Pierre Bourdieu: Habitus, Capital and Field Essay Example

habits and customs include most aspects of a person’s daily life, including speech and movement. Bourdieu was influenced by the work of these great and influential sociologists, however he developed his own theory that was different and arguably more developed than the other theories.

Bourdieu classifies habitus as the dispositions an individual acquires in response to structures such as their family, class and the education they receive, and other conditions they encounter. He defines habitus as a "system of acquired dispositions functioning on the practical level as categories of perception and assessment or as classificatory principles as well as being the organizing principles of action" (1990, p. 13). It is the way people view the world and act in society based on the events they experience and their encounters in society.

Individuals have no control over the matter; the culture and society we live in affects us and plays a major role in defining who we are. This means that habitus, the way we view and interpret the world is hugely affected by the society and culture around us, and by our class, gender, race, religious and political views, amongst others. As such, no person is ever totally individual and ‘free’; habitus influences every person to an enormous degree, and many people are never even aware of it. As such, habitus is neither completely voluntary nor completely involuntary.

Habitus enables the individual to navigate their way in society and guides them in their choices, without ever being a strict set of rules to abide by. Capital Capital, in sociological terms, is described as the assets an individual, group or society has in terms of economic wealth or possessions,

or other assets that put the holder in a better position in society. Capital is inherited from the past and continuously created. Bourdieu largely distinguished between three different types of capital; cultural capital, economic capital and social capital.

Bourdieu’s theory of capital played a prominent role in his work, and was developed continuously throughout his long career. Capital is an important concept as it helps to explain the difference in social status throughout the world, and how this inequality is repeatedly passed on and inherited. Cultural capital, to begin with, is a concept unique to Bourdieu. He first used the term in ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’ in 1973 and since then, has become one of his landmark concepts.

Cultural capital is the cultural aspects that give a person a higher status in society; this can be in the form of education, taste, knowledge, skills, etc. The cultural habits and dispositions inherited from family are an individual’s cultural capital; the education they receive and the culture they are brought up in provides them with cultural capital. Bourdieu maintained that cultural capital was an extremely important type of capital, and cultural capital was important capable of giving an individual a much higher status in society. Bourdieu argues that cultural capital exists in three forms; in its embodied state, which refers o the cultural capital that is inherited and developed over time, through socialisation and family upbringing. It is not transferable to others. Cultural capital also exists in its objectified state, which refers to material objects which are owned; cultural goods such as valuable heirlooms or works of art that provide cultural capital but can also be sold for

economic profit. Cultural capital also exists in the form of institutionalized capital, which is defined as institutional recognition, which is often in the form of academic qualifications.

This form of cultural capital also can be used for economic gain, as an individual with high institutionalized cultural capital is able to obtain better employment in the labour market and therefore have higher economic gain than others. Economic capital, however, refers quite simply to material assets and an individual’s monetary value. It is their overall assets and worth minus liabilities and debt. Economic capital provides an individual with a better position in society as material wealth gives an individual a better quality of life, and affords them more luxuries than people with lower economic capital.

Thus, economic capital is based solely on a person’s material worth and their possessions. Economic capital is important, Bourdieu states, as it has a direct link to the other types of capital. For example, wealthy parents can afford to provide their children with an expensive education, thus providing them with cultural capital. The types of capital are independent to each other; however they all have their roots in economic capital. As stated by John C. Smart (2009, p. 156) Bourdieu understands the power of economic capital, and for him, the group with the higher economic capital constitutes the dominant class.

However, he maintains that the other types of capital are very important also. Social capital is a completely different form of capital to economic and cultural. It is the resources available to an individual based on group membership, relationships, networks of influence and support. Social connections are a powerful form of capital, as connections can

provide a person with better employment or other benefits, based on knowing the right people. Thus, this is directly related to economic capital also, as for example, social capital can provide better economic capital through acquisition of a better job that provides greater monetary value.

Field Field is a term that was coined by Bourdieu himself, and is one of his core concepts. Bourdieu investigated the connection between people’s practises and the context in which these practises occur. This led him to his concept of field. Deborah Reed-Danahay says of field (2005, p. 134) ‘Bourdieu viewed the field as a concept that was relational rather than ‘substantialist’ – by which he meant an approach that seeks substances or essences in individuals or groups, and which foregrounds the individual’. A field is defined as a setting in which agents (a person engaging in a social structure) and their social positions are located.

A field is a structured social space that is independent and has its own set of rules. Instead of viewing society in terms of economic classes and ideologies, Bourdieu considers the role of educational and cultural factors also. Modern society has many fields; Bourdieu sees everyday life as consisting of many different fields. Amongst these are politics, education and law. It is the site of struggle for power between the dominant and subordinate classes. Bourdieu described the field as a space in which a game took place, between people who are competing for the same thing; the acquisition of capital.

A person’s position in a particular field is also dependent on their own capital, and on their habitus. As stated by Michael Grenfell (2004, p. 172) ‘All

those active within the field share a resonant habitus; in fact, the field chooses the habitus as much as the habitus chooses the field’. Thus, social life, Bourdieu believes, is a series of games, and how successful you are in those games depends on the advantages you have over others; your habitus and capital. The dominant class in each field varies, but what it consistent in each is the struggle for capital, and the struggle for dominance.

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, capital and field are hugely important in explaining social inequality, and how it is passed on throughout the generations. Bourdieu clearly outlines how our upbringing, family and culture influence us and help define us, and how this is all beyond our control. Bourdieu’s concepts show how we continue to live in a highly stratified, unequal, class based society. It is not intentional, but unavoidable, and still highly apparent in everyday society. Society works to keep the upper classes powerful, and the lower classes powerless.

Bourdieu’s work gives a clear insight into how class and status are reproduced and handed down in society to certain people only. For example, education is something that is intended to help people and provide them with a better future. Everyone has the right to receive an education, and it is no longer viewed as a luxury. However, as stated by David Swartz (1997, p. 190) wealth, income and status are still highly important in how superior an education a person receives, despite the vast improvement in education provided over the past number of years.

Bourdieu proves that education actually highlights social inequality, as wealthier people with high capital can afford to provide

their children and themselves with a higher level of education than people with lower capital. Thus, successful people have large amounts of the right kind of capital for the fields they are in, and they pass this on to their children, as well as providing the children’s habitus. Unsuccessful people pass on their worthless capital, and provide their children with a different kind of habitus. Thus, the cycle of inequality continues; the winners keep winning, and the losers keep losing.

Bourdieu’s work helps highlight and explain social inequality, how it happens and is continuously repeated, and why. This is one of the many reasons why Bourdieu’s work is considered groundbreaking. Pierre Bourdieu is still today remembered as being a vastly important sociologist and his contributions to sociology are numerous. His concepts of habitus, capital and field, as outlined above, are three groundbreaking concepts that give us a greater view on society and how it operates. Social inequality is one of the most prevalent problems in today’s society, and has been present throughout history.

Bourdieu’s work helps explain it, how it is formed and continuously passed on. This is enormously important as anything that can help explain social inequality, can help find a way of stopping it and making society more equal. Bourdieu has a compelling legacy, and today his work is still frequently cited, and appreciated for its enormous contributions to sociology, as well as other subjects. He is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest sociologists in modern times and his work will forever be remembered as innovative, highly influential and groundbreaking.

Bibliography Bourdieu, Pierre ‘In other words; Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology’ (Stanford University Press, 1990). * Fowler,

Bridget ‘Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations’ (Sage, 1997). * Grenfell, Michael ‘Pierre Bourdieu, Agent Provocateur’ (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004). * Reed-Danahay, Deborah ‘Locating Bourdieu: New Anthropologies of Europe’ (Indiana University Press, 2005). * Smart, John C ‘Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2009) * Swartz, David ‘Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’ (University Of Chicago Press, 1997).