Habitus (Capital) + Field = Practice

The ideology of Pierre Bourdieu can be summarized into three factors: habitus, field and capital. Among these, capital is said to be the primary factor. It is capital that dictates one’s participation in a field, depending on the form and amount of capital one has. However, the manner in which one makes use of his/her capital is based on one’s habitus. Each field is formed by a collective habitus generally shared by individuals within the field. The relationship of habitus, field and capital forms the practice of an individual who acts as an agent in a society.

As a social being, proliferation of fields becomes a usual tendency (Calhoun, 1995:139) in concurrence to the development and strengthening of its structures. Since ones participation in a field depends on his/her capital, those with the most capital become more influential than the others. Having more economic capital enables them to accumulate other forms of capital that in turn enlarges further their economic capital. Also, developing other forms of capital (i.e. cultural and social) can create or can be transformed to economic capital.

In order to maintain growth and accumulation of capital, the ruling class uses the structures of the fields referred to by Louis Althusser as the Ideological State Apparatus (1971:133), which includes the media, church, education, family, etc. This apparatus encourages fantasy production and forms of symbolic violence in order to shape ones habitus. These fantasies serve as the protection of the status quo to cover up violations brought about by the accumulation of capital. With this, they were able to maintain and assert their hegemony by creating illusions that these violations are not act of symbolic violence but merely fulfillment of their legitimate task (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1994:13) or what Vincenzo Gioberti called as “hegemonic duty” (in Lester, 2000:15). The ruling class creates imagination into reality giving them control over the habitus and in the perception and understanding of the people, thus, creating what Antonio Gramsci called as “false consciousness”. This paves way to “contradictory consciousness” (Gramsci in Lester, 2000:72) wherein one’s thought can be differentiated from ones action.

Although it is said that the accumulation of capital is the main reason for the practice of capitalist, we must also consider their habitus, which is the basis of its capital. According to Michael Payne (1997:36), institution such as education is being used to disseminate standards of conduct of capitalist in order to further enlarge the “means of production. Therefore, the capitalist tendency of imposing its hegemony is also based from its own habitus.

However, it does not mean that everyone yields to the hegemony and believes in the imagination and fantasy of the ruling class. There are people who base their understanding on their personal experiences and interest (Tadiar, 2004:67). Hence, practice or the theory of practice, aside from maintaining the current social system can in turn, changes it. In my opinion, the hegemony of the ruling class not only maintains their domination but in effect shows their suppression of those people who are critical of their ruling. It is thru their use of symbolic violence and other forms of suppression that engenders the formation of critical mass movements and encourages new views and thinking among the people.

In other words, the theory of practice cannot be fully understood by finding out which among the habitus, field and capital is more primary. There will always be a “network of dependencies” (Bourdieu, 1995:11) of each factor. Likewise, the relationship of the objective condition and the subjective contradicts those who claim the determinist tendency of the theory of practice. In my understanding, subjective in this context referred to ones free will or autonomy. I think that the theory of practice recognizes one’s autonomy. Furthermore, it sheds light on how it is developed in a person thru his/her habitus and how it is reflected objectively by capital.

References:

Althusser, Louis (1971). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press

Bourdieu, Pierre (1995). Free Exchange. California: Stanford University Press

Calhoun, Craig (1995). Critical Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Lester, Jeremy (2000). Dialogue of Negation. London: Pheto Press

Payne, Michael (1997). Reading Knowledge: An Introduction to Barthes, Foucault and Althusser. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Tadiar, Neferti Xina (2004). Fantasy Production. Q.C.: Ateneo de Manila University Press