Relationship Between Capital Habitus And Field According To Bourdieu

Introduction

According to Harker, Mahar and Wilkes, (2016), Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) had developed the theory of cultural capital in concordance with Jean-Claude Passeron for the purpose of explaining the observed discrepancies in educational achievements depending on social origins. The emphasis of such academic endeavours has been on demonstration of the perception that social exclusion involves a process in continuation. Bourdieu, according to Wapshott (2017), had specified that social and cultural forms of capital are formulated on the basis of the possession of economic capital though such a factor cannot be considered to be the singular determinant of such a process. The dependence on political capital could effectively obfuscate such a process in terms of reproduction of social hierarchies. To this effect, the corresponding research essay would be delving into exploration of the relationship between capital, habitus and field as this has been propounded by Bourdieu.

Justification

According to Bourdieu, Coleman and Coleman (2019), the production of individual habitus is incumbent on a set of predispositions which could be formulated through combining the three forms of previously mentioned capitals. On the other hand, Huang (2019) has opined that the field is indicative of the arena within which a particular habitus could be either realised or deployed. In this context, Wiegmann (2017) has delineated that, for Bourdieu, the concepts related to capital, habitus and field had become, ultimately, embedded into the structural architecture of Power which explains the method through which social inequality gets reproduced. Primarily, this is part of an extensively complicated theoretical construct which has been outlined by many to be useful in terms of contemporary research processes. However, Warde (2017) has brought forth the opinions of Wacquant (2019) concerning the debate over the measure to which Bourdieu had drawn on the concepts outlined by the founding proponents of Sociology. This is an indication of the existing debate that concepts of Bourdieu are strongly Weberian in their contextual significance. This opinion has been further illustrated by Shimoni (2017) that Bourdieu has strongly drawn upon Durkheim and Marx as well while constructing the fundamental concepts regarding implications and usefulness of capital, field and habitus regarding the contemporary research processes.

Lyke (2017) has outlined that habitus could be considered to be a structural set of preconscious dispositions which encompass senses of self, physical stances and practical mastering (alternatively identified as skills). The habitus is mostly established within the family and, in case of differentiated social conditions, the educational institutions or schools could as well become significant in terms of establishment of the same. According to Friedman (2016), the habitus primarily produces a recognisable behavioural pattern which could reproduce the social agencies which have been accorded to the personnel under consideration. In this context, Reid (2020) has stated that habitus could be translated into differential class based positions. Such class positions are specified through differential forms of capital which could be further translated into observable behavioural aspects.

On the other hand, Ayling (2019) emphasised on the nature of fields to be agonistic social procedures. Kontos (2016) has illustrated on such observations that within such procedures, the social agents have to continuously struggle with each other over stakes which are generally socially defined including profits and prestige. According to Jeon (2019), the numbers of such fields are not particular enough in terms of statistical perspectives. However, the most prominently significant fields could be recognised as economic, political and cultural production related ones. According to McKinnon (2017), the concept of social class, from the theoretical prism favoured by Bourdieu, could be contemplated as differential strata of a social reality which is formulated by multiplicity of such fields. In a similar manner, social actions are also considered by Bourdieu as combination of multiple action fields.

According to Stahl (2016), the final concept of Bourdieu, in terms of Sociology is that of symbolic power. Stempel (2018) has illustrated that such power could be derived from the process of misrecognition of social relations which are formulated through historical contingencies. Such contingencies are, in turn, the outcomes of disruptions in the regulations which govern particular social fields. Dean (2016) compared this with natural order of things. Thus, in the theory of reproduction of social hierarchies of Bourdieu strongly emphasises on the general conceptual scheme of inter-relationships between social capital and social structure (habitus). This scheme of inter-relationships is primarily responsible for the generation of particular social behavioural patterns which could be contextualised in specific social fields. According to Campos and Lima (2017), such contexts could then be socially reproduced in a stable manner. However, it has been observed by Stahl et al (2018) that lay understandings could systematically distort the process which links habitus, field and capital. Thus, the prevalent unequal distribution of symbolic power, in the form of material resources, becomes legitimised and this entails the formulation of social class structures and hierarchies.

Example

The practical example, according to Koch (2018), entails the claim of Bourdieu that habitus could be further understood as a system which encompasses dispositions, appreciations and practical possession of resources which could be fundamentally categorised, in terms of the possessed social agency by particular individuals or groups of individuals, as class positions. This approach is further illustrated by Robbins (2020) to be the product of structure and volume of capital which the social agents could possess. In this context, the practical example could be outlined as the framework of generative mechanism which operates in a particularly analogous manner within a broad contextual variety. This framework shapes an incredible variety of behaviours through diverging class based and cultural traits which further embody the element of tacit knowledge which could enable every social agent to gain social agency and, thus, lateral social mobility. According to Reid (2020), Bourdieu had defined this particular orientation of his theoretical construct as habitus which produces collective as well as individual practices which conform to the historically engaged social schemas. Thus, Bourdieu had unequivocally claimed that a close connection exists between the powerful historical schema and that of class positions gained or accorded to any social agent.

Conclusion

The crux of this study has remain on the determination of the manner through which such a theoretical approach of Bourdieu has influenced the development of prevalent academic comprehension regarding social classes within the concurrent social hierarchies. As a primary and pre-research performance observation, it could be stated that Pierre Bourdieu had become, prior to his death, the quintessential point of reference regarding the various areas of speciality throughout the differential sociological disciplines such as education, culture and social knowledge.

Reference List

• Harker, R., Mahar, C. and Wilkes, C. eds., 2016. An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. Springer.
• Wapshott, R., 2017. Pierre Bourdieu, Organisation, and Management. Personnel Review.
• Bourdieu, P., Coleman, J.S. and Coleman, Z.W., 2019. Social theory for a changing society. Routledge.
• Huang, X., 2019. Understanding Bourdieu-Cultural Capital and Habitus. Rev. Eur. Stud., 11, p.45.
• Wiegmann, W.L., 2017. Habitus, Symbolic Violence, and Reflexivity: Applying Bourdieu's Theories to Social Work. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 44, p.95.
• Joy, S., Game, A.M. and Toshniwal, I.G., 2018. Applying Bourdieu’s capital-field-habitus framework to migrant careers: taking stock and adding a transnational perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp.1-24.
• Warde, A., 2017. Practice and field: Revising Bourdieu’s concepts. In Consumption (pp. 105-126). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
• Wacquant, L., 2019. Bourdieu’s Dyad: On the Primacy of Social Space and Symbolic Power. In Empirical Investigations of Social Space (pp. 15-21). Springer, Cham.
• Shimoni, B., 2017. What is resistance to change? A habitus-oriented approach. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(4), pp.257-270.
• Lyke, A., 2017. Habitus, doxa, and saga: applications of Bourdieu’s theory of practice to organizational history. Management & Organizational History, 12(2), pp.163-173.
• Friedman, S., 2016. Habitus clivé and the emotional imprint of social mobility. The Sociological Review, 64(1), pp.129-147.
• Reid, S., 2020. The generative principles of lifestyle enterprising: dialectic entanglements of capital-habitus-field. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
• Ayling, P., 2019. Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. In Distinction, Exclusivity and Whiteness (pp. 17-29). Springer, Singapore.
• Kontos, P.C., 2016. Habitus: An incomplete account of human agency. The American Journal of Semiotics, 22(1/4), pp.69-85.
• Jeon, J., 2019. Rethinking Scientific Habitus: Toward a Theory of Embodiment, Institutions, and Stratification of Science. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 5, pp.160-172.
• McKinnon, A., 2017. Religion and social class: Theory and method after Bourdieu. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), pp.1-13.
• Stahl, G., 2016. Doing Bourdieu justice: thinking with and beyond Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(7), pp.1091-1103.
• Stempel, C., 2018. Sport, Social Class, and Cultural Capital: Building on Bourdieu and His Critics.
• Dean, J., 2016. Class diversity and youth volunteering in the United Kingdom: Applying Bourdieu’s habitus and cultural capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl), pp.95S-113S.
• Campos, P.H.F. and Lima, R.D.C.P., 2017. Social positions and groups: new approximations between Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology and social representation theory. Culture & Psychology, 23(1), pp.38-51.
• Stahl, G., Wallace, D., Burke, C. and Threadgold, S. eds., 2018. International Perspectives on Theorizing Aspirations: Applying Bourdieu’s Tools. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Koch, M., 2018. The naturalisation of growth: Marx, the regulation approach and Bourdieu. Environmental Values, 27(1), pp.9-27.
• Robbins, D., 2020. The work of Pierre Bourdieu: recognizing society. Routledge.