Phil-- For Wertsch the unit is
"individual-operating-with-mediational-means" IN A CONTEXT (PERHAPS
CULTURAL CONTEXT).
The addition is essential or you have no unit larger than an action, no
"larger" set of constraints.
mike
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Phil Chappell wrote:
> Nancy,
> My simple solution to that is to view the mediating tool - habitus - in
> a similar role as Mike has (maybe inadvertently) introduced
> mathematical modelling - the task is impossible without either the
> agent or the tool (the mediational means). To use Jim Wertch's work
> again tonight, the irreducible unit is
> "individual-operating-with-mediational-means"... which attracts its own
> criticisms!
>
> Phil
> On Jun 4, 2004, at 9:19 PM, Ares, Nancy wrote:
>
> >
> > I appreciate the question about habitus and cultural practices or
> > cultural repertoires. It is helping me think about something that has
> > been
> > nagging at me through this discussion -- units of analysis. Habitus, as
> > defined by numerous sources people have cited in this discussion, is
> > very
> > much an individual construction. When we start to invoke cultural
> > practices
> > and repertoires, we are nodding to work that focuses more on groups and
> > activity at that level. I guess one of the things that has drawn me to
> > sociocultural, cultural historical theories is the explicit
> > recognition of
> > people-in-activity and the important frameworks available for thinking
> > about/understanding culture, change, and difference across groups in
> > productive ways. How do others think about units of analysis around
> > these
> > constructs? Why does the focus seem to move to individuals so readily?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Nancy
> >
> >
> >> From: Steve Gabosch
> >> Reply To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Sent: Friday, June 4, 2004 5:56 AM
> >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: Re: another view of Panofsky: what is "habitus"?
> >>
> >> Thanks so much for this discussion of habitus, great posts and
> >> references,
> >> all very helpful. The definition below from
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus does not include the aspect of
> >> class
> >> that Andy emphasizes nor some of the other points made, but it offers
> >> other interesting angles to think about. (Maria, your discussion of
> >> Aquinas was especially helpful, much appreciated).
> >>
> >> Phil's term "embodied subjectivities" is a very interesting term to
> >> bring
> >> up. It seems like it captures important aspects of the terms Dan
> >> discussed of Jacob von Uexull's, Umwelt (for all animals) and
> >> Lebenswelt
> >> (for people), referring to the world-as-lived of the individual,
> >> which, as
> >> Dan explained, for a person, includes their "cultural constructions."
> >> I
> >> wonder - could the term "habitus" be substituted for "cultural
> >> constructions" in that previous sentence? What meaning is changed if
> >> we
> >> say instead Lebenswelt refers to the world-as-lived of an individual,
> >> which includes their "habitus" (instead of "cultural constructions")?
> >>
> >> Another question: how do the terms "cultural practice" and "cultural
> >> repertoire" (Gutierrez, Rogoff) compare with the concept of "habitus"
> >> - to
> >> what extent can one have more than one "habitus" at their disposal?
> >>
> >> - Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> [The following is from the Wikepedia Encyclopedia:]
> >> In post-structuralist thought, habitus, a concept defined by Pierre
> >> Bourdieu, refers to the total ideational environment of a person. This
> >> includes the person's beliefs and dispositions, and prefigures
> >> everything
> >> that that person may choose to do. The concept of habitus challenges
> >> the
> >> concept of free will, in that within a certain habitus at any one
> >> time,
> >> choices are not limitless?here are limited dispositions, or
> >> readinesses
> >> for action. A person is not an automaton, for there exists
> >> flexibility in
> >> a habitus, but neither is there complete free will.
> >>
> >> A large part of the concept of habitus is that it brings attention to
> >> the
> >> fact that there are limitless options for action that a person would
> >> never
> >> think of, and therefore those options don't really exist as
> >> possibilities.
> >> In normal social situations, a person relies upon a large store of
> >> scripts
> >> and a large store of knowledge, which present that person with a
> >> certain
> >> picture of the world and how she or he thinks to behave within it.
> >>
> >> A person's habitus cannot be fully known to the person, as it exists
> >> largely within the realm of the unconscious and includes things as
> >> visceral as body movements and postures, and it also includes the most
> >> basic aspects of thought and knowledge about the world, including
> >> about
> >> the habitus itself.
> >>
> >> [This Wikepedia entry includes a "discussion" tab with this comment:]
> >> This particular nuance of the usage for the term may be recent, but
> >> the
> >> term is common in Thomas Aquinas and may, for all I know about the
> >> history
> >> of philosophy, be all over the place much earlier. I am fairly sure
> >> that
> >> Aquinas's usage is a Latin translation (all the word literally means
> >> is
> >> "habit") from an Aristotelian term from the ethical works. --Michael
> >> Tinkler
> >>
> >> <end>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:57 PST