Intellectual view of symbolic power in Turkey: A research on social science publishing

This study examines the hierarchical structures and power relations that emerge in the field of social science publishing in Türkiye, shaped by the contributions of universities, reader and intellectual interests, and publishing-distribution processes. To analyze the hierarchical structures and power dynamics specific to social science publishing more concretely—through the differentiated practices of publishing houses and other structural patterns—Bourdieu's "field theory" was employed. Within the context of publishing houses' scientific output and other practices, the study seeks to illustrate how symbolic power and hierarchical structures materialize in the social science publishing field. Accordingly, in-depth interviews were conducted with 53 doctoral students studying sociology, 22 academics, and 10 booksellers/bookstores and 10 publishing house owners or editors across nine universities located in Ankara, Istanbul, and Konya. Additionally, sociology doctoral dissertations completed at these nine universities were examined to determine which publishing houses were most frequently cited in the bibliographies, which ones published these dissertations as books, and which publishing houses most frequently published translated works of Western sociologists. All interview data were analyzed using the MAXQDA program. The production of symbolic power in the field of social science publishing depends on the rules specific to the field and the form of struggle. Symbolic power in this field gains meaning through its internal rules and forms of contestation. Factors such as adherence to editorial processes, the scope and quality of translation activities, the presence of qualified authors, and the inclusion of contentious topics directly shape both the production and the agents of symbolic power. The study generally finds that publishing houses perceived as aligned with leftist ideologies tend to hold symbolic power in the field through these factors. In terms of certain practices, the relationships that the publishing field establishes with the academic and political fields have significantly undermined its autonomy. Shifts and interest-driven dynamics within the academic field have directly affected the publishing field, resulting in a decline in the production of high-quality scientific work. However, in accordance with the principle of "equivalent logic" in academic, publishing, and political spheres, ideological positions on the 'left' and "right" have become established in all three areas. Reflections of the political sphere have been identified in the formation of scientific production, relationship patterns, and evaluation criteria in the publishing sphere. It should also be noted that this field strives to maintain its autonomy and enhance its symbolic power through its own set of rules and principles. The publishing field must be considered in light of these two realities.