Thu, 13 Oct 1994 13:45:23 -0700 for <socgrad@ucsd.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 15:44:42 CDT
From: alina oh <alinaoh@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU
Subject: re:Bourdieu and RCT

Bob -

Now that the key terms of RBourdieuese" have been brought out into the fray,
I sense weUve got some common ground here [for the beginnings of disagreement
: ) ].  

I agree with your starting definition of habitus: that it can be viewed as a
set of internalized dispositions that mediate between social structures
[understood as objective conditions] and practical activity [understood as
inventive performances]; for Bourdieu, the habitus - once learned - leaves
room for strategizing and conscious decision making but is acted out for the
most part without much conscious reflection [like the way tennis players make
their strokes during a match or the way a person manages his/her time]. 
Where I part ways though, is with the argument in favour of a simplified
model of homo economicus. 

The concept of the habitus enables Bourdieu to develop an alternative
conceptual language for behavioral patterns that do not reference explicit
rules or norms, or represent the sum of individual acts -- I find this
missing in most RCT stuff that I ve come across. 

I also agree with your initial definition of field - as it refers to both the
totality of actors and organizations involved in an arena of social or
cultural production and the dynamic relationships among them [e.g. an
"intellectual field"] -  but what seems to be missing from your
interpretation is -- that the field concept also suggests a hierarchically
structured arrangement of social relations within a space according to
certain interests, power relations and hierarchies of value and judgement. 

Alina