Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
fluence in the field. Capital is anything which allows such an influence. Therefore
players compete over all kinds of capital. Thus, the field structure can be de-
scribed in terms of the distribution of capital, which refers to the same as the rela-
tions between players. Therefore, Bourdieu constructs fields as independent from
individual access to capital: as long as the distribution of capital has effects on us,
we are part of the field. If a capital is no longer effective, we are in a different
field. Within the field, the capital lends power to the agent, over rules and regu-
larities, over material and incorporated means of (re-) production. Hence, a field is
much more dynamic than a game: Based on some, but never a complete and ob-
jective
27
, form of understanding their position players can try to increase their
capital as well as to alter the rules or to change the boundaries (2006, p. 129).
These moves can be actualised, e.g. by introducing access barriers like certificates,
or incorporating others with a different set of capital such that one's relative posi-
tion is changed. To describe agents we need to understand their position relative to
those of others, i.e. to describe the relations between agents who show the struc-
ture of the field. How would such a field look in Julian's case?
From my ethnographic field notes it is possible to draw together the field
'work'. Some of the effective forms of capital in it were: (a) institutionalised hier-
archy (i.e. the boss could order Julian around), (b) means for getting the work
done (this included material means, like a computer, as well as Julian's motiva-
tion) and (c) constructions of the
raison d'être
of work (the student union paid
Julian as an environmental expert who, therefore, had some power to define what
the work was about). Thus, several forms of capital were effective in this field,
which implies that there were complex and multiple relations between the posi-
tions. These capitals were somehow distributed. Julian had some control, his boss
had control and the environmental discourse had significant effects as well. At
each position in the field, actors had different access to capital and hence devel-
oped a different habitus, specific to the position.
While the field is constructed through objective relations the agents experience
it subjectively. The habitus mediates the objective with the subjective. Usually we
meet situations which are normal to us, which shapes our perceptions and our
practices. By experiencing situations which are alike, and usually they are because
of our relative position in the social field, we repeat the experiences, repeat using
the same categories successfully, again and again. Under this condition what were
singular perceptions and rational practices become a scheme of dealing with the
world. This sense is durable and can be conveyed even over generations. With
this, the habitus enables us to deal with situations and is actualised situationally.
Thus it is a system of potentialities and virtualities. What happens in a situation is
not predictable; while most experiences are repeating and thus being strengthened,
we can also experience new and different situations. Through learning and reflect-
ing the habitus changes. Thus, it is an open and historical product at the same
time. “It is durable but not eternal!” (Bourdieu)
28
Thus, our habitus is contingent.
27
Thus, for Bourdieu so-called rational choice or a rational actor does not exist (Bourdieu
1988, p. 782).
28
In: Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, p. 133)
Search WWH ::
Custom Search