³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

One of the reasons why the problems of quality in higher education appear to be so intractable is that the legacy of the ideology which generated the problems also effects a virtual embargo on the possibility of thinking solutions. The system continues to just about tolerate the teaching of sociology but there seems little chance that the notions communicated to students might be let loose to influence policy decisions which affect society.

Take, for instance, the work of Pierre Bourdieu. In France in the 1960s he produced important analyses of students and their studies and of the relations between education and society. These were translated into English in 1977 and 1979 just as the embargo on sociological thinking was about to come into effect. These texts are extremely relevant to the debate on the higher education curriculum in this country, and particularly to the kinds of points made by Professor Fletcher (THES, September 13).

Bourdieu's notion that "pedagogic action" is "the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power", for instance, helps to explain why what passes for the "same" subject is different in institutions occupying different power positions within the hierarchy of institutions. It also would help to suggest that the attempt to assess "quality" between arbitrary provisions as if they were on a common scale is a centrist attempt to deny the plurality of arbitraries within our society, or, at least, to ensure the continuing domination of the dominant over the dominated.

As professor at the College de France, Paris, Bourdieu wrote, in 1985, a report on the future of higher education which had been commissioned by President Mitterrand. It was translated into German and became the focus for lively and intelligent debate there. Of course, it has not been translated into English and it is barely known here that it ever existed.

This is not special pleading on behalf of Bourdieu's work. I refer to it simply to make the point that we need to regain the capacity to think sociologically or, at least, to use sociology to think about our society, if we want to find solutions which will not, as at present, continue to be manifestations of the problems.

DEREK ROBBINS Reader, faculty of social sciences, University of East London