Mediatized semiosis and power: interfaces for thinking about algorithmic means and platforms 209 rizes itself and, by interposing itself in the matrix, authorizes the imaginary, real and symbolic. 3.3 Symbolic power and the psycho-socio-anthropological sign The third perspective that we use to think about social semiosis is that of Bourdieu, who, in his theoretical formula- tion, sought a synthesis between the legacies of sociology (Marx, Durkheim, and Weber) and structuralist anthropology. Bourdieu’s relationship with Lacan takes place in this same episteme (structuralism), with the difference that, like Piaget and Lucien Goldmann, his formulations refer to the historicity of structures, socially constructed, in interactions. It refers to his designation as a genetic structuralist or interactionist structuralist. Basical- ly, he understands that structures are not static; they are modified by the actions of agents, individuals, and institutions, at the same time subdued and subjects of them. However, the criticism that this conception is reproductivist is very strong. Among these critics, especially Lahire (2003), many seek an understanding that does not subsume, in such a sharp way as in Bourdieu, the individual to the social. These questions are present in our own formulation, indirectly, through our reflections developed in recent years and presented above based on Peirce and Lacan. *** The first justification for Bourdieu’s articulation with Peirce comes from the relationship with pragmatics. This rela- tionship is addressed in Queré (2017), which emphasizes this relation, even highlighting that the work of the sociologist has fully “its place in the ongoing development of pragmatism” (SHUSTERMAN, 1995, p.603), and that would allow improving its intuitions thanks to the more precise, empirically verified concepts that this work offers (QUERÉ, 2017, page 2). This relationship is central to the concept of habitus, which is close to the concept of habit (with strong similarities
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz