One must relate these regularities of the social fields to the practical logic of social agents; their "feel for the game" is a feel for these regularities.
The source of this practical logic is the habitus. "The habitus as the feel for the game", Bourdieu argues, "is the social game embodied and turned into a second nature." (1994d: 63).
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Personal Style
"Personal Style is never more than a deviation in relation to the style of a period or class so that it relates back to the common style not only by its conformity but also by the difference (Bourdieu 1977b:88)
Habitus
Formally, Bourdieu defines habitus as a property of social agents (whether individuals, groups or institutions) that comprises a "structured and structuring structure" (1994d: 170).
It is "structured" by one's past and present circumstances, such as family upbringing and educational experiences.
It is "structuring" in that one's habitus helps to shape one's present and future practices.
It is a "structure" in that it is sysematically ordered rather than random or unpatterned. This "sturcutre" comprises a system of dispositions which generate perceptions, appreciations and practices (1990c:53). The term "disposition" is crucial for brining together these ideas of structure and tendency:
"It expresses first the result of an organizing action, with a meaning close to that of words such as structure; it also designates a way of being, a habitual state (especially of the body) and, in particular, a predisposition, tendency, propensity, or inclination. (1977b: 214).
---
"Unconscious relationship" between a habitus and a field.
[(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice.
Practice results from relations between one's dispositions (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), within the current state of play of that social arena (field).
---
It is "structured" by one's past and present circumstances, such as family upbringing and educational experiences.
It is "structuring" in that one's habitus helps to shape one's present and future practices.
It is a "structure" in that it is sysematically ordered rather than random or unpatterned. This "sturcutre" comprises a system of dispositions which generate perceptions, appreciations and practices (1990c:53). The term "disposition" is crucial for brining together these ideas of structure and tendency:
"It expresses first the result of an organizing action, with a meaning close to that of words such as structure; it also designates a way of being, a habitual state (especially of the body) and, in particular, a predisposition, tendency, propensity, or inclination. (1977b: 214).
---
"Unconscious relationship" between a habitus and a field.
[(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice.
Practice results from relations between one's dispositions (habitus) and one's position in a field (capital), within the current state of play of that social arena (field).
---
Social structure and individual agency
We are free agents yet base everyday decisions on assumptions about the predictable character, behaviour and attitudes of others.
Social practices are characterized by regularities - working class kids tend to get working class jobs.
"All my thinking started from this point: how can behaviour be regulated without being the product of obedience to rules?" Bourdieu
In other words, Bourdieu asks how social structure and individual agency can be reconciled, and (to use Durkheim's terms) how the "outer" social, and "inner", self help to shape each other.
Social practices are characterized by regularities - working class kids tend to get working class jobs.
"All my thinking started from this point: how can behaviour be regulated without being the product of obedience to rules?" Bourdieu
In other words, Bourdieu asks how social structure and individual agency can be reconciled, and (to use Durkheim's terms) how the "outer" social, and "inner", self help to shape each other.
Habitus and Field
"Thinking Tools"
HABITUS, the subjective element of practice.
This concept signifies the "generative schemes" (themselves structured and structuring) acquired in the course of individual life trajectories.
FIELD: the objective network or configuration of relations (again structuring and structured) to be found in any social space or particular context.
Separately they represent respectively the subjective and objective aspects of social phenomena.
It will be stressed that both concepts should be seen as being inseparable, mutually consituted and always interpenetrating to produce the ontologically complicit relation referred to above.
HABITUS, the subjective element of practice.
This concept signifies the "generative schemes" (themselves structured and structuring) acquired in the course of individual life trajectories.
FIELD: the objective network or configuration of relations (again structuring and structured) to be found in any social space or particular context.
Separately they represent respectively the subjective and objective aspects of social phenomena.
It will be stressed that both concepts should be seen as being inseparable, mutually consituted and always interpenetrating to produce the ontologically complicit relation referred to above.
STRUCTURING STRUCTURES, and STRUCTURED STRUCTURES
These objective and subjective bases to Bourdieu's theory of practice can be illustrated by understanding of culture. Bourdieu write that there are two traditions in the study of culture: the structural tradition and the functionalist one (1968).
The structuralist tradition sees culture as an instrument of communication and knowledge, based on a shared consensus of the world (for example, the anthropology of Levi-Strauss).
The functionalist tradition, on the other hand, is formed around human knowledge as the product of a social infrastructure.
As noted above, Bourdieu criticizes both traditions.
The first tradition is too static for Bourdieu: STRUCTURED STRUCTURES taken as synchronic forms, and often based on primitive societies.
While the second tradition reifies ideology - as a STRUCTURING STRUCTURE - in imposing the ideology of the dominant class in the critical tradition, or maintaining social control in the positivist one.
Bourdie attempts to reconcile these two traditions by taking what has been learnt from the analysis of structures as symbolic systems in order to uncover the dynamic of principles, or logic of practice, which them their structuring power.
In short, a theory of structure as both STRUCTURED (opus operatum, and thus open to objectigication) and STRUCTURING (modus operandi, and thus generative of thought and action).
The structuralist tradition sees culture as an instrument of communication and knowledge, based on a shared consensus of the world (for example, the anthropology of Levi-Strauss).
The functionalist tradition, on the other hand, is formed around human knowledge as the product of a social infrastructure.
As noted above, Bourdieu criticizes both traditions.
The first tradition is too static for Bourdieu: STRUCTURED STRUCTURES taken as synchronic forms, and often based on primitive societies.
While the second tradition reifies ideology - as a STRUCTURING STRUCTURE - in imposing the ideology of the dominant class in the critical tradition, or maintaining social control in the positivist one.
Bourdie attempts to reconcile these two traditions by taking what has been learnt from the analysis of structures as symbolic systems in order to uncover the dynamic of principles, or logic of practice, which them their structuring power.
In short, a theory of structure as both STRUCTURED (opus operatum, and thus open to objectigication) and STRUCTURING (modus operandi, and thus generative of thought and action).
Theory of Practice - Pierre Bourdieu
The dominant French intellectual thought, in the 1940s and 1950s at least, was characterized by two opposing traditions - structuralism and existentialism - which respectively might be seen as representing the objectivist and subjectivist traditions.
The former cam from a background of anthropology and was exemplified in the work of Levi-Strauss who was preoccupied with the workings of diverse and often exotic cultures.
The latter subjectivist tradition was more philosophically grounded, rooted in the German philosophy of Kierkegaard, Husserl and Heidegger, and was more concerned with issues of personal freedom.
---
The argument between these opposing traditions resolved around two fundamentally distinct views of human action.
On the one, the anthropological tradition undertook to establish the social rules that determined how individuals behaved. For example, there were rules concerning who one could and could not marry - the incest taboo - as well as cultural presciptions involving what was considered sacred and profane.
On the other hand, the existentialist tradition foregrounded individual choice and decision-making as an ultimate act of personal freedom. Here, men and women are free when they choose because they accept the consequences of their decisions and the repercussions.
---
But, neither tradition explained what Bourdieu observed in his early studies in the Bearn and Algeria. In case of rural France, there were indeed "rules" of matrimony which prescribed who young men and women should marry. However, such "rules" did not always seem to apply, or at least were interpreted with a degree of flexibility.
There was a similar situation in Algeria; cultural traditions were distinct but the underlying issues were identical. What became clear for Bourdieu was that, in both cases, the outcome of the social issue of who any one individual would marry depended on a whole series of personal and contextual conditions; and the best way of thinking about this question was not in terms of a rule or personal choice, but a STRATEGY.
---
In other words, while individuals were not free to act simply in accordance with their own personal will and conscience, the notion of RULES implied both an explicit respect and conscious application that were rarely realized in practice.
Rather, individual action emerged from an unconscious calculation of profit - albeit symbolic (in the first instance at least) - and a strategic positoning within a social space to maximize individual holdings with respect to their availability.
Bourdieu needed a theoretical approach to account for this hybrid activity of socially shaped strategic, but individually constituted personal practice - which then formed common trends.
The former cam from a background of anthropology and was exemplified in the work of Levi-Strauss who was preoccupied with the workings of diverse and often exotic cultures.
The latter subjectivist tradition was more philosophically grounded, rooted in the German philosophy of Kierkegaard, Husserl and Heidegger, and was more concerned with issues of personal freedom.
---
The argument between these opposing traditions resolved around two fundamentally distinct views of human action.
On the one, the anthropological tradition undertook to establish the social rules that determined how individuals behaved. For example, there were rules concerning who one could and could not marry - the incest taboo - as well as cultural presciptions involving what was considered sacred and profane.
On the other hand, the existentialist tradition foregrounded individual choice and decision-making as an ultimate act of personal freedom. Here, men and women are free when they choose because they accept the consequences of their decisions and the repercussions.
---
But, neither tradition explained what Bourdieu observed in his early studies in the Bearn and Algeria. In case of rural France, there were indeed "rules" of matrimony which prescribed who young men and women should marry. However, such "rules" did not always seem to apply, or at least were interpreted with a degree of flexibility.
There was a similar situation in Algeria; cultural traditions were distinct but the underlying issues were identical. What became clear for Bourdieu was that, in both cases, the outcome of the social issue of who any one individual would marry depended on a whole series of personal and contextual conditions; and the best way of thinking about this question was not in terms of a rule or personal choice, but a STRATEGY.
---
In other words, while individuals were not free to act simply in accordance with their own personal will and conscience, the notion of RULES implied both an explicit respect and conscious application that were rarely realized in practice.
Rather, individual action emerged from an unconscious calculation of profit - albeit symbolic (in the first instance at least) - and a strategic positoning within a social space to maximize individual holdings with respect to their availability.
Bourdieu needed a theoretical approach to account for this hybrid activity of socially shaped strategic, but individually constituted personal practice - which then formed common trends.
Modes of Knowledge
At one point in his work, Bourdieu refers to the "opposition" between subjectivism and objectivism as dividing the social sciences and as being "the most fundamental, and the most ruinous" (1990c: 25).
He goes on to refer to them as "modes of knowledge" and declares a necessity to go beyond their mutual antagonism while perserving what has been gained from each. Both are essential, yet both offer only one side of an epistemology necessary to understanding the social world.
The world cannot be reduced to phenomenology or social physics; both must be employed in order to constitute an authentic "theory of practice".
He goes on to refer to them as "modes of knowledge" and declares a necessity to go beyond their mutual antagonism while perserving what has been gained from each. Both are essential, yet both offer only one side of an epistemology necessary to understanding the social world.
The world cannot be reduced to phenomenology or social physics; both must be employed in order to constitute an authentic "theory of practice".
Pierre Bourdieu: Objectivism vs Subjectivism
”I was beginning to suspect that the privilege granted to scientific and objectivist analysis (geneaological reserach, for example), in dealing with the natives' vision of things, was perhaps an ideology inherent in the profession.
In short, I wanted to abandon the cavalier point of view of the anthropologist who draws up plans, maps, diagrams and genealogies. That is all very well, and inevitable, as one moment, that of objectivism, in the anthropologist's procedures.
But you shouldn't forget the other possible relation to the social world, that of agents really engaged in the market, for example - the level that I am interested in mapping out. One must thus draw up a theory of this non-theoretical, partial, somewhat down-to-earth relationship with the social world that is the relation of ordinary experience.
And one must also establish a theory of the theoretical relationship, a theory of all the implications, starting with the breaking off of practical belonging and immediate investment, and its transformation into the distant, detatched relationship that defined the scientist's position."
(Bourdieu 1994d: 20-21).
Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts
THE THINGS AGENTS DO HELP CREATE STRUCTURES, BUT THEY DO SO UNDER INFLUENCE OF THOSE SAME STRUCTURES (= products and cause)
HOW THEY REACT IS INFLUENCED BY THE HABITUS:
HABITUS = THE SET OF DISPOSITIONS OF A GROUP OF ACTORS.
THE SET OF STRUCTURES THAT INFLUENCE HOW THE AGENTS ACT ARE CALLED THE FIELD.
FIELD = A SPECIFIC ARENA THAT A GROUP OF ACTORS FIND THEMSELVES IN.
----
IN THIS CASE IT IS JUST AN INDIVIDUAL ACTOR, BUT IN REALITY THERE ARE ALSO COLLECTIVE ACTORS (COLLECTIVE RESULTS FROM COLLECTIVE ACTION).
THUS IN THIS VIEW CULTURE IS MERELY THE PAST BUILT-UP PRODUCT OF THE COLLECTIVE ACTION OF THE PEOPLE IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL SPACE.
HOW WE REACT TO THESE ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT GOES BEYOND OUR CONSCIOUS MIND INTO THE PAST IS ALSO THE RESULT OF HOW THOSE PEOPLE OF THE PAST REACTED TO THEIR OWN STRUCTURES.
IN ESSENCE, THIS IS HABITUS - THE COLLECTION OF DISPOSITIONS.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Malcolm Gladwell Keynote Speech at SapientNitro iEX 2011
Malcolm Gladwell Keynote Speech at SapientNitro iEX 2011
Stephanie Coontz: On marriage
http://poptech.org/popcasts/stephanie_coontz_on_marriage
What makes an ideal marriage? Stephanie Coontz, a professor of
history and family studies and author of “Marriage, A History: How Love
Conquered Marriage,” says that marrying for love is a radical idea.
Ironically, as marriage is becoming a more emotionally satisfying
relationship, it is also becoming less stable as an institution.
Stephanie Coontz: On marriage
What makes an ideal marriage? Stephanie Coontz, a professor of
history and family studies and author of “Marriage, A History: How Love
Conquered Marriage,” says that marrying for love is a radical idea.
Ironically, as marriage is becoming a more emotionally satisfying
relationship, it is also becoming less stable as an institution.Malcolm Gladwell: Human potential
http://poptech.org/popcasts/malcolm_gladwell_human_potential
Pop sociologist and best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell has honed in
on a profound new question: what separates extraordinary and average
people? Discussing findings from his much-anticipated book “Outliers,”
Gladwell details how we’re squandering human potential everywhere from
the football field to the classroom – and what we can do to change it.
Malcolm Gladwell: Human potential
Pop sociologist and best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell has honed in
on a profound new question: what separates extraordinary and average
people? Discussing findings from his much-anticipated book “Outliers,”
Gladwell details how we’re squandering human potential everywhere from
the football field to the classroom – and what we can do to change it.Monday, September 24, 2012
When we construct a model ー人間の知識
When we construct a model, we want to think about how the agents will be
acting: rationally, behaviorally, or according to simple rules. We
gather data about how agents will act, and use this information to
construct the model. This thought process is best characterized by which
of the following? Hint: think back to the first lecture on "Why We
Model"
Credit：When Does Behavior Matter?（Model Thinking Course)
Credit：When Does Behavior Matter?（Model Thinking Course)
Global brain ー人間の知識
The global brain is a metaphor for the worldwide intelligent
network formed by all the individuals of this planet, together with the
information and communication technologies that connect them into a self-organizing whole. As the internet
becomes faster, more intelligent, and more encompassing, it
increasingly ties us together into a single information processing
system, which functions like a nervous system for the planet Earth. The intelligence of this network is collective or distributed: it is not centralized or localized in any particular individual, organization or computer system. It rather emerges from the dynamic networks of interactions between its components, a property typical of complex adaptive systems.[1]
The World-wide web in particular resembles the organization of a brain with its webpages (playing a role similar to neurons) connected by hyperlinks (playing a role similar to synapses), together forming an associative network along which information propagates.[2] This analogy becomes stronger with the rise of social media, such as Facebook, where links between personal pages represent relationships in a social network along which information propagates from person to person.[3] Such propagation is similar to the spreading activation that neural networks in the brain use to process information in a parallel, distributed manner.
Although the underlying ideas are much older, the term "global brain" was coined in 1982 by Peter Russell in his book The Global Brain.[4] How the Internet might be developed to achieve this was set out in 1986 .[5] The first peer-refereed article on the subject was written by Mayer-Kress and Barczys in 1995,[6] while the first algorithms that could turn the world-wide web into a collectively intelligent network were proposed by Francis Heylighen and Johan Bollen in 1996.[2][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain
The World-wide web in particular resembles the organization of a brain with its webpages (playing a role similar to neurons) connected by hyperlinks (playing a role similar to synapses), together forming an associative network along which information propagates.[2] This analogy becomes stronger with the rise of social media, such as Facebook, where links between personal pages represent relationships in a social network along which information propagates from person to person.[3] Such propagation is similar to the spreading activation that neural networks in the brain use to process information in a parallel, distributed manner.
Although the underlying ideas are much older, the term "global brain" was coined in 1982 by Peter Russell in his book The Global Brain.[4] How the Internet might be developed to achieve this was set out in 1986 .[5] The first peer-refereed article on the subject was written by Mayer-Kress and Barczys in 1995,[6] while the first algorithms that could turn the world-wide web into a collectively intelligent network were proposed by Francis Heylighen and Johan Bollen in 1996.[2][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain
Self-organization - 人間の知識
Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system; however, the laws followed by the process and its initial conditions may have been chosen or caused by an agent. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.
Self-organization occurs in a variety of physical, chemical, biological, social and cognitive systems. Common examples are crystallization, the emergence of convection patterns in a liquid heated from below, chemical oscillators, the invisible hand of the market, swarming in groups of animals, and the way neural networks learn to recognize complex patterns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_in_networks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)