From: "Pam Stello" <stello-AT-socrates.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: a bit of everything plus a question - is habitus reproduced mimetically?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:12:23 -0700


to add to my response to Iva's question. To understand the habitus, it seems
to me important to historicize the development of what I believe are
commoditization processes in a market vs. state economy and to historicize
through on concrete example because i do not believe these are "universal"
processes in terms of how they work on the ground, nor over time. One could
I think begin to look at the production of the habitus in one deeply
historicized ethnographic example and/or in a market vs. state economy to
begin to show the political-economic processes at work. I'm curious what
others think of Iva's question and questions of method in addressing habitus
because knowledge and method are so deeply interrelated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Stello" <stello-AT-socrates.berkeley.edu>
To: <bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: a bit of everything plus a question - is habitus reproduced
mimetically?


> responding again to Iva's question re: habitus, perhaps we could begin a
> group discussion about habitus. First, what is Bourdieu's thinnest book?
> Perhaps we could use it as a basis to discuss habitus. Is it "On
> Television"? I'm not sure where to begin with this myself though Iva's
> question seems to me to get at the heart of the question of agency in
> Bourdieu's work. Do others agree?
>
> > could anyone explain in greater detail the mechanism
> > through which a person acquires a specific habitus?
>
> Bourdieu's writes that "...practice is the product of the habitus which is
> itself the product of the embodiment of the immanent regularities and
> tendancies of the world..." (1992: 138). As children agents come to embody
> the structures of the social system through day-to-day practices in the
> family. These experiences become sedimented structures. "Early experiences
> have particular weight because the habitus tends to ensure its own
> consistency...by rejecting information capable of calling into question
its
> accumulated information..." (1984: 60-61). My reading is that the process
> through which one acquires a habitus is not a conflictual process.
Further,
> habitus is experienced unconsciously. When I read Bourdieu's work on the
> habitus the questions that come up for me are how did the habitus as he
> describes it come about historically? Why is there seeminly no agency in
his
> account? Or is there?
>
> > is it fair to say bourdieu talks of a certain kind of
> > mimesis?
> I think Bourdieu is talking about a kind of mimesis. And he does present
us
> with a
> corporeal model of knowledge. The point that interests me is Iva's quote:
> "'What is learned by body is not something that one has...but something
that
> one is.'" The process of acquision of the habitus Bourdieu describes as
> universal is a historical process of commoditization. I think about this
in
> relation to "genius." Though no modern identity category works in
isolation
> of all other categories, just to offer a simplified example: At the start
of
> the eighteenth century genius meant talents all or most individuals could
> have for a moment. By the end of the eighteenth century, genius was no
> longer a moment of inspiration. It became something a man could be, and
> apart from environment and history. This is a process of commoditization.
I
> think that Bourdieu's work on the habitus habitus describes a historically
> produced, political economic phenomenon, a part of the process of
> commoditization. I would be interested to know if others agree and what
> others think about how processes of commoditization work. In Iva's quote
> below. I think again that she is describing commoditization:
>
> in developing new pedagogies of gender and
> > race, the politicisation and contexualisation of
> > knowledge is consistently obstructed by the intense
> > individualisation typical of liberal academic
> > institutions. so whereas on an individual level the
> > histories of previously 'marginalised peoples are now
> > 'legitimate objects of study...this legitimation takes
> > place at an attitudinal, interpersonal level rather
> > than in terms of a fundamental challenge to hegemonic
> > knowledge and...> instead of changing the field, the potential political
> > significance of new types of knowledge is disabled
> > through their entry into a pre-established field. what
> > you end up is a form of conflict resolution - before
> > the conflict.
>
>
>
>
> > could anyone explain in greater detail the mechanism
> > through which a person acquires a specific habitus?
> >
> > in pascalian meditations bourdieu criticises sartre's
> > description of a waiter 'playing at being a waiter',
> > i.e consciously adopting a role in attempt to perform
> > his job while all the time maintaining the capacity to
> > free himself of the role. he writes:
> >
> > 'This does not mean he [the waiter] has learned to be
> > the waiter by imitatimg waiters, constituted as
> > explicit models. He enters into the character of the
> > waiter not as an actor playing a part, but rather as a
> > child imitates his father and, without even needing to
> > 'pretend', adopts a way of using the mouth when
> > talking or swinging his shoulders when walking which
> > seems to him constitutive of the social being of the
> > accopmlished adult.' (Pascalian Meditations, Polity
> > Press, Cambridge: 2000, p.154)
> >
> > is it fair to say bourdieu talks of a certain kind of
> > mimesis? could anyone point me to more literature on
> > the subject, both in bourdieu and else (especially in
> > relation to frankfurt school)?
> >
> > recently there was a debate on this list about b. in
> > relation to marx: doesn't bourdieu present us with a
> > corporeal model of knowledge ('What is learned by body
> > is not something that one has...but something that one
> > is.'), which cancels both rationalist and
> > functionalist theories of action. in this sense it
> > might be wrong to say he obscures the line between the
> > 'exploiters and the exploited' but rather points to
> > the inadequacy of rationalist emancipatory attempts
> > that aim for a change in consciousness that would
> > automatically also lead to a change in practice. on
> > the other hand, this could also mean that a change in
> > the field can only be effective, if it, in a way,
> > takes hold of the body.
> >
> > for instance (and in relation to whether a change of
> > academic discourse can by itself guarantee a change in
> > the field): in developing new pedagogies of gender and
> > race, the politicisation and contexualisation of
> > knowledge is consistently obstructed by the intense
> > individualisation typical of liberal academic
> > institutions. so whereas on an individual level the
> > histories of previously 'marginalised peoples are now
> > 'legitimate objects of study...this legitimation takes
> > place at an attitudinal, interpersonal level rather
> > than in terms of a fundamental challenge to hegemonic
> > knowledge and history'(Chandra Talpade Mohanty, 'On
> > Race and Voice: Challenegs for Liberal Education in
> > the 90s' in Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren (eds),
> > Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural
> > Studies, Routledge, New York: 1994, p.154; both
> > McLaren and Giroux are an excellent reference point).
> > instead of changing the field, the potential political
> > significance of new types of knowledge is disabled
> > through their entry into a pre-established field. what
> > you end up is a form of conflict resolution - before
> > the conflict.
> >
> > anyway, i really should stop here. sorry again for
> > this lengthy reply (a result of my being a sadly
> > irregular correspondent) and thank you all for your
> > input, in the past few weeks this list has been very
> > interesting to read indeed.
> >
> > take care
> >
> > iva.
> >
> > ps. why does it matter so much what bourdieu's book
> > you read first? i don't get the impression he was big
> > on beginning and middle and end. start with the thinnest?
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Plus
> > For a better Internet experience
> > http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
> > **********************************************************************
> > Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >
>



**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu