Applicability of Bourdieu's Field Theory in Iranian Modern Architecture (Notes on Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology of Art)

Entangled with their historical and cultural contexts, sociological theories come into existence and try to explain social phenomena of their own society. Hence, practitioners of other milieus with different accumulation of cultural traits must be aware of how they use non-native theories. A wide range of Iranian sociological investigations, unfortunately, take benefit of western social scientific theories to explain particular social facts of an entirely different context regardless of significant differences. Ten years after his death, Bourdieu’s field theory is so much well-known in Iran that might be used everywhere whether correctly or in a wrong place.      
It is not acceptable to apply European scientific theories including Bourdieu’s elements of Sociology of Art with no contextual consideration. It must be noticed that spatial realm, i.e., context of a theory while applying is highly important. Furthermore, every theory requires some revisions while facing different subjects of study. Therefore in this article under two topics; contexts of generation is different from the context of application and essential differences between subject matters, I try to illustrate that every theory coming into existence in its unique socio-cultural context to explain specific realm of subjects, needs to be reconsidered in order to qualify a capability to describe and explain both social fact of a different society and a different analytical sphere.
Regarding Iranian traditional architecture as a prominent artistic aspect of pre-modern Iran and a controversial field onward, I note some points basically necessary for the application of Bourdieu's field theory and Sociology of Art in a different context. Structural homology, for instance, is a concept needed to be considered due to the fact that in the case of architecture, it is hardly possible to find a mirror reflexion between structural position of the creator and the hero created by him. This is because architecture is essentially different from novel or other literary text. There exists no action, no social order, and no circulation in a building.
On the other side, the French context inside which Bourdieu commenced to theorise his reflections seem totally different from Iranian context in which his theory is going to be applied. Social prestige besides class status, for instance, are two honourable achievements gained through cultural consumerism in French society. Therefore, in the aforementioned context, the challenge among different classes takes over soft products such as cultural tastes such as music, theatre, dance, sport, food, clothe, and etc., while on the contrary economic achievements such as car, house, land, villa, and international trips are the representations over which actors of Iranian context still challenge one another and try to show off. In this case, there is a great difference to which a practitioner must pay attention otherwise he cannot distinguish function of this theory in its original cultural source from the non-native destination.
In the end I conclude that Bourdieu’s field theory such as other European sociological theories is competent to help us observe, scientifically, our social surrounding under a condition that some revisions and reconsiderations must be carried on to enlarge its borders.