Heffernan, T. (2022). 'Habitus'. In. Bourdieu and Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. pp. 27-47.

 The third chapter of this book explains Bourdieu's concept of habitus and its role in the practice (or success) of an agent (individual). In the chapter abstract, Heffernan describes habitus as:

"...the combination of the elements and aspects of someone's life that they are born into, raised in, and surrounded by throughout their life that shape them as an individual." p. 27.

and explains that those with a similar habitus will likely follow a similar cultural trajectory through the course of their lives. He also explains how habitus is connected to and influenced by both field (the area in which an agent is operating at any given time and capital, whether that is hard capital (such as number of degrees) or symbolic capital (who an agent knows or who is prepared to endorse and support an agent). The habitus of an agent impacts on how well they can operate within a field, something that is also influenced by the capital that agent possesses and how valued that capital is within the field they are operating within. When the habitus and capital of an agent fits well within a field, this is known as 'well-informed habitus'. 

One of the important points I have taken from reading this chapter is that, as already discussed, Bourdieu was writing in a time where issues of intersectionality were not widely acknowledge, however they are extremely relevant to his work. 

As our habitus is shaped not only by our family and community lives, but by our schooling, the way we value (or not) the concept of education will be highly connected to our previous experience of it. Thus, it is not only the sense of self-belief that is required for someone to change their cultural trajectory but also the need for them to see the value in the field they are moving into. To my mind, the need for academics to communicate the value of HE is essential and that we need not to assume anyone on our courses appreciate that value in the same way we do. Indeed, Heffernan is clear that access to an opportunity does not necessarily correlate with the aspiration to take up that opportunity - a choice that can be conscious or subconscious (as described later in this post in terms of conditioning). An agent may know very well that their habitus and capital will not fit well within a field they are seeking to operate within and they may choose not to accept the extra pressure and risk that taking such a different cultural trajectory could cause. Or it may simply not occur to them that such an opportunity could be open to them. 

One issue of schooling Bourdieu highlights is the imbalance of power between the habitus of those who teach in a school (usually middle-class) and the working class children they may be teaching (and their parents). This suggests that, as things stand, schooling really can perpetuate these social inequalities and barriers by alienating some children and their families. In this way, Bourdieu argues that habitus can create negative as well as positive structures. 

Another element is how different habituses and fields can overlap and interconnect, meaning that someone may have valuable capital in various different fields. This is something I'd like to reflect on in my own work, being someone brought up within a complex cultural situation - middle-class, education-valuing on one side and highly upper-class, elite schooling society on the other. On top of this, I work across two fields as an academic - health and social care; and education. It is interesting to me to consider the capital this has afforded me and how it may, or may not, be valued in either field. However, this varied social, personal and professional history does mean I am somewhat cushioned from the consequences others risk by breaking away from their cultural trajectory - that of finding their habitus no longer fits so well with their roots. 

I would argue it is important for my work to explore the potential consequences for students for whom HE-influenced transformation may create a poorer fit for them with their previous roots. Bourdieu describes how the community an agent is raised in and then later lives within conditions their habitus. The term given to how we unconsciously incorporate the requirements of a field into our own habitus is hexis. This speaks to something I alluded to in my last post - the need for the field to adapt to ensure it is a better fit for all habituses rather than expecting agents to change themselves in order to fit the field better. Students should not need to change themselves in order to be successful within the field of HE if the capital valued by HE is that of coming from what Bourdieu describes as the knowledge classes (as opposed to the labouring classes); or who the student knows; or the alignment of habituses between senior academics and the student; or the shared interests, values and history between peers. 

It may be that some of this is less relevant for a cohort of apprentices who may well have similar habituses and cultural trajectories. It may also be less relevant for students on health and social care courses, given that these professions are traditionally associated with the labouring classes. Indeed, this overlap between traditional labouring classes work and knowledge class education systems may well be worth exploring within my own work.

NB: The later chapters of this book are focused more heavily on describing the situation of working within academia, rather than on student experience, so I will write no further blog posts on this book, but I do plan to read more on Bourdieu to understand how his work can help to illuminate my own.

References

Heffernan, T. (2022). 'Habitus'. In. Bourdieu and Higher Education. Singapore: Springer. pp. 27-47.