In the 17th century the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asks us to imagine two clocks or watches in perfect agreement. As to the time this may occur in one of three ways the first consists in mutual influence the second is to appoint a skilful workman to correct them and synchronize them at all times the third is to construct these clocks with such an art and precision that one can be assured of their subsequent agreement. How is it that we coordinate our activities as humans like clocks our language our humour our culture our expectations in many ways. They come together so that we can interact for the French sociologist. Pierre Bourdieu born in 1930 and died in 2002 Leibnitz was on to something or Jews. Lifelong concern was how we interact sociologically. What glues society together he was particularly interested in how we're both free and constrained by the rules of society how these two phenomena interact what is it that determines our tastes for example or our sense of humor. And then where's the space for freedom in choosing our own tastes or sense of humor our own path. He wants us to think about how theory and the objective facts about society that affect us all and practice how we live that theory and embody those objective facts in our own subjective ways interact. The result is an influential mix of sociology and philosophy. That's had an impact across many disciplines. His key concepts are habitus field and cultural capital and while it's important to understand how all three fit together the key to understanding them all and that focus here will be the habitus. The philosophical context of the second half of the 20th century is important for understanding bourdieu. Structuralist slike claude. Lévi-strauss argued that there were universal rigid rules to all societies that provided the foundation all social life while postmodernists and existentialists emphasized individual subjective outlooks that can never be pinned down or do you called this the absurd opposition between individual and society both perspectives.

He thought weren't necessary and in some way work together. His answer to higher is the habitus. Badu writes that all of my thinking started from this point. How can behavior be regulated without being the product of obedience to rules. The habitus explains how our likelihood to act in a certain way is dependent on how we expect others to respond how the social world becomes objectified into a range of probabilities and expectations. That make us more likely to choose certain actions rather than others. The habitus organizes us. It's a predisposition tendency propensity or inclination as bajji writes. We know that society is ordered in a certain way and that our own position in that society presupposes a range of options some of which we might be likely to achieve and others not qualifications. Universities career paths etiquettes different regions subcultures musical genres. They all have different ways of doing things different styles. There are rules of the game that aren't necessarily written life is about getting a feel for the game and there's a way in which social life is collectively orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conductor. Badu asks should one talk of a rule. Yes am know you can do so on condition that you distinguish clearly between rule and regularity the social game is regulated. It's the locus of certain regularities in this way objective. Social life presents itself as a kind of pattern that becomes encoded in how we act how we build our buildings what we show on television. The habitus is the underlying structures of social life that become ingrained into how we physically move or talk in the world how we behave is conditioned by these objective possibilities. He calls this the subjective expectations of objective probabilities objective meaning for example. The chance of getting a certain job or being able to buy a certain product subjective meaning the behavior we adopt in setting out to do so we respond unconsciously most of the time to the mathematical probabilities of the social world.

You know for example that if you're not good at maths the probability of becoming an astronaut is slim so this conditions your subjective decisions alternatively you might think you're an incredible singer but live in a village in Siberia and so not pursue that particular talent this range of objective possibilities is what Badou calls the field. The habitus is the way we enter it. With the knowledge we have about ourselves another word. Bourdieu likes to use is strategies again. These are not necessarily conscious we create strategies depending on what we think. The right balance is between for example likeliness of success or appropriate challenge. The habitus is the way these social likelihoods become codified in our heads within our own psychologies different cultures. Different classes. Different industries have different habits high. They determine what's reasonable and unreasonable action within their fields. Which then guides or restrains personal thought or action we develop consciously or unconsciously different strategies for organizing our future actions language interests fashion ways of speaking walking our routines and a lot of this is transmitted from parent to child at an early age. This means then. The behavior isn't just rational. Its conditioned by the possibilities that are presented to us. It's determined but it doesn't mean we are only determined we adjust the habitus depending on the uniqueness of our position in the world. We can move location. Change what we wear learn new skills our emotional responses to certain situations might be conditioned by the habitus to where we live for example our culture and our social rules privileges certain emotions or virtue say for others stoicism or openness for example or maybe religious reverence. This is something. I've talked about in this video on the social construction of emotions in this way.

The habitus shapes physiological responses our muscles responding to stress under certain conditions a certain emotional state might be more socially profitable in the. Army say cold Stern disciplined than that of a theatre actor the boardroom demands a different habitus to the beach. Boys are told not to cry for. Bourdieu the habitus is the result of history being codified into practice writes that in each of us in varying proportions. There is part of yesterday's man it is yesterday's man who inevitably predominates in us since the present amounts to little compared with the long past in the course of which we were formed and from which we result so how is the concept useful in one study. Gareth Wiltshire and his colleagues have argued. That bourdieu's theory can help us understand. Some of the causes of early age health inequalities overcoming the disparity in life expectancy and healthy lifestyles between the rich and the poor is usually framed as either structural access to health care finances etc or individual encouraging changes through intervention and advertising etc. This dualism is something that bhaji wanted to overcome as we've seen following bourdieu then they look at how class differences raf. ID into physical habitual practices living in some areas. It might be important to look strong. For example while in others to look smart accepting or aligning oneself to the habitus brings social and cultural capital that might lead to gains in contacts respect status etc. Their research was conducted at different schools interviewing different children with different socioeconomic backgrounds in England. I find the children towards the middle of a class tended to be pushed towards rugby because football wasn't posh enough for the school which some of the children complained about while kids from working class backgrounds tended to disparagingly about sport in general preferring activities like free running or scootering each activity carries with it certain expectations about the people you'll associate with and the future pathways you creates when you engage with that activity thinking about how different hobbies of the product of different social positions might allow us to think about how social mobility might be achieved in creative ways that see the links between the two and finally what's the difference between habitus and habit board you rights that one of the reasons for the use of the term habitus is the wish to set aside the common conception of habit as a mechanical assembly or performed program the habitus then is more flexible and precedes the physicality of the habit gambling might be a habit and urge but the habitus is the social and economic conditions that structure the games the location the likeliness of a person gambling and habitus doesn't just refer to the instinct of habit rather than just being physical the way we think rationalize strategize about a situation where we should build the casino for example is dependent on the habitus we can see how similar habit I affect both the gambler and the bookmaker some have argued that the concept can be and is overused and because of its wide applicability can become ambiguous and lose its usefulness but I think it's most useful when we use the concept to think about what might be arbitrary in the ways that we act when we might be acting that way for the sake of other people are the groups are the classes in a way that's limiting for ourselves and for others if you like these videos I need your help and here's my request if you think you get the same value from four of these videos as you do from just one cup of coffee then please consider pledging just $1 per video that's three to four dollars per month to keep this channel going you can even limit your pledge to one dollar a month and if you pledge $5 out add your name to the credits to those that already support then and I thank you so much this channel just wouldn't exist without you you can also hit like share follow me on Twitter and Facebook etc all of these things really contribute to helping Ben and I grow thanks for watching and see you next week.