Talk:Structures, Habitus, Practices (Group 10)

On page 338, Bourdieu writes 'the habitus, a product of history, produces individual and collective practices - more history - in accordance with the schemes generated by history.". I'd like to know other people's opinion which argument is stronger: habitus is written by the 'winners'/dominating social group, or the general population collectively. Also, to what extent should traditions, rituals, or even political systems be critically studied to provide a more objective record of human race?

For the first part, I think that the dominant social group at particular times in history would exert more influence over others in that time period. Take monarchy as an example; the transition towards democracy diffuses the power and thus, habitus is gradually constructed by the general population over time.

I agree with you, as I also think that the dominant social group shapes the habitus of a certain community of people if their actions are influential for a long time period. The study of traditions, rituals, and political systems in order to objectively record behavior of the human race seems to me like a daunting task particularly if we are looking to learn about traditions and rituals of the past as there may not be sufficient evidence on such practices to make a valid objective claim about the behavior of people. However, perhaps if Sociologists engaged in this research for current and future traditions and rituals, some degree of objectivity could be added to the habitus of certain groups of people that are practicing these traditions or rituals.

I agree, history is laid out and illustrated by dominant social groups. I believe that traditions, rituals and political systems ought to be described in a subjective manner, as one person cannot assume the role of all people in society.

Hi Yi Lin,

If you don't mind, I'd like to push back and say that I take habitus to be more independent from who wins, and "writes history". I have no doubt that power systems and structures of oppression, for instance, bear weight on the development of a group and therefore one's habitus, but I also don't believe that it is directly informed as such. For example, black slaves in historical America were brutally mistreated by the affluent white population; it is clear here that there is a large power differential.

However, it should also be clear that although we could say that the white upper-class were the ones deciding everything, that the habitus of a black slave and that of a white 'master' would be sufficiently different. Although the whites were in power and could therefore "write history", so to speak, it does not mean that the values of a slave would be the same values of a master, nor would they see the world the same way in spite of occupying the same physical space, because the social space in which a second-generation master or slave would be different from one another.

Therefore, while I do agree that systems of power and dominant ideologies do have their effects on a collective population and therefore a group's habitus, that it is not strictly written/decided by whoever is in power at the time.

Hi Jaden, I agree with the points you have made. I think that while habitus can be seen as being written by dominant groups in certain situations, I also believe that it is not necessarily dictated by them. In some ways, this view eliminates the idea that a culture or the general population can influence ways of thinking. In class, we discussed the tension between structure and agency, and I think that a lot of the ways we think and want things are socialized in us and a result of the continued tension. What you said about the differences in values of the white master and the black slave is a good example. Distinct groups could easily be socialized to want various things. So our habitus, like you have said, could very well be the construction of other factors, not just the creation of whoever is in power.

I agree with you on habitus is not completely based on dominant groups as habitus written by dominant groups seems to be normalized and can be easily adopted but there is also habitus for the minority group. Just because we are not in the minority group does not give us the right to overlook it.

Hi Jaden I think you made a great point about the differences between power structures and the formation of habitus. It's clear that in the example that you used the white dominate group would probably not share exactly the same habitus with their subordinate Black slave. To some extent, the formation of habitus is more independent in a way that even the winner could not fully gain control of people's agency. I guess that's also the reason why revolution would happen. However, I think habitus could also be influenced by people in power since they do have lots of strategies to set regulation on people's daily life. With the continuous implementation of such regulation, I wonder if some of these regulations would eventually become habitus, that no one(or at least the majority) would even question it any more.

I agree with Jaden that habitus is more independent from systems of power and dominant ideologies. One's habitus is shaped by what they have been exposed to and thus their cultural capital. An individual's acquired habitus allows for successful navigation in a particular context or social environment. I also agree with the point about structure and agency. Rather than attributing habitus to individual action itself, it is created by the tension between agency and structure in that certain dispositions an individual has are shaped by experiences in the past that give way to experiences in the present and future. It is a reflection of the socialization of individuals and acts as a basis for how individuals perceive and act in their respective environments. Instead of saying that habitus is written by the dominating social group it can be said that habitus is acquired or shared among people with similar backgrounds.

Thank you Jaden, for outlining how habitus is a concept that is exclusive to individuals in different positions in society. After reading your argument, I agree that people in the position of power in a particular time in history may have influence different habitus, but does not necessarily mould the actual habitus themselves. I'd like to point out Bo's conclusion, stating how "continuous implementation of such regulation[s] ... eventually become habitus, that no one(or at least the majority) would even question it any more.". This statement is clearer than my own, and is the point that I was getting on.

My stance on this topic is somewhat in the middle as I believe the dominant group and power structures have an immense influence over the habitus of individuals, but I also think that individuals possess some agency regardless of their social environment. It is impossible not to be influenced by the power structures you are surrounded by but they are not the only factors in creating one's habitus. But, it is also difficult to ignore their power in affecting one's habitus as they are usually present in all the institutions individuals come into contact with on a daily basis.

Evolving institutions represent clear distinctions between habitus and objective reality as the loss of previous institutional functions does not deter individuals from uphold them for the sake of social norms.

Marriage in Western society has lost most of its original functions such as the recognition of property, title, and reproductive legitimacy. Today, in an objective sense, marriage is no different than common-law relationships other than in title. If marriage no longer fulfills its previous functions, then why do people continue to marry?

I believe that habitus maintains the prevalence of this institution, as individuals are socially predisposed to believe that a romantic relationship has more legitimacy when individuals are married. Since society assigns value to marriage, individuals grow up in environments where marriage has social prestige.

As Alexis mentioned, these "historical schemas...constitute evolving but also constant normative systems," in which the institution of marriage remains constant despite the loss of its institutional function. Marriage no longer exists as a material benefit, but as an abstract signifier of social status. Are there any other examples of evolving institutions that remain solely because of habitus?

Taking a Marxist perspective, marriage has been commodified and made into a product, leading to a creation of an entirely new industry. For example, wedding planners, hotels and vacation packages uses marriage as a commercial way to profit. On the surface, capitalism enables marriage to be less religion-based and focuses on the luxury materialism one can achieve. Marriage is also a demonstration of wealth, as a couple can declare to the world how they are wealthy enough to afford the ceremony.

Hi Luna Li, Thank you for your sharing, like you mentioned that habits can influence the thoughts and behavior of an individual. During this term, I take a sociology course which talking about statistics, and our final project topic is whether students with parents who have higher educational backgrounds are more likely to say yes to going to graduate school? By doing data collection and analysis, we can tell that students have been influenced by the viewpoints of their parents and family environment, these elements are playing an important role in in the academic attainments and goals setting of these students.

Previously mentioned in this thread is the influence of history and religion on Bordieu's idea of habitus but I want to expand and see the origin story of the first idea of habitus. Habitus is said to be something the individual acquires and is where we internalizes the external views around us but what about the first idea of habitus? I'm curious to see what your opinion is on the origin of habitus and where did this first idea came from. The influence has to come from somewhere and religion and history are still events that are created by humanity overtime.

This is a really good question! I believe that habitus starts by basic human interaction and as more individuals come together to view a certain ritual as legitimate, habitus is created. And like what others have said in this discussion, it originates from basically survival of the fittest and the dominant sets rules and regulations to help organize society. However these 'rules' are created to guarantee that those in power remains in power. Just like the belief that one is to work hard to earn money, it is a value created to prevent individuals from cheating the system and overthrowing the elite. Slowly, these values are solidified throughout society, creating a collective system of thought.

Hi Jessica, I agree with your opinion. According to Bourdieu, habitus is the socialized norms that guide individuals' behaviour and thinking. I think habitus is created by the past events and structures. The evolution process allows it to continue to shape the current practices and structures. Habitus is also being reproduced unconsciously. Since it tends to lead us to become successful in the society, people continue to reinforce it. For example, if you want to survive and become famous in Hollywood, you will need to learn the 'rules' and know how to play with these 'rules'. People who are good at playing these 'rules' are the dominant group in this particular environment.

I believe that one of the reasons the concept of habitus came about was to explain the reasons for some social scenarios. Like the paper mentioned, people in different classes are exposed to different culture, which makes one group appreciate certain stuff when the other group doesn't. Because habitus is so ingrained in society it makes people think that it was naturally occurring. So the first time this idea of habitus came was when people realized that habitus is actually built through human actions and that there is a reason for its existence. Then people were finally able to understand the idea of habitus as a navigator in social environments.