandsymbolicinterestsaredefinedbyanactor’s(or group of actors) position within institutionalised hierarchies. They are the embodieddispositionsthatoperateatatacit,taken‐for‐grantedlevel(Swartz,1997,p.71).Thus,“interestisahistoricalarbitrary,ahistoricalconstructionthatcanbeknownonlythroughhistoricalanalysis,expost, throughempirical observation” (Wacquant, 1989, p.42).Nevertheless, actorsparticipate insocialinteractionsandpursuesymbolicandmaterialinterestsasstrategistswhorespondovertimeto a mass of constraints and opportunities that they grasp through “practical knowledge” or a“senseofpractice”(Swartz,1997,pp.99–100).Inthissense,actors“arestrategicimproviserswhoresponddispositionallytotheopportunitiesandconstraintsofferedbyvarioussituations”.Andthe“choices stem from practical dispositions that incorporate ambiguities and uncertainties thatemergefromactingthroughtimeandspace”(Swartz,1997,p.100).Whenthestructurallogicofthefieldisinternalisedashabitusandbodilyhexis,“thepointofviewofthosewhodominatebydominatingthe...[field]andwhohaveconstitutedtheirpointofviewasuniversalbyconstitutingthe . . . [field]”(Bourdieu,1998,p.57), isalsoembodied.Thisdominantvision,oftenmanifestedas theorthodoxyofaparticular field, is thedoxa. Internalising thedoxicdispositionmeanssubmissiontothelogicofsymbolicdominationinthefield.Bythesametoken,socialagentswhocompetefortheirmaterialandsymbolicinterestsinaparticularfieldalsoingrainthe illusiothat leadsonetoengage inthecentralgameofthe field: they ingrainthe ideathatthegameisworthplaying,investinit,andaretakeninbyit(seeBourdieuandWacquant,1992,pp.98,115,173).3.2.FormsofcapitalFor Bourdieu (1986, p. 241), following Marx, the social world consists of accumulated history;capital is accumulated labour in its material or embodied forms. When appropriated on anexclusivebasisbyagents,capitalenablesthemtoappropriatesocialenergyintheformofreifiedorliving labour. As such, individuals and groups draw upon various forms of capital in order tomaintain or enhance their relative positions in the social order and, in that struggle, capitalbecomes a “social relation of power” (Swartz, 1997, p. 73). Capital, therefore, represents power“over themechanismswhichtendtoensuretheproductionofaparticularcategoryofgoodsandthus over a set of revenues and profits” (Bourdieu, 1991b). However, unlike Marx, Bourdieuextends the idea of capital to all forms of power:material, cultural, social or symbolic. Thus, forBourdieu,capitalcantakedifferentforms:economic,culturalandsocialcapital.Whileeconomiccapitalisinstitutionalisedintheformofpropertyrights,culturalandsocialcapitaltake somewhat subjective and complex forms. For example, cultural capital can exist in threedifferent states: the embodied state (i.e. in the formof long‐lastingdispositions of themind andbody); theobjectifiedstateof tangibleculturalproducts,suchasuniformsandotherdresscodes,pictures,books,machines;andtheinstitutionalisedstate,suchasaccreditationsandqualifications(Bourdieu, 1986). Similarly, social capital represents durable networks of institutionalised

8  

relationshipsofmutualacquaintancesandrecognition,whichprovidesindividualsocialactorswitha“credential”thathelpsthemtoexploitanddominatethesocialrelationshipsinaparticularfieldofpower (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 248–49). Importantly, in Bourdieu’s sociology, capital is not only aforce inscribed in subjective and objective structures but also the principle underlying theimmanentregularitiesoftheparticularfield.Accordingly,habitus,bodilyhexis,andotherformsofembodimentofthestructuralpropertiesofthefieldbyindividualsocialactorscanbecome,inthelongrun,embodiedformsofcapitalwhich,inturn,canbemobilisedtoaccumulateotherformsofcapital (especially economic capital) by dominating the field and appropriating its surplus valuethroughsymbolicmeans.Thissymbolicformofdominatingandexploitingthesocialrelationsinafield of power is known as symbolic violence, which takes place through symbolic systems andinstruments.3.3.SymbolicsystemsSymbolic violence is the subtle domination of one class of social actors by another throughimposingthemeansforcomprehendingandadaptingtothesocialworldbyrepresentingeconomicand political power in disguised, taken‐for‐granted forms. This is realised through symbolicsystemsthatexercisetheirpowerthroughthecomplicityofthosewhoaresubjecttoit(Bourdieu,1991b).Thearts,science,religionand,indeed,allsymbolicsystems–includingcalculativesystems– arenot only instruments of communication and the construction of reality but also themeansthroughwhichsocialhierarchiesandinequalitiesareestablishedandreproduced.Theyconstitutethesocialmechanismsthatconnectindividualsocialactorstoinstitutionalisedhierarchies.According to Bourdieu (1979), symbolic systems simultaneously perform three interrelated butdistinct functions: cognition (symbolic systems as structuring structures), communication(symbolicsystemsasstructuredstructures),anddomination(symbolicsystemsasinstrumentsofdomination).Inthefirsttwofunctions(cognitionandcommunicationasstructuringandstructuredstructures), symbolicsystemsbecomeinstrumentsofknowledgeandcommunicationthatexertasymbolicpower:apowertoconstructrealityasagnoseologicalorder,andsocialsolidarityrestingonsharedsymbolicsystemsandtheirresultantgnoseologicalorder.Assuch,theymakepossibleaconsensusonthesenseofthesocialworld(Bourdieu,1979,p.79).Thus,asagnoseologicalorder,thestructural logicofaparticular field iscognisedandcommunicatedthroughsymbolicsystems.Various calculative systems can thus become symbolic instruments of cognition andcommunication; they become systems thatmaterialise the deep social structures of a particularfield.Relations of communication are always, inseparably, relations of power (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 80)and,inthatsense,symbolicsystemsalsofunctionasinstrumentsofdomination,orasinstrumentsthatlegitimatedomination.Thedominantfactionsofaparticularfield,whosepowerisoftenbasedon economic and political capital, seek to legitimate their domination through various symbolicinstruments, such as discourses and writings, which reproduces traditions of domination ashistoricallylegitimate,ortransformssuchtraditionsintonewones,asothersbecomeoutdatedovertime.Thatsaid,formsofknowledgeandrelationsofcommunicationareinherentlyenmeshedwithrelations of power because they are the relations within which the dominating structures arereproduced.Symbolicsystems,asstructuringandstructuredsystems,combinetheircognitiveandcommunicativefunctionswiththatofdomination.Calculative systems are also structured and structuring systems. They are structured by theirhistoricalevolutionastoolsofinstitutionalisedpracticesandalsoasembodieddispositionsofthesocial agentswhomobilise, and are subject to, such calculative practices. As such they bear thestructuralconditionsofthefieldinwhichtheyevolvedandoperate.Theyarestructuringbecause

9  

theyorientandshapetheactionsandpracticesofsocialagentsandinstitutions.Theyarestructuresin that they hold a set of systematically interrelated templates, procedures and mechanics,according towhich day‐to‐daywork and other social practices are cognised, communicated andregulated. Calculative systems not only perform cognitive and communicative functions but alsoserveasinstrumentsofdomination.They,assymbolicsystems,“provideintegrationfordominantgroups, distinctions and hierarchies for ranking groups, and legitimation of social ranking byencouragingthedominatedtoaccepttheexistinghierarchiesofsocialdistinction.They,therefore,fulfil a political function” (Swartz, 1997, p. 83, see also Bourdieu, 1979). After all, calculativetemplates,proceduresandmechanicsare instrumentsthroughwhichdominatingformsofcapitalappropriate the surplusvalueof the field. In theempirical sections, after themethodology, Iwillshowhowaparticularcalculativesystem,asasymbolicsystem,performsthesethreefunctionsandtherebyreproducesthedominatingstructuresofthefieldofSriLankangemmining.4.ResearchmethodsandsiteMethodology is neither a technique of data collection nor a specific branch of theory, but theframeworkthatprovidesthelinkbetweentechniqueandtheory(Burawoy,1991).Techniqueshelpidentifyappearancesasevents, interactions,practicesandrelationships.However,reality ismorethanmereappearancesmaysuggest.Itsessenceliesinthedeepsocialstructures,whichshouldbetheoretically abstracted. The task of sociological research, according to Bourdieu (Bourdieu andWacquant, 1992, p. 7) is “to uncover the most profoundly buried structures … as well as themechanismswhichtendtoensuretheirreproductionortheirtransformation”.However,Bourdieualso writes that such structures are peculiar in that they lead a “double life” (Bourdieu andWacquant,1992,p.7): theyexist twice.Ontheonehand,theyexist in the“objectivityofthefirstorder” that is constitutedby thedistributionof capital, or themeansof appropriationof surplusvalues.Ontheother,theyareinthe“objectivityofthesecondorder”,constitutedbythesystemsofclassification or the mental and bodily schemata (habitus, bodily hexis, etc.) that function assymbolictemplatesforthepracticalactivitiesofsocialagents.Assuch,afield‐basedsocialinquiryneedsadialectic readingof thisdouble lifeof field structureanddemandsa setofmethods thatprovidetheresearcherwithbroadaccesstothefield–broadenoughtopenetratethementalandbodilyschemata.Thus,withtheunderstandingthatday‐to‐daysocialpracticesaretheinteractivebottom‐lineofcontrol,resistance,hegemonyandcalculations,meaningfulaccessmattersalot.Thisiswhyethnographyhasbeenoneofthemostpopularresearchmethodsinfield‐basedsociologicalinquiries (Wacquant, 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Ethnographic research generally involves intensive,face‐to‐face participant observation in a natural setting over a reasonable period to allow theresearchertoproducemeaningfulnarrativesoftheactions,practicesandideologicalframeworksofaparticularsocialsystem(Willis,2000).Thisresearchadoptssuchanethnographicapproachwithabroadaccessnotonlytothestructuralpropertiesofthe‘field’ofgemmininginSriLankabutalsoto the particular forms of embodiment through which structural properties of the field areinternalised by its agents. Very similar to Bourdieu’s Algerian ethnographies, the ethnographicsettingwasmyhometown1whereIspentfirsthalfofmylife,andwheremyextendedfamilyandvillagefriendsstilllive.Theyhavevariousstakesingemmininginthearea,rangingfromlabouringinthegempitstowealthygemmerchants.Ihadevenworkedacoupleofyearsasagempitworker,though not during the period of formal fieldwork2. As in the case ofWacquant (2004a, 2004b)

                                                            1Rakwana,SriLanka.Thissmalltownis locatedinthedistrictofRathnapura(literallymeaning“cityofgems”)andis

famousforitsblue‐sapphire.Thetownissurroundedbyquiteafewgempitsanditsmainstreetlargelypopulatedbygemmerchants.

2 Thiswas during the period from 1986 to 1988, aftermy A/L but before entering the university on a governmentscholarship.AllpublicuniversitiesinSriLankawereclosedfrom1986to1990duetoacivilwarinthecountry.Thustherewasaperiodofdiscontinuityinmy“lifeprogress”whereIdeployedmybodyinrather“off‐line”andtemporaryoccupations.

10  

“BodyandSoul”,thiscarnalexperienceofbeingapitworkerhas,nodoubt,helpedmeto“claspandrestitute the carnal dimensions of existence” (Wacquant, 2004a, 2004b, p. vii) as a pit worker.However, Iwouldnotclaimthat thecurrentpieceofresearch isaresultofacarnalsociology:“asociologynotonlyofthebody,inthesenseofobject,butalsofromthebody,thatis,deployingthebody as a tool of inquiry and vector of knowledge” (Wacquant, 2004a, 2004b, p. viii, emphasisoriginal).Mydeploymentofbodyasagempitworkerwasnotatalldrivenbysuchasociologicaladventure but by themere economic and social necessities of its deployment in the field,manyyearsbeforethe(re)engagementinthefieldasaresearcher.Initial data collectionwasachievedoveranine‐monthperiodof fieldworkduring2001–02,withtwosubsequentshortvisitstothefieldin2005and2007.Datacollectionwasmainlyundertakenviadirectparticipantobservationand‘engagement’invarioussocialsettings,includingoccasionalgem pit operations, gem auctions, out‐of‐hours gatherings and social occasions. Every‐dayworkactivities and social relations were closely observed and transformed into field notes aroundcalculativeandcontrolpractices,andideologieswereembeddedinsuchobservations.Continuousbut distant contact is maintained with the field actors through ‘friendly and related’ telephoneconversations;suchconversationshelpedalotintherefinementandgap‐fillingoffieldnotestakenatthetimeoffieldwork.Atthewriting‐upstage,thefield‐basedethnographywastransformedintoan“analyticethnography”(Snowetal.,2003)byentwiningthefield‐datawithatheorythathelpsmake ‘theoretical sense’ of thedata. The analytical focuswasmainlyon anunderstandingof thepresence and absence of particular control practices and the field‐specific logic of calculativepractices.Ethnographic data can be understood better when they are placed vis‐à‐vis the peculiarcharacteristics of the field. Hence more elaboration of the site is needed here. Sri Lanka is apostcolonialdevelopingeconomywithapopulationof20millionandapercapitaGDPofUS$2,053(CentralBankofSriLanka,2009).IthadbeenacolonyofBritishEmpireformorethan150yearsuntil1948whenitbecameanindependentcountry.AccordingtoSriLankanCentralBankstatistics,itscurrenteconomiccompositionisdominatedbygarmentandothertextileproducts(around40%oftotalexportsduringthelastdecadeorso)andplantationcrops(around20%oftotalexports).Gemminingcontributesjustlessthan2%ofthenation’sexports.GemminingandtradinginthecountryaremainlyconcentratedinafewtownsandvillagesintheRathnapuraDistrict.Thishighgeographicalconcentrationoftheindustrymeansthatitspresenceintheday‐to‐daylivesofpeopleinthesetownsandvillagesismuchmoresignificantthanwhatthecentralised statistics suggest. Amere visit to any of these gem trading townswould reveal how“gemmoney”(astheaccumulatedwealththroughgemminingandtradingiscommonlyknowninthearea)ispresenteverywhereinthetown:inthesign‐boardsoftheshops3,sponsorshipbannersofvarious social eventsbywealthygemmerchants, largehousesofwealthygemmerchants, andalso the physical presence of gem merchants and traders in their “symbolic” clothes (typicallyexpensive batik sarongs, white shirts, gold watches, gold necklaces, and leather slippers). The                                                                                                                                                                                                3 Quite a few gem‐shops can be found in everymajor town in the Rathnapura district. They belong towealthy gem

merchantsandarenormallymulti‐storybuildings.However, therearenoanygemsoranythingelsetosell intherebuttheyaresocalled“buyingcentres”wheretheownermerchantandhisassociatesjustspendthedaywaitingforgems to arrive. There is no any special equipment or machinery for checking or processing of gems here either.Inspectionofagemforitsqualityisdonethroughthebeareyeonlywiththehelpofalightofbatterypoweredpen‐torch,whichgemmerchantswouldnormallycarrywhereverhegoes.Hence,thesegem‐shops(withahugesign‐boardwiththenameofgemmerchant)isratherasymbolicformofcapitaltoexpresstherelativewealthofthemerchantandhisabilitytobuyagemofanyvalue.

11  

presence of “gem money” can also be seen in the local political processes, especially in theparliamentaryandtheProvincialCouncilElectionswealthygemmerchanteitherascandidatesoras financialsupportersofotherleadingcandidates.Inessence,“gemmoney”hasbeenapowerfulforceintheeconomic,socialandpoliticallivesofpeopleinthesegemtownsandvillages.ConcentratingontheRakwanatownandnearbyvillages,whereIdidmyfieldwork,thereweresix“gem shops” (i.e. gem buying centres) in the town and there were four more wealthy gemmerchantsoperatingintheirhouseswithoutaseparategemshopinthetown.Therewerearound20 gem mines at the vicinity of the town. In addition to their involvement in gem mining andtrading,someofthesegemmerchantshavetextileandhardwareshopsinthetown.Theyhavealsoinvestedinsmallandmediumscaleteaholdings.Mostimportantly,theylavishlyinvestinvarioussocial activities and patronage politics to sustain the symbolic presence of “gem money”. Localpoliticians and leading government officers in the province would not visit the town withoutvisiting someof these gemmerchantswithwhom theymaintain long‐termallegiances. It is veryhardtoseeagemmerchantwithouthissetof“goloyos”(i.e.literallymeaningapprentice:asetofyoung/emerging merchants making their living by doing so‐called “miscellaneous work”, whichalsoincludeselling“eerattu”(lawvaluegems)inthesecondarymarketonbehalfthemerchant).Inallmeansgemmerchantsaresignificanteconomic,politicalandsocialactors in theareaandyouwouldn’tseeanybigsocialeventswithoutagemmerchantbeing invitedasa“chiefguest”orthe“guest of honour”: they sit in the same raw of chairs with the politicians and other leadinggovernment officers in the area. They are the linking pins between the field of gemmining andvariousothereconomicandpoliticalfieldsinthearea.Economicinequalityinthegemminingtownsandvillagesisapparentlyveryhigh.Whiletherearevery rich gemmerchants, there is also a large number of young unemployed. As school leavers(withnochanceofenteringintohighereducationduetoverylimitedspacesinpublicuniversities),theseunemployedyouthsmakeup themajorsupplyof labour togemmines.Given thegamblingnatureofgem‐miningandthetraditionsofappropriatingthesurplusvalue(discussedlater),onlyaveryfewwouldcontinuetostayforlongingemminingasworkers:mostwouldhaveashortcareerasaworkerandmoveoutassoonastheyfindanopportunitytodoso.Oncetheyaccumulateaninitialcapitaltodoso,manywouldtrytheirluckingemtradinginsteadofgemmining.Formany“gemminingisthefool’sluck”;somethingworthenoughtotryifyou“havenooptionsbuttotoilthemuddysoildownthepit”oryou“haveenoughtoriskabitwithnoworries”.Agempitthereforebringstogetherpeopleatthesetwoextremesofcapitalendowment.Investment ina gemminehasalwaysbeena collectiveventure,with the contributionof various‘formsofcapital’(suchaslands,timber,tools,waterengine,andsoon.Thisismoreelaboratedinforthcoming sections)byvarious actors in the town/village.Nevertheless, gemmerchantswouldalwayshaveanupperhandinthefinalappropriationofincomefromagemmine,especiallyduetotheircontributionofmultipleformsofcapitalandalsoduetotheirengagementinthegemtrading(discussedlater).5.Thegempit:aritualisedlabourprocessContrarytothestructuralorganisationoftheminingindustryinthewest(seeBoynsandEdwards,1996; De Beelde, 2000; Vent and Milne, 1997, 2000), gem mining in Sri Lanka has never beenorganised through ‘corporate entities’ of any sort.Theyhave alwaysbeen communal enterprisesorganised and coordinated via the patronage of social relations and social rituals in villages.However, as Choudhury (1988) argues, the absence of modern corporate apparatuses does notnullify the possibilities of studying accounting. Instead, it contains information on the particularcontextswithinwhichmodernorganisationalapparatuses, includingmodernformsofaccounting,

12  

are not socially assumed to be necessary and have never become institutionalised/embodiedpracticeswithin the social contexts of production. So, studyingwhat is there, instead ofmodernformsofaccounting,willgiveustheopportunitytorevealnotonlytheotherformsofaccountingand control but also the structural conditions that facilitate or hinder the evolution of modernformsofaccounting.Structuralconditions,ontheotherhand,arenotgivensandwouldnotnecessarilydictatetheformsofcoordinatingeconomicactivities.Everyfieldofproduction,atacertainphaseofitstemporalandspatial evolution, has a particular physical and technological nature beside its cultural grammar,andthatparticularnaturewouldhaveasignificantsayinarticulatinghowvariousformsofcapitalaremobilisedandhowvariousmodesofcoordinationandcontrolaredeployedforitsgovernance.Gemmining has a particular physical nature that renders it ‘a game of gambling’ resulting in aparticular form of structuring the field to diversify the stakes and the risk of the game among aspectrumofsocialactors.Thephysicalprocessesofgemmining4 involvediggingadeeppit, approximately12x12,until aparticular layerof soil is found, called ‘illama’, an alluvial layerof coarse,pebblymaterial,whichcontainstracesofclayandfinesandwheregemstonesaregeologicallydeposited.Contrarytothegoldorcoalminesinotherpartsoftheworld,SriLankangemminesarenotlandintensive.Asinglegemminewouldneedamaximumof10–15perches5ofland,whicharemostlyfoundinamiddleofapaddyfield,andco‐existwithpaddyfarming.Inwetandmuddysurroundings,thispitoftengoesas deepas50yardsor so,with carefully constructedwalls around it, andwooden scaffolding toprevent thewalls of the pit from collapsing inwards. Once this particular layer of soil has beenreached,diggingcontinues,makinghorizontaltunnelsparallelwiththatspeciallayerofsoil“untilthe flameof thecandle lightgetsweaker”(customarily,noelectricorbattery‐poweredlighting isused;theweakeningflamesofcandlesareusedasameasurementof lowoxygenlevelsdownthepit).Thepurposeofdiggingandtunnellingistocollectasmuch‘illama’aspossible,becauseitisthequantity6ofthisspecialsoilthatmaximisesthestakesofthegamble– findingavaluablecacheofgems.Oncetheillamahasbeentakentothesurface,itispiledinasecureplacenearthepituntilitcanbewashedinfrontofeveryonewithastakeinthegempit.Illamaiswashedinalargecircularwickerbasketbyimmersinginwaterandrotating it.Thisenablesthe light,ordinarypebblesandsedimenttoescape,leavingtheheavierpebblesbehind.Thenthebasketisheldagainstthesunlightandcarefullyscannedforgemstones.As “a set of historical relations ‘deposited’ within individual bodies in the form of mental andcorporealschemataofperception,appreciation,andaction”(BourdieuandWacquant,1992,p.16),relations in production are ritualistic and structured by a set of habitus and bodily hexis (seeBourdieuandWacquant,1992,pp.167–8).Habitus isapracticaldisposition,whichexplainswhysocialpracticesofcertainclassesofactorsarecharacterisedbyregularities.Habitusisapropertyofsocialagentsanditis“thatwhichonehasacquired,butwhichhasbecomedurablyincorporatedinthebodyintheformofmoreorlesspermanentdispositions”(Bourdieu,1995,p.86).Itisa“systemofstructured,structuringdisposition”(Bourdieu,1990b,p.52)andthetermdispositionisthekey

                                                            4TherearethreemodesofgemmininginSriLanka:deeppitmining(gaburu pathal),shallowpitmining(goda pathal)

andriver‐bedpulling(adum pathal).Amongthese,deeppitminingisthemostpopularandlargestinscaleintermsofoperationsandcapitalrequirements.Thispapermainlyconcentratesondeeppitmining.

5‘Perch’istheconventionalmeasurementunitoflandinthefield.Asquireperch=25.29squaremeters.6Typically,asagempitworkerexplained,“ifweareluckyenough,wegettwo‘piles’(uptotheheightofagrownman

andadiameterofaround10feetorso)ofillama.Whenwewashedthemall,wewouldgetahandfulof‘stones’[gems].If we are so lucky, they can all be nill [blue sapphire] orwairodi [cat’s eye], or they can just be all thorammali [semipreciousgemswithlittlevalueinthemarket]”.

13  

to thisdefinition, since it suggests twoessential componentsof the conceptofhabitus: structureand propensity (see Swartz, 1997, p. 103). On the one hand, habitus becomes the dispositionalmeans through which social actors, through their socialisation experiences, internalise externalstructures. Broad structural parameters and the boundaries ofwhat is possible or unlikely for aparticulargroupofsocialactorsintheinstitutionalisedhierarchyareinternalisedandembeddedasdispositionsthroughsocialisation. In thatsense,habitussetsstructural limits foractions(Swartz,1997, p. 103) and leads individuals to a “kind of immediate submission to order”. Habitus, thus,legitimates thematerial and symbolic inequalitiesbyprovidingapractical and taken‐for‐grantedacceptanceof the fundamental conditionsofexistence(Swartz,1997,p.105).On theotherhand,habitus also implies that actors encounter and act upon the present in terms of previousexperiencesthattheyhaveembodiedthroughsocialisation.Assuch,habitusbecomesastructuringstructure,thatis,asaprincipleofthegeneratingandstructuringofpractices,itgeneratesstrategiesthat can be objectively consistent with the material and symbolic interests of the social agentswithouthavingbeenexpresslydesignedtothatend(FreeandMacintosh,2009,p.11).Certainly, there are calculative and control implications of such work habitus, as they offer acultural grammar for structuring day‐to‐daywork practices and negate the necessity for ‘other’formsof accounting, planning and control. For example, a typical answer to thequestionof howmanyworkerswouldbeidealforapitwas“sixworkers: inrotation,twoatthebottomofthepit,twoatthetoptopulltherope,andanothertwotomovesoilonandoffthepit...mostimportantly,nooneshouldeverbedowninthepitalone”.Suchhabitus“isaproductofhistorywhichproducesindividualandcollectivepractices.Itensurestheactivepresenceofpastexperiencewhichtendtoguaranteethe‘correctness’ofpractice,andtheirconstancyovertime,morereliablythanallformalrulesandexplicitnorms”(HarkerandMay,1993,p.174).However,ahabitusisnotarigidruleorsocialcodethatdeterminestheactions.Instead,itsetstheboundarieswithinwhichagentsexercisea relative freedom in adopting and adapting practices according to the “feel for the game”, asBourdieucallsit,whichis“whatenablesaninfinitenumberof‘moves’tobemade,adaptedtotheinfinite number of possible situations which no rule, however complex, can foresee” (Bourdieu,1990a,p.9).Theydonot, inapractical sense,necessarilydetermineactionsbut orient them.AsBourdieuargues,

modesofbehaviourcreatedbythehabitusdonothavethe fineregularityof themodesofbehaviourdeductedfromalegislativeprinciple:thehabitusgoeshandinglovewithvaguenessandindeterminacy(Bourdieu,1990a,p.77).

In our empirical context, for example, the habitus of six workers for a pit, though recursivelyreferred to in conversations on planning the pit work, is vague and indeterminate. The actualnumber working on a particular pit, and how they organise the work between them, differs toreflect social conditions and the relations among the people in the working party. As one pitorganiserputit:

Youcanworkapitwithsixworkers,andthatwouldbetheideal.Iffolksworkingin the pit needmore than six in the gang, it is up to them. Sometimes, they ofcourse havemore than six in their gang.When one of their friends or relativeswants to join them they can’t simply sayno; theywouldbehappy to get him toworkwiththem. Itaffectstheir incomenotmineoranybodyelsecontributingtothe pit [because of the particular mechanism of appropriating the stake: seebelow].Sometimes, theyareeven less thansixandanyhowmangetheworkbut,fortheirownsafety,theyshouldalwaysmakesurethatnoone,howevergoodandexperiencedthatonewouldbe,shouldeverbedowninthepitonhisown.

14  

This vaguenessand indeterminacyofhabitus facilitates theagencyof social actors creating theirownsocialspacerelativelyfreefromexternalpressuresandcontrols.Theresult is lessalienationwithin the relations inproductionandmore freedomtoexercise the collectivewill of the labourforce.Inthatsense,habitusesbecomesomethingcollective;somethingculturalenoughtopenetratethe collective conscience that structures their dispositions on technicalities and the socialrelationshipsatwork.Forexample, the followingquotation fromagroupofworkersexemplifiesnotonly this relative freedomand thecollectiveagencyof the labour force todetermine itsownconditionsbutalsohowthe“feelforthegame”orientstheiractionsandstrategies.

Manypitsgowithsix,butwegoteighthereinourpit.Wewereeightforsolongnow and thatworks verywell for us. However, KPwill leave the pit very soon,becauseheisgoingtogetbackhisjobinthepolice[hehadbeensuspendedonanallegedcaseofbribery].Then,wemaycontinuewithsevenorsomeoneelsemayjoinus;whoknows!.. .Welearnfromotherswhattodoandhowtodowhenwestartworkinapitasyoungkids.Afterthat,nobodywouldtelluswhattodoandhow to do; everybody knowswhat they need to do, and how to do them. Don’tthey?Ifyoukeeponaskingotherswhattodo,youbecomeanidiotandtheywilltakeyouforajoke....Everydayworkisnotthesame.Ifthepitistoofull[ofwater]oritisraining,nouseofrunningthewater‐pump.Youjustwastediesel.Wecan’tdo any pit work, and we would prepare timber for the next day’s work or wewouldjustsharpenthetoolsandcleanthewaterengine.Youcan’tjustspendtheday doing nothing. Can you? . . .Whatwe did fewmonths ago [i.e., in the earlyphaseofthepitwork]werenotwhatwearedoingnow[atthedeepdiggingandtunnellingstage].Wehope,withtheblessingofthegod,wewillbewashingabigloadofillamabefore‘newyear’[thefestivalseason]...Everyhourorsowewouldtakeabreak fora cupof teaandasmoke,andchangeourpositions. . . .Whenagoodmatch[cricket]isontheTV,weallwouldbewatchingitandnoworkatall.Whowouldbothertoworkthen?[Laughter].

Embodimentof the field’s structural logic takesa physicalor bodily formaswell as amental one.Bourdieutermsthisbodilydimensionofembodiment“bodilyhexis”.Itisthebodilymanifestationofapermanentdisposition–adurablewayofundertakingcertainphysicalactssuchasusingatool,standing, walking, speaking and, thereby, feeling and thinking (Bourdieu, 1990b, pp. 69–70).SimilartoFoucault’s“disciplinaryprinciples”,especiallythemaneuver(Foucault,1979;Macintosh,1994,p.224),bodilyhexis is amodeofdisciplining thebody to realise the structural logicof thefield:byadoptingaparticularsetofbodilyhexis,classesofactorsconstitutethemselvesasasetofdisciplinedincumbentsinthefield.Asobserved,thelabourprocessinthepitwasneitherregimentednorsubjecttodirectsupervisionby anyone external to the labour gang. Thewaywork is organised and carried out is left to theworkers, but ritualised and structured by an explicit set of habitus and bodily hexis, such as:“Wheretoputthelogsonthepitwallisalwaysdecidedbybasunnah7andeverybodyshouldacton

                                                            7Thetermbasunnah (Sinhalese)referstoapersonwithspecialskillsincarpentryandmasonry.Inthecontextofgem

mining this involves the special skills of wall buildingwith wooden logs and plants, a skill that would ultimatelydeterminethesafetyandlifechancesofallmineworkers,andaskillthatonewouldaccumulateonlyovermanyyearsofexperienceinmining.Thus,thishasalwaysbeenaculturalcapitalthatwarrantsahigherstakeinthegame(atleastmore than otherworkers, see below). Onewould become abasunnah through accumulating this stock of culturalcapital: working in gem pits for so long that guarantee others’ acceptance of him as having the bodily hexis andhabitusofabasunnah.Forsome,however,thisisnothingelsebuthis“badkarma(pow) ...toomuchofhimmakingothersricherbuthimyettoilingthemuddysoildownthepit”.

15  

his‘shout’[aformofgivinginstructionsloudlysothateverybodyinandbeyondthepitcanhearitand synchronise their individual acts] … young ones, until they catch the art of using it [i.e.according to the terminologyofBourdieu, thismeansuntil they accumulateaparticular stockofcultural capital], should use the vaya [a very sharp tool used to shapewooden logs, which, if itmissesitsmark,cancausesevereleginjuries]onlywiththehelpofanexperiencedelder.”Elderlyworkershavegainedan“individualtraceofanentirecollectivehistory”(Bourdieu,1990a,p.91),havelearntaparticularsetofbodilyhexisandhabitusthatspelloutthe ‘correct’waysofusingaparticulartoolordoingaparticularjob.Theypassthatculturalcapitaltotheyoungerones,ontheonehand,asoneoftheirsocialresponsibilitiesand,ontheother,ingratitudeforthesubordinationandobedienceof theyoungermembersof the group.For youngerworkers, learning suchbodilyhexisandhabitusconstitutesexposuretothemockeryofmakingmistakes,thepunitiveelementofthe learningprocessatwork,andalso the joyofbeingable todo the“hardworkofmen”,whichpromulgatesthe“possessionofastrongbody”.Throughday‐to‐dayexposure,withtheirownwaysofreactingandrespondingtothosepunitiveelementsofsociallearning,individualstraceanentirecollectivehistoryofworkinginagemmine;thus,habitusandbodilyhexispassontoindividualsasastructuredandstructuringstructureofwork.The social composition of the gang, especially the age structure and kinship relations within it,operatesasthediscipliningstructureatwork.Assessmentofthespeedandthequalityoftheworkof an individual is naturally built into the collective work process, in that an individual’ssluggishnesswouldslowdownthewholeprocessandhewouldsoongainattentionfor“correctionthroughmockery”.Thatsaid, structuringofworkasa synchronisedactionbetween twoormoreinterdependentworkelements(forexample, throwingandcatching,pullingandpushing,holdingandhammering)hasoperatedasaphysicalmodeofcoordinationaswellascontrol.Itiscommontoseeconflictsbetweentheworkersinthegang.Theyoftenarisefrom“makingtoomuchmockery”ofaweakworker(oftenyoungandnewtomining).However,suchconflictstendtobetemporaryandeasilyresolvedbythe jurisdictionofanelderlyworkerwhosepresence in thegangactsasareferee.Suchmockeryandconflictsconstitutethenaturaltone(andthejoy)ofworkinteractions.Theyprovide anecessary ‘social’ elementof thework and transform theday‐to‐day interactionsinto a sort of social game. At the micro level of social interactions in the gem pit, individuals,dependingupontheir individualcharacterandthepositiontheyholdwithintheworkgroup,playthisgameforthesmallstakeofwinningandlosingaparticularactofmockery,orjustfortheself‐satisfyingdemonstrationoftheir‘bodilyability’toperformaparticularlydifficultjobbetter(ornotworse)thanothers.Inessence,socialrelationsatworkhavebeenstructuredintogameplaying,themasteringofwhichentailstheembodimentofaculturalcapitalwithinindividualbodies,atleasttoescapethepunitiveelementsoflearningthetradeand,atbest,toenhancetheirchanceofupwardmobilitywithin the social hierarchy. Playing the day‐to‐day game of social relations atworknotonly integrates individualworkers into the collectivedispositionofworkbut also structures therelations of accountability and control, where surrendering to the seniority and elderly kinshippositionshasalwaysbeenadoxicattitude.Withinthissystemofproduction,thedocumentationofworkerattendance,resourceconsumptionor any other work related information was virtually absent. Detailed calculations of resourcerequirements, either for planning or control purposes, are deemed to be unnecessary, andcalculations of costs or profits are not carried out. Detailed calculations, assessments anddocumentationhavenotbeenpartof the “practical logic”of theexisting setofhabitus,doxaandbodilyhexisthatstructureworkpractices.Theneedforquantificationsandqualitativeassessmentsofresourcerequirements(forexample,woodenlogsandfuelforthewaterpump)for‘rationalisedplanning and control’ (as assumed inmodern enterprises in western capitalism) does not arisebecauseof theparticular social contract towhichvarious formsof capital in the field enter (see

16  

below).Or, inotherwords,formalrecordkeepingandthecontrolapparatusesofmodernityhavenotyetpenetratedpracticesinthefieldofgemmining.Instead,asetofidiosyncratictraditionsareinplace,whichstructuretheday‐to‐daypracticesofworkandcontrol.However, the absence of accounting and the relative freedom of labour from external controls,especiallyofotherdominant formsofcapital,arenot fullyexplainedeitherby the internal socialorganisationoflabouritself(i.e.relationsinproduction)norbythepresenceofasetofhabitusandbodily hexis particular to the field of gem mining. The logic of absence of ‘formal’ control andaccountingalso lies intheparticularwaythatcapital is formedandarrangedwithinthefield(i.e.relations of production). In thenext section, in the light of a set ofmaterial practices associatedwithvalorisation,Iwilldiscussthefield‐specific logicofcapital formationandits implicationsforcalculativeandcontrolpractices.6.Theauction:calculationsandlogicsofappropriationSocialsystemsofproductionarereproducedbyfieldlogicsofappropriationthatstructurethefieldcapital to constitute structuresof inequality, domination, symbolicpower and symbolic violence.According to Bourdieu (1990a), a field can be understood as a competitive game or “field ofstruggles”inwhichsocialagentsstrategicallyimproviseintheirquesttomaximizetheirpositionsarticulatedbytherelativeendowmentofvariousformsofcapitalandthesocialinterestsattachedtothosevarietiesofcapital.Thatsaid“everyfield,asahistoricalproduct,generatesinterestswhichisthepreconditionofitsfunctioning”(p.88).Ontheotherhand,“theexistenceofaspecialisedandrelativelyautonomousfieldiscorrelativewiththeexistenceofspecificstakesandinterests”(p.87).Thus, a field, as a terrain of gaming, is structured by a set of interests, stakes and investments,according towhich field incumbents struggle for themaintenanceoradvancementof their socialpositions through accumulation of various forms of capital. Turning our focus to calculativepractices, as a distinctive set of social practices, particular forms of calculations can become thesocial logics throughwhich these field‐specific interests, stakes and investment propositions arearticulatedasthefield‐specificlogicofappropriations.Implicitandembeddedinthesecalculationswouldthenbetheparametersofsocialspaceandsymbolicpower,whicharereproduced,asthesetof rules that govern the game, within practices of production and valorisation through variousformsofcalculations. Importantly,particular formsofcalculationscanbecomethedoxicmodeofexplicatingthe“rulesofthegame”thatdeterminethestakeofeachsocialactorinthefield.Thislogicofcalculativepracticesisexemplifiedbythewaythatthegempitisresourcedandhowsalesproceedsare appropriated.Once the illama iswashedand gems are found, theyare sortedinto different “lots” according to their types. Wrapped in white tissue paper, they are thenpresented in the ‘pit auction’,whichmost of the area’s gemmerchants attend, except a few ‘bigmerchants’.Havingcarefullyexaminedeachlotofgemsfortype,quality(mainlypurityfromcracksand transparencyof light) andsize, eachmerchantputshis bidon apieceofpaper (the ‘auctionchit’),rollsittohidethewriting,andputsitintotheauctionbasket.Oncethehighestbidisrevealedattheend,thelabourgangisfreetoeitheracceptorrejectit.Iftheythinkthattheycanfindabetterpricesomewhereelse(theywilloftentakesome ‘privatebids’beforetheauction,especiallyfrom‘bigmerchants’whowould not normally attend such auctions because of their social status andreputation)theyareabletorefusetheauctionpriceandsellthegemsoutofauction.Itisnotthemereprocessandtheritualsofthegemauctionbutthecalculationsembeddedintheappropriation of auction proceeds that reveal not only the field logic of capital investments andaccumulationsbutalsohowwidersocialhierarchiesarereproducedthroughparticularcalculativepracticesatthepointofproduction.Oncethefinalsalesproceedsofthegempitaredetermined,achart(asshowninFig.2,whichalsoshowsmyEnglishtranslationssuperimposedandiselaborated

17  

inTable1)ispreparedtoshowthe“share”ofvariousmodesofcapitalthatdefinethefieldofgemmining.

Fig.2.Thecalculativelogicofappropriationandsocialreproduction.The calculative logicbehind this chart is somewhatdoxic, aproductof thehistorical traditionofgem mining. Distribution of auction money is almost identical in all instances in the area andfollowsthesamerank‐orderofdifferentformsofcapital“leavingthelabourersonlywithsmallestshare”.Onlyminordifferencescanbeseeninsomespecialoccasions.Anexampleofsuchaminordifference iswhere a gempit runswithout aproper government licence todo so, insteadof the“share of licence”, theremaybe “police panguwa” – thepolice share,which goes to the relevantpoliceofficerswhothenpreventthegempitfrombeingraided.Similarly,inoneoccasion,workersdecidednottohaveteafromanyotherpartyandthereforeavoideda“shareoftea”beingpaidout.The origin of these practices of appropriation cannot be traced and dates far back beyond thememoryofmany elderlyworkers and gemmerchants: “as far as I remember, this is how itwasdoneforgenerations.”Despiteitsoriginandminordifferencesinpractices,thiscalculativepracticevividly illustrateshowanunderlyingsocialhierarchyofsymbolicpowerandsymbolicviolence isrelationally built into aparticular schemaof capital, andhow that social structure is reproducedwithinthecalculativepracticesofvalorisationthroughaparticularcalculativetemplate.

18  

Table1:Organisationofagempit:capitalformation,socialstratificationandreturns

Formofcapital Return Personcontributed

Land:Commitmentoflandtotheventureuntilitisover.Landisnot"sold"totheventurebutjust"rented"Landwouldnormallyputbacktoitsordinaryuseaftertheventure.

First1/5th oftheauctionmoneyRs.134,000 MrsK,aretiredschoolteacherandherextendedfamily.

Licence:feesandexpensesincurredtoobtainthegovernmentlicenceforgemmininginthegivenplotofland.Thisinvolvesacertaindegreeofculturalandsocialcapitalaswellintermsofcontactingandgettingthepatronagesupportofrelevantgovernmentofficersandpoliticians."youneedabitofoilingandgreasingtopushyourapplicationthrough,otherwiseitwillneverpasssomeofficersdesk"(acommentbyagemmerchant).

1/5thoftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyaftertheshareofland.

Rs.107,200

‘Mudalali’P(agemmerchant)."Igotpeopletodothisforme,Ijustneedtothrowsomemoney"

(MudalaliistheSinghaleseforawealthymerchant,alsoworksasawordofhonour).

Waterengineanditsrunningcost(i.e.dieselandmaintenance).Thewaterenginegoesbacktoitsowneraftertheventureandhewouldnormallycontinuetoinvestitinanotherventure.

1/5th oftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofland,andlicence.

Rs.85,760

MrP(thegemmerchant,mentionedabove)

Timber:woodenlogs,stripsand“kakilla”(aspecialplanttofillthegapsbetweenlogsandstripssothatthewallswouldnotcollapseintothewood)necessaryforwallbuildinginthepit.

1/5thoftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofland,licence,andwaterengine.

Rs.68,608

MrR(abusinessmaninthetown,notagemmerchant,thoughinvestedinafewgemmines)

Tools:supplyofallminingtoolsrequiredforthepit,exceptforwaterengineanditsrunningcost.Allthesetools,ifingoodconditions,gobacktotheowneraftertheventure.

1/5thoftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofland,licence,waterengine,andtimber.

Rs.54,886

KM(theheadmanofthisparticularpit).However,itisnotalwaysnecessarythattheheadmanshouldprovidethetools.Itcouldbefromanybody,mostoftenfromagemmerchant)

Tea:teaand“somethingtoeat”(oftensomethinglikesugarbuns,currybuns,orcurryrotti)twiceadayforallpitworkers.

1/5th oftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofland,licence,waterengine,timber,andtools.

Rs.43,909

MrP(thegemmerchant,mentionedabove)

Headman'slabour:themostexperienceandrespectedlabourerintheganganddeemedtopossestheskillsofexpertiseofallaspectsofgemmining,especiallycorrecttechniquesofwallbuilding.

1/10thoftheremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofallotherformsofcapitalexceptlabour.

Rs.17,564

KM(mentionedabove)

Labour:8pitworkersinthispit.Pitworkersarenotpaidwagesfortheirwork.Theyrisktheirlabourforapotentialshareofauctionmoney,whichaccruesonlyifgemsarefound.However,theyontheirown,mayarrangeasubsistencepaymentcalled“weeklycash”withanybodytheywish.

Shareofwork:theremainderoftheauctionmoneyafterthesharesofallotherformsofcapital,dividedequallybetweenthe8workersinvolvedinthepit.

Rs.19,759foreachworker.

5oftheseworkershavearrangedsubsistenceexpenseswithvariouspartiesinthetownandnearbyvillages.Thatsaidtheypayhalfoftheirshare(socalledexpensehalf)tothepersonwhohadbeenpayingthemsocalled“weeklycash”duringtheventure.Threeyoungpitworkers,whostillenjoyedthedependenceontheirparents,hadoptednottogoforweeklycashandaregettingthewhole“shareofwork”

19  

Fig. 2, further illustrated in Table 1, shows a formula of appropriation to distribute the salesproceeds (the auctionmoney) among various forms of capital. Interestingly, this formulawouldnever bediscussedor agreedupon explicitly before the variousparties enter into a gemminingventurebutitisatraditionalpracticethateverybodyinthefieldissupposedtoknowandaccept,and applied with only very minor differences between different gem pits. According to thiscalculativedoxa, thevarious formsof capital invested ina gempit are classifiedandranked intosevenmajorcategories(seeTable1).Asaclassificatoryschema,thisformulaprovidesacalculativelogicofstructuringthefieldcapitalintoahierarchicalorderofstake.Thus,landisalwaysplacedasthetopmostformofcapitalandclaimsthefirstonefifthoftheauctionmoney.Allotherformsofcapitalcontributions,asagemmerchantcommented,are“appropriatelyrewardedaccordingtothetradition”,whichdesignatestherelativeplaceofeachcategoryinthehierarchyofcapitalwhich,inturn, decides their relative return. Labour has always been at the bottom of the ladder and canclaimonlywhatisleftafterotherformsofcapitalhasappropriatedtheirstakesofhigherorder.The‘shareofwork’asthefinalremainderoftheauctionmoneyisequallydividedamongtheworkersinthepit.Gemmerchants’ presencewithin this schemaof capital is dominating.Theywould typically ownmore than one form of capital and reproduce their structural power by appropriating andreinvesting a bigger portion of the auction money. It should also be noted that a gem‐miningventureisorganisedasapure“gameofgambling”,8wheredifferentplayersassumedifferentstakesand pool their capital for a collective return at the end of a single venture. The implicit socialcontractissuchthateachplayeragreestocontributeoneormoreoftheabovecategoriesofcapitaluntiltheendoftheventure.Termsofcontractareimpliedandwellunderstoodasasetofhabitus.Forexample,thelandownerwouldsimplyofferthelandandbearnofurtherexpenseotherthantherelatively minor costs of performing the bahirawa puja (a ritual ceremony performed to askpermissionsfromthegodsanddemonsbelievedtopossessthelandanditspreciousstones).Theonewhoclaimsforthe‘shareoflicence’(normallythegemmerchantwhoinitiatesandorganisestheventure)shouldbearallthecontingentcostsofobtaining thegovernmentlicenceforthegempit,whichincludethelicencefeeplusall“otherpayments”(bribesandgifts)madetovariousstateofficerstospeeduptheprocessandtoclearvariousbureaucraticbottlenecks.Oncetheseexpenseshavebeenincurred,thefinancialcommitmentsofthelicenceholderandthelandownersareover.Ontheotherhand,thesocialcommitmentsofthecontributorsofthewaterpumpandfuel,timber,toolsandteaareon‐goingandshouldbesuppliedasrequiredbythepitoperations.Althoughthereare no sophisticated calculations involved, the field actors have a ‘common sense’ of resourceconsumptionbythepitoperations,asmanifestedinasetofhabitusrelatedtothe“correctwayofdoingpitwork”, suchas “everyriyana[adoxicunitofmeasurementequivalent tohalfayard]ofdiggingneedfourlonglogsand8shortlogs...andatypicalgempitinthisareaneedsaroundthreetipper‐trucksoftimber”(which isprovidedbytherelevantpartyonapiece‐mealbasisasthepitworkprogress,mostly in threeoccasions:onetipper‐truckata time).Thesecategoriesofminingcapital are mainly economic and draw on the relative wealth of the people involved but alsodemonstratecertainfeaturesofsocialandculturalcapital, inthat“everybodyjustcan’tcomeandbuyourfortune.Theyshouldbeoneamonguswhowecantrust”,saidagemmerchant.Thatsaid,

                                                            8  “It’s [gem mining] like playing ‘buruwa’ [a form of gambling popular among locals, with equal odds of

winning and losing]. You never know what you get. You may be lucky enough and have a ‘good stone’ valuable enough to feed even your grandchildren. Or you can be so unlucky and lose everything you put into it and end up just washing up muddy soil for nothing. It all depends on your ‘paw pin’ [the balance of bad and good karmas] you did in this and previous lives”: (from a gem merchant on the fortunes of gem mining).

20  

“gettingtogetherforanewventure”alwaystakesplacethroughpriorexperienceandothersocialconnectionsthatmakethemsuitableto“sharecollectivefortunesandmisfortunes”.Gemminingisstillapre‐capitalisticformofproductionwherelabourisnotsoldinthemarketforawageandthe labourprocess isnotsubordinatedbytechnologiesofgovernance. In fact, labour isexposedtohigherriskinthisgameofgamblingbecause,asillustratedinFig.2,arelativelysmalleramount of auction money is left after appropriating the shares of all other forms of capital.However,thereisaparticularmechanismthatlabourers(iftheywish)canchoosetominimiseriskand provide a consistent subsistence. They often negotiate for what is called ‘weekly cash’. Alabourercanthusarrangewithsomeoneinthevillage,oftenagovernmentservantorotherpersonwitharelativelyhigherandregularincome,topayhimadefiniteamountofmoneyeveryweekforsubsistence(Rs.200atthetimeofthefieldwork)inreturnforwhatiscalled“expensehalf”(i.e.halfofthe“shareofwork”).Inourexample,above,the“shareofwork”wasRs.19,759ofwhichhalf(Rs.9880)waspaidtotheprovideroftheseweeklycashasthe“expensehalf”.Itshouldalsobenotedthatitistheresponsibilityofindividualworkers,iftheywish,toarrangetheirown“expensehalf”.In this way, the calculative template applied in the appropriation of auction money vividlydemonstrateshowawidersetofpowerrelations,whicharticulatethestructuraldynamicsofthefield, is articulatedwithin a specific set ofmaterial practices, and how suchwider structures ofpower are reproduced within the cognitive schema of social agents to make such structures ofdominationandexploitation‘natural’.ThetheoreticalimplicationsofthisempiricalaccountwillbediscussedfurtherinthesynthesisandconclusionsectioninthelightofBourdieu’slogicofpracticeandhissociologyofsymbolicforms.However,beforethat,adiscussionon‘absenceofaccounting’and‘resistance’wouldfillsomegapsintheanalysissofar.7.AbsenceofaccountingGemmininginSriLankaisapeculiarcaseof“absenceofaccounting”(Choudhury,1988;Catasús,2008; JacobsandKemp,2002; Jayasinghe andThomas,2009), asweknow it elsewhere, and thepresence of a peculiar form of accounting. The only form of ‘accounting’ (in a broader sense)presenthereisthe“sheetofappropriation”,thataccountsforthereturnthateachformofcapitaltoventureis ‘traditionally’entitled.Thus,thegainsoftheventureareonlycognisedandunderstoodintermsoftheseshares,which is justashareofthesaleproceeds(auctionmoney)ratherthanacalculatedprofit/loss.Fortheventure,norecordwaskeptregardinghowmuchmoneywasspentontea, timber, toolsoranythingelse for thatmatter.Theventurehasneitherbeendefinedasanaccounting entity of any form nor has it gained a distinct structural separation from its socialcontext,astatusthatfirmsinmodernityhavebeenabletoachieve.Thatsaid,theventureisdefinednotinanyaccountingsensebutasasocialcontractintowhicheachformofcapitalisentered.Howmucheachformofcapitalgetasitsreturnisdeterminedneitherbythe‘accountingoropportunitycosts’ of that capital nor by any costs and benefits attributed to the venture but by the relativepositioningofeachformofcapitalinthefieldofcapital.Atitsbest,accordingtothenatureofthissocialcontract,thenotionofprofit,atleasttheoretically,canonlyaccrueatthelevelofindividualcapitalproviders.Forexample,itispossiblethatatimberprovider,onhisown,cankeeparecordofall expenses that s/he incurred on a single venture and then compare it with his/her “share ofauctionmoney”tocalculatehisindividualprofit/loss.Thiscouldevenbethecaseofallother‘formsofcapital’.However,accordingtomyfieldobservations,neitherofthosecapitalprovidersbotherstocalculatesuchaprofit.The“shareofauctionmoney”insteadseemstoworkasanassessmentoftheir‘pow‐pin’(thebalancebetweengoodandbadkarma).Asagemmerchantwhoclaimsfortheshareoftea,timberandalsothelicenceinaparticulargemminecommented:

21  

“IhavetoldHamzudin(ownerofateashopintheRakwanatown)toprovidetheguyswith tea and buns or something else enough for eight people twice a day.Onceaweekorso,IsettlemyoweswithHamzudin.…No,Idon’tkeeparecordofthem.…Profit?.…Yes, I havebeenmaking goodmoney; you can see that. Can’tyou?(helooksaroundtotakemyattentiontohisstockofluxuriousfurnitureandthebighouse).Everybodyknowsthatallthesearegemmoney.…Ifyouputyourmoneyinamine,youdon’tknowwhatyouget,youwillgetwhatyouaredestinedtoget.So,justspendyourmoneyonwhatyouaresupposedtodo,beyondthatitisnot for us but for the God Saman (the patron god of Sabaragamuwa, the gemminingprovince).…Thanksgod,Iofcoursemanagewithoutbooks,don’tI?IgotmanythingsthatIhaveneverdreamedofbefore!”

So,thequestionis“Whyistherenoaccountinghere?”(Choudhury,1988,p.549;seealsoCatasús,2008, p. 1007). In this empirical case at least, the answer lies in the ideological and structuralapparatusesof the fieldandthehistoricalconstructionof theeconomicactivityasa fieldspecificgame, rather than in the “performative” and/or “ostensive” aspects of accounting (see Catasús,2008). Inotherwords, the substantiverationaleof theabsenceof accounting isexplainednot somuch by ostensive or performative aspects of what is absent, but rather by the structural andpractical logics of the fieldwithinwhich accounting is not deemed to be necessary (“I of coursemanagewithoutrecords,don’tI?”).Historicallythefieldofgemmininghasbeenconstructedasa“gameofgambling”whereeachformof capital takes its own stake against the odds of the nature (i.e. natural possibility of finding avaluablegemarticulatedintermsofreligiousideologies),anditisthisdoxicideologyofgemminingasacollective(andindividual)gamblethatnegaterecordkeepingasapractice,atleastatthelevelof individualcapitalproviders.By itsverynature,ventureoutcomes(findingavaluablegem)hasnot been understood to have any causal connections with capital invested; instead the ventureoutcomesareideologicallyrelatedtothecollective(andindividual)karma(paw‐pin)orluck.Thus,investment and practices of gem mining are not driven by any ideology of profit or any othereconomicmeasuresofefficiencythatdemandspracticesofrecordkeepingandcomparingcostsandrevenues.Behindthisnon‐economismembeddedintheabsenceofaccounting,thereliesthenon‐secularacceptanceofuncontrollabilityofone’sdestiny.Apartfromtheseideologicalconditions,therealsoexistsasetofstructuralconditionsthatnegatesthepresenceofaccountingbeyondthe“sheetofappropriations”.Stillintheformofapre‐moderneconomicenterprisecharacterisedbyrentiercapital9relations,gemmining,ontheotherhand,hasnotyetgainedadistinct ‘organisationalboundaryandastructure’withinwhichclassdistinctionsare institutionalisedasamodeofproduction.Ostensiveandperformativedimensionsofmodernaccountingpre‐requiressuchamodeofproductionwhichisstillabsentinSriLankangemmining.Instead,fieldisstructuredasaseriesofeconomicventuresthataselectedsetofsocialactorsentersintothroughtheirsocialrelationsthatpre(andpost)existaparticularventure.Thus,incontrarytoawesternmine, gemmines in Sri Lankahaveno structuralprerogatives to instigatea systemof

                                                            9Thegempitortheventuredoesnot“buy”anyofthesecapitals.Neitheraparticularformofdominantcapital“buy”the

otherformsofcapitalassumingaroleofentrepreneurship,asitiscommonlyassumedinwesterneconomics.Insteadtheyallpooltogetherfortheparticulargempitasasingleventure.Aftertheventure,forexample,thelandisstillwiththe landowners (whichs/hemayput itbacktootheruses), thewaterengineand toolsarestillwith theirowners(whichtheyoftenprovidetoanewventure).Thosewhoofferlabour,tea,timber,andexpensehalf(workingcapitalproviders,intheaccountingjargonIlearntfromtheWest)arethepartieswithnoresidualvalueoftheircapitalbutonlytherelevantshareofauctionmoney.

22  

accounting therein.Theyarestructuredandgoverned,on theonehand, throughpowerrelationsthatextendbeyondthegemmineintothepatronagepowerrelationsinthesociety.Withinsuchawidersetofpowerrelations,theexistingformofaccounting,the“sheetofappropriation”,functionas the symbolic means through which structural properties of the field are cognised,communicated,reproducedandtransformedintoasetofpracticaldispositionsthatorientday‐to‐dayworkpractices,dominationandresistance.Ontheotherhand,aswediscussedearlier,thelabourprocessisritualisticandstructuredbyasetof habitus andbodily hexis. Ritualistic organisation of labourprocess in thisway is, therefore, avery stronghegemonic formof subsumption, although itmaynot qualify as real subsumptionoflabour(seeMarx,1976,p.1021;andalsoBurawoy,1979,p.15).Asfarasthereisafieldspecificcalculativemechanismtoexploititssurplusvaluebythedominatingformsofcapital,andasfarasthere is no “labour aristocracy” (Moorhouse, 1978) to dominate the field specific logic ofappropriation,thereexistsnorealnecessity forotherformsofaccounting,especiallythoseformsthrough which real subordination is achieved in its Western counterparts. Instead, the habitusestablishesaparticularformofaccountingasrepresentedbythe“rulesofthegame”.8.Domination,subjugationandresistanceThe discussion so far revealed that the field of gem mining and gem pit operations have beenstructuredasadominatingstructurethroughasetofhabitus,doxa,bodilyhexis,andaparticularcalculativetemplatethattranslatestherelativepositioningofdifferentformsofcapitalintoasetofpracticaldispositionsofappropriatingfield’ssurplusvalue.Asstructuringstructures,theseformsofembodimentsandformsofcapitalstructurethefieldintoasocialspacewithinwhichsymbolicviolence by a dominating form of capital ismadepossible. However, such a dominating structureshould not be conceptualised as a whole encompassing structure of domination that leaves nospaceforresistancebythesubalterns.Instead,a fieldshouldbeunderstoodasastructurewithinwhicheventhesubalternsocialactorsdoenjoyanagencyofstrategisingandresisting.That’swhyBourdieu’s reflexive sociology conceives a field as a ‘game’: a structural frame for interactionbetweenconflictingactorsandtheirinterestsprovidingapoliticalspaceforactorstostrategiseandresist. However,within such a dominating structure, resistancemostly take place in the form ofwhatScott(1985,1990,seealsoAlawattageandWickramasinghe,2009)calls“everydayformsofresistance”or“hiddentranscripts”:

“theprosaicbutconstantstrugglesbetweenthepeasantryandthosewhoseektoextractlabour,food,taxes,rents,andinterestsfromthem.Mostoftheformsofthisstruggle takes stopwell shortof collectiveoutrightdefiance ... and they typicallyavoid any direct symbolic confrontation with authority or elite norms” (Scott,1985,p.29).

Assuch,theyarenotcollectiveformsofresistanceandIcouldnotfindanyinstances(oranystoryof such an instance) of collective engagement of labour to steal gems from the pit or any otherforms of collective defiance of the existing relations of production in the field. Furthermore, itappears that “stealing fromourownpit”doesnotmakeanysense for them ina collective sense.Nevertheless,thereareample‘stories’ofindividualdefianceofthiscollectivedoxadespitetheveryhighriskinvolvedinsuchanattempt.Asoneworkercommented,

“yes if you are very very lucky, and so clever to hide it, you find a chance tosmuggle a gem while working in the bottom of the pit, but you never get thatchancewhenyouarewashingtheillamainfrontofeverybody.Ifyousmuggleone,keep it for so long,many years, before trying to sell it. Otherwise, youwill lose

23  

yourfriends,andmayevenloseyourlifeaswhathappenedtoD(agempitworkerfounddeadinagempit)”

The most apparent and obvious form of resistance to the structural logics of domination andsubjugation is to leave the game altogether. Majority of those who enter the field as workers(mainlyschoolleavers)leaveitassoonastheyfindsomethingelse.Asaheadman(toooldtojointheArmyperhaps)oncecommented,“Itisincreasinglybecomingdifficulttoorganiseaworkgang,becauseeverybodynowjoinstheArmy10.Manydieinthewarbutatleasttheirchildrenorparentsgettheirsalaryuntiltheylive”.Resistancecanalsobe seen in the formofanalternative formoforganisingagempitventure:astructuralalternative.Thesearecalled“horapatal”:illicitshallowpitsoftenrunsolelybyagangofworkers in the middle of government forests without a licence and without contributions fromotherformsofcapital.Thisispossiblemainlyduetotheshallownessofthegempitandconsequentsimplicityofthepitoperationsintermsofresourcerequirements.Althoughpossibilityoffindingagemislowerinthissortofgempitsthaninthedeeppitmining,andalthoughthereisahighriskof“policeraids,physicalinjuriesfrompolicebeatings,imprisonmentandfines”,thereisanincreasingtendency,especiallyofyoungschoolleavers,toengageinthesealternativeformsofgemmining.Asagemmerchantcommented(notinanegativeorcomplainingbutratherinaphilosophisingtone):

“Someyoungguyswouldfindsometools,collectsomefoodsenoughforaweekorso,disappearintotheforestandmayreturnwithagoodlotofgems,ormayreturnemptyhanded,or evenendup in the jail for sixmonths.Theydon’t care. ... Yes,theyshouldtrytheirluckinthejungleandwouldbringussomegemsiftheyfindthem”11

Thepointbringingtheresistancetodiscussionhereisthatalthoughcalculativetemplates,habitus,bodily hexis and doxa, should be understood as ‘structuring structures’ they should never beunderstood as whole encompassing structures of domination. They always leave ampleopportunitiesforprosaic formsofresistancethatmakethefieldalwaysanimperfectstructureofdominationandsubjugation.Itisthisimperfectionofthegamethatalwaysmakesaparticularfieldhistoricallydynamic.9.Synthesisandconclusions:logicofcalculativepracticesSo far, in the empirical sections above, I have discussed how a set of field‐specific habitus hasstructuredthepresenceofcalculativeandcontrolpracticesofsomekindsandtheabsenceofotherkinds. However, this does notmean that the social logic of the presence and absence of variouscalculativeandcontrolpracticescanbefullyexplainedbythemereempiricalspecificationofsuchhabitus. Instead, anempirical accountof habitus in a given fieldofproductionwouldprovideaninsightinto“whatgivespracticestheirrelativeautonomywithrespecttoexternaldeterminationsoftheimmediatepresent”(Bourdieu,1990b,p.56).Suchanempiricalaccountwouldalsoexplain

                                                            10Duringthetimeoffieldwork,thecountrywasinthemiddleofacivilwarwithseparatistTamilTigersofthenorthern

part of the country. The Government Army was in a shortage of soldiers and provided the largest source ofemploymentforunemployedyouthsinthepovertyladenvillagesandabareminimumeducationofuptograde6wasmorethanenoughtobeasoldierandearnapermanentincome.

11 One important thing that gem merchants establish before buying a gem is its source. As such it is difficult anddangeroustosella‘stolengem’.However,merchantsaremorethanreadytobuygemsfrom“hora‐patal”.Illegalgem‐miningisa‘stateimposition’forwhichfieldactorshavelittlerespect.Asfarastheillegalgemminerscanhandlethepoliceraidsoftheirmines,sellingagemfromaillegalmineisnotaprobleminthefield.Thismeans,thereisnofielddefinitionof‘illegal‐gems’but‘illegalgempits’.

24  

howhabitus,as“apastwhichsurvivesinthepresentandtendstoperpetuateitselfintothefuturebymakingitselfpresentinpracticesstructuredaccordingtoitsprinciples”(Bourdieu,1977,p.82),offersasetofschemesofperception,cognition,evaluation,classification,andalsomotorpatternsand performative routines, which “[tend] to guarantee the ‘correctness’ of practices, and theirconstancyovertime,morereliablythanformalrulesandexplicitnorms”(HarkerandMay,1993,p.174). Such an empirical account on its own, however, would not reveal the ‘deep structures’ ofdominationandsubordination in social life,alongsidewhich the logicof calculativepracticescanbetterbeunderstood.Thus,calculativeandcontrolpractices,accordingtoBourdieu’s(1990b)logicofpractice,

cannot be deuced either from the present conditions which may seem to haveprovoked themor from the past conditionswhichhaveproduced thehabitus. ...Theycanthereforeonlybeaccountedforbyrelatingthesocialconditionsinwhichthehabitusthatgeneratedthemwasconstituted,tothesocialconditionsinwhichitisimplemented(p.56).

This means that practices are products of dispositions intersecting with the dynamics andstructures of a particular field, and practices reflect the structure of that encounter. Thisrelationshipisdialecticaland,hence,callsforanalysesofboth(1)thestructureoftherelevantfieldintermsofitspowerrelationsand(2)thehabitusoftheagentsinvolvedinthefield(Swartz,1997,p. 141). In one of his classic works, Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 101), Bourdieu formulatesfollowingequationtosummarisethisdialecticallogicofpractices:

[(habitus)(capital)]+field=practice

This equation highlights the interlocking nature of habitus, capital and field and their dialecticalconstructionofpracticesaswellastheepistemologicalcentralityofpracticesinthearticulationofdeepcognitiveandsocialstructuresthatunderliethepracticespertainingtoaparticularfield.Thusthe field logic of practices and an analysis of field, according to Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology(BourdieuandWacquant,1992,pp.104–105), involves threenecessaryand internally connectedmoments:analysisofthepositionsoffieldvis‐à‐visthefieldofpower(i.e.thecurrentstateofthefield);mappingouttheobjectivestructureoftherelationsbetweenthepositionsoccupiedbytheagents or institutions who compete for the legitimate forms of domination, control andappropriations(i.e.formsofcapital);andanalysesofthedifferentsystemsofdispositions(habitus,bodilyhexisanddoxa)thattheagentsofafieldhaveacquiredthroughinternalisingadeterminatetype of social and economic condition. However, the structured systems of practices (related tofield and capital), expressions and dispositions of agents are methodologically inseparable andmustbeanalysedtogether(BourdieuandWacquant,1992,p.105).Coming back to our empirical case with this theoretical and analytical insight, the particularcalculative practice of appropriating auction money is a product of this dialectic intercoursebetween the field structure of capital and the cognitive structures of its agents. As a form ofinstitutionalisedpractice,thiscalculativetemplateofappropriations(seeFig.2)demonstrateshowthefieldisstructuredaccordingtotherelativepositioningofvariouscategoriesofcapital.Thus,thesocial orderwithinwhich gemmining is conditioned is a dominating structure of hierarchicallydifferentiatedcategoriesofresourceswhich,forBourdieu(1991b,p.230),arecapitalbecausetheyfunction as the “social relation of power ... over the accumulated product of past labour . . . andtherebyoverthemechanismswhichtendtoensuretheproductionofaparticularcategoryofgoodsandthusoverasetofrevenuesandprofits.”Thehierarchicalstratificationofcapitalmanifestedbythisparticularcalculativepracticeisinternallyconnectedtothewiderrelationsofpoweroperating

25  

in and beyond the field of gemmining, andwithin the cultural political economy of Sri Lankanvillagelandscape.Thatsaid,thepoweroflandownersandgemmerchantstoappropriatealargerproportion of the auction money over other forms of capital (including labour) stems from theembodiment of the social order (i.e. the field of power) manifested by historically accumulatedeconomic capital (such as possession of financial capital, big houses, automobiles, and othersymbolsofwealthandpower),patronagerelationsandotherformsofsocialcapital(relationswithgovernmentofficers,forexample)withinasetofhabitusandrelatedcalculativepractices.In thisway calculativepractices and templatesbecome instrumentsof symbolicmanipulationorsymbolic formsandprocessesthatreproducesocial inequalities.Asalreadynoted,suchsymbolicsystems simultaneously perform three interrelated but distinct functions: structuring structures(cognition), structured structures (communication) and instruments of domination (socialdifferentiation).Calculative templates and procedures, as ‘structuring structures’, are instruments for knowledgeand gnoseological construction of objective world; they are ameans by which to order andunderstand thesocialworld. In this sense, thecalculative templateused inappropriatingauctionmoney is not simply a technicalmeans of calculating the stake of each category of capital but astructuringstructure.Itexertsastructuringpowertoconstructreality,whichtendstoestablishagnoseologicalorderofthesocialworld(seeBourdieu,1979,p.79).Suchsymbolicsystemsarealso‘structured structures’, whose internal logic channels deep structural meaning shared by allmembersof a field.As conceptual systems, such calculative templates andprocedures, therefore,function simultaneously as instruments of communication and as instruments of knowledge(Swartz, 1997, p. 83), and they are the “instruments par excellence of social integration: asinstrumentsof communicationandknowledge theymakepossible theconsensuson the senseofthe social worldwhichmakes a fundamental contribution toward reproducing the social order”(Bourdieu, 1979, p. 79). Thus, the sheet showing the appropriation of auction money not onlyconstructsagnoseologicalstructureofthefieldasanintegrationoftheinterestsofdifferentiatedcategoriesofcapitalbutalsocontributestowardsahomogeneousconceptionof thegameofgemmining as a collective venture (against the nature and the will of gods and demons) with adistinctivestakeforeachcategoryofcapital.AccordingtoBourdieu(1979,p.80),symbolicsystems,asstructuredandstructuringinstruments,fulfil their political function as instruments that legitimate domination. They help to ensure thedominationofoneclassofcapitaloverothers,andlead,inWeberianterms,tothe‘domesticationofthe dominated’. In other words, calculative templates and procedures, as symbolic systems,legitimatesocialrankingbyencouragingthedominatedtoaccepttheexistinghierarchiesofsocialdistinction.Forexample,inourempiricalcase,noneofthepitworkersevercomplainedabouttheapparent ‘discrepancies’ in theappropriationofauctionmoneybut took it forgranted that therewasnoproblemwiththesystemasitstood;itisthewayithasalwaysbeenand,therefore,shouldalwaysbe.Theybelieve,forthefuture,that“dependingonourownkarmaandwiseinvestmentofwhatever themoneywe receive, we can be gemmerchants; many of those bigmerchants havestarted like us”. The social hierarchy that was apprehended, communicated and reproducedthroughsymbolicsystemsofcalculationshasbeeninternalisedasalegitimatesystemthatprovideseveryone with fair opportunities for progress over the social hierarchy by transforming theircurrentlabourpower(oneformofcapital)intootherformsofcapitalwithahighersymbolicpowerofappropriation.Bourdieucalls this formofdomination, or legitimationofdomination, symbolicviolence which, in contrast to overt violence, is gentle, invisible violence, unrecognised as such,chosenasmuchasundergone,thatoftrust,obligation,personalloyalty(topatronsaswellastothesystem)...ofallthevirtueshonouredbytheethicofhonour(Bourdieu,1990b,p.127).

26  

These cognitive, communicativeanddominatingpowersof calculative templatesandprocedures,however, do not occur in the form of an ‘illocutionary force’ but are defined in and by the verystructureof the fieldwithinwhichbeliefs areproducedand reproduced (Bourdieu, 1979, p.83).Thus,thereisaninseparabledialecticbetweencalculativepracticesandthestructuresofthefield:calculativetemplatesandprocedures,ontheonehand,areproductsofthestructuralconfigurationoftherelevantfieldinaparticulartemporalandspatialphaseofevolutionand,ontheother,arethesymbolicmeansthroughwhichthesamestructuralconfigurationisunderstood,communicatedandreproduced. That said, they lie, as symbolic systems, in themiddle of the (subjective) cognitivestructuresoftheagentsandthe(historically)objectivestructuresofthesocialsystem.Inthisway,they constitute the system of habitus and doxa that orients (rather than determines) day‐to‐dayworkpractices,modes of domination and resistance. For example, the fieldof gemmining in SriLanka,throughadefinitemodeofcalculationrelatedtotheappropriationofauctionmoney,isthusstructured as a particular combination of seven categories of capitalwith distinctive stakes andpowersofappropriations.Thisfield‐specificcalculativelogichasexcludednotionsofprofitbeyondthe ‘auctionproceeds’, leavingoutanynecessity fordetailedcost calculationsandcontrolsat thepoint of production. Thus, a particular field‐specific logic of calculation underlies the relativeautonomyoflabourprocessfromtheexternalcontrolofotherformsofcapital.Therefore, this paper shed light on the accounting research that attempts to understandidiosyncrasiesofaccounting,emphasisingthepowerofBourdieu’ssociologyofsymbolic intereststotheorisethepresenceandtheabsenceofparticularformsofcalculativeandcontrolpractices.Mymainargumentisthatcalculativetemplatesandproceduresconstituteafieldspecificlogicandtheyare the symbolic means through which structural properties of the field are cognised,communicated,reproducedandtransformedintoasetofpracticaldispositionsthatorientday‐to‐dayworkpractices,dominationandresistance.Thismeans,asHamiltonandÓhÓgartaigh(2009,p.917)alsoargues,existentialandnon‐existentialrationalitiesofparticularformsofaccountingandcontrolrituals“emanatefromthepracticeofthefield”,whichinturntobefoundinandtobeboundby systems of durable and transposable dispositions andbodily schemata (i.e. habitus, doxa andbodilyhexis),ontheonehand,andthestructuralconditionsofthefieldmanifestedbythepowerrelationsamongvariousformsofcapital,ontheother.This is where Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology become immensely useful vis‐à‐vis contemporaryanalyses of “how forms of accounting emerge from, sustain and modify wider institutional andsocialstructures”(Hopwood,2000,p.763;seealsoHamiltonandÓhÓgartaigh,2009,p.917).Asillustrated in this case study, the potential of Bourdieu’s sociology stems from its capacity toconnect“carnal”(i.e.bodilyandcorporeal,seeWacquant,2004a,2004b)dimensionsofcontrolandcalculativeritualswithwiderrelationsofpower(i.e.capital)inaparticularfield.Ithelpsus,ontheonehand,togetherwithrichethnographicaccounts,tounderstandaccountingasacarnalpractice(i.e.practicessoinseparablyinthebodiesandsoulsofpeoplewhocarrythemoutthatthosebodiesandsoulsaredefinedbythoseaccountingpractices),anditsdefiningprinciples(suchasthenotionof true and fair viewand field‐specific reporting templates) ashistorical products of such carnalpractices (see alsoHamilton andÓ hÓgartaigh, 2009).On the other hand, it also helps us to seeaccounting as a powerful symbolic system through which structural properties of the field arecognised, communicated, reproduced and transformed into a set of practical dispositions thatorient day‐to‐day work practices. Thus, for example, we see the relations of production (i.e.appropriation of surplus value) through the profit and loss account and we understand thestructureofcapitalthroughthebalancesheet.Suchaccountingtemplates,assymbolicsystemsthatdefines the practices, provide uswith a particularway (or perhaps the onlyway) of seeing andaccepting the world, and hence they become the symbolic means through which structural

27  

properties of a field is reproduced. And it is those structural properties that necessitate thepresenceofparticularformofcalculativepracticeswhilenegatingthepresenceofanyotherformstructurallyunnecessary.InthiswayBourdieu’sreflexivesociologyishelpfulinunderstandingthepracticalandstructurallogicsofthepresenceandabsenceofaccounting.References

AlawattageC,WickramasingheD.Weaponsoftheweak:subalterns’emancipatoryaccountinginCeylonTea.Accounting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal2009;22(3):379–404.

Baxter J,ChuaWF.Be(com)ingthechief financialofficerofanorganisation:experimentingwithBourdieu’spracticetheory.ManagementAccountingResearch2008;19(3):212–30.

BourdieuP.Outlineofatheoryofpractice.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress;1977.

BourdieuP.SymbolicPower.CritiqueofAnthropology1979;4(1):77–85.

Bourdieu P. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UniversityPress;1984.

BourdieuP.Theformsofcapital.In:RichardsonJG,editor.Handbookoftheoryandresearchforthesociologyofeducation.NewYork:GreenwoodPress;1986.p.241–58.

BourdieuP.HomoAcademicus.Cambridge:PolityPressinassociationwithBasilBlackwell;1988.

BourdieuP.Socialspaceandsymbolicpower.SociologicalTheory1989;7(1):14–25.

Bourdieu P. In otherwords: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press;1990a.

BourdieuP.Thelogicofpractice.Stanford,Calif:StanfordUniversityPress;1990b.

Bourdieu P. Fourth lecture. Universal corporatism: the role of intellectuals in the modern world. PoeticsToday1991a;12(4):655–69.

BourdieuP.Languageandsymbolicpower.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress;1991b.

BourdieuP.Sociologyinquestion.London:SagePublications;1995.

BourdieuP.Practicalreason.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress;1998.

BourdieuP.Theweightoftheworld:socialsufferingincontemporarysociety.Oxford:Polity;1999.

BourdieuP,WacquantL.Aninvitationtoreflexivesociology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress;1992.

BoynsT,EdwardsJR.Changeagentsandthedisseminationofaccountingtechnology:Wales’basicindustries,C.1750–C.1870.AccountingHistory1996;1(1):9–34.

BurawoyM.Manufacturingconsent:changesinthelabourprocessundermonopolycapitalism.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress;1979.

BurawoyM.Theextendedcasemethod.In:BurawoyM,editor.Ethnographyunbound:powerandresistanceinthemodernmetropolis.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress;1991.p.271–90.

28  

CatasúsB.Insearchofaccountingabsence.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2008;19:1004–19.

CentralBankofSriLanka,AnnualReport.CentralBankofSriLanka,Colombo;2009.

ChoudhuryN.Theseekingofaccountingwhereitisnot:towardsatheoryofnon‐accountinginorganizationalsettings.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety1988;13(6):549–57.

CooperC.CriticalaccountinginScotland.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2002;13(4):451–62.

CooperDJ,Everett J,NeuD. Financial scandals, accounting changeand the roleof accountingacademics: aperspectivefromNorthAmerica.EuropeanAccountingReview2005;14(2):373–82.

De Beelde I. Financial reporting in Belgium: case studies on collieries, 1900–1950. Accounting History2000;5(1):85–110.

EmirbayerM,JohnsonV.Bourdieuandorganizationalanalysis.TheoryandSociety2008;37(1):1–45.

Everett J. The politics of comprehensive auditing in fields of high outcome and cause uncertainty. CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2003;14(1–2):77–104.

EverettJ.Exploring(false)dualismsforenvironmentalaccountingpraxis.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2004;15(8):1061–84.

Everett J. Editorial proximity equals publication success: a function of rational self‐interest or good‐faitheconomy?CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2008;19(8):1149–76.

FogartyTJ. The stratification of academic accounting in theUSA: a theoretical and empirical evaluation ofinstitutionalreproduction.AccountingEducation1998;7(1):3–20.

FoucaultM.Disciplineandpunish:thebirthoftheprison.Aylesbury:PenguinBooks;1979.

Free C, Macintosh NB. Bourdieu’s logic of practice theory: possibilities for research on managementaccounting and control. Ontario, Canada: Queen’s University School of Business; 2009. pp. 1–40, ResearchPaperNo02‐09.

Goddard A. Budgetary practices and accountability habitus: a grounded theory. Accounting, Auditing &AccountabilityJournal2004;17(4):543–77.

Hamilton G, Ó hÓgartaigh C. The third policeman: the true and fair view, language and the habitus ofaccounting.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2009;20(8):210–20.

HarkerR,MaySA.Codeandhabitus: comparing theaccountsofBernsteinandBourdieu.British JournalofSociologyofEducation1993;14(2):169–78.

Hopwood AG. Understanding financial accounting practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society2000;25:763–6.

Jacobs K. Class reproduction in professional recruitment: examining the accounting profession. CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2003;14(5):569–96.

Jacobs K, Kemp J. Exploring accounting presence and absence: case studies from Bangladesh. Accounting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal2002;15(2):143–61.

29  

Jayasinghe K, Thomas D. The preservation of indigenous accounting systems in a subaltern community.Accounting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal2009;22:351–78.

KurunmakiL.Makinganaccountingentity:thecaseofthehospitalinfinnishhealthcarereforms.EuropeanAccountingReview1999a;8(2):219–37.

KurunmakiL.Professionalvsfinancialcapital inthefieldofhealthcare–strugglesfortheredistributionofpowerandcontrol.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety1999b;24(2):95–124.

LeeT.ShapingtheUSAcademicaccountingresearchprofession:theAmericanaccountingassociationandthesocialconstructionofaprofessionalelite.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting1995;6(3):241–61.

LeeTA.Anatomyof a professional elite: theExecutive Committee of theAmericanAccountingAssociation1916–1996.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting1999;10(2):247–64.

Lee TA, Williams PF. Accounting from the inside: legitimizing the accounting academic elite. CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting1999;Vol.10:867–95,No.6.

LounsburyM. Institutional rationalityandpracticevariation:newdirections in the institutional analysisofpractice.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2008;Vol.33:349–61,No.4–5.

LounsburyM,VentrescaM.Thenewstructuralisminorganizationaltheory.Organization2003;10(3):457–80.

LukkaK,GranlundM.Thefragmentedcommunicationstructurewithintheaccountingacademia:thecaseofactivity‐basedcostingresearchgenres.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2002;27(1–2):165–90.

MacintoshNB.Management accounting and control systems: an organizational and behavioural approach.Chichester:Wiley;1994.

MarxK.Capital:acritiqueofpoliticaleconomy,vol.1.London:Penguin;1976.

MoorhouseH.Themarxisttheoryoflabouraristocracy.SocialHistory1978;3:61–82.

NeuD.Accountingforpublicspace.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2006;31(4–5):391–414.

Neu D, Cooper DJ, Everett J. Critical accounting interventions. Critical Perspectives on Accounting2001;12(6):735–62.

NeuD,FriesenC,EverettJ.ThechanginginternalmarketforethicaldiscoursesintheCanadianCAprofession.Accounting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal2003;16(1):70–103.

NeuD,OcampoGomezE,GrahamC,HeinckeM.“Informing” technologiesandtheWorldBank.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2006;31(7):635–62.

Oakes LS, Townley B, Cooper DJ. Business planning as pedagogy: language and control in a changinginstitutionalfield.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly1998;43(2):257–93.

OakesLS,YoungJJ.Reconcilingconflict:Theroleofaccounting intheAmericanIndianTrustFunddebacle.CriticalPerspectivesonAccounting2010;21:63–75.

RahamanAS, Everett J,NeuD.Accounting and themove to privatizewater services inAfrica. Accounting,Auditing&AccountabilityJournal2007;20(5):637–70.

Ramirez C. Understanding social closure in its cultural context: accounting practitioners in France (1920–1939).Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2001;26(4–5):391–418.

30  

Scott JC. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT and London: YaleUniversityPress;1985.

Scott JC. Domination and the arts of resistance: hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT and London: YaleUniversityPress;1990.

Shenkin M, Coulson AB. Accountability through activism: learning from bourdieu. Accounting, Auditing &AccountabilityJournal2007;20(2):297–317.

SnowDA,MorrillC,AndersonL.Elaboratinganalyticethnography:linkingfieldworkandtheory.Ethnography2003;4(2):181–200.

Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. NewpuryPark:Sage;1990.

SwartzD.Culture&power:thesociologyofPierreBourdieu.Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress;1997.

Swartz D. Bringing Bourdieu’s master concepts into organizational analysis. Theory and Society2008;37(1):45–53.

VaughanD.Bourdieuandorganizations:theempiricalchallenge.TheoryandSociety2008;37(1):65–82.

Vent G, Milne RA. Cost accounting practices at precious metal mines: a comparative study, 1869–1905.AccountingHistory1997;2(2):77–105.

VentG,MilneRA.AccountingpracticesoftheSt.JosephLeadCompany:1864–1900.Accounting,BusinessandFinancialHistory2000;10(2):97–128.

Wacquant L. Towards a reflexive sociology: a workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory1989;7(1):26–63.

Wacquant L. Ethnografeast: a progress report on the practice and promise of ethnography. Ethnography2003;4(1):5–14.

WacquantL.FollowingPierreBourdieuintothefield.Ethnography2004a;5(4):387–414.

Wacquant L. Body & soul: notebooks of an apprentice boxer. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press;2004b.

WillisPE.Theethnographicimagination.Oxford:PolityPress;2000.

XuY,XuX.Socialactors,culturalcapital,andthestate:thestandardizationofbankaccountingclassificationandterminologyinearlytwentieth‐centuryChina.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety2008;33(1):73–102.