3. Define Bourdieu's concept of habitus-- What is it, and how does it shape our action in the world? Give an example of how habitus operates in everyday social life.
In my opinion the best way to interpret Bourdieu's concept of habitus is the actions or the way we are due to how we interpret the world around us that is affected by aspects of gender, age, politics etc. These structures define how we think and who we are. All of these aspects in society play a large role on how we judge the people and events that happen all around us every day; who we are is not based on us as individuals or our right to think for ourselves but the effects of societal influences that shape our thoughts and perceptions. "The habitus does not operate as a set of strict rules about what to do or not to do, or what to like or what not to like. Instead, it works as a set of loose guidelines that orient actors, though actors are not necessarily conscious of them" (262). This quote explains the structure of society and how it effects the habitus, meaning society does not have a set structure for individuals to rely on for certain perceptions but instead acts as a loose outline for individuals to base their judgments off of without actually realizing it (the actions we make become subconscious and natural for us). Bourdieu explains habitus as being concepts that are taken for granted, we do not realize how much societal structures have such a great effect on us. He uses the example of a game. We are subconscious to the fact that in a game we are so passionately involved that our physical and mental actions/thoughts are bonded into action. "We incorporate into our habitus a sense of what we can "reasonably" expect in a given situation" (262). With playing a game we are forced to create new strategies which create new characteristics for different actions in the game. With this, dispositions from history are brought to the surface which help to form our ideas and perceptions according to the outline of society (or what is socially acceptable). These factors can change over time while revolving on each other. The habitus has important factors such as fields ("Broadly speaking, a field is a domain of social life that has its own rules of organization, generates a set of positions, and supports the practices associated with them" (262) and capital ("There are two kinds of capital that Bourdieu often discusses- economic capital and cultural capital" (263)). An example of habitus in everyday life (when I was in high school) is the debate of text messaging in school. When I was in high school, we were not allowed to text at all throughout the school day. Teachers and other staff seen it as a distraction and would take our phones if they saw them being used during school hours; Now that time has passed and society has adapted to the use of cell phones and has faced the fact that they are just becoming more technologically advanced, (which now more people and teens use them) there is no escaping them. So, the school took a new approach and decided to let students use their phones only during lunch and passing times between classes. To me, this now would feel natural but if I were back in high school now, this would be unnatural and weird to me. This would be prime example of my 17 year old sister's habitus, since taking out her phone while during lunch is now a routine but when she is in class she now knows it is common sense to put it away or it will be taken. None the less, our habitus is part of our everyday lives without us even realizing it.
Recently in [4-11] Pierre Bourdieu I Category
Bourdieu's notion of Habitus is a complex and multi-faceted term, but is nonetheless extremely important in his explication of daily interactions and modes of behavior. In the beginning of his work entitled "Structures, Habitus, Practices", he starts off by denoting the differences between being an observer and seeing things from the viewpoint of objectivism. Later on he talks about practice and how its repetitive use leads to habitus: "The theory of practice as practice insists, contrary to positivist materialism, that the objects of knowledge are constructed, not passively recorded, and, contrary to intellectualist idealism, that the principle of this construction is the system of structured, structuring dispositions, the habitus, which is constituted in practice and is always oriented towards practical functions." (277) That last line is one that I consider to be vastly more important and telling than the long-winded ones previous to it. It states that habitus, as Bourdieu understands it, is a action that was a practical and necessary from a functional standpoint at one time or another, and has now just become to product of practice and consistency. Rather than viewing it as a mundane and non-purposeful entity, what I think he was trying to isolate was the reason why some practices and modes of operating (modus operandi; 278) are utilized at the height of their application and then fade out of public use and consciousness when it's function is no longer present, but some are still maintained on a social level and within the routine of the individual although being equally as devoid of original intent and purpose. He refers to this notion of the habitus' characteristics as being "a product of history" and "...the active presence of past experiences," (279)
Essentially, Bourdieu posits that habituses shape or subjective and objective reality via our use and engagement in them, because it forms and continues a dualistic cycle in which "...the self-transparent act of consciousness, or the externally determined thing has to give way to the real logic of action, which brings together two objectifications in history..." (281) Each action and moment in history has a direct or indirect correlate in history, which explains current behavior and action while setting a precedent for the possibility of future action in a similar manner and respect. The ability of a habitus to shape action in the present world, is predicated and dependent upon its continued practice. Given the slightly ambiguous nature of that definition, it seems favorable to offer an example in order to highlight its features. An example could be spatial etiquette. By that I mean when we enter a setting (an elevator, classroom, dinner table, etc.) we do not face an opposing side or face in a direction that we view as a breach of etiquette, but this is not always done in a conscious fashion but more so as a result of practice and repetition. If we analyze the reason for which we engage in this form of habitus, it would not be something that is done, necessarily, from a functional standpoint insofar as people are still able to hear a professor in a classroom setting if they are facing a different direction, food can still be consumed at a dinner table if people's backs are to one another, etc. but is more of a force of habit that arose from an establishment of specific conduct norms and beliefs about what is considerate when in the presence of another.
Define Bourdieu's concept of habitus- what is it, and how does it shape our action in the world? Give an example of how habitus operates in everyday social life.
Habitus is our set of dispositions that we learn through social interaction and experience. They are skills that allow us to act that we often times take for granted. We "get" them through everyday experiences, they are learned. It is hugely dependent on history. Bourdieu says that maybe we give history "disproportionate weight" (279) when unconsciously forming our habitus. We use our past experiences and the experiences of others to form our habitus.
A point Bourdieu makes is that people from the same area and social class tend to have the same habitus, because they experience many of the same interactions, events, etc. and have the same general perspective of the world. For example, people of the lower class in one city will interpret their daily interactions with their children, church group, coworkers, etc. in generally the same way, and it will be different than the way people of the upper and middle classes of the same city or area interpret social interaction with the same kinds of people, because they've had different experiences with schooling and education, family and institutions of that sort that help us create our habitus.
The idea of habitus is fairly simplistic, as is the way it is formed. It just depends on an individual's context. The habitus is constantly changing and evolving as we experience new things and encounter new people. What we have encountered in the past greatly impacts our habitus and affects the way we interact with people. For example, if I attempt to start a conversation with the person sitting next to me in one of my lectures that has a certain style (ie: punk, preppy, jock) and the person responds to my simple greeting questions with very short answers and seems completely uninterested, I'm probably not going to try to talk to those sorts of people from there on out, and I will perceive them as unsociable, unfriendly, maybe arrogant, people based on what I have experienced. It will forever change my perception of that "type" of person. But, if later in the semester, someone who looks similar to the way the person I attempted to talk to that day in lecture approaches me and strikes up a conversation, I might be apprehensive and confused at first, but after that, my opinion of that kind of person may change to something more like curious, sociable, etc., and therefore would have changed my schemata for interaction with such a type of person. It all depends on the context.
1. Bourdieu saw a divide in sociology: macro vs. micro, subjective vs. objective, action vs. institution. Traditional theorist tried to create a "grand theory" out of only one side of these opposing methods. Bourdieu uses subjective vs. objective as an example. Subjective methods explain action, but fail to make the connection to the larger structure and objective methods explain the structure but ignore the impact of action. Bourdieu thought the two were in a symbiotic relationship, saying that structure is what shapes action, and action is what producers structure. He also believes that theories are only relevant when tied to an empirical reality. The real life application of this is his theory of relational analysis. This theory is supposed to solve the conflict between sides by taking into account both agency and structure, and acknowledging the habitus that interconnects the two, while making this applicable to an empirical reality.
2. To Bourdieu, the relationship between structure and action is one of distinction. As he sees it, the best way to observe distinction in a culture is through the process of relational analysis, which is divided into three concepts.
The first concept is position, or where an actor is located in social space. Bourdieu diagrams social space on a graph. One dimension of the chart is overall volume of capital. This is sum total of any kind of capital, economic, cultural, social, symbolic, that an actor possesses. The second dimension is defined by what kind of capital, this time only social or cultural, the actor possesses. These dimensions are plotted on the y and x axes respectively. The location of an actor on the graph directly correlates to their location in social space, or their position.
The next concept of Bourdieu's relational analysis is position-taking. Position-taking is the way in which an actor can physically manifest their social position. It is meant to be a signal to the differences in social space that actors can occupy. It can come in the form of actions, possessions, lifestyles, or anything that differentiates the agent from others. An example could be a person who plays golf. This activity differentiates the agent from people who play basketball.
The final concept is what connects the two and creates the "relational" in relational analysis. Habitus refers to the personal preferences and dispositions of actors within a social system. Through habitus, an actor's personal social position is turned into a position-taking, according to their dispositions or preferences. It is why an actor chooses the particular position it does, and creates a position-taking. "Like the positions of which they are the product, habitus are differentiated, but they are also differentiating." (pg. 272) What this means is that an actors habitus is able to differentiate them from others, but it is also what we use to group actors of similar social position together. Actors who play golf and be grouped, while differentiating them from other actors who play basketball.
Through habitus, an actor is able to interact with structure, creating its own location and with signals that are used to differentiate the actor from others or group it with like actors. But location is relative, so this differentiation can only be used in relation to other actors, thus relational analysis.
The false divides in sociology are the "fault lines in sociological theory (260)." In our Giddens lecture, he also highlighted the split in sociology. This includes objectivity vs subjectivity, micro vs macro-sociology, qualitative vs quantitative studies, and the study of action vs institutions. Bourdieu focused on the divide between subjectivism and objectivism. Subjectivists take the individual's motivations as the roots of shaping their society. Bourdieu did not agree with this view because he argued that it does not take into account the external forces that act on the actors. However, Bourdieu also challenged objectivist accounts of society and actions. He argued that these views focused too much on the external structures and ignores the individual actors. Objectivist explained social life and interactions as being led by these external forces. To bypass this false divide, Bourdieu used "genetic structuralism (261)." It basically combines objectivism's structural analysis with subjectivism's view that actors act to produce and reproduce structures. Bourdieu believed that structures and actors work on each other. The two are interrelated and therefore to "divorce" them would be giving an inadequate view/theory of social life.
Bourdieu calls his way of studying sociology relative analysis. This view of sociology gave attention to space and culture. Relative analysis consists of three concepts: positions, position-taking, and habitus. Positions are people's social status in society. These positions come about in occupations, education, and etc. Position-taking is people signifying their position through interactions and symbols. For example dress, language, and etc. can signal someone's position. Habitus connects positions to their practices. Habitus is the third part and is the link between position and position-taking. The concept of habitus was a bit confusing for me and I think it was the way it was written. The introduction to this section gave a special paragraph on "reading Bourdieu" that was sort of helpful in deciphering his work. Anyhow, from my understanding, habitus derives from history, with regards to people's location and experiences. The repetition of the practices that these individuals conduct turn into a habitus in the future. It constitutes how we act, think, and see the world. It works in dialectic with structures, much like Giddens' methods. It operates unconsciously but there is a vague sense of "following some set of rules." It is not a product of structures and it is not born out of just actors. Is flexible and can change over time. Action is a result of structure and re-creates or reproduces structure. Habitus has an "unconscious" aspect to it. It is the things that we do, but have no explanation for why we do them. Bourdieu does not believe one habitus to encompass everything. Instead habitus relies on the time and place that is being observed.
In his observation of France/Japan, by using his relational analysis, he criticizes how people have conceptualized Japan. They ignored the space that people were living in. Since habitus is reliant on space, to ignore space would be to interpret wrongly. Bourdieu uses a model to map out distinctions by using his model of capital volume, cultural, and economic capital. He uses this to analyze different countries.
Pierre Bourdieu refers habitus as a "set of choices'' and perception one develops as he/she integrates themselves throughout the structure of society (272). It is a way to socially condition in individual through objective social structures and environments. The significance one attached to symbolic gestures display how society is conditioned through its experience to convey a negative/positive light in all human behaviors. In addition, Bourdieu's perspective on habitus generates rifts in society due to the pluralist variations social integration and conditioning can come about during an individual's lifetime.
Habitus is extremely influential in developing class divide based on economic inequalities between classes. In relation to economic inequalities present in mass society, Bourdieu illustrates that education is a key perspective that shapes a divided society based on financial gain. Education is an essential element that allows an individual to break free from the chains of poverty and accelerate forwards in the economic class structure. However, the mental conditioning of wealthier families emphasizing education to their children, in order to maintain their noble status, prevents impoverished children from progressing forwards. Thus, certain mannerisms are passed down from wealthier generations that allow wealthy children to succeed in schools and attend prestigious institutions in order to maintain their status. Their less-fortunate counterparts do not possess the privilege of excess capital, and thus, are not able to succeed as well compared to their wealthier counterparts due to lack of mannerisms and the inability to view education as a vital element in changing their futures. That is why there is a social stereotype that impoverished members are society are more likely to commit crimes than pursue an education.
The ideal of Bourdieu's habitus concept correlates with Karl Marx's critique of capitalism and alienation of the working class. Marx however, views the accumulation of wealth and base superstructure of classes as the root elements of persistent economic havoc, perceiving socio-economic dysfunctions of society on a macro-level. Habituts acknowledges the inequalities of between the proletariat and bourgeois class, but emphasizes how social conditioning has created economic equality as opposed to capital. The course of actions and behaviors by a certain group/class was installed and predetermined by previous generations that ultimately trickled down to today's society. Thus, Bourdieu hints that an increase of capital will not enhance an individual's class. Instead, the modified mindset and noble behaviors will solidify their progression in society. That way, the descending generations will be conditioned with an advantageous perspective that allows them to preserve their status, or progress in even further.
Habitus is present in all aspects of social life. Due to their conditioned mentalities and wealth, the bourgeois class is able to appreciate art and literature as significant centerpieces of culture. Their backgrounds provide them the time to appreciate, as opposed to the working class that toils to make end's meets. Yet, Bourdieu communicates that these behaviors distinguishes class and signifies the importance of conditioned behaviors as social guidelines.
3. Define Bourdieu's concept of habitus-- What is it, and how does it shape our action in the world? Give an example of how habitus operates in everyday social life.
Habitus, as defined by Bourdieu, "refers to systems of dispositions that are shaped by the experiences of actors in particular positions in the social structure. These dispositions therefore 'generate and organize practices and representations" (261). Put more simply, the theory of habitus states that people that originate from the same group or social class tend to have the same experiences, education and opinions. It is not the social class itself that determines these aspects about the person, but rather how these aspects determine and make up social class. The other piece to understanding habitus is also that it represents how people from a specific group or social class go about conveying that message to other people in society. People communicating their social standing or group status through symbols, gestures or the way in which they speak is how habitus affects the actions in the social world. An example of habitus can be clearly shown when one compares how two different groups interact with others in society. Two such groups include the upper class adults and middle class college students. Upper class adults tend to do things such as wearing expensive clothes and jewelry and ride in limousines. Living in prosperous neighborhoods, attending private schools, and joining country clubs are another way in which they communicate their wealth, but also meet and interact with other people from their social group. Aside from appearances, people from the upper class tend to hold themselves in a certain way and stand close to others signifying power as explained in the video that was shown in class. Since they tend to attend the best schools, many are well educated and have a rich vocabulary. With all of these similar experiences, many people of the upper class have very similar characteristics, which Bourdieu would argue is what forms social class instead of social class influencing the development of these characteristics. When compared to college students, it is clear how their respective habitus is different. One aspect of a typical college student is that they tend to not have a lot of financial means, which can translate to buying cheap cars, food such as ramen noodles and cheap clothing. Another characteristic of college students is that they tend to drink a lot, so much so that an adult that consumes the same amount of alcohol would be considered to have an alcohol problem. When middle class college students are compared to the upper class, it is clear how different their habitus really is. Through buying expensive things, presenting themselves in a more powerful manner, and associating with other wealthy people through country clubs and the neighborhoods they live in, people of the upper class communicate that they are from their specific social standing to others within and outside their group. On the other hand, the habitus of a middle class college student would be buying inexpensive items to save the little money that they have and also going out to bars, clubs and parties on the weekend and most likely staying out late. With the comparison of these two very different groups in mind, one can see how habitus works and how it is expressed uniquely by each group in the social world.
What are the components of Bourdieu's "relational analysis"? There are 3 components: positions, positions-taking, and habitus. Firstly, we are going to discuss what positions are. Positions mean the positions occupied by an individual in the social space relative to one another. There are few examples of positions, like job, education level, and the level of power. It is important because individuals will claim to a certain position and have a sense of belongings to a certain position. As a result, they define themselves based on the position they occupied. Secondly, we are going to discuss what position-taking is. Position-taking is a process which an individual uses to maintain the position. Moreover, an individual uses position-taking to signal the position to others. Basically, we can say that position-taking is the choices that individuals make that signal their positions to one another in symbolic forms (261). There are few examples of position-taking, like what individual wear when they are going to work, what kind of leisure activities individuals like, and individuals' own preference in arts. Now, we already discussed the first two components of "relational analysis". However, according to Bourdieu, there is no direct connection between positions and position-taking. Why there is no direct connection between positions and position-taking? This is because positions are associated with certain sets of practices, but occupying a position dies not cause a person to adopt these practices (261). Moreover, it is not necessarily that there must be a connection between positions an position-taking. Based on Bourdieu's argument, it is "habitus" which links position and position-taking, thus causes a connection between position and position-taking. Habitus is the third component of "rational analysis". Now, we are going to discuss what habitus means? Habitus is systems of dispositions which are shaped by the experiences of individuals in particular position in the social structure (261). Then, these systems of dispositions are able to generate and organize practices as well as representations. After knowing the definition of habitus, we are going to see how habitus works? Instead of functioning like a set of strict rules which control what can individual do can what cannot be done, habitus is actually more like a set of loose guidelines. It aims to orient individuals, even though individuals may unaware of the existence of habitus. Flexibility is an important characteristic of habitus. Because of the flexibility, habitus provides rooms for individuals to improvise. Moreover, because of its flexibility, habitus can be easily applied to new settings (262). Then, Bourdieu mentioned that repetition is the way which can ne used for acquiring habitus. According to Bourdieu, people require the kind of orientation and guidelines to action and awareness that habitus provides (262). In the society, Bourdieu argued that social groups which have the same positions will have the similar habitus. Besides that, Bourdieu also mentioned that habitus cannot be directly observed and a specific method is required in order to observe habitus in the society. In conclusion, There are 3 components: positions, positions-taking, and habitus. Habitus mediates between positions and position-taking,
1. According to Bourdieu, Anglo-American sociologists traditionally have "false divides" within the field of study. These are the divides of macro- versus micro-sociology, quantitative versus qualitative research studies, and the study of action versus the study of institutions. Bourdieu believes that these are just meaningless conflicts that take away from the study of sociology. Sociologists tend to get caught up in the conflict of which are the right ways and not enough time researching to advance sociology. Bourdieu believes that this divide not only distracts from sociological study, but it is essential to be able use both sides to be able to achieve a full understanding of social life.
2. A position is the place that a person takes in social life. The importance of one's position is not the position itself, but how one perceives the position relative to others. It is how one locates oneself in social ordering and defines oneself. Position-taking is the way that one shows others the position they occupy. These are the status symbols, such as the car one drives or the clothes one wears, etc. Position does not directly determine position-taking because it is up to the individual how they wish to show their status. For example, if there are two doctors, one might display his status by having a flashy car and playing golf with other doctors, while the other shows her status by working long hours in a hospital. The first doctor is showing their high status as a physician by showing off their high salary, and the other is showing the aspect of the physician's status that cares for the sick. Habitus is a system of dispositions or habits that structure behavior. It is developed through the attitudes of members of a group and affects the way that people act in their roles. It spans across all parts of social life - economic status, social status, political actions, and ethnicity. It is a loose set that allows for improvisation and personal changes to fit the unique situations people are involved in day to day. Habitus is created by the actions and interactions of people, but is never created from just one individual - it is created from the social. It is shaped by our habits we have learned in the past to influence our actions in the present, but is allows for change when needed. It is followed unconsciously. Unless actively contemplating it, individuals do not realize these social dispositions that play into the things that they do and their social roles. The example of habitus that Bourdieu used was the rugby game. Each player knows the rules of the game and their role in the position they play on the field. This gives them a specific set of actions they habitually will go through. However, it does not need to be the same each time as if it were a coordinated dance. The habitus for the player only guides them, but still leaves room for the improvisation needed to work against the other teams players.
Bourdieu says, "Habitus refers to systems of dispositions that are shaped by the experiences of actors in particular positions in the social structure"(261). Bourdieu's concept of habitus can best be described as a collection of social dispositions, skills and ways of acting that we develop through our day to day interactions which help us interpret the world and then guide our social actions. The way we interpret the world is influenced through habitus. It conforms us to social classes or statuses, such as race, class, gender, etc. Habitus is taken for granted because it essentially is what forms our thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions. Therefore our thoughts are not individually unique to us. However, we are not subjects to our habitus, it only guides our behaviors to conform to our social classes and statuses.
Habitus can be related back to Marx's idea of the dialectic, where society has many contradictions from the dominant perspective and our personal perspectives and experiences. His idea of the dialectic goes on to say that we are controlled by our assumptions of how the world is that we have taken for granted.
As for an example of how habitus operates in everyday social life, we can look at language. We learn words and are taught the rules of syntax and grammar in our native language. Language does not provide strict guidelines for conversation, such as specific words and sentence structures that we must use. We form unique phrases and sentences every day using the rules and structures that we understand about our language. However, we form these phrases to stay within the framework of our language, but the phrases and sentences are created with our own freedom of thought and choice.
