Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the 6 classmate’s discussion post below:
Michael Almand:
On Page 422, we read that habitus is a structured structure that structures how one views and acts in the world. That’s a lot to unpack. On page 420, we read that through habitus one acquires their “sense of place in the world” or their point of view from which one is able to interpret one’s own actions as well as the actions of others. So, habitus is engrained in one throughout life, especially childhood years and it structures our experience of and orientation to the social world. So, I was raised in a working-class home in the southern US in the 1970s, yes, I am probably older than most of you guys. Some of my unconscious habits and perceptions might be a southern accent, I worked a union job for 30 years, so my gait is a little off from manual labor(embodied). I own a vinyl record collection and a guitar collection and a home in Georgia. So, I think these things are culture capital (objectified). My institutional capital may lie in my 2ndcareer as a social worker and student of sociology. That doesn’t really seem to fit my habitus. My question then is, “how does my institutional cultural capital align with my habitus or if it doesn’t what does that mean? I know our habitus is malleable and can change over time and mine may have changed as I have more financial freedom but not sure.
Mairead Fennelley:
This week the reading on Bourdieu were both confusing and interesting. Concepts like habitus and capital were very heavy for me, but I think I slowly am getting the whole thing. My understanding is that habitus is something like a system of instincts or habits that we constantly carry around which are created by our upbringing, our school, and our surroundings. It goes beyond conduct to encompass our worldview, what seems to be “normal” to us, and even our manner of presentation in different situations. He claims that what appears to be individual preference (the way we talk, dress, or even what we do in our spare time) is actually closely related to social class and background. I have never considered taste or conduct so much related to power and social inequality before.
Bourdieu's concept of capital is not limited to money only; he includes various forms of capital. He refers to education, an acquaintance with the "right" way to convey one's thoughts, or having contacts as the advantages that people get and particularly in schools or workplaces. He argues that schools reward the kind of cultural capital that middle and upper-class kids already have, while working-class students are left behind, even if they work just as hard. That part made sense to me, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around how all these pieces actually work together in real life. It’s a lot to take in. Has anyone else struggled with this? I’d really appreciate an everyday example of someone’s habitus clashing with a new environment or institution. I feel like that would help me fully connect the dots.
Meghan Wright:
Bourdieu's poststructuralist views on art and class remind me of the program Antiques Roadshow. On the show experts evaluate and appraise a variety of unique and antique items. The items brought forth for evaluation are sometimes inherited, collected, or randomly acquired and fall under the categories of jewelry, furniture, historical artifacts, and art. The experts lend their expertise to the creation and history of the item and appraises an estimated retail value of the item often to the shock and amazement of the "uneducated "owner.
But who really sets the price of the items?
Bourdieu would say that the value of the item is socially constructed with influence from the upper stratified hierarchy who's symbolic power defines the item's cultural legitimacy. The experts serve to reinforce the dominate values through their authority as experts. The entire process of the show feels natural in that "everyday folks" present their stories of how the item came into their possession. The estimated retail value provided by the experts can override the sentimental value which is an example of symbolic violence.
Is this sociological example appropriate and does it fit into Bourdieu's theory? Feel free to comment if I am off base.
Avery Brown:
Bourdieu does a good job of not limiting himself to one viewpoint and discipline. He takes his experience in psychology and anthropology, as well as sociology, to form his notion of habitus. The habitus is central to Bourdieu's work. It is described as a "mental filter" that shapes an individual's perceptions, experiences, and practices. It leads an individual to view the world as taken for granted. The habitus shapes the mind and the body, according to Bourdieu. He emphasizes that the dispositions that one has are acquired, not created. A person's place in social space structures their habitus of a person. On the surface, this concept is simple to understand as it is similar to other ones we have discussed. What I don't understand is what Bourdieu means when he says habitus shapes the body and movements like posture. I don't understand how a person's experiences and dispositions can affect their body in the way Bourdieu says.
Nathan Savage:
Bourdieu's ideas in Outline of a Sociological Theory of Art Perception are very interesting to me. The primary idea that I enjoyed is the way that culture and art interact with each other, depending on class. My question is, what about class allows for the 'higher' class groups to be privileged enough to have more 'culture? Is it due to them being born into it, or is it that, due to their privileged status, they have more spare time to learn how to properly understand and partake in art and culture? I do believe that Bourdieu's writing makes it seem as though there is an expectation for these higher social groups to have an understanding of art that allows them to seemingly assert their status upon the other groups.
Micheal Bailey:
When reading this week's reading on Bourdieu, I was intrigued by what I was reading. I think I'm grasping the connection between all of the different types of capital. I do see what he means when he is making the connection between one's personal tastes and social class. I see how the classes interact with each other. I see how one form of capital can help you gain one of the other forms of capital. Habitus was a new concept for me to grasp. It is the behavior or habits one picks up from interactions with others in a specific social class. There is a difference in how one might act if they grew up working class vs if they grew up upper class. Someone raised in an upper-class environment might lean towards habits associated with refined or "fancy" things.
Meanwhile, someone who is raised in a different class will feel out of place. The more I read, the more I realized that there might be truth to what was being said. It didn't occur to me much that there are things that I really like because those foods, shows, or music, because that's what I was raised being shown. Everything is tied to social media these days. I wonder if there is a form of capital exchange in social media now. Or has the digital realm made new forms of capital?