Resonant Fields: Ontological Reimagining of Bourdieu’s Practice Theory for Complex Systems

Abstract

This article proposes a contemporary reconceptualization of Bourdieu’s key theoretical constructs - field, habitus, capital, and distinction - through the lens of quantum field theory (QFT) and relational ontology. Moving beyond the structuralist and Newtonian assumptions underlying Bourdieu’s original model, the paper draws on advances in physics and philosophy to develop a dynamic, emergent, and non-linear framework for theorizing social practice. The field is problematized as a vibrational matrix of relational intensities rather than a static space of positions; habitus is reframed as a mode of affective and cognitive resonance attuned to shifting field configurations; and capital is interpreted as a form of energetic potential activated through symbolic alignment. This quantum-relational perspective foregrounds concepts such as resonance, entanglement, and emergence, offering a novel vocabulary for capturing the complexity and fluidity of contemporary social and organizational life. The article also explores the epistemological, methodological, and practical implications of this shift - particularly in the domains of leadership, organizational change, and professional development. By integrating insights from quantum theory into the sociology of practice, the article contributes to an ontological renewal of social theory - challenging classical assumptions while foregrounding interdependence, precarity, and symbolic volatility in today’s relational landscapes.

Keywords: Field Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Habitus, Resonance, Relational Ontology.

Introduction

Bourdieu’s theory of practice has become a cornerstone of contemporary social theory, offering powerful conceptual tools for understanding the relational dynamics of power, inequality, and symbolic differentiation. His triad of field, habitus, and capital provides a nuanced framework for analyzing how social structures are both reproduced and transformed through embodied practices (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Particularly in sociology, education, and organizational studies, Bourdieu’s model has proven instrumental in revealing the subtle mechanisms through which domination is maintained and contested within diverse social arenas (Swartz, 1997; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).

Despite its enduring relevance, his theoretical architecture remains deeply embedded in structuralist and Newtonian metaphors. Concepts such as field and capital are frequently modeled on notions of force, position, and trajectory - drawn from classical physics - while habitus is treated as a relatively stable system of embodied dispositions shaped by historical accumulation (Maton, 2008; Jenkins, 1992). As such, Bourdieu’s framework tends to assume a social world composed of discrete agents and relatively stable structures, interacting through linear causal mechanisms. This ontology, while analytically robust, may fall short in capturing the emergent, indeterminate, and relationally fluid nature of contemporary social life (Emirbayer, 1997; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Hernes, 2014).

In light of this, the present article proposes a contemporary reinterpretation of Bourdieu’s core concepts through the lens of quantum field theory (QFT) - a paradigm-shifting framework in modern physics that reconceives matter, interaction, and identity as emergent phenomena arising from dynamic relational fields (Rovelli, 2016; Schwartz, 2014). Drawing on the conceptual innovations of QFT - such as resonance, entanglement, and phase transitions - this paper problematizes field, habitus, and capital not as static constructs, but as vibrational and processual dynamics embedded in an ontologically open system. The aim is not to apply quantum physics to social life in a literal or deterministic sense, but to use it as a source of conceptual provocation - a means of rethinking foundational assumptions in Bourdieu’s sociology of practice (Barad, 2007; Montuori, 2013).

This theoretical move enables several contributions. First, it offers a new vocabulary for theorizing practice, one that privileges emergence, affectivity, and relational co-constitution over accumulation and position (Whitehead, 1978; Rescher, 1996). Second, it reconceptualizes habitus as a mode of resonance - a flexible and dynamic orientation to shifting field conditions - thereby enhancing its explanatory power in fluid and rapidly changing environments (Barad, 2007; Ladkin, 2010). Third, it proposes a field ontology that is less static and hierarchical, and more attuned to the complexities of distributed agency, symbolic flux, and organizational transformation (Tsoukas, 2017; Barley & Kunda, 2001).

The article is structured as follows. Section 2 revisits the central tenets of Bourdieu’s theory of practice, highlighting its strengths and ontological limitations. Section 3 introduces the conceptual foundations of quantum field theory and their potential relevance for social theory. Section 4 offers a resonant reinterpretation of Bourdieu’s core concepts through this lens. Section 5 discusses the broader theoretical implications of this ontological shift for understanding agency and change. Section 6 addresses methodological considerations and the epistemological consequences of adopting a field-based, relational framework. The article concludes with reflections on the value of transdisciplinary thinking in reimagining the foundations of social theory.

Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice

Bourdieu’s theory of practice centers around four interrelated concepts: field, habitus, capital, and distinction. Together, these form a comprehensive framework for analyzing how social structures are both reproduced and contested through embodied action and symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

The concept of field refers to a structured social space, relatively autonomous, in which agents and institutions struggle for specific forms of capital. Each field - be it academic, political, cultural, or economic - has its own internal logic, rules of the game, and stakes. Positions within the field are relational, defined not by intrinsic attributes but by differential access to capital and the capacity to act within the field’s symbolic economy (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008; Swartz, 1997).

Habitus is Bourdieu’s term for the system of internalized dispositions that individuals acquire through socialization. These embodied tendencies shape how agents perceive the world, respond to situations, and generate strategies of action, often below the level of conscious deliberation. Habitus mediates between individual agency and structural constraints, producing practices that tend to reproduce the field’s structure (Bourdieu, 1977; Maton, 2008).

Capital, in Bourdieu’s formulation, is not limited to economic assets. It includes social capital (networks), cultural capital (knowledge, credentials), and symbolic capital (prestige, legitimacy) - all of which confer power and status within a given field. These capitals are convertible and context-dependent, reinforcing social hierarchies in subtle, often invisible ways (Jenkins, 1992; Wacquant, 1998).

Finally, distinction refers to the aesthetic, cultural, and symbolic strategies through which elites mark boundaries between themselves and others, thereby legitimizing their status and taste as superior. This mechanism underlies processes of symbolic domination that operate without overt coercion (Bourdieu, 1984; Lamont & Lareau, 1988).

The strength of Bourdieu’s model lies in its capacity to link macro-structures with micro-practices through a relational logic that avoids both individualism and determinism. It provides a powerful lens for examining how power operates through mundane, everyday practices and how inequality persists without requiring conscious intent or institutional rigidity (Swartz, 1997; Grenfell, 2008).

However, despite its analytical richness, Bourdieu’s theory has been criticized for its structural inertia and limited account of emergence and transformation. Habitus, while theoretically open to change, often appears overly reproductive in empirical applications, leaving little room for improvisation, rupture, or novelty (King, 2000; Crossley, 2001). Critics argue that the emphasis on dispositions and trajectory tends to render agents overly consistent and fields excessively stable, reducing social life to strategic maneuvering within fixed relational coordinates.

Furthermore, Bourdieu’s use of classical metaphors - such as field as a space of forces, capital as accumulated energy, and trajectory as a movement shaped by inertia - draws heavily from Newtonian physics (Maton, 2008; Eyal, 2013). These metaphors, while effective for modeling social struggle and hierarchy, implicitly assume a stable ontology of positions and forces, which may obscure the more fluid, emergent, and processual nature of contemporary social dynamics.

In an era increasingly marked by complexity, fluidity, and nonlinear change, such a framework may require ontological renewal. Social life today is shaped by rapid transformations, global entanglements, and symbolic volatility - features that challenge models based on equilibrium, predictability, and historical determinism. This calls for a rethinking of foundational concepts like field and habitus through alternative ontological lenses that can better capture emergence, affectivity, and relational becoming (Emirbayer, 1997; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

The next section explores how developments in quantum field theory offer conceptual resources for reimagining Bourdieu’s sociology of practice in ways that move beyond structuralism, without abandoning its commitment to relational explanation.

Quantum Field Theory

Quantum field theory (QFT) represents one of the most significant ontological shifts in the history of modern science. Initially developed to reconcile quantum mechanics with special relativity, QFT offers a radically different conception of matter, interaction, and identity - one that departs from the discrete, object-based models of classical Newtonian physics and embraces a relational, processual, and dynamic ontology (Weinberg, 1995; Rovelli, 2016).

In classical physics, particles are conceived as individual entities with defined positions, trajectories, and inherent properties. Interactions between them are external, mechanical, and governed by linear causality. In contrast, quantum field theory posits that what we perceive as particles are actually localized excitations - “quanta” - of underlying fields that permeate all of space-time (Schwartz, 2014). Matter is thus not substance but a fluctuation or disturbance within a field; entities are not pre-given but emerge from the relational dynamics of these omnipresent substrates.

Among QFT’s key conceptual innovations is the notion of resonance - a pattern of coherent excitation within a field that gives rise to what we conventionally label as a “particle” or “entity.” This notion bears strong metaphorical and ontological implications for theorizing identity and structure in social systems. Similarly, entanglement - the condition under which the states of two or more systems become inextricably linked regardless of spatial separation - undermines the idea of atomized autonomy and introduces a model of interdependence and co-constitution (Nielsen & Chuang, 2010; Barad, 2007).

Furthermore, emergence plays a central role in QFT: stable forms arise not through deterministic laws alone, but from the fluctuating, probabilistic behavior of underlying fields reaching temporary configurations of coherence. This resonates with recent efforts in the social sciences to develop process-based and relational ontologies capable of explaining complex, non-linear forms of change and organization (Emirbayer, 1997; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

These theoretical innovations are not merely scientific abstractions; they carry profound philosophical consequences. As Barad (2007) argues in her theory of agential realism, quantum mechanics invites us to abandon classical dualisms such as subject/object, observer/observed, and instead embrace a performative epistemology in which measurement, participation, and meaning are intra-actively produced. In this view, entities do not precede interaction; they emerge through it.

Moreover, QFT introduces the idea of the vacuum not as empty space, but as a site of potentiality: a seething field of fluctuating energy from which particles can spontaneously emerge. This challenges static or equilibrium-based metaphors and suggests that transformation can arise from latent conditions of possibility rather than from external shocks or deterministic forces (Rovelli, 2016; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).

These insights collectively challenge the classical assumption of ontological stability, foregrounding instead a universe composed not of “things” but of events, relations, and processes (Whitehead, 1978). For the social sciences, this shift opens the possibility of theorizing the social not as a structure composed of stable positions and agents, but as a vibrational matrix of relational intensities - where meaning, identity, and power are emergent effects of resonant interactions within dynamic fields (Barad, 2007; Montuori, 2013).

At the same time, this theoretical move must be approached with epistemological care. Critics of cross-disciplinary metaphorization - such as Bloor (1991) and Latour (1999) - have cautioned against the uncritical importation of scientific models into social theory. From this perspective, metaphors derived from quantum physics risk reifying abstract scientific constructs or introducing a mystifying vocabulary detached from empirical social practice. These concerns are valid and underline the importance of using QFT not as a literal model, but as a conceptual grammar that can help reorient sociological imagination toward process, relationality, and emergence - without lapsing into determinism or metaphysical vagueness.

Rather than seeking to apply QFT as a scientific model to society, this paper adopts its conceptual grammar - particularly its attention to resonance, emergence, and relational entanglement - as a source of ontological innovation. Doing so allows for a reimagining of core sociological concepts such as field and habitus in ways that align more closely with contemporary complexity and fluidity. The next section develops this reconfiguration by mapping Bourdieu’s conceptual architecture onto a quantum-relational ontological framework.

Translating Bourdieu through Quantum Concepts

Building on the conceptual foundations of quantum field theory, this section proposes a reinterpretation of Bourdieu’s key constructs - field, habitus, and capital - within a quantum-relational ontology. Rather than treating this transposition as metaphorical ornamentation, the goal is to explore how the logics of resonance, emergence, and relationality can reconfigure core sociological categories and expand their analytic potential in the face of increasing complexity and fluidity.

Field as vibrational matrix

In Bourdieu’s theory, a field is a structured social space in which agents compete for specific forms of capital under historically sedimented rules and hierarchies (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). While relational in intent, this model often presumes a relatively stable configuration of positions, as if the field were a fixed topography. Within a quantum-informed ontology, by contrast, a field is not a static space but a fluctuating, dynamic matrix of potentiality - defined less by spatial boundaries than by patterns of relational intensity.

Drawing on quantum field theory, we may reconceptualize the social field as a vibrational substrate in which social forms emerge temporarily through resonant alignments of symbolic, material, and affective energies. This reframing moves beyond positionality to emphasize configuration, where agents are not fixed points but excitations - localized manifestations of broader relational dynamics (Barad, 2007; Rovelli, 2016). In such a view, field boundaries are porous, oscillatory, and contingent, constantly redefined through interactions and feedback loops (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).

Habitus as resonance

Perhaps the most transformative reinterpretation concerns the notion of habitus. Traditionally defined as a system of durable, transposable dispositions, habitus mediates between structure and action, shaping perception and behavior in ways that reproduce the logic of the field (Bourdieu, 1984). Yet critics have argued that this formulation, while analytically powerful, tends toward inertia - emphasizing reproduction at the expense of emergence and transformation (King, 2000; Crossley, 2001).

Within a quantum-relational framework, habitus can be reimagined not as a pre-coded internal structure but as a resonant modality - a dynamic attunement between embodied agents and the fluctuating energies of the social field. In this view, habitus functions less as a repository of dispositions and more like a frequency receiver: it amplifies, filters, or dampens signals from the surrounding field, modulating how individuals perceive and respond to shifting symbolic, material, and affective patterns (Barad, 2007; Ingold, 2011).

Imagine, for instance, a migrant youth entering an elite urban school after arriving from a rural background. Initially, the student struggles with overt norms (language, dress) and subtle cues (body posture, rhythm of speech). Over time, without explicit instruction or imitation, the student begins to attune to the field’s affective and symbolic signals - adjusting the timing of class participation, modulating tone in informal speech, and intuiting when silence or irony carries weight. These are not strategic adaptations but expressions of embodied resonance that align the individual with the field’s latent expectations.

In this light, habitus becomes not merely an inherited disposition, but a relational sensitivity - an evolving capacity to synchronize with the dynamic logic of the field. This reframing highlights an ontological shift: from structured imprint to embodied attunement.

Such an interpretation opens new possibilities for theorizing not only inertia but also sensitivity, adaptability, and emergent alignment. It invites us to see habitus as a site where new meanings, practices, and identities can arise - particularly in contexts marked by organizational transformation, cultural transition, or symbolic disruption (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Hernes, 2014).

This reconceptualization also connects to existing efforts to stretch Bourdieu’s field theory beyond its structuralist roots. For instance, Fligstein and McAdam’s A Theory of Fields (2012) introduces a dynamic, meso-level framework that foregrounds strategic action, field emergence, and episodes of contention. Their approach reframes fields as arenas of ongoing interaction and social skill, placing agency and change at the center of analysis. While their model remains anchored in institutional sociology and political contention, it shares a commitment to relational explanation and reflexivity. The quantum-relational framework proposed here resonates with this move but pushes further ontologically: rather than focusing on how actors maneuver within evolving field structures, it highlights how fields themselves emerge, stabilize, and shift through affective and symbolic resonance. In this sense, it offers a complementary - albeit more metaphysically expansive - contribution to ongoing efforts to theorize fluidity, emergence, and interdependence in field dynamics.

Capital as energetic potential

Bourdieu’s concept of capital - whether economic, cultural, social, or symbolic - is defined as a resource that confers power and position within a given field (Bourdieu, 1986). In practice, however, capital is often treated as a static asset or possession: something accumulated, stored, and deployed strategically.

A quantum-informed reinterpretation shifts the focus from accumulation to activation. Here, capital can be understood as a form of potential energy - a latent intensity within the field that becomes operative only through relational resonance. Just as quantum particles gain mass through interaction with the Higgs field (Aad et al., 2012), social agents acquire value and efficacy through their alignment with the symbolic currents of the field.

This perspective foregrounds the contextual and situational nature of capital: its value depends not only on what one possesses but on the frequency of one’s alignment with what is currently valorized, legitimate, or amplified within the field. Capital is thus less about possession and more about positional resonance - how effectively an agent can vibrate in phase with the dominant patterns of symbolic recognition (Skeggs, 2004; Lamont, 2012).

Theoretical Implications

The reconceptualization of Bourdieu’s key constructs through quantum field ontology yields substantial implications for how we understand agency, practice, and transformation within complex social systems. By shifting from a structuralist to a process-relational ontology, this approach enables a more dynamic and nuanced theorization of social life - one in which agency is emergent, relational, and distributed, rather than fixed or solely embedded in durable dispositions.

From structure and strategy to emergence and alignment

In classical readings of Bourdieu, social action tends to be interpreted as a product of pre-structured trajectories: agents deploy strategies shaped by their habitus, calibrated to the logic of the field (Bourdieu, 1990). While this allows for a relational model of practice, it often presumes a background of relative stability - fields evolve slowly, habitus is shaped through long socialization, and capital accumulates over time.

The quantum-informed perspective disrupts these assumptions. If the field is a resonant and fluctuating matrix rather than a stable space of positions, and if habitus is a modality of resonance rather than a fixed disposition, then action must be theorized as emergent alignment - the capacity of an agent to attune to shifting patterns of intensity within the field. Agency, in this sense, is not strategic in the classical sense, but sensitive, situational, and relational (Barad, 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998).

This view resonates with recent process-based approaches in organizational and social theory, which emphasize becoming over being, and unfolding over structure (Chia, 1999; Hernes, 2014). From this standpoint, agency is not an attribute possessed by individuals, but a distributed event - a temporary configuration of coherence within a wider field of relational forces.

Sensemaking and phase transitions

The concept of resonance opens new pathways for theorizing how change occurs within social and organizational fields. Rather than focusing solely on external shocks or rational interventions, this approach foregrounds resonance shifts and phase transitions - moments when field dynamics reconfigure due to accumulated dissonance, symbolic misalignment, or emergent coherence (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Wheatley, 2006).

Sensemaking, in this view, is not merely cognitive but affective and embodied: a process of realigning with the field’s shifting logic. Organizational transformation can thus be seen as a kind of ontological tuning - an adjustment of actors’ resonant capacities in response to subtle or dramatic changes in the symbolic or material landscape (Weick et al., 2005; Ladkin, 2010).

To illustrate how such a resonance event may manifest in organizational life, in a mid-sized design consultancy undergoing a merger, staff members from previously distinct organizational cultures began exhibiting rising tension in collaborative meetings. Despite procedural alignment, informal rituals - such as narrative metaphors, tonal registers, and even shared humor - remained dissonant. During a cross-team retreat, a facilitator used visual storytelling to map “shared purpose,” and a single metaphor - “orchestra without a conductor” - unexpectedly resonated across both groups. Over subsequent weeks, this metaphor entered internal discourse organically, guiding project decisions and role adaptations.

This example demonstrates how symbolic resonance can trigger field realignment - functioning not through formal intervention but through a spontaneous shift in shared meaning that reconfigures practice and perception.

Reclaiming affect and embodied experience

Another implication of this reframing is the centrality of affect and embodiment in understanding practice. Habitus theory acknowledges embodied dispositions but often treats them as historically inscribed and socially disciplined. The quantum-relational view, by contrast, positions embodiment as a resonant sensorium - a medium through which agents register, amplify, and modulate their relation to the field (Ingold, 2011; Barad, 2007).

This brings emotional tone, relational attunement, and symbolic affect into the core of agency. Practices such as leadership, collaboration, resistance, or innovation are not simply enacted through strategic rationality, but arise through resonant affective fields - zones of shared intensity and potential that shape what becomes thinkable, sayable, or doable in a given context (Ladkin, 2010; Gherardi, 2017).

Toward a nonlinear theory of practice

Finally, this theoretical repositioning enables a move toward a nonlinear theory of practice. Whereas classical sociological models often assume incremental change or path dependency, a quantum-relational approach emphasizes discontinuity, indeterminacy, and co-constitution. Social systems, like quantum fields, do not evolve through linear accumulation but through sudden reconfigurations, contingent bifurcations, and emergent order (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Nicolescu, 2002).

Such a model better accommodates the unpredictable dynamics of contemporary life: cultural realignments, institutional ruptures, organizational innovation, or the emergence of collective movements. It also fosters a renewed attentiveness to the microdynamics of change - how small shifts in discourse, affect, or alignment can cascade into larger transformations.

Methodological Considerations

The ontological reframing proposed in this article carries significant methodological implications. If social reality is not composed of stable entities acting within fixed structures, but rather emerges through dynamic, relational fields of resonance, then traditional approaches to observation, measurement, and explanation may prove insufficient. The move from a Newtonian to a quantum-relational framework necessitates a corresponding shift in how we design research, engage with data, and interpret meaning-making processes in social life.

Beyond detached observation: Intra-action and co-constitution

One of the most fundamental challenges posed by a quantum-relational ontology is the destabilization of the subject/object dichotomy. Drawing on Barad’s (2007) concept of intra-action, we must acknowledge that the researcher and the researched are not separate and independent entities, but co-constituted through the very process of inquiry. Knowledge is not discovered as a representation of a pre-existing world, but enacted through relational entanglement.

This implies a rejection of purely objectivist methodologies and a call for reflexivity - not merely as self-awareness, but as an acknowledgment of the performativity of research practices (Law, 2004). Researchers must attend to how their presence, questions, categories, and tools shape the very field they aim to understand (Haraway, 1988; Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

Attuning to emergence: Process-sensitive and event-focused approaches

A field conceived as dynamic and resonant requires methods that are sensitive to emergence, capable of tracing transformations as they unfold rather than capturing static snapshots. Process theories of organization (Langley, 2007; Hernes, 2014) and temporally embedded methods such as longitudinal ethnography, narrative inquiry, and sensemaking analysis (Weick et al., 2005) offer fruitful pathways.

These approaches emphasize the unfolding of meaning through time, the importance of context, and the value of staying close to the generative dynamics of practice. For example, ethnographic methods allow the researcher to track resonance events - moments when alignment or dissonance within a field signals a phase transition or symbolic shift (Ybema et al., 2009; Czarniawska, 2004).

Embodied and affective sensitivity

Given that agency is reconceived as relational resonance and habitus as an affective-cognitive tuning to field conditions, methodologies must also attend to embodied experience and affect (Gherardi, 2017). This requires expanding data collection beyond discourse to include gesture, mood, silence, spatial configuration, and emotional tone.

Participatory and arts-based methods, for instance, can help elicit the resonant atmospheres within organizational or institutional fields (Pink, 2009). Similarly, attention to nonverbal cues, micro-interactions, bricolages, and embodied presence can reveal how alignment or dissonance is experienced and enacted in practice.

Transdisciplinary openness and conceptual translation

Finally, this epistemological stance invites a transdisciplinary methodology - one that draws from multiple knowledge domains without collapsing their ontologies. As Nicolescu (2002) argues, transdisciplinarity is not merely interdisciplinary collaboration, but a commitment to working between, across, and beyond disciplines to confront complex realities.

In this spirit, the use of quantum concepts in social theory is not about mimetic borrowing but conceptual translation: identifying structural homologies, metaphysical openings, or ontological resonances that enable new insight. Such an approach demands methodological humility, rigorous philosophical grounding, and openness to speculative thought (Montuori, 2013; Stengers, 2005).

In summary, the methodological consequences of a quantum-relational turn include a departure from detached observation and linear explanation, and a move toward reflexive, embodied, participatory, and processual modes of inquiry. Research becomes not a mirror of social reality, but a resonant engagement with its unfolding, co-creative dynamics.

Epistemological Cautions and Conceptual Boundaries

The transposition of conceptual frameworks from quantum field theory (QFT) to social and organizational theories inevitably raises epistemological concerns. Chief among them is the risk of collapsing distinct ontological domains - namely, the physical and the social - into one another, thereby reducing either to a metaphor or engaging in speculative conflation. To avoid such pitfalls, this article does not propose a literal application of quantum physics to social reality. Rather, it engages in conceptual translation, in the spirit of transdisciplinary thinking (Nicolescu, 2002; Montuori, 2013), wherein structural affinities and ontological analogies are explored without assuming ontological isomorphism.

Importantly, the vocabulary borrowed from QFT - resonance, field, entanglement, emergence - is not employed to imply that social and organizational agents behave like quantum particles, nor that society and organizations are governed by the same probabilistic laws. Instead, these concepts are adopted as heuristic devices, offering an alternative metaphysical grammar to model complexity, indeterminacy, and relational co-constitution in the social realm. This approach aligns with Barad’s (2007) call for diffractive methodology - a reading that highlights productive interference and resonance between knowledge systems, rather than direct correspondence or mimicry.

Nonetheless, this translation carries limitations. Social and organizational systems are meaning-saturated, reflexive, and normatively charged in ways that physical systems are not. Human agents possess intentionality, language, and historical consciousness, which makes any analogy to non-conscious fields necessarily partial. Moreover, while physical fields can be measured with high precision, social and organizational “fields” are interpretive constructs that rely on context-sensitive observations and contingent interpretations (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Law, 2004).

Thus, the proposed framework should be understood not as a unifying theory, but as a theoretical provocation - a speculative yet disciplined attempt to rethink core sociological and organizational categories through the lens of relational ontology. It invites further empirical and philosophical exploration, and welcomes critique as part of its generative potential.

While this article draws conceptually from quantum field theory and relational ontology, it also acknowledges the reservations voiced by scholars rooted in pragmatist and field-theoretic traditions within sociology and organizational studies. Notably, Abbott (2001) and Strauss (1993) have emphasized the importance of sequence, process tracing, and empirical sensitivity to local meanings - favoring grounded, inductive approaches over abstract ontological reformulations.

From this perspective, theories that invoke metaphysical constructs risk detaching analysis from the lived complexity of social interaction and the contingencies of institutional practice. In contrast, the present approach seeks not to replace empirical sensitivity with conceptual generality but to supplement it. The quantum-relational lens is offered not as a universal framework but as a heuristic that can reorient attention toward affective, emergent, and interdependent dimensions of practice often underexplored in traditional pragmatist and field-centric approaches. This dialogue between ontological innovation and empirical pragmatism, rather than being oppositional, may open new avenues for richer, more integrative theorizing.

Practical Implications

While the primary aim of this article is theoretical, the problematization of field, habitus, and capital through a quantum-relational ontology has significant implications for organizational and professional practice. In particular, this perspective offers new ways of thinking about leadership, change, innovation, and human development - not as top-down interventions or technical adjustments, but as processes of resonant alignment within dynamic fields.

Leadership as resonant modulation: From leadership to holdership

Conventional leadership models often emphasize traits, authority, or positional influence. A resonant-field perspective reimagines leadership as the capacity to sense and modulate relational dynamics - to act as a conductor of coherence in environments marked by symbolic complexity and affective turbulence (Ladkin, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Building on this, recent scholarship has proposed a paradigmatic shift from leadership to holdership, emphasizing the act of “holding” space - emotionally, symbolically, and relationally - for emergence, co-creation, and alignment (Winnicott, 1971; Raelin, 2016). Rather than directing or steering, the holder sustains conditions for resonance, allowing latent potentials within the field to surface and take form. In this view, holdership is not about guiding others toward a predetermined outcome, but about enabling a dynamic, self-organizing field to stabilize, transform, or evolve from within.

This reframing shifts the emphasis from control to attunement: the leader-holder is someone who perceives dissonance, amplifies emerging coherence, and facilitates field alignment through presence, timing, embodied listening, and symbolic framing. Such a model aligns with embodied, dialogic, and relational leadership theories that view leadership not as a static role but as a distributed, emergent practice (Raelin, 2011; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).

Holdership also introduces an ethical dimension: the responsibility not to impose coherence but to protect the field’s generative potential from premature closure or domination. This demands a high level of reflexivity, humility, and responsiveness - qualities increasingly vital in complex, ambiguous organizational environments.

Organizational change as field reconfiguration

Rather than being managed through linear planning or imposed structure, change is reframed here as a phase shift in field dynamics - emerging through the accumulation of resonance or dissonance across organizational layers (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Wheatley, 2006). This view encourages practitioners to attend not only to formal systems but to symbolic cues, emotional undercurrents, and collective sensemaking.

Detecting and working with resonance events - moments when values, language, or practices become misaligned or newly coherent - becomes a central capacity for navigating transformation (Weick et al., 2005; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This requires openness to emergent phenomena rather than reliance on predefined outcomes.

Innovation and emergence

Innovation is often conceptualized as the result of strategic foresight or resource investment. In a field-resonance model, innovation is seen as emergence - the spontaneous crystallization of new patterns from the complex interplay of symbolic, material, and affective elements.

Creating conditions for innovation, then, involves designing resonant spaces: environments where heterogeneity, dialogue, and embodied interaction allow latent possibilities to surface. This echoes principles found in “Teal” organizations (Laloux, 2014) and complex adaptive systems theory, where coherence and novelty arise from decentralized processes.

Professional development as perceptual cultivation

Traditional models of professional development focus on acquiring competencies or mastering tasks. In contrast, a resonant-field perspective prioritizes the cultivation of perceptual sensitivity - the ability to read the field, detect subtle shifts, and respond with embodied intelligence (Scharmer, 2009; Senge et al., 2005).

This involves fostering practices such as mindfulness, deep listening, and reflective dialogue, which enhance one’s ability to resonate with complex social environments. Development is thus reimagined as ontological tuning, not merely skill acquisition.

Organizational wellbeing and field health

Finally, this framework suggests that organizational wellbeing is not simply the absence of stress or conflict, but the presence of coherence across symbolic, emotional, and practical domains. Misalignment between values, actions, and narratives generates dissonance, which can manifest as disengagement, turnover, or dysfunction (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson, 1999).

Field-sensitive leadership and HR practices can identify and address such dissonance, promoting environments in which relational resonance is sustained and collective vitality is nurtured. Organizational diagnostics, then, must move beyond metrics to include attention to relational rhythms and symbolic atmospheres.

In summary, applying a quantum-relational lens to organizational practice reorients intervention from control to attunement, from planning to sensing, and from efficiency to emergence. It invites practitioners to engage their environments as living, dynamic fields - where coherence, innovation, and wellbeing emerge through the interplay of attention, affect, and alignment.

Conclusion

This article set out to reimagine Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice - particularly the concepts of field, habitus, and capital - through the ontological grammar of quantum field theory. By engaging recent developments in physics and philosophy, it proposed a move away from Newtonian metaphors and structuralist assumptions toward a more dynamic, emergent, and relational understanding of social life.

Rather than treating fields as static spaces of position and capital as inert resources, we reconceptualized the social field as a vibrational matrix, capital as energetic potential, and habitus as a modality of resonance - an attunement to shifting relational intensities. This shift foregrounds becoming over being, relationality over positionality, and emergence over determinism.

Theoretically, this framework offers a fluid and processual account of practice, in which agency is not pre-given but co-emergent from resonant alignment within dynamic fields. It repositions habitus from a site of reproduction to one of sensitivity, affectivity, and creative response. It also extends the logic of resonance into the domain of organizational life, suggesting that transformation occurs not through linear planning but through subtle, accumulative shifts in coherence - what we called resonance events.

Methodologically, this ontological reorientation calls for reflexive, embodied, and process-sensitive approaches that account for the researcher’s entanglement in the field of inquiry. Practices such as ethnography, sensemaking, and participatory inquiry are especially suited to capture the microdynamics of resonance, attunement, and phase transitions.

Practically, the shift from leadership to holdership encapsulates the article’s broader proposal: to rethink authority, change, and innovation not as functions of positional power, but as emergent phenomena sustained through relational presence. In turbulent environments, the most generative forms of leadership may not be directive but resonant - enacted by those who can sense field dynamics, hold symbolic space, and cultivate coherence without imposing premature closure.

The framework developed here is necessarily speculative and exploratory. It is offered not as a new orthodoxy but as a provocation - a call to expand the epistemological and ontological imagination of the social sciences. Future research might explore how resonance manifests empirically in organizations, institutions, or movements, and how it shapes phenomena such as sensemaking, belonging, conflict, and transformation.

Ultimately, the proposed integration of practice theory and quantum-relational thought invites us to see the social not as a static architecture of agents and structures, but as an unfolding field of relational potential. In a world increasingly marked by complexity, precarity, and entanglement, such a paradigm may be not only timely - but necessary.

References

Aad, G., Abajyan, T., Abbott, B., Abdallah, J., Abdel Khalek, S., & Abdinov, O., et al. (2012). Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1-29.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76-95.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.

Chia, R. (1999). A “rhizomic” model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 209-227.

Crossley, N. (2001). The social body: Habit, identity and desire. Sage Publications.

Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Sage.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-353.

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-323.

Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1-44.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1027.

Eyal, G. (2013). Spaces between fields. Theory and Society, 42, 155-169.

Gherardi, S. (2017). One turn… and now another one: Do the turn to practice and the turn to affect have something in common? Management Learning, 48(3), 345-358.

Grenfell, M. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. Acumen.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.

Hernes, T. (2014). A process theory of organization. Oxford University Press.

Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge.

Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-704.

King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A “practical” critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory, 18(3), 417-433.

Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leadership questions. Edward Elgar.

Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201-211.

Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153-168.

Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271-282.

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker.

Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.

Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 49-65). Acumen.

Montuori, A. (2013). Complexity and transdisciplinarity: Reflections on theory and practice. World Futures, 69(4-6), 200-230.

Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Suny Press.

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.

Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Bantam Books.

Raelin, J. A. (2011). From leadership-as-practice to leaderful practice. Leadership, 7(2), 195-211.

Raelin, J. A. (2016). Rethinking leadership through participative practice. Organizational Dynamics, 45(4), 260-268.

Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. SUNY Press.

Rovelli, C. (2016). Reality is not what it seems: The journey to quantum gravity. Riverhead Books.

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler.

Schwartz, M. D. (2014). Quantum field theory and the standard model. Cambridge University Press.

Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future. Crown Business.

Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. Routledge.

Stengers, I. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 994-1003). MIT Press.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.

Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132-153.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Weinberg, S. (1995). The quantum theory of fields: Volume 1, Foundations. Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. Free Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. Berrett-Koehler.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Penguin.

Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life. Sage.

Anderson de Souza Sant’Anna is a Professor at the São Paulo School of Business Administration of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV-EAESP). Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Postdoctoral Fellow in the Psychiatry Graduate Program at USP. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. He earned undergraduate degrees in Business Administration and Philosophy. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna.

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2025). Resonant Structures: Ontological Reimagining of Bourdieu’s Practice Theory for Complex Systems, 4(15):1-16. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress)