Re: [xmca] habitus and need

Thanks Geoff and others for the clarification of "use" and "need" (both of
which, it appears, warrant discussion).

For various reasons I am reading Dewey, *The Public and its Problems*. The
following passage, perhaps sensitize too also by Derek's recent posts,
caught my eye and seems relevant to this discussion:

"Conjoint, combined associated action is a universal trait of the behavior
of things. Such action has results. Some of the results of human collective
action
are perceived, that is, they are noted in such ways that they are taken
account of. Then there arise purposes, plans, measures and means, to secure
consequences which are liked and eliminate those which are found obnoxious."
(p. 34).

mike
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Geoff <geoffrey.binder@gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul, I don't think Bourdieu pushes habitus far enough. To limit social
> action to a particular field, plays down the *transposable *possibilities
> of
> habitus. Bourdieu has an unfortunate economic bias in his idea of cultural
> capital. He suggests that activity within the field is mediated by CC. I
> think there is a great deal that goes on that is not about exchanges
> deployed vis a vis status. I'd suggest that habitus provides us with a
> number of strategies that we deploy depending on the situation at hand.
> Moreover, habitus, as our pre-conscious dispositions, attunes us to
> particular events and acts like a spring-board from which agency may leap.
> If my habitus is threatened, like loosing my job, I'll vigorously defend it
> IF my habitus includes the *practice *of unionism. If not, I may get
> dejected and accept the bosses 'right' to sack me.
>
> Again I'll invoke the word use. It seems to me that the use of habitus is
> to free us up for action. As the acquisition of habitus has value, it is
> worth defending and extending. Our practices define what we deem worthy of
> defense and what we pursue.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> 2008/12/19 Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >
> > Geoff,
> >
> > I'm wondering about your use of Bourdieu's concept of
> > "habitus". You write: " If motive is useful (pardon the pun) it is to
> > alert us to the fact that our habitus predisposes us to act and
> > react
> > in particular ways.' As I understand this concept if doesn't
> > predispose us to "act and react", rather the habitus provides
> > structures that simultaneously enable SOCIAL ACTION and constrain it.
> > Bourdieu's critique of the Mauss through Levi-Strauss use of
> > "reciprocity" reveals this most clearly (ch.1, Outline of a Theory of
> > Practice). Whereas for M & L-S reciprocity was something of an
> > automatic process, Bourdieu argued that it defined a specific field of
> > strategic, calculating action . . . when to return the gift? where to
> > return the gift? these dimensions, played out within the habitus that
> > "reciprocity" defined in many cultures, cannot be reduced to a blind
> > predisposition to act and react.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > i suppose most people felt a need to find some text in the previous
> message/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey Binder
> BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
> PhD Candidate
> Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
> Ph B. 9925 9951
> M. 0422 968 567
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Dec 19 15:23:16 2008