A “received idea” (French: idée reçue) is a commonplace, stereotypical, conventional, or clichéd opinion that circulates widely in society and is accepted and repeated without critical examination, original thought, or supporting evidence.
The concept comes from Gustave Flaubert. In his unfinished satirical project Dictionnaire des idées reçues (Dictionary of Received Ideas, compiled in the 1870s and published posthumously in 1911-1913), Flaubert collected and mocked the ready-made opinions, prejudices, and platitudes that bourgeois people parrot as if they were profound or self-evident truths (e.g., stock phrases about art, politics, women, food, or foreigners). These are not original ideas but “received” ones—already floating in the cultural air, requiring no personal reflection.
Pierre Bourdieu adopts and adapts Flaubert’s term in his critique of television and journalism. In the book On Television, based on lectures he gave in 1996, he describes how the journalistic field—dominated by commercial pressures like audience ratings (audimat)—favors speed over depth. This creates an environment where “fast-thinkers” (pundits, journalists, and intellectuals who appear regularly on TV) thrive by deploying received ideas.
Bourdieu explains: “The answer, it seems to me, is that they think in clichés, in the ‘received ideas’ that Flaubert talks about—banal, conventional, common ideas that are received generally. By the time they reach you, these ideas have already been received by everybody else, so reception is never a problem.”
He continues: “When you transmit a ‘received idea,’ it’s as if everything is set, and the problem solves itself. Communication is instantaneous because, in a sense, it has not occurred; or it only seems to have taken place. The exchange of commonplaces is communication with no content other than the fact of communication itself. […] Their very banality makes them something the speaker and the listener have in common.”
In contrast, real thought is subversive: it dismantles received ideas and requires time for logical demonstration and evidence. Television’s format (short segments, pressure to fill airtime quickly, competition for ratings) makes thinking nearly impossible, so it rewards prefabricated, instantly digestible clichés instead. These function like “cultural fast food”—predigested and pre-thought.
TV and fast-paced journalism operate under constant time pressure. A received idea needs no research, no nuance, and meets no resistance.
Because the idea is already shared, communication feels successful even when nothing substantive is said.
This reinforces homogenization in the media field. The same “fast-thinkers” are invited repeatedly because they reliably deliver smooth, non-disruptive content that fits the commercial logic of ratings.
The dominance of received ideas in television helps depoliticize issues, reduce complex realities to anecdotes or stereotypes, and limit the space for critical, autonomous thought.
LATEST POSTS:
- PragerU Salaries & Bonuses
- The David Pinsof Story
- Added Context to the Dennis Prager-Cedars Sinai Lawsuit
- The Criticism Was Right and It Did Nothing: Andrew Gelman, Seth Roberts, and the Limits of Being Correct
- What Andrew Gelman Doesn’t Write About
- Andrew Gelman: ‘Computer scientists today are like economists in the early 2000s and Freudian psychiatrists in the 1950s’
- Virtue Signaling and the Amy Wax case
- Revisiting Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality
- The Great Delusion
- Why Do I Instinctively Dislike Erik Erikson?
- WSJ: The Uninvited Guest Who Crashed Our Family Vacation: My Mom’s AI Chatbot
- WEHT to Marc Weisblott?
- WEHT to Moxie aka Madison Slade?
- WEHT to Nicholas Polson’s Archive?
- Cohen Passes His Own Audit (V2)
- Andrew Gelman & the E-Personality
- ‘(1) “Do you think the culture of research has genuinely changed since the replication crisis became widely discussed, or has it mostly generated new compliance rituals around pre-registration and open data while leaving the underlying incentive structure intact?, (2) Regarding Columbia University, “is there a statistical or social scientific way of understanding how institutions lose the ability to accurately perceive their own situation?”’
- What a Public Audit Does (V4)
- Post: ‘Nathan Cofnas the Schlimazel’
- Philip N. Cohen and the Sociology of the Denominator
BEST POSTS:
- * The Enlightenment Wasn’t Enlightened (6-23-26)
* Mr. Burge Draws The Line (6-23-26)
* 'Improving on Democracy' (6-17-26)
* People Leak To People Who Are Fun (6-11-26)
* Why Does Australia Produce So Many Great Journalists? (6-11-26)
* Steve Wynn and the Press: Power, Litigation, and the Contest Over Las Vegas (6-3-26)
* Sheldon Adelson and the Journalists (6-3-26)
* The Vigilant Animal: Thinkers Who Reject the Myth of Human Gullibility (6-2-26)
* The Cost of Refusing the Misunderstanding Myth (6-2-26)
* Show Me How It Travels (6-2-26)
* The Norm Explainers (6-2-26)
* Centering Marginalized Voices (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Washington Post put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Financial Times put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for the Los Angeles Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for The New York Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* Why Wembanyama Lives on the Perimeter (5-31-26)
* The Emotional Palettes Of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco & Sacramento (5-27-26)
* The Administrative Capital: Sacramento Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* San Diego - The Quiet Republic (5-27-26)
* The Quiet Bar: San Diego Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* SF v LA Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* Why Talent Travels Poorly Between San Francisco and Los Angeles (5-27-26)
* San Francisco and Los Angeles as Rival Models of Urban Access (5-27-26)
* Social Cliques in New York, 2026 (5-25-26)
* Social Cliques in San Francisco, 2026 (5-25-26)
* The Rival Courts of Washington (5-25-26)
* The City of Private Rooms (5-25-26)
