Structures, Habitus, Practices (Group 10)

Section 1: Paragraph 1&2 Sonia Zaib

Bourdieu starts by explaining that objectivism allows an observer to take up a “point of view” on the action, put that in relation to an object and turn that it into knowledge. He says this point of view is taken from high positions in the social structure and that the social world is seen as a representation or a performance (in the theatrical or musical sense) and practices are seen as the acting-out of roles. The theory of practice helps us understand that the objects of knowledge are constructed and the principle of this construction is the system of “structured, structuring dispositions, the habitus”. Bourdieu then says that it’s possible to back down from this objective viewpoint without having to abandon the “active aspect” of apprehension of the world. This can be done by an individual’s “active presence” in the world and through experiences of being both inside and outside of the experience. He then says that one has to escape from the realism of the structure where objectivism is treated as realities that is preexisting without falling back into subjectivism. Bourdieu says in order to do this, one has to return to practice where there is a dialectical relationship between “opus operatum” (result of practice) and “modus operandi” (modes of practices) of structures and habitus. Bourdieu suggests that those who seek to “correct” the structuralist model by appealing to the “context or “situation” to account for variations, exceptions and accidents, have failed to question the objectivist modes of thought as they have not fallen back onto the free choice of a rootless, unattached, pure subject. That’s why although individuals have certain degree of liberty to make choices within social situations, they only make decisions within the limits of specified social structure and are stuck within the framework of the rule and the exception.

An example of a habitus would be something like, knowing how to act in art galleries and how to properly observe works of art. If your family is in the upper/middle class and your parents would often take you to art galleries throughout your lifetime (i.e. on holidays), you’d most likely know how to act in that environment and would know the value of certain types of artwork without consciously thinking about it. However, if you were born into a working class family and never had those opportunities due to different life experiences, you would most likely not know how to act in that situation or know the value of the artwork that you are looking at.

Section 2: Paragraph 3&4 Evelyn McIntyre

Paragraph 3

Bourdieu begins to delve further into how habitus operates in day- to- day, microsociological interactions as he explains that “the conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence produce habitus…” (pp.338). In this way, we can notice that Bourdieu’s concept of habitus pertains to the visible extension of cultural capital as the collective actions and of a person as seen by others as he further explains that “ principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them.” (pp.338). Bourdieu continues to explain that habitus as a phenomenon does not have to be facilitated by one distinct person, but rather can be observed in the patterns of collective behaviour of those with similar cultural capital, which in turn affects their practices in certain ways.

Paragraph 4

In the next paragraph, Bourdieu elaborates on habitus by acknowledging that some people may challenge the regularities of habitus by consciously choosing to act in opposition to their expected social action by the rules of habitus based on their social capital and the collective behaviour of others who are within the same class of social capital. Bourdieu then furthers his argument for the application of habitus to observable human behaviour by stating that “ the practical world that is constituted in the relationship with the habitus, acting as a system of cognitive and motivating structures, is a world of already realized ends…” (pp. 338) in order to place emphasis on social and institutional norms that structure our society to a state where habitus can be employed to predict the actions of the people through the lens of these structures.

Bourdieu’s concepts of structures, habitus, and practices can be applied to social phenomena at the University of British Columbia where the structural requirements of the institution, such as the high standard of academic achievement required for admission to be granted, contribute to the habitus of students, who have high standards of academic achievement expected of them, which in turn encourages the collective practice of rigorous studying among students at UBC.

Section 3: Paragraph 5&6 Alexis Wolfe

(paragraph 5, p. 338) In this section Bourdieu points to the way in which probability, statistics and ‘objectified’ reality construct “necessity” through their legitimation and naturalization as fixed order. Feelings of inevitably arise when the order of objectified ‘real’ conditions of life - averages in improbabilities and probabilities - are standardized as necessity facts of existence. The delineation of order in these circumstances, wherein cause and effect seem completely necessary in the economy of the ‘real’ of real life, produces habitus. Bourdieu refers to habitus as the practical relation one has to the world and discusses it in terms of being constituted by practice. Habitus is built by the environment of place and it mediates the subject/object relation of each individual. Bourdieu is alluding to the early experiences (childhood) which carry “disproportionate weight” in producing habitus. (338) He focusses on the domestic economy of early development and the social and economic dimensions which coalesce to produce a subject who acts within their habitus that is structured by these factors. He describes several core dimensions (which take place mainly in the domestic economy) through which early experience is involved in taking up and transmuting into habitus: modes of consumption, division of labour between the sexes, parent-child relations etc. He lists these elements as determinate forces which give rise to the class of conditions of existence that structure habitus and form the basis of an individual's PERCEPTION and appreciation of all experience. Bourdieu is articulating what may be considered subjectivity or ‘being’ in phenomenology and describes the way in which a subjectivity is drawn together by an the amalgamation of previous experience as they are integrated in particular social / economic conditions. He astutely notes that these subjectivities or the ‘habitus’ that are formed become filters through which perception is strained through.

(paragraph 6) Bourdieu also goes on to contextualize habitus in schemas of history. Historical schemas, organized around temporally relevant schemes of perception, thought and action, constitute evolving but also constant normative systems - more reliable than explicit norms. He is discussing not only sociohistorical schemas but also schemas of self embedded in personal history - an entanglement of past and present being in order to necessarily activate recognized failures or successes to produce consistency (of self) in the future. He describes this process as being governed by internal law, a way that we attempt to manufacture a consistent habitus (or “self”) over extensions of time. The principle of continuity and regularity, holy grails of objectification, translate into social practice but are unaccounted for. The reasons why, at the base of our being, we try incessantly to reproduce consistent and regular narrative, in alignment with the order or structure of the field (reality), is to regulate transformation. To account for transformation requires an analysis of the relationship between object and subject - between external and internal forces which shape direction of action, thought and perception. In order to escape the requirement of understanding our own internal will, we often internalize externality as Bourdieu puts it. We imbue the external conditions with a deterministic logic, we give way to the temptation of relying on the systematic and durable externality to avoid confronting the question of habitus - the question of subjectivity. Bourdieu also writes about the infinite nature of habitus and the way in which it becomes limited by paths of mechanical determinism. He states that habitus actually wants to erase the boundary between conditioning and creativity, to transcend the concept of consciousness and unconscious and of individual society. Habitus embodies all of this. Finally, he explains that the infinitude of habitus, it’s ability to produce novel perceptions, new thoughts and inventive action is limited by where it is historically and socially situated and thus experiences a sort of ‘conditional freedom’

Section 4: Paragraph 7&8 Mimi Nguyen

Bourdieu cautions us to be mindful that all practices, and their meanings, are constantly socially created and re-created through space and time. We often share a misconception that many of the practices and ideas that we conduct ourselves by are natural simply because we cannot identify when these practices are being created. “Like a seed”, ideas and practices are always growing and taking new shapes without our realization (339). This is especially true when ideas and practices are constantly interacting with different types of environments, where new meaning is negotiated with older meanings.

Bourdieu expands this concept to problematize the ways in which we engage with our own belief systems, the habitus. Since ideas and practices seem unquestionably natural to us, we take our belief systems for granted. In other words, all aspects of the habitus that help guide our social actions tend to be “common-sense behaviours” because, again, we lose sight of when and how meaning behind our practices is actually created (339). As a result, it is almost impossible to achieve objectivity despite believing that we are. This is because our understanding of the world is rooted in the all encompassing, subjective habitus, where we have failed to recognize that our practices and ideas were socially created and recreated, and thus subject within the structures of our existing society.

We can apply Bourdieu's words of caution to the way we think of what it means to be Canadian. The Canadian identity is never fixed. However, we, as Canadians, fail to recognize that we are constantly negotiating the Canadian identity, or generating new meaning of Canadianness, by interacting with the province in which we live in and the time frame that we belong to. For example, there is a misconception that Canadians are not racist, an idea that had been rooted in the 1970s where former Prime Minister Trudeau Sr. enacted the Multicultural Act which recognizes the inclusion of diversity. Today, as young members of the nation state, we believe that our state’s values for inclusiveness is inherent, ahistorical even, as this additional meaning to the Canadian identity occurred before our time, or “pre-existing”. However, before then, it has been evident that Canada shares a horrific xenophobic history where the state had, and subtly continues, committed cultural genocide against indigenous communities in Canada. Through this example, it is evident that meaning and ideas can be subtly re-created without significant notice. As a result, we take our understandings of the world for granted as we often fail to realize that our ideas are subject within the structures of our society.

Section 5: Paragraph 9&10 Devon Orth-Lashley

The habitus serves as a representation of history due to external determinants that have been internalized, resulting in the habitus and autonomy in practices. Bourdieu argues that the past will determine the present through the gained capital of history, leading to a lack of permanency as agency is gained throughout the course of history. The habitus acts without conscious thought.

There is a duality in understanding the logic of actions, where there are two objectifications: objectifications in bodies and objectifications in institutions. This leads to two accounts of capital - objectified and incorporated. The development of a modus operandi which is not consciously produced exemplifies an “objective intention” which overrules the “conscious intention” of an individual. The modus operandi serves as a “spiritual automaton.” According to Bourdieu the example of witty remarks demonstrates the duality as these remarks are defined by their lack of predictability but also are based on the require of past experiences. He elaborates to exemplify that language demonstrates the association between the habitus and institutions to produce the outcomes of the objectification of history, as the habitus is structured by the original but also the inevitable.

Section 6: Paragraph 11 Luna Li

Bourdieu argues that the construction of disposition is creating habitus, in order to objectify institutions. In other words, the inculcation of knowledge/common sense/logic is a product of social construction, aims to provide privilege and rights for certain social institutions, such as churches, monarchy and financial capitalism, to benefit from the system. Bourdieu illustrate his idea with a example of the property inheritance right of 'first-born son' as a socially objectified institution. In modern context, objectification of institutions though socially constructed disposition could be understood from the perspective of Consumerism, an ideology that praises large amount of consumption. Credit card companies and other financial organizations are continuously promoting deficit spending, while fashion industries and retail stores are creating endless consumption desires for people. So that financial companies can earn from the debt and fashion companies can make money from Valentine's day, mother's day, and all the other days. In this case, financial organizations allied with fashion industry to construct the disposition of consuming, creating the habitus of shopping, hence gain the profit without much criticism(objectification of institutions).