Bourdieu section - habitus

I have drawn on the many writings of Pierre Bourdieu whose social theory I seek to incorporate into my text, to reflect the complexities of social practice and that which it comprises.

In seeking to understand the complexity of Bourdieu’s concepts, I have read some authors who have explained and critiqued aspects of Bourdieu’s work (e.g. Adkins & Skeggs, 2004; Moore, 2004; Nash, 1999; Reed-Danahay, 2005; Reay, 2004; Webb et al., 2002), as well as reading translations of his original writings (e.g. Bourdieu, 1984; 1990; 1991; 1992; 1998; 1999a; 1999b; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

One of Bourdieu’s theoretical reasons for the development of his social theory was to overcome dualisms present within society – a fixation with binary oppositions and explanations – which causes understanding of phenomena to be over-simplistic, and does not provide an apt framework to reflect the complexities found within society. Post-structuralism fits well with this approach in that the use of labels and categories is avoided and deconstructed in order to reflect the complexity of phenomena, and reveal the contradictions they contain.

Bourdieu’s social theory will be used as a framework to explain phenomena found in literature and phenomena from the research findings. The use of Bourdieu’s theory in my study will help me to present findings and analyse responses from participants specifically in regard to their individual and group habitus and capital, and will also help to position the development of the field within social practice.

Bourdieu’s formula for social practice was written as “(Habitus x Capital) + Field = Practice” (Bourdieu, 1984). I will explain each of these terms in turn – habitus, capital, and field.

Habitus

Habitus is a concept that seeks to explain the dispositions that influence individuals to become who they are, and yet also includes the conditions of existence (Bourdieu, 1990) which individuals’ everyday activities display their relations to society. Habitus explains how the body is present in the social world as well as social world being present in the body (Reay, 2004). While dispositions make up a person’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1998), a habitus is also formed by an individual’s history. As Nash (1999) argued, habitus discloses the traces of its origins in practice. Habitus encompasses how people act in a way that is reflective of social structures and their process of socialisation, which is in turn reproduced by their actions. As habitus is a product of history, which in turn produces more history (Bourdieu, 1990), I will examine the system of dispositions (Bourdieu, 1990) of each participant in the field of out-of-school leisure, which is where their expertise has been constructed, developed, and established. Habitus enables the social practice to be observed in one’s life trajectory (therefore what I will be examining in the case studies). Dispositions include habits, beliefs, values, tastes, bodily postures, feelings, and thoughts that Bourdieu argued were socially produced.

Dispositions are formed by history; they are made, not inherent, and they are inculcated from the past into the present. By inherent and inculcated, I mean that the social agent’s dispositions are embodied and internalised in the social agent’s view of the world, and in ways of moving and acting in the world. The inculcation of dispositions happens throughout childhood, as children watch and listen, therefore, the cultural capital of those they are surrounded by (predominantly their family) becomes part of their habitus. The cultural capital found in the habitus of their family and class becomes their cultural capital also.

Habitus generates and shapes perceptions and actions. Bourdieu referred to the general nature of societal habitus, but as habitus is multi-layered, he claimed dispositions were more specific at the individual level.

One critique of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is that it limits an individual to only reproduce what they know – reproduction being a limited and satisfying way of describing one’s ability to act on the world. Habitus has been critiqued as being deterministic. Reay (2004) challenged this and argued,
While habitus reflects the social position in which it was constructed, it also carries within it the genesis of new creative responses that are capable of transcending the social conditions in which it was produced (p. 434 - 435).
The concept that is referred to here is agency. Webb et al (2002) defined agency as “the idea that individuals are equipped with the ability to understand and control their own actions, regardless of the circumstances of their lives” (p. ix). Bourdieu likened a field and its practices to knowing the ‘rules of the game’ or ‘how the game is played’. From there, strategies that an agent may use to act on the world come from an agent’s ability to ‘play the game’ and/or take advantage of the opportunities that come her way. Bourdieu claimed that the code of culture (rules of the game) is not imposed and fixed as a way of being. Actions and ways of being can be generated, created, and invented, though they are limited within structuring mechanisms.

Bourdieu himself grew up in a poor, rural, farming community (see Reed-Danahay, 2004), but was able to make the most of opportunities that came his way, to negotiate the new field (for him and his family) of academe. However, he had issues of identity result from this, as his former acquaintances rejected him because of his actions in moving out of what he knew and out of what they knew (peasant farming).

An example of habitus could be depicted by the description of a church-goer who through her church attendance learns the dispositions and practices of the church, and therefore in her acceptance of the “structured structures” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53), she becomes part of the “structuring structures” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53), all of which constitute the social practice considered appropriate by the church as a group. Bourdieu (1990) referred to systematic social order that takes advantage of the body’s disposition to memorize ‘states of being’ in great collective ceremonies and the like, which then can be ‘reactivated’ through the body’s capacity to act in ways specific to such occasions. Therefore, the social order recreates the social order. Though the field is likely to remain the same in each church, the social practice, whether slightly or largely different, would be exhibited as a result of the negotiation of habitus and capital.

Habitus is described in countless ways by myriads of authors including Bourdieu. Nash (year? ’99 I think) acknowledged the indeterminate and broad nature of habitus, which some have difficulty accepting. My definition of habitus is that of internalised principles resulting from one’s upbringing (structured structures) that result in an agent’s action and view of the world, comprising dispositions, which reflect the construction of an agent’s social position, of which is ongoing (structuring structures).

EXPAND ON THE NEXUS OF HABITUS AND CAPITAL (AT THE END OF THIS SECTION?)

DISCUSS GENERAL HABITUS IN THE CONTEXT OF PARTICIPANTS. Here?