Bourdieu’s Concept of Habitus, Capital and Field Essay

Introduction

Bourdieu’s concepts are very useful in understanding the reason why people behave or speak differently without understanding their history. The concept of field capitals and habitus cannot only be used to explain but also to analyze human beings in any given social context. The three concepts have used in different parts of the world to analyze social classes as well as education. Field, capital and habitus concepts can be used to analyze ethnicity and race, particularly when the concepts highlight history of a group of people or individuals (Field, 2003). Bourdieu’s emphasis was majorly based on the social practice of people and individuals especially what they do on a daily basis. However, Bourdieu stresses the point that social life is not pegged on one’s behavior only but on a wider concept. He also object the reasoning that one’s decision-making or supra-individual structures are the only basis that should be used to understand his or her practice. The concept of habitus according to Jenkins (2003) is a useful concept that bridges the explanatory gap that exists between the extreme arguments regarding objectivism and subjectivism.

Habitus

It is therefore important to understand the concept of habitus, field and capital before applying them in real life situation. Habitus is a Latin word that means the look, condition or situation of the body for instance (Jenkins, 2003, p. 74). According to Bing (2004, p. 39) habitus is referred to as the dispositions that an individual has been able to acquire right from the past to his or her present, especially those dispositions he or she acquired from social as well as personal experiences in life. Bing (2004, p. 39) in his description of habitus states, “The habitus – embodied history internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history – is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product”. Bing (2004, p. 39) argue that in relation to the argument of Bourdieu on habitus, he believed that habitus is simply a product of history (Bourdieu, 1986). Habitus is expressed in people based on how they relate to other people, the way they move and talk as they try to make sense of environment by means of social practice. Wacquant (2005, p. 316) states that “Habitus is ‘the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, which then guide them”. in Bing (2004, p. 39) further argues that Habitus is some kind of socialized subjectivity, which involve a way of doing social practices as well as understanding and perceiving such practices. Bing (2004, p. 39) states, “However, habitus is not a set of fixed dispositions but rather an open system of dispositions that are capable to be transformed according to social situations”. Bing (2004, p. 39) further explains that habitus structures experience of people according to structures necessitated by people’s pas experiences are transform by new experiences. The new experiences bring about spectacular integration, which are combined with past experiences. Habitus can therefore generate actions perceptions as well as thoughts, which depend mainly on the social and historical situations such products. The implication on this particular argument is that a person’s productions such as behavior, ideas as well as discourse are not free from historical experiences and social life. An individual’s productions according to Bing (2004, p. 40) are in real sense based on past experiences and history.

Jenkins (2003, p. 74) on the other hand argues that schemes of generative classification and dispositions, which form the basis of habitus are personified in human beings and the embodiment is known to have three different meanings. In his effort to explore further the concept of habitus, Jenkins (2003, p. 77) refers severally to unconscious character of logic as well as existence dispositions beyond consciousness. It is also important to note that consciousness is involved. For instance, speech is a very complicated process, which is enhanced by intellectual operation of unconscious and conscious. Jenkins (2003, p. 77) explains

The line of action by habitus may very well be accompanied by a strategic calculation of costs and benefits, which tends to carry out at a conscious level the operations, which habitus carries out in its own way… Times of crises, in which the routine adjustment of subjective and objective structures is brutally disrupted, constitute a class of circumstances when indeed rational choice often appears to take over but this is a crucial proviso, it is habitus itself, which commands this option. We can always say that individuals make choices, as long as we do not forget that they do not choose the principals of these choices.

Jenkins (2003, p. 77) emphasizes therefore that the outlook of decision – making appears like a shadow of the product of habitus, which occurs concurrently or in advance or it is part of habitus repertoire in some circumstances and not in a chosen process. Decision – making appearance may even be a mere illusion so long as its operation principles are draw from or restricted by habitus itself. Eventually, it is dispositions, which are less than conscious that are responsible for the production of practices. It is the main reason why dispositions, which constitute habitus are referred by Bourdieu as ‘generative basis’ of practices. Jenkins (2003, p. 78) reasons that the terms that Bourdieu used suggest the existence of a link between practices and habitus, which is not deterministic or mechanical. Habitus therefore enable actors to act in certain ways hence generation of practices. Practices on the other hand are generated when there is encounter between habitus and dispositions or when the encounter occurs with demands, constraints and opportunities presented by market or social field where the actors moves or appropriate for the habitus. In order to achieve the above it requires less than adjustment conscious process of individuals’ practices and habitus to external constraints and objective of the social world (Gaventa, 2003). When habitus is considered as a unit of generative schemes, dispositions and classificatory categories then it becomes nothing less than the product of collective history: history’s product that produces collective as well as individual practices.

Habitus is therefore regarded as a social norm, which steer thinking or behavior of people and is created through social process (Reay, David & Ball, 2005). Habitus is generated through social mechanisms, leading to movable, which can transform after some duration according to social context. Habitus is neither permanent nor fixed but is subjected to change especially over a very long historical period and under unanticipated circumstances (Navarro, 2006). Habitus is not established by either structure or free will it is determined by both of them because of some interplay between them over a given period. Structures as well as events are responsible for the shaping of disposition, which consequently shapes the perception of people. It is evidenced that habitus are formed instinctively without much concentration and rational quest of any kind (Albright & Luke, 2008). The concept of habitus can be applied in the daily live situation to analyze issues and matters that do not depend or affected by social and economic location such as social inequalities. This concept can effectively be used to study social practices, which emanates from the interaction between field and individual habitus. Habitus concept can be and have been used to understand the influence of educational experiences of women on their activities of supporting education of children. At the central position of habitus concept is the interplay between past and present as well as between a person and forces acting on them: structure and agency.

Capital

Capital is another concept of Bourdieu that he used to expound his arguments on sociology. Capital as the second concept is not only material assets but also it include social capital as well as cultural. The mentioned types of capital are all important, can be accumulated and moved from one field to another. Cultural capital according to Navarro (2006) plays a very significant function concerning power of the society because of the means of transformation from one form to another. These processes lead to creation of non-economic form of hierarchy and domination in the society since classes identify themselves through taste rather than economic power. When one moved from one capital to another, for instance, from material to culture, causes of vices such are inequalities become concealed. Consequently, social order according to Bourdieu (1986) become engraved in the minds of people gradually through cultural yield such as operations on a daily basis of life, principles, knowledge, arrangement methods, ruling and language.

Capital according to Blunden (2004) is the resource, which enable an individual or people to either resist or exercise domination over others in social relationships. Capital can be used by an individual to secure or sustain a position in the hierarchy in a society. Capital can therefore make people order relations with others in any particular societal space. Blunden (2004) argues that in most societies, especially capitalist societies economic capital is the means through which people ascend the social ladder. However, the economic capital principle is constantly faced with competition from other principles by a class of people who are considered economically poor but rich in other capitals such culture among others. They include academicians, professionals and artists who try to uphold their own kind of capital as a different principle for domination. The situation is similar to the rivalry that exists in different capitals of finance, industry and land.

There exist educational and cultural capitals in the society. Blunden (2004) argues that social origin plays a significant role in predicting cultural capital in the society. For instance, a child of a bourgeois knows how much an impressionist painting cost, the same way a working class boys can eat a pie the way it should while professionals are aware of what makes a good director.

Field

Field is the third vital concept of Bourdieu’s theory is field, which is a diverse institutional and societal ground upon which persons replicate and articulate their particular temperaments. Fields also provide avenues for competition for distribution of various forms of capital. Field is another important concept on which Bourdieu based his sociology upon because it describes the social setting structure where habitus operates. Swartz (1997, p.117) states “A network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions. These positions are objectively defined in their existence and in the determination; they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions by their present and potential situation”. In Bourdieu’s sociology, field designates ground for circulation, production as well as appropriation of goods and services, rank knowledge and positions occupied by actors struggle to dominate and accrue these capital. Fields may be structured spaces, which are properly organized around certain forms of capital or a group of capitals. Navarro (2006, p. 18) argues that a field is considered as a structure of different relationships namely cultural as well as spiritual among many others.

The concept can be used to highlight and address challenges that come up in instances of contradiction and tensions, which start when people are challenged by contexts as well as when they encounter different contexts. Bourdieu theory is applicable in day-to-day life, for instance, the theory can be used to elucidate how individuals resist domination and power in one field but express involvement in a different one. The concept of field in Bourdieu’s theory can be used to demystify differential power in the society (Crossley, 2001). For instance, some women behave differently in two different arenas namely private and public field. Moncrieffe (2006) was able to examine a woman who has public authority as a member of parliament in Uganda and when she is at home, she becomes submissive to her husband. It is Bourdieu theory and the concept of fields that can be able to explain such situations or occurrences. Both researchers as well as feminist activists have noted such occurrences. Men and women conduct themselves quite differently depending on the arena.

Conclusion

Bourdieu the French sociologist use the theory of society to approach power and social change in the society. He developed three concepts namely habitus, capital and field, which are quite useful in the analysis and understanding power and social process in different societies. Bourdieu’s theories and habitus, field and capital concepts are used in the contemporary society to understand the reason people behave or talk the way they do without necessarily comparing their history. Bourdieu concepts are therefore very significant tools to explain as well as to analyze human beings in different social context. In his bid to explore societies, Bourdieu decided to use three concepts one of which is called field as opposed to Marx who decided to use classes. Field is therefore a very effective approach to use to power relationships in the societies. The concept of habitus tends to integrate the idea of subjectivity and objectivity making is significant in resolution of a person’s dilemma. Capital is concept that is useful in understanding as well as to explain societal hierarchy.

References

Albright, J. & Luke, A. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education. New York: Routledge.

Bing, F. (2004). Ethnicity, children & habitus. Germany: Peter Lang.

Blunden, a. (2004). Bourdieu on status, class and culture. Web.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Capital. New York: Greenwood Press.

Crossley, N. (2001). The social body: habit, identity and desire. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Gaventa, J. (2003). Power after Lukes: a review of the literature, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Field, J. (2003). Social capital. New York: Routledge.

Jenkins, R. (2003). Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge.

Moncrieffe, J. (2006). The Power of Stigma: Encounters with ‘Street Children’ and ‘Restavecs’ in Haiti, 37(6), 31-46.

Navarro, Z. (2006). In Search of Cultural Intepretation of Power, 37(6),11-22.

Reay, D., David, M. & Ball, S. (2005). Degree of choice: social class, race, gender and higher education. UK: Alden Group.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture & power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. London: University of Chicago.