The Law often presents itself as a neutral way to address social conflicts. Yet beneath its claim to objectivity and universality, the legal system is deeply embedded in discourse and structures of power that perpetuate inequality, marginalisation, and oppression. To uncover these hidden dynamics, it is necessary to move beyond traditional doctrinal analyses and engage with theories that expose the insidious ways power operates.

Decolonial, Feminist and Queer scholars have long been critiquing the system relying on the perspective of marginalised groups. These perspectives have allowed to uncover a form of violence that was deliberately or subconsciously overlooked by institutions, including legal bodies. This post aims to show how the relevance of the concept of symbolic violence as understood by Bourdieu to complement these perspectives and be used as a powerful theoretical tool to challenge the structural biases of the inherently discursive legal system. 

Performativity and Habitus: Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Violence 

Violence is often understood by the Law as an overt, material act, visible, immediate, and tangible. Yet, this narrow understanding obscures the more systemic and insidious forms of harm that operate subtly within social structures, institutions, and cultural norms. For decades, post-materialist feminist and Queer scholars have drawn attention to these less visible dimensions of violence, revealing how it manifests not only through physical coercion but also through the normalisation of oppressive norms.

Judith Butler’s concept of performativity is particularly pertinent in this regard. With this concept Butler demonstrates how norms, especially those pertaining to gender and sexuality, are not merely imposed from without but are internalised and performed by individuals within society. In the context of sexual orientation or gender identity, performativity describes the process by which individuals unconsciously repeat the behaviours and expectations society has prescribed for their identity, thereby often subconsciously reinforcing and perpetuating harmful stereotypes without conscious awareness. This echoes Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which explains how deeply ingrained dispositions and perceptions shape actions in ways that reproduce social hierarchies, even among those who are harmed by them.

Together, these concepts explain the existence of asubtle, systemic form of violence that is not solely material and goes beyond what the legal system is tooled to address. This form of violence is embedded in the very fabric of institutions, where compliance with normative expectations becomes a mechanism for the reproduction of oppression.

The Discursive Power of Law: The Legal Discourse as a Site of Symbolic Violence

Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence is useful to complement the Queer theoretical understanding of violence when looking at the Law. This concept puts words on that form of violence that is both internalised by individuals and institutionalised and woven within all layers of society. 

For Bourdieu, symbolic violence is the mechanism through which domination is perpetuated not through force but through the consent of the dominated. As he explains, symbolic violence relies on a ‘pre-reflective correspondence between objective structures and embodied dispositions.’ This means that individuals perceive the social world through cognitive frameworks that are themselves products of the very structures they reinforce. The marginalised individuals adopt the perceptual and evaluative frameworks of the dominant, internalising both the external judgments imposed upon them and their own self-perception within these hierarchies. Symbolic violence thus naturalises its exercise, disseminating, under the guise of universality, the political viewpoint of the dominant class. It is, as Bourdieu notes, ‘permanently inscribed in the bodies of the dominated, in the form of schemes of perception and dispositions.’

The law is a privileged system through which symbolic violence emanates and is perpetuated. In the Force of Law, Bourdieu begins his analysis of the legal system by examining its dialectical power. He explains that the shift from the implicit to the explicit, from subjective impression to objective expression, represents a form of officialization and legitimation. The ostensible objectivity of the law’s meaning is a construct entirely contingent on social processes, emerging from the convergence of what he calls ‘structuring subjectivities’ – the subjectivities of the dominant.

Bourdieu contends that the legal field is a site of discursive production, largely inaccessible to those lacking specialised legal knowledge. Within this context, legal professionals generate and disseminate authoritative modes of perception and expression, which are then imposed upon the broader population. Ordinary citizens are relegated to the passive role of “consumers” of these legitimised discourses, rather than active participants in their formulation.

In this dynamic, legal discourse mirrors social normative discourse. Its classificatory and interpretive frameworks objectively correspond to preexisting, socially constructed divisions. By formalising these divisions, legal discourse sanctifies the established order, transforming it into a recognised, codified, and institutionally validated reality. This process of officialization occurs through the performative utterance of judicial norms, where an authorised representative articulates a declaration that does not merely describe but enacts social reality. The utterance itself assumes the force of action, producing tangible effects by virtue of its institutional authority.

Symbolic violence, in this sense, also acts as a legal or moral power that constructs social reality in ways that enable or are likely to enable various forms of harm. It is only one step removed from the physical destruction of material violence, which is enacted in turn but previously mediated through institutional action.

Interestingly, one of the most insidious ways the law enacts symbolic violence is through its claim to universality. The law presents itself as objective, impartial, and applicable to all, yet its norms, categories, and interpretations are often shaped by the dominant groups in society. For example, the legal definitions of ‘reasonableness’ or ‘public morality’ often reflect the values and perspectives of those in power, marginalising those who do not conform to these norms. This is symbolic violence in action though the legal discourse. The law universalises the interests of the dominant while erasing or subjugating the interests of the marginalised. This constitutes the exact mechanisms Queer theory denounces. 

The Intersection: Symbolic Violence and Queer Marginalisation

The intersection of Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic violence and Queer Feminist Theory reveals how the law is not merely a passive reflector of social norms but an active producer of them. While the concept of symbolic violence allows to call out the institutions that create and perpetuate harmful social and legal norms, Queer theory amplifies Queer voices by creating alternative narratives and denouncing the processes of ostracization.

The legal system, through its discourses, classifications, and judicial rulings, systematically reinforces heteronormative and binary frameworks, thereby marginalising Queer identities and perpetuating their subordination. When legal structures rely on rigid, binary conceptions of identity, a phenomenon long critiqued by scholars, this constitutes a primary form of symbolic violence. Labelling it as such is analytically useful, as it allows us to identify the legal apparatus as a primary agent in the production of violence, which may later manifest in material forms when enacted or enforced by other actors. It is important to distinguish symbolic violence from material violence, though the two are intrinsically linked, as symbolic violence, despite its discursive nature, has tangible, material consequences. A stark illustration of this dynamic is the limited legal recognition of transgender individuals, which often results in the denial of their access to essential medical care. Yet, Bourdieu also offers a path toward dismantling symbolic violence. He argues that the destruction of this power of symbolic imposition presupposes the awareness of arbitrariness, that is to say, the unveiling of objective truth and the annihilation of belief. He advocates for the creation of a symbolic power of mobilisation and subversion, a power to actualise the potential resistance of the dominated classes. Achieving this requires both the conscientisation, or even critical awareness, of the sites where symbolic violence operates and a deliberate challenge to their legitimacy and persistence.

The Path Forward: Dismantling Symbolic Violence in the Law

To confront and dismantle the symbolic violence perpetuated by the legal apparatus, a Queer Critical Legal Theory is essential, one that acknowledges the diversity of Queer identities, challenges the binary categories underpinning legal recognition, and advocates for the structural transformation of the legal system. This approach requires a shift away from assimilationist frameworks toward a genuine recognition of Queer bodies as they exist, rather than as they are compelled to conform.

Bourdieu’s theory provides a foundational step in this process: unveiling the arbitrariness of symbolic violence within the legal system. This involves exposing how legal norms, categories, and interpretations are not neutral or inevitable but are instead contingent on historical, political, and social struggles. By rendering the arbitrary nature of these legal structures visible, we can undermine their legitimacy and create space for resistance and transformation.

Queer Feminist Theory complements this framework by offering strategies to disrupt normativity. This might entail pushing for the legal recognition of non-binary gender identities, challenging the heteronormative assumptions embedded in marriage laws, or critiquing the binary frameworks that define legal parenthood. Ultimately, the goal is to move beyond a legal system that merely assimilates Queer identities into existing structures and toward one that affirms their diversity. The path to justice for Queer individuals cannot be built upon the existing legal frameworks. It demands a radical reimagining of the legal system itself, one that is willing to confront and dismantle the structures of symbolic violence that have long dictated its approach to rights.

Conclusion

The combination of Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic violence and Queer Feminist Theory offers a powerful framework for critically analysing the law. By uncovering the ways in which legal norms, categories, and interpretations are shaped by and reinforce structures of domination, this lens reveals the law not as a neutral arbiter but as a site of systemic violence. Through this critical approach, it is possible to keep challenging the legal discourse to lead it towards more intersectionality and inclusivity.

Amélie Courtine is a PhD researcher at the University of Leicester

Sources

Pierre Bourdieu, La Force du Droit: Éléments pour une sociologie du champ juridique (Éditions du Seuil 1986)

Pierre Bourdieu, La Domination Masculine (Éditions du Seuil 1998)

Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (Routledge 1993)

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity (Duke University Press 2003)