Two concepts which try to explain how we interact with others.
There are two
types of primary frameworks, natural and social. The natural frameworks are
“purely physical”, for example the state of the weather as given in a report (vgl.
Goffman.1986. S.26)
The social
frameworks you can also call “guided doings”. “This doings subject the doer to
“standards”, to social appraisal of his action based on its honesty,
efficiency, economy, safety, elegance, tactfulness, good taste, and so forth” (Goffman.1986. S.26)
Primary frameworks
of a special social group constitute a central element of its culture. They are
important to emerge concerning classes of schemata and the relations of these
classes to one another. (vgl. Goffman. 1986. S.27)
We need frameworks
for orientation, so if we get in a new situation and we have been in some similar
one, we just know to behave. It is that simple, we do not want to think so much
about what is “appropriate” all the time, so there is this mysterious framework
which helps us to behave like we know what to do. So if we have been to a
classroom before, we know how to behave in every classroom, even it is in
another school or continent. The framework is (almost) everywhere the same.
Identity Concept by George H. Mead
To understand the
habitus you have to understand the identity concept by George Herbert Mead. The
identity is formed by three things. The “language”, the “game” and the “play”.
The language is the most complicated form of using signs. A sign is called a “significant sign” if the reaction is the same by everybody who is using the sign. So for example, if one individual of a society has seen a track from a bear and he tells the other ones, the reaction from the ones who have not seen the track has to be the same as the one who has seen it.
The game is something little kids play. They adopt the behaviour of a shopkeeper and afterwards they imitate the part of the shopper. They only can play one role at the time, and so they learn how the different persons and their roles have to behave. This is called “role expectation”.
The play is the more difficult part in building an own identity. Mead explains his idea by comparing it to a baseball game. If you play baseball, you have to know all the rules, the functions of the other players and your own mission. Now can react to every expectation, and you also have own expectations. In the society it is the same. You know the rules and you have to react on other people, knowing they know the rules too. Now we know how an identity is formed, but Meads idea is that the identity is built out of three parts.
The “I” is the reaction an organism has on the expectation from another human being. It presents the individual, subjective in a person, and it reacts to the rules of the society individually.
The “Me” unites the roles and norm of a society and the expectations from other persons on me.
So one person can have multiple “MEs”, for each role another “Me”. The “self” is the independency between the “I” and the “Me”.
The language is the most complicated form of using signs. A sign is called a “significant sign” if the reaction is the same by everybody who is using the sign. So for example, if one individual of a society has seen a track from a bear and he tells the other ones, the reaction from the ones who have not seen the track has to be the same as the one who has seen it.
The game is something little kids play. They adopt the behaviour of a shopkeeper and afterwards they imitate the part of the shopper. They only can play one role at the time, and so they learn how the different persons and their roles have to behave. This is called “role expectation”.
The play is the more difficult part in building an own identity. Mead explains his idea by comparing it to a baseball game. If you play baseball, you have to know all the rules, the functions of the other players and your own mission. Now can react to every expectation, and you also have own expectations. In the society it is the same. You know the rules and you have to react on other people, knowing they know the rules too. Now we know how an identity is formed, but Meads idea is that the identity is built out of three parts.
The “I” is the reaction an organism has on the expectation from another human being. It presents the individual, subjective in a person, and it reacts to the rules of the society individually.
The “Me” unites the roles and norm of a society and the expectations from other persons on me.
So one person can have multiple “MEs”, for each role another “Me”. The “self” is the independency between the “I” and the “Me”.
The habitus concept:
The concept of the
habitus is the answer on the question of the relation from an individual and
the society.
The primary
habitus is built in the family. It is the first part of socialisation. Very
important is the social position of the family. This position will be adopted
in every idea, spoken sentence and act.
There are many phrases the family will use (like “this is nothing for
us”), and so the kid internalise this kind of behaviour.
The secondary
habitus is based on the education in school, and eventually engrosses the
thoughts from the primary habitus, or modifies it. Bourdieu understands the
habitus as something flexible, but the early experiences are always formative (vgl.
Sonderegger, 2008, S.289-200).
Another aspect of the habitus is, that we do not have to think about every step we take, or action we plan. We act automatically, in a routine which make our lives easier. There are unspoken rules we follow without even knowing it, but we need this rules to orient ourselves in the society we live in. (vgl. Liebsch. 2006. S. 69-75)
Another aspect of the habitus is, that we do not have to think about every step we take, or action we plan. We act automatically, in a routine which make our lives easier. There are unspoken rules we follow without even knowing it, but we need this rules to orient ourselves in the society we live in. (vgl. Liebsch. 2006. S. 69-75)
Similarities:
The things they
have in common is that both of the concepts help us to behave in an appropriate
way. It helps us to concentrate on much more difficult things than behaviour.
We do not think about that concepts but for the situations they did not work.
So if you walk into a classroom and you sit down on your chair, like it would
be in most of the classrooms around the world, and the other pupils and the
teacher comes in and they are all sitting on the desk, looking puzzled in your
direction, you would recognise that something had happened. Your concept of
orientation has not worked. You may be
would stand up and sit also on the desk, and the next time you would sit on the desk and would not think about sitting on the chair again, because everybody expecting you sitting on the desk. After some time it would be used to you, and after generations of “on the desk sitting pupils” it would be normal to the society.
would stand up and sit also on the desk, and the next time you would sit on the desk and would not think about sitting on the chair again, because everybody expecting you sitting on the desk. After some time it would be used to you, and after generations of “on the desk sitting pupils” it would be normal to the society.
Differences:
The main
difference between the two concepts is on the one hand, that the habitus
explains the relation between the society and the individual. They have some
kind of reciprocal relation, so they effect each other, in a way that they
reproduce one another. And on the other hand the primary framework concept
tries to explain the behaviour of different classes, and why they behave
different. It is also a concept that reproduces itself, but it is not the
family who affects it is the rank your group has.
„Was der Arbeiter isst und vor
allem, wie er es isst, welchen Sport er treibt, welche politischen Meinungen er
hat und wie er sie zum Ausdruck bringt, unterscheidet sich systematisch von den
entsprechenden
Konsum- und Verhaltensgewohnheiten der Unternehmer in der Industrie.“(Bourdieu,
1998, S. 21) This statement from Bourdieu describes perfectly the definition of
taste. In that case it is
not important which theory you use to realise this situation. Taste is
something which seems so individual, but it is not. Taste is something “given”,
but not from good (or any other higher spirit), it is given from the class you
were born in. Even if you work hard and climb the ladder of success, it could
be that you would never fit in your new class income. It may be the way you
talk, the way you move, or the clothes you buy, it also could be the way you
eat, even if you eat the same things the others eat, it could be that you never
belong to them. That is the power of “the taste”, you cannot lie about where
you come from.
Bourdieu,
Pierre: Praktische Vernunft. Zur Theorie des Handelns. Aus dem Französischen
von Hella Beister. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1998.
Goffman,
Erving: Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. Boston:
Northeastern University Press 1986.
Liebsch,
Katharina. Lektion IV - Identität und Habitus. In: Einführung in Hauptbegriffe
der Soziologie. Korte, Hermann/
Schäfers, Bernhard (Hg.), Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 2006. S. 67-84.
Sonderegger,
Ruth: Praktische Theorien? In: Nach Bourdieu. Visualität, Kunst, Politik.
Herausgegeben von Beatrice von Bismarck, Therese Kaufmann und Ulf Wuggenig. Wien: Turia und Kant 2008, S. 197–210
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen