I want to re-discuss my post entitled “Consciousness Determines Life” as I am having doubts on some of the statements I made. At the same time, however, I am having difficulty being convinced that Pierre Bourdieu has been successful at destroying the dichotomy of the subjective and objective world, agent and structure, the internal and external (keep in mind that these judgments only come from my reading of Masculine Domination).
In my other post, I had the boldness to state (not explicitly) that Bourdieu was a pure constructionist. A doctorate student with a blog dedicated solely to Bourdieu responded to this post saying that Bourdieu was not this type of constructionist. He states:
“His point, rather, was exactly what was stated in the first post: It’s not a solely ‘discursive’ matter of ideologies but an equally physical matter of habitus. Or, to put it differently: It’s neither simply consciousness that determines physical existence nor just the other way round, but there is a complex interrelation between the social structures outside of us and the social structures incorporated as dispositions of habitus.”
This is absolutely correct. Bourdieu is innovative, bold, and a fundamental contribution to the social sciences because he brings attention, for the first time, to the “internalization of externalities”. He is able to emphasize not only the way that predominant structures shapes our practices but the way we embody these ideas in our bodies, the way we feel the social order within ourselves (bodily knowledge). His theory goes beyond merely talking about the oppression, dominance, or influence ideologies can have upon us but about the physical reality it creates. Habitus creates positions which shape our internal dispositions so we also act upon the world, creating and reproducing what we have internalized. This may be what Bourdieu referred to as “circular causality”. He tries to evoke the interaction and influence the internal self has with the external world.
Even though this interaction is extremely important and the idea of physical embodiment brings another dimension to social theory and the individual, I still cannot seem to grasp how Bourdieu has gone beyond constructionism or structuralism. I feel as though he is emphasizing a new aspect of constructionism. The fact that we do not merely act in accordance with social order but that we internalize it profoundly. We internalize it so deeply that we recreate them spontaneously and unconsciously rather than the idea that the object world simply acts upon the subject (subject always being passive). The subject does have a role in creating reality. However, the subject learns and is determined by ideologies and social constructs.
In fact, Bourdieu shows how immensely powerful and influential constructionism is. Institutions, ideas, discourses (whatever aspect of the social world we want to address) have such a profound impact on the individual that he/she begins to feel and embody these ideas and in turn this creates their physical reality. Habitus’ creation of our dispositions shapes our experiences, perceptions, and practices to such an extreme that our physical reality (our internal world and the perception of the external) is shaped by external ideas (such as the changing perceptions and feelings we have toward our own physical anatomy, a fluid perception over time). It is so extreme, that we are convinced that these internalizations are “natural” and we act upon them as if they were inherent. But, we take-for-granted that they are created and then recreated by ourselves. We are simply recreating the dominant social order within ourselves and within everyone else as we abide and feel preponderant structures, like masculine domination.
So, here I still am in a similar relation to Bourdieu. Even though I had ignored the essence of Bourdieu’s theory, I still wonder if it is a matter of consciousness (meaning ideologies, ideas about the order of the world) determining our life (by physical embodiments of a constructed, external reality)?
well, this boils down an egg-or-hen question then, doesn’t it? if external structure (and once again i want to point out: that’s way more than just disourses/ideologies) shapes habitus and habitus reproduces and reinforces structure, then what comes first? it’s a matter of your point of view whether you label bourdieu a structuralist or a constructionist here. i would recommend havning a look at “an invitation to reflexive sociology” by bourdieu and wacquant. it’s the most accessible ‘introduction’ to bourdieu’s thought by himself and the constructionism-structuralism issue is one of its main concerns (iirc). after all, “masculine domination” (which, frankly, i haven’t read) is probably pretty far out on the constructionist side of bourdieu’s work.