Bourdieu, Education, and Me

Bourdieu, Education, and Me
Maurella Cunningham

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field provide a wonderful framework within to operate when working toward the goal of improving teaching and learning. In this paper I propose to illuminate the ways in which an understanding of habitus and field can be applied to the dynamics of teacher-student relationships and to improving the quality of the teaching and learning process. To do so, I will discuss habitus, field, and the interplay between the two which create an atmosphere ripe for academic and social change in public school systems.

Habitus

The concept that habitus performs the dual function of adaptation and distinction (114) among individuals must be incorporated into plans for improving teaching and learning in the classroom. According to Bourdieu, the educational system is the principal institution controlling the allocation of status and privilege in contemporary societies (189). If we accept this statement we are relegated to acknowledging the fact that the education that takes place in schools--both formal and informal—enables the perpetuation of the status quo (For intents and purposes of this paper, let us assume a status quo to be what exists in U.S. public school systems today.) regarding opportunities and experiences for students.

The status quo, for many students, is a situation in which their daily successes and failures are determined by the interest, skills, knowledge, and dispositions of their teachers. Undoubtedly, students’ are influenced by their families. For some, however, families can only provide limited opportunities and posses limited abilities to navigate educational systems. Individuals can certainly change their social status if they are able to successfully navigate through their educational institution. As Bourdieu contends, actors unwittingly reproduce or change those class distinctions simply by pursuing their available strategies within the sets of constraints and opportunities available to them (134). However, I would argue that this is not likely to happen for most non-privileged students without the support of teachers whose primary agenda (whether overt or hidden) is to reproduce society (implying that those with power and privilege maintain it, and those without remain at a disadvantage).

Teachers must assume a role in questioning privilege and power in society through not only presenting meaningful curriculum, but through exploring how cultural resources are used to perpetuate peoples’ power and privilege (189), so as not to repeat such processes. Escaping one’s habitus is crucial, if habitus is the operating force in keeping one in “one’s place.” Employing the concept of habitus, Bourdieu stresses that educational choices result from dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations. Coupled with the belief that whether a person remains in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of possibilities, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.

If, as Bourdieu postulates, all action is interest-oriented, an interest in education and improving one’s own position in life, must be part of the psyche of individuals who elevate themselves academically and socially. If this mode of thinking is not part of the habitus of individuals, it is not a reality for them, and will be left untapped. If, at this point, teachers do not intervene, there may be a danger of what Panofsky leads Bourdieu to believe; that school systems [will act] as the institutionalized context where the intellectual habitus of a culture develops (102). This is alright, as long as that system acts for the benefit of the student.

As habitus is a “structured structure” that derives from the class-specific experiences of socialization in family and peer groups (134), individuals and institutions outside of that circle have a responsibility for increasing the spectrum of habitus. Habitus both sets structural limits for action, and is responsible for instilling in individuals’ perceptions, aspirations, and practices that correspond to the structuring properties of earlier socialization (103).

To the degree that habitus limits one’s potential—academic and other—it is the responsibility of educators to be involved in the expansion of their students’ habitus. In essence, educators must increase the scope of the habitus of their students to include greater aspirations and expectations. These ideas, when internalized, can lead to action on the part of the student which promote a more positive outlook in respect to possibilities and opportunities, beyond their earlier concept of life chances (104).This is the point at which educators need to step up to the plate, and extinguish the flame that leaves its mark of self-defeating behavior and long-lasting dispositions. The road to achieving this will certainly not be without bumps and forks, but the ultimate destination can still be reached.
Although habitus is fairly resistant to change, since it has been in place throughout the formative years of an individual’s existence, later social experiences can have an impact on what an individual believes to be reasonable or possible for herself. The change that occurs will take time, and may not necessarily be a conscious effort on the part of the student (107). Because the student has relied on her habitus to survive—negotiate and navigate life’s opportunities/challenges—it is part of her culture, a tool used to get along in the world (115).


Field

In the school setting, the student enters a new field, and the opportunity to struggle for legitimation (123). Fields are arenas in which there is constant conflict for domination and control over resources. In any field, individuals are distinguished from others by their relationship to others in the field. This idea of what transpires in fields plays out perfectly in public school systems. I would propose that less conflict between groups, and more conflict within the individual will lead to greater success for students. I would suggest that inner conflict, a challenge to habitus, will challenge ways of thinking, and in turn, ways of acting.

When actions occur outside of the traditional structure of an institution, such as the public school system, individual achievement can increase. A certain “bucking of the system” will start from the middle and project both upward and down. At the middle are the teachers who choose to practice culturally relevant pedagogy. They address their students’ social and emotional learning, as well as academics. These teachers not only make learning relevant, but they value the cultural capital which their students’ possess. Operating in this capacity, they are gradually functioning to expand students’ habitus, as earlier mentioned.

Revolution

The challenges will be many, and will radiate from opposing sides. On behalf of some students, there may be suspicion of their teachers’ intentions. This may lead to resistance toward challenging their dispositions. On behalf of the school system, teachers who partake in such a movement, will be confronted by those who intend to maintain the status quo (retaining their position in society, and the capital they possess). Contrary to Bourdieu’s ideas of reproduction and structural permutations, a movement toward this type of teaching would be characterized by social transformation and revolution (188).

The revolution of which I speak is one that will replace the “traditional” functions of educational systems with a new role, specifically that of promoting success for all in a culturally relevant and responsive manner. This implies that the three functions Bourdieu attributes to educational systems (conserving, inculcating, and consecrating a cultural heritage, reproducing social relations, and social reproduction) will be replaced by advancing the value multiple cultural heritages, refuting existing social relations, and escaping from the cycle of social reproduction (190-191).

What does this look like in practice? A foundation for this new “raison d’etre” of school systems’ will be requiring teachers to become better educated to serve the needs of and embrace all students. Regardless of the content area, teachers will be prepared to include material on diverse groups (ranging from ability, to age, to ethnicity, to sexual orientation, and gender, etc.). Addressing diverse populations will not be relegated to a “month of recognition,” but will be part of the curriculum on a daily basis. Many will understandably view this as a grand undertaking, and they will be correct. However, if we are to emancipate our students—and ourselves-- from unequal school systems where certain cultures are privileged and others penalized (199), then take it on, we must.

Will this be too much for teachers to handle? Perhaps on their own, but this is where professional education programs at the college and university level come into play. I would argue that every teacher preparation program must have a component (be it a stand-alone course, or something that is integrated into the various levels of a program) dedicated to examining the identities of future teachers (their ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and what impact this may have on their future students. Teacher candidates will be required to create and build on a portfolio (electronic or otherwise) that addresses their progress from the first stages of self-identity (including thoughts, actions and feelings) to the later stages of action in the classroom and their communities.

Student (K-12) performance and achievement can be seen as the outcome of a complex interplay of expectations, cultural capital, and the degree of selection (202). I am concerned with the role of pre-service and secondary school teachers in the U.S. As opposed to Bourdieu’s depiction of professors in higher education, K-12 teachers should be encouraged to play more of a supportive role in their students’ academic lives, while simultaneously addressing their students’ social-emotional well-being. This is only half of the battle.

According to Bourdieu’s interpretation of the research of Durkheim and Maus, there is a correlation between institutional structures and cognitive dispositions (202). Assuming this to be the case, we have to consider this revolution as it impacts K-12 students. On the part of students, responsibility to oneself, with the support of the school community, will be a key focus. An exploration of self identity and position in society will also be studied, establishing a springboard from which students can create a “master plan,” pinpointing their “place” in society, and how they want it to evolve as they enter adulthood. Such a project could be considered a type of mini-thesis, required for graduation. The time, effort, and thoughts which go into this “mini-thesis” incorporate both curriculum and personal reflections and aspirations, on the part of the student.

Bourdieu stresses that educational choices are determined by dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations (197). Coupled with the belief that whether a person stays in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of possibilities, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.

Bourdieu’s demonstration of how individuals “self-select” their educational experience should be cause for concern. Those working with youth who do not have the advantage of knowing what measures to take to assist students in succeeding academically, personally, and later, professionally, must be informed. An individual’s habitus has the potential, in any field, to be reformed/expanded, however not without a great investment of energy and time (202). To allow students’ habitus to be reformed/expanded, tracking in public school systems must undergo review.

The system of tracking in U.S. schools is often questioned, but not always by the students which it directly impacts. As Bourdieu mentions, through socialization, actors come to believe they are where they are supposed to be, in the name of education (205). In effect their placements within the school setting reflect their position within society, and for the most part, meet little resistance. This is not surprising. If your "place" in society has been the "place" of your family members for generations, what would motivate you to suddenly question it? In order for students to be questioners, teachers will have to express genuine compassion for, and develop positive rapports with their students. This would set the stage for trust-building and risk-taking, which could eventually lead to significant academic and social achievement.

Prior to reading Bourdieu I wondered why many of my classmates, and later students, did not have parents/family members who advocated more on their behalf. I thought perhaps they didn't care, or did not have the time. Though plausible, their absence was probably a result of their socialization. They did not know what they did not know. Not to be misunderstood, they were aware that the school system did not always provided equal opportunities, but they were not cognizant of the fact that this was the plan--or hidden agenda. In essence, people were oblivious as to this primary role of schooling in our society.

In conclusion, habitus, a regard for field, and action can transform the function of school systems. Bourdieu illustrates three situations in which habitus and field intersect, thereby creating a complete theory of action. First, situations in which the dispositions of habitus were first internalized, habitus tends to produce practices corresponding to existing structures; social reproduction occurs. Second, situations where opportunities and constraints of fields change gradually, habitus tends to adapt, even with some “mismatch.” Third, when discrepancies between new situations and those in which habitus was formed are slight, gradual modifications of structures occur (213).

Keeping this in perspective, it is clear that through adopting similar approaches (both in secondary schools and higher education) to those mentioned earlier in this paper, there are possibilities for great change. These actions will create the social struggles that expose field doxa necessitating new forms of symbolic domination and new reproduction strategies (217).


References
Schwartz, P. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.