From: "Hans Despain" <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu>
Date:          Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:42:18 GMT-700
Subject:       Re: "BODY"/practice/social agents


I have a bit of a problem with conflating Giddens and Bourdieu, as 
Sakari Ahola does below.

First I do not know that I understand Bourdieu's notion of habitus.  
This for Bourdieu seems to be an epistemological question with an 
empirical answer.  Giddens' Structuration is an ontological question 
with only a "virtual" existence, and a non-empirical answer.

Bourdieu seems to want to avoid the ontological realm, he does not, 
at least in his *The Logic of Practice*, even address the ontological 
implication of his conception of habitus.

Habitus seems to mean the inculation of human beings in certain social 
circumstances.  Although the 'certain social cirucmstances' is some 
sort of durable social structure, Bourdieu (IMHO) fails to establish 
this ontologically.

Giddens' theory of structation pivots on expliciting sociological 
ontology.  In this sense he is very close to Roy Bhaskar's 
Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA).

Consequently, it seems to me that Giddens and Bhaskar are in better 
position to establish a conception of human agency.  Bourdieu has not 
conceived me that his theory allows for an adequate account of human 
agency.  It seems suspiciously close to a (habitualized) Rational 
Choice theory.


Hans Despain
University of Utah
despain-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu



>>To Diana Ambrozas
>>
>>I don't claim to be an expert on this in any way, but in response to 
>>your equation:
>>
>>PRACTICE= FIELD + HABITUS
>>
>>I think agency comes in through the notion of stratagy.  I am away 
>>from my books (sneaking a few minutes away form my wage laborship), 
>>but when I get home I could try to find a cite.  There has got to be 
>>some one in this group

>>who knows better than I, however.
>>
>>
>>G. Grieve
>
>Actually, the 'formula' (Distinction p. 101) goes like this:
>((habitus) (capital)) + field = practice
>
>So, in order to understand actions you need to know the 'game' the
>capitals at stake and the dispositions of the 'players'. I would like
>to offer a 'giddensian' form for that formula showing some 
>similarities of thought:
>((rules) (resources)) + system = practice
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sakari Ahola              sakaho-AT-sara.utu.fi                RUSE
>University of Turku
>Research Unit for the                         tel. 358-21-6335877
>Sociology of Education                        fax. 358-21-6336524
>Hameenkatu 1, 20500 Turku, Finland
>http://www.utu.fi/erill/RUSE
>------------------------------------------------------------------