Bourdieu’s Habitus, Capital and Field: Understanding the Relationship between Individuals and Their Social Environment
1. Introduction
In recent years, the work of Pierre Bourdieu has become increasingly influential in a number of different disciplines. In particular, his concepts of habitus, capital and field have been widely used in the fields of sociology, anthropology, education and cultural studies.
In this essay, I will firstly provide a brief overview of Bourdieu’s work. I will then go on to discuss his concepts of habitus, capital and field in more depth. I will argue that these concepts are useful in understanding the relationship between individuals and their social environment.
2. Bourdieu’s Notion of Habitus, Capital and Field
Pierre Bourdieu was a French sociologist who was born in 1930. He is best known for his work on the relationship between individuals and their social environment. In particular, he was interested in how social structures shape the lives of individuals.
Bourdieu’s work is underpinned by two main ideas: firstly, that individuals are shaped by their social environment; and secondly, that there is a relationship between individuals and their social environment. These two ideas are reflected in his concepts of habitus, capital and field.
3. Bourdieu’s Concept of Habitus
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is concerned with the ways in which individuals are shaped by their social environment. It is a concept that bridges the explanatory gap that exists between the extreme arguments regarding objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivism suggests that individuals are controlled by their social environment, while subjectivism suggests that individuals are free from the constraints of their social environment. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides a middle ground between these two extremes.
The concept of habitus according to Jenkins (1992) is “a system of durable, transposable dispositions which generate practices and representations” (p. 144). In other words, habitus refers to the ways in which individuals are shaped by their social environment. The concept of habitus is helpful in understanding how individuals interact with their social environment because it takes into account both the constraints imposed by social structures and the agency of individuals.
Bourdieu suggests that habitus is acquired through socialisation. This process begins in childhood and continues throughout our lives. It is through socialisation that we learn the norms and values of our society and internalise them as our own. We learn how to behave in certain situations and how to respond to certain stimuli. This process is not conscious; we are not aware that we are internalising the norms and values of our society. Socialisation is an unconscious process whereby we internalise the dominant culture without being aware of it (Bourdieu, 1977).
The concept of habitus has been criticised for its determinism; some have argued that it implies that individuals have no control over their behaviour (Jenkins, 1992). However, it should be noted that Bourdieu does not see habitus as determinative; rather, he sees it as constitutive (Jenkins, 1992). This means that while our behaviour may be shaped by our social environment, we also have agency; we can choose to act in certain ways or to rebel against the norms and values of our society.
4. Bourdieu’s Theory of Capital
Bourdieu’s theory of capital is concerned with the ways in which social structures shape the lives of individuals. He suggests that there are three main types of capital: economic, social and cultural.
Economic capital refers to money and other financial assets. Social capital refers to the networks of relationships that we have with other people. Cultural capital refers to the education and other cultural resources that we have at our disposal.
Bourdieu argues that economic, social and cultural capital are all forms of power. They are unequal because some people have more of these resources than others. This unequal distribution of resources results in social inequality.
Those who have more economic, social or cultural capital than others have greater power and influence in society. They are able to use their resources to further their own interests, at the expense of those who have less capital.
Bourdieu’s theory of capital is helpful in understanding the relationship between individuals and their social environment because it highlights the ways in which social structures shape our lives. It also highlights the ways in which we can use our resources to further our own interests.
5. Bourdieu’s Theory of Fields
Bourdieu’s theory of fields is concerned with the way in which social relations are organised. He suggests that there are two main types of fields: economic and cultural.
Economic fields are characterised by competition; they are places where people compete for scarce resources. Cultural fields are characterised by cooperation; they are places where people work together to create something new.
The relationship between individuals and their social environment is shaped by the type of field in which they interact. In economic fields, individuals are typically motivated by self-interest; they want to maximise their own gain and minimise their own losses. In cultural fields, individuals are typically motivated by a shared goal; they want to create something new that will benefit everyone involved.
Bourdieu’s theory of fields is helpful in understanding the relationship between individuals and their social environment because it highlights the different ways in which people interact with each other. It also highlights the different goals that people have in different types of social interactions.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, capital and field are useful in understanding the relationship between individuals and their social environment. They highlight the ways in which social structures shape our lives and the ways in which we can use our resources to further our own interests.