This essay used the theory of pierre bourdieu, in another words, it is analy the boureieu’s champ and habitus theory: Lois McNay. (1999). Gender, Habitus and the Field:Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(2), 1 95-117.
Acquisition of ordinary people in everyday life, the survival of the different state of mind. And every ordinary person in accordance with social norms and expectations in this class for their way of life, and to further clarify the differences between classes, thus the reproduction of social structure.
Lois mcnay research this theory, and found the limit of the habitus and the champs. First of all, is bourdieu’s theory belong to the strcturelism? Because Structure theory is that people only see the outside of social norms, rather than explain how the internalization of these norms on others.
Bourdieu is emphasized that “unknowingly” process. habitus is not the result of rational calculation, but long-term environment in a certain life to develop a state of mind. Bourdieu often cited example is that of the working class can never understand the meaning of luxury, that it is a waste of money. He said that people always think they chose their favorite things, in fact, but that is because they just like what they have. This fragment of a single intercept term, Bourdieu has a little bit like Marx and Gramsci. Both stressed the ideological indoctrination to be the ruling class can not be aware of their true interests lie, so we need organic intellectual to help you realize this, but once people can see their class position, like the back of the problem solved . Bourdieu is clearly not agree with this view. One reason, not an independent social life outside of class consciousness, the so-called organic intellectual inspiration, but wishful thinking intellectuals imposed. History has proven that trying to “wake up” sleeping in the ruling class “phantom” in the working class intellectuals who, in the end often expose the illusion after another illusion only to you only. Secondly, the way people divide social class itself is a product of social stratification. Means accepting not resist layer, resistance means recognition of the social stratification of the rules of the game, the former can be seen as a solid social structure, which in turn are often struggling to reproduce the social structure itself.
Interesting part is that, Bourdieu and very action-strategy. From here, I want to ask, at the beginning he want to say people are their own structure for this limitation is not knowing it? Since the structure is simply not aware of the restrictions, how could the location according to their own set of action strategies? In short, the strategy should be a rational calculation of results, and rational understanding of the structure should be calculated based on the basis of the two is how it leans a go? Bourdieu’s answer is based on practice given the urgency. The “practice” theory and rational choice theory is not the same, the latter that will help people make their behavior because they know in advance their own interests and make a precise calculation, while the former is to be noted is that people under a state in a long life is naturally familiar with the rules of the game, if not through rational calculation, but also to make the right judgments. Such a good tennis player to see the ball over the natural know where to go to how swing, rather than by physical method to calculate the ball and then make a decision.
Here we see naturally ask, if this individual through the practice of adjusting operational strategies that can ultimately change the social structure? Bourdieu probably would reply: First, there are struggles with Field and Field existence of both go hand in hand. They also complement each other not only not contradictory. Must be someone to play the game, rules can be reflected. If there is no resistance, the rule of no value. Second, field, and system is not the same, is dynamic (so Bourdieu Field refused to define), each of which has its own Field rules and people should be involved in the game to pursue the goal. But these people challenged the legality of the rules, there will be any time, the definition of the target itself, but also a struggle. Here we find out that Bourdieu is a struggle on two levels in terms of strategy. The first is the struggle within the rules , such as mechanisms of social mobility in those very perfect state, the underclass in the education of children generally do not do a lot of investment, not because they did not culture but because they know that reading the book is useless, so the money will likely be rewarded in some other projects on top. The second is the struggle for the rule, such as France’s only academic philosophers in the original rules, empirical research by sociologists as “vulgar” things, sociologists and philosophers the struggle can be seen as the struggle against rules of the game. Bourdieu then the struggle is also obtained by this position. He is one of the game itself has a good sense of people practice.