Bourdieus Theory of Capital, Habitus and Field

Bourdieus Theory of Capital, Habitus and FieldHow Useful argon Bourdieus Concept of Field, Habitus, and Capital for Understanding Contemporary Social Theory?IntroductionPierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) unquestionable his hypothesis of heathenish non bad(p) of the United States, with Jean-Claude Passeron, as part of an attempt to explain differences in educational achievement check to hearty origin (Robbins, 2005 22-24) to show that sociable exclusion is a continuous process (Ibid. p 23). In his theory, the cultural and friendly forms of great argon based on, without being determined by, the amount of economic capital possessed and thus hide or mask the expressive style in which brotherly hierarchies are reproduced. The leash forms of capital combine, and are embodied, to produce an several(prenominal)s habilitateus, or set of predispositions, whilst the champaign refers to the arena in which a precise soma is realised or deployed. For Bourdieu, then, the judgments of c apital, field and frame were ultimately embedded in congresss of violence (Burkett, 2004 236) and were part of a complex theory that sought to explain the way that social inequality is reproduced. legion(predicate) ingest overturnd the physical exertionfulness of Bourdieus theory to contemporary research (see, for example, Fine in Burkett, 2004 Tooley and Darby in Nash, 1999), magical spell differents have debated the degree to which he drew on the founding fathers of sociology, with some concluding that his theory of go for is strongly Weberian (Keyes, 2002 233), or that his opinions reach on the work of Durkheim (Camic, 2000). Here I attempt to asses the degree to which he drew on Marx, Weber and Durkheim when constructing the key concepts of capital, field and habitus, and the use upfulness or otherwise of them to contemporary research.In the first branch, I outline Bourdieus concept of Capital, demonstrating its division within his overall theory in the lead sh owing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Marx. Next I fancy the debate margin the use of the concept within contemporary political science, notably in the work of Robert Putnam (1995). In the befriend section, I examine Bourdieus concept of Habitus, demonstrating its role within his overall theory of cultural capital, in the beginning showing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Durkheim and Weber. Next, I examine the profit of the term by examining the debate surrounding its use in educational research in the work of Diane Reay (1995). In the last-place section, I outline Bourdieus concept of the field, discussing its role within his overall theory before lastly examining its usefulness to those undertaking feminist examinations of the way that force-out is experienced as differentiated, especially within the imitation of patriarchy (McNay, 1999). In the conclusion, I attempt to assess the overall usefulness of Bourdieus key concepts to the social sciences, arguing that he raided the concepts of the founding father just now without having any ideological commitment to them that his usage reflected his revolve around on them as tools of practical research. That, however, it is this practical management that may have contributed to the difficulty experienced by those who now seek clarification as to their meaning.The Forms of CapitalIn this section I outline Bourdieus concept of Capital, demonstrating its role within his overall theory before showing the key ways in which his usage differs from that of Marx. Finally, I examine the debate surrounding contemporary use of the concept within political science, notably in the work of Robert Putnam (1995). For Bourdieu capital thr superstar be divided into different forms social capital, cultural capital and economic capital. By social capital he refers to the network of useful relationships that can unassailable material or symbolic profits (Bourdieu, 1986 249) the amou nt of social capital that an single can draw upon is thus the sum of the number of people in their network and the amount of capital so possessed. Bourdieu promote divides cultural capital into three forms embodied, objectified and institutionalised embodied capital is imbued during socialisation, and is ultimately tied to the social location of the individual (Nash, 1999 185). Embodied capital represents external wealth converted into an integral part of the soul (Bourdieu, 1986 244-5). Objectified capital refers to dependables or artefacts including paintings and sculptures which are defined only in the relationship with cultural capital in its embodied form (Bourdieu, 1986246) in other words, the goods themselves and the ability to consume them. Institutionalised capital refers to those academic qualifications which change an individual to directly convert between cultural and economic capital a certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture (Bourdieu, 1986248). Thus, the different forms of capital are based upon, but not determined by, economic capital. We can see that Bourdieus use of capital is very different from that employed by Marx. Whereas Karl Marx (1818-1883) had paid little attention to the cultural sphere, believe it to be little more than false consciousness, Bourdieu sought to use the language of Marx and economic theory (Robbins, 2005 20) to develop a marxisant (Moi, 2000 322) theory of culture. Like Marx, for Bourdieu capital has the capacity to reproduce in identical or expanded form (Bourdieu, 1986241), becoming part of the structure of monastic order that enables and constrains individuals lives (Bourdieu, 1986 242). However, Bourdieus use of the term may therefore be viewed as being closer to power (Bourdieu, 1986 243) than as it was employ by Marx.In Bowling Alone the Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000)1 Robert Putnam utilis ed the concept of social capital, transferring it from sociology into the realm of political science. Putnam argued that increasing individualism had led to the decline of community ties, political interlocking and therefore good governance (Russell, 2005 557). Putnam defined social capital as features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995 67). However, Putnams definition is very different from Bourdieus whereas for Bourdieu social capital was held by the individual (Walters, 2002 387), for Putnam it is a corporate capacity (Ibid. p. 379). Further, within Bourdieus designing it would be difficult to see how there could be a reduction in social capital.William Walters (2002) argues that Putnams use of the concept differs from Bourdieus in that whereas Bourdieu argued that social capital is transferable with economic capital but not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986 243) Putnams use is more liberal he assumes a self-maximising individual for whom associable activity can, under certain circumstances, be an investment (Walters, 2002 379). Ben Fine argues, convincingly, that academia has been gripped by a social capital fetish (in Burkett, 2004 234) that the concept has been so stretched as to render it meaningless (Burkett, 2004 238). However, the weakening of Bourdieus concept of capital has occurred since his death, and so reflects on contemporary theorists and not on the usefulness or otherwise of the concept itself.Habit HabitusThe forms of capital as outlined above combine to produce a persons habitus, or set of predispositions in this section I first provide a brief summary of the use of habit/ habitus in sociological thought, before next outlining Bourdieus use of the term. I examine the concepts role within his schema and demonstrate how his conception draws, but differs from, the work of Durkheim and Weber. Finally, I examine the debate surrounding the use of the concept in educational research, notably by Diane Reay (1995, in Nash, 1999). Charles Camic (200) describes how the term habit was extensively utilize by the Ancient Greeks, and mediaeval scholars and theologians. During the 18th century it continued to be used by Enlightenment thinkers as diverse as Helvtius, Acquinus, Rousseau and Kant (Camic, 2000 329 Nash, 1999 180-182) to describe a range of behaviour from those around automatic actions to more involved patterns of conduct (Camic, 2000 327). Within the work of Durkheim the term assumed a telephone exchange importance, concerned as he was with the development of the collective scruples, or secular moral code (Camic, 2000 334). For Durkheim homo action could be divided into two poles, with reflection on the one side, and that of habit on the other side, with the latter pole being the stronger (Durkheim in Camic, 2000 333). For Durkheim primary education was therefore benign, for here the child can be imbued w ith the habitual basis of social morality (Camic, 2000 33). Yet despite this averion of the central role of habit in the social world, Durkheim assigned the study of it to psychology, and not sociology (Camic, 2000 337).However, for Bourdieu social inequality, or differential addition to the forms of capital, becomes part of the very bodies and predispositions of the individual via the habitus (McNay, 1999 99). Marx argued that men grant their power history, but they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmit from the past (Marx, 1852, quoted in Coates, 1990 265) for Bourdieu, the individual is constrained by the amount and quality of cultural, economic and social capital that they possess it is discrimination embodied as dispositions (Nash, 1999 177), it is thus a sociological concern. Further, whereas Durkheims conscience collective sought to explain the way in which meaning is given to emotiona l experiences (Shilling, 1997 204) and so focuses on the collective, for Bourdieu the habitus is a possession of the individual (Nash, 1999 182).For Weber, custom designated that range of behaviour that is the unreflective, set disposition to engage in actions that have been long practiced (Camic, 2000 337) being both conformity with and the generator of social norms (Camic, 2000 338). This is identical to Bourdieus sociology of practice following Weber, Bourdieu believes that the purpose of the social sciences is to explain action, yet where Weber was more interested in the larger social and cultural conditions under which general societal patterns of habitual action wax and ebbing (Camic, 2000 341), Bourdieu rest tied to the individual, actual, practical affects of power and history (Bourdieu in Nash, 1999 179). For Weber, habit falls at the border of meaningful action, and therefore outside of sociology (Camic, 2000 345), for Bourdieu it is precisely the doxic nature of habit t hat renders it socially important.Diane Reay (1995) used habitus as a method when conducting fieldwork in the classroom (in Nash, 1999). For Weber, an ideal type is a construct developed to make sense out of a chaos of facts (Keyes, 2002 240). Likewise, for Bourdieu habitus helps us to make sense of that part of practices which remains obscure in the eyes of their own producers (Bourdieu in Keyes, 2002 240) it is a conceptual tool, something to think with (Nash, 1999 185). Roy Nash (1999) charts the difficulties that arise, when such a conceptual tool is utilised in practical research, but concludes that it is worthwhile, just because to do so forces one to think (Nash, 1999 185) the habitus offers explanations (Nash, 1999 185), by examining whether the habitus can explain social differences in education we have gained a deeper understanding of these inequalities. The concept of habit had previously been a staple of western social thought, from medieval times to the thought of Weber and Durkheim, but fell outside of sociology and into psychology due to the scramble to assert disciplinary boundaries (Camic, 2000 355) Bourdieu sought to revive the concept as part of his search for concepts which would aid our understanding of the limits to individual action it is a conceptual tool for comprehending that the capacity to project forwards which people really posses is understandable as a function of their prior social condition rather than in terms of rob mathematical models (Robbins, 2005 26). In other words, habitus allows Bourdieu to mediate between agency and structure without relying on the atomised, sagacious individual of liberalism, sooner situating the actor within extant power relations.The FieldIn the final section I outline Bourdieus concept of the field, discussing its role within his overall theory before in the end examining its usefulness to those undertaking feminist examinations of the reproduction of patriarchy (McNay, 1999). The field refer s to the arena, or social context, in which a specific habitus may be realised knowledge regarding the use of particular machinery may be of little use in the world of show jumping, but of uppermost importance to those involved in car manufacture. Likewise, maintaining a network of engineers would be of little use to those outside this specific field connection in total constitutes a field, and is structured according to relations of domination (Peillon, 1998 215), but also society is comprised by a range of distinct fieldsFields will vary according to how untold autonomy they acquire from the entirety of the social field. An autonomous field is characterised by a high direct of specificity it possesses its own history a particular configuration of agents operate within it and struggle for a characteristic stake it induces its own habitus and upholds a distinctive set of beliefs. Such an autonomous field is super differentiated and marked by sharp boundaries, beyond which the f ield ceases to have any impact on practice (Peillon, 1998 215).Bourdieu recognised that academia is such a field and therefore is embedded in and reflects social relations. For Bourdieu, then, the field refers to the different arenas or social spaces in which capital is deployed or the habitus acts the embodied potentialities of the habitus are only ever realized in the context of a specific field (McNay, 1999 109), further, each field is distinct and therefore operates according to its own logic (McNay, 1999 114) knowledge of sociological theory would be of little use to our aforementioned show jumper. As it is deployed, therefore, habitus is both determined and generative as it is able to constitute the field from which it emerges (McNay, 1999100) it is the feel for the game that also reproduces the game (Bourdieu, 1990 52) as each individual is positioned within the field by their possession of specific types of capital and their strategies so contribute to its reproduction.When comparing Bourdieus conceptualisation of the field with that of Foucaults work on the body, Lois McNay (1999) finds that Bourdieus is the more developed as he is better able to theorize the differentiated nature of the constraints which act to limit the individuals ability to create their own identity (McNay, 1999 95). For McNay, Bourdieus concept of the field is useful within feminist theory when considering the differences within womens experiences of gender, as well as those differences between men and women (McNay, 1999 114) as a relational concept the field yields an understanding of society as a differentiated and open structure and provides a framework in which to conceptualise the uneven and non-systematic ways in which subordination and autonomy are realized (McNay, 1999 115, my emphasis). For example, in relation to the production of knowledge this might explain the early marginalization of much feminist research and the way it was the thought of a particular group of wome n white, heterosexual, middle class women that came to dominate second wave feminism, as opposed to the feminisms of other groups in short, Bourdieus concept of the field enables us to consider the way that power is not a monolithic concept but is experienced differentially.ConclusionIn conclusion, when assessing the overall usefulness of Bourdieus key concepts to contemporary research and theory it is important not to forget the intention of Bourdieu himself Bourdieu think capital, habitus and the field to be tools used to aid such empirical research (Peillon, 1998 241) and not as constituent parts of a grand theory he had no interest in unfit philosophy (Robbins, 2005 15). Bourdieus theory has been criticized as being essentialist and deterministic, however others have embraced its potential to explain the way in which such social inequality is reproduced (such as Reay, 1995 in Nash, 1999). Derek Robbins argues that Bourdieu had no sympathy for the mystery of Durkheims conscie nce collective but was enough a product of the Durkheimian legacy to wish to encourage a next society based on the positive unity of equality (Robbins, 2005 19). For Robbins then, Bourdieuregarded the discourses of the sciences as contrived language games which are alienated from natural culture. This did not cause him to be reductive or sceptical but it did cause him to deploy these discourses, varying them imaginatively, so as to isolate essences which are contingently changeable socially, geographically and historically (Robbins, 2005 20).In other words, the language of the sciences were the tools that Bourdieu used in his practical attempt to construct a fairer world. However, it is this practical focus of his concepts that may have contributed to the difficulty experienced by those who now seek clarification as to their meaning, as he had varied their meaning to aid understanding of the particular instance under scrutiny. Having drawn on the work of the founding fathers of soc iology Marx, Durkheim, Weber he felt no ideological commitment to these concepts, but instead felt free to move between discourses to better understand (Robbins, 2005 20). Thus the concept of habit and/ or habitus that had been a staple concept in western social thought, (Camic, 2000 355) which Bourdieu sought to revive as part of his search for concepts which would aid our understanding of the limits to individual action. Keyes argues that Bourdieus use of habitus is as a Weberian ideal type (2002 239), I argue that his use of capital and the field are as similar ideal types. His concept of capital may have been weakened, as Ben Fine argues, by academias subsequent stretching (Burkett, 2004 238), however this weakening occurred after his death, and so should not reflect negatively on the usefulness of the concept. Indeed, it is this flexibility that renders it an appropriate tool. Finally, his notion of the field is useful when considering the differentiated affects of power Bour dieu remains good to think with (Nash, 1999 185).BibliographyBourdieu, Pierre (1990) The Logic of Practice, Cambridge Polity Press.Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) The forms of Capital, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Richardson, J (Ed.), London Greenwood Press, pp241-258.Burkett, Paul (2001) Book Review Social Capital versus Social Theory Political miserliness and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium by Ben Fine, London Routledge, Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-246.Camic, Charles (2000) The field of study of Habit, Pierre Bourdieu Volume One, Robbins, Derek (Ed.), London Sage, pp. 323-366.Coates, D (1990) Traditions of Social Thought, Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity, Anderson, J Ricci, M (Eds.), Milton Keynes Open University Press.Keyes, Charles F. (2002) Weber and Anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 31, pp. 233-255.McNay, Lois (1999) Gender, Habitus and the Field Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity, Theory, assimilation and fellowship, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95-117.Moi, Toril (20001991) Appropriating Bourdieu Feminist Theory and Pierre Bourdieus Sociology of Culture, Pierre Bourdieu Volume IV, Robbins, Derek (Ed.), London Sage, pp. 314-341.Nash, Roy (1999) Bourdieu, Habitus, and educational Research Is it all Worth the Candle?, British journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 175-187.Peillon, Michel (1998) Bourdieus Field and the Sociology of offbeat, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 213-229.Putnam, Robert (1995) Bowling Alone Americas Declining Social Capital, An Interview with Robert Putnam in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.Robbins, Derek (2005) The Origins, Early Development and Status of Bourdieus Concept of Cultural Capital, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 13-30.Russell, Andrew (2005) Political Parties as Vehicles of Political Engagement, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 555-569.Shilling, Chris (199 7) Emotions, Embodiment and the Sensation of Society, The Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 195-219.Walters, William (2002) Social Capital and Political Sociology Re-imagining Politics? Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 377-397.Footnotes1 New York, N.Y. Simon Schuster.