The Bourdieusian Framework

4.1.1 Habitus

‘It expresses first the result of an organizing action, with a meaning close to that of words such as structure; it also designates a way of being, a habitual state (especially of the body) and, in particular, a predisposition, tendency, propensity or inclination’. (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977: 214)

Habitus explores the customary ways of behaving and believing, formed through regular social encounters. Habitus is a set of unconscious dispositions embodied through family and education (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Bourdieu, 1994; Reay, 1995; Maton, 2008). Habitus generates perceptions or practices, acquired through past, present and future experiences (Robbins,

1993; Grenfell and James, 1998). Structure is important in understanding habitus, as it is the space where people primarily learn social and cultural behaviour. The relationship between individuals or groups as social agents and the experiences they encounter in the world comprises a ‘structured and structuring structure’ (Bourdieu, 1994: 170; Grenfell and James, 1998; Maton, 2008). Habitus is ingrained behaviour that socialises individuals to a specific structure (Bourdieu, 1994).

Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) concluded that habitus, field and capital are relational, so the field or social space in which an individual lives and learns, together with his/her available capital has implications for both the individual and the collective in which he or she socialises. The pre-dispositions through habitus, along with the conditions of the social site, or field, crucially influence families’ choices or opportunities within the education sector (Bourdieu, 1988, 1989; Sayer, 2005). Habitus reinforces all experiences, including class and gender consciousness, providing a ‘feel for the game’ when having to make rational choices outside of the home (Sayer, 2005: 25). Children absorb and reinterpret meanings learned in the habitus, which include social and cultural norms, values and knowledge (Hodkinson, 1998).

Life prospects can be influenced and interpreted within the habitus, as longer- term decisions surrounding education and employment can be constrained or legitimised through our understanding and belief of our sense of perspective and what we understand to be possible (Hodkinson, 1998). Ball, Maguire and Macrae (2000) suggest the perception of our identity is formed within our social landscape and the habitus to subsequently inform the demarcations we construct in our values and choices. The disposition of the habitus is based on what is familiar and necessary and therefore sets expectations or limits on the reality of our social and temporal opportunities (Hodkinson, 1998).

Habitus is a site of social inheritance, where perceptions and class distinctions are formed before entry into schooling, affecting subsequent learning and experiences in the differing fields of education (Robbins, 1993; Grenfell and James, 1998). Experiences that change the life course throughout adulthood

suggest that the habitus is not deterministic (Grenfell and James, 1998; Sayer, 2005). Habitus has a temporality that is built over time (Atkinson, 2010b). Determinism of the habitus will be considered in this chapter in respect of the mother-daughter experiences.

4.1.2 Field

‘Social reality exists, so as to speak, twice, in things and in minds, in fields and in habitus, outside and inside agents. And when habitus encounters a social world of which it is the product, it finds itself ‘as a fish in water’. (Bourdieu, 1989: 43)

Field can be referred to as a symbolic arena where an interchange between structural relations and forms of power and relative capital are held (Grenfell and James, 2004; Thomson, 2008). Habitus exists in ‘an unconscious relationship’ relative to a field (Bourdieu, 1993: 87; Maton, 2008; Thomson, 2008). Field is the space, or a field of forces where social interaction is defined and forms of power are held, meaning that fields maintain their own sets of rules (Grenfell and James, 2004; Bourdieu, 2005; Thomson, 2008; James, 2011). Bourdieu referred to these relational spaces as a field, the social interaction within the field as a game, and the individuals as players who play the game (Thomson, 2008; Colley, 2012).

Habitus interplays with field, as individuals bring change through their own agency, meaning that field does not remain static and no field exists in isolation (Grenfell and James, 1998; Hodkinson, 1998). Field therefore becomes a site of social and cultural reproduction, where meanings and values, along with power and control lie beneath the surface of practice (Bourdieu, 1990; Grenfell and James, 1998). For example, the matching of the school ethos to the familial habitus, such as the middle class child attending independent school with like-minded children in the same social circles and similar income bracket, is likely to produce a successful educational outcome (Ball, 2003). This is notwithstanding the purchase of a

personalised education and smaller class sizes (James, 2011). The child is then ‘as a fish in water’ (Bourdieu, 1989: 43).

There are fields within fields of education (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Therefore education is a field, higher education is a sub-field and these connect to other fields, such as the workplace. Each field has its own set of behaviours that are distinctive and provide common rules for individuals within the field (Hodkinson, 1998; Thomson, 2008). The different structural positions between the various fields becomes important in considering the multi-layers of this research in respect of childhood home, school, university and adult home.

4.1.3 Capital

‘It is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form recognised by economic theory … the most material types of capital, those which are economic in the restricted sense, can present themselves in the immaterial form of cultural capital or social capital and vice versa’. (Bourdieu, 2006: 105-106)

The term ‘capital’ encompasses a product or economy that has legitimate value, yet all capital is symbolic (Grenfell and James, 1998; James, 2011). The ownership of these products or values can be used to improve or increase an individual’s financial and social standing. Capital, through its value or benefit, can create social inequality (ibid.). The premise that parents continue to actively support their children into and beyond early adulthood is an indicator of the power of social and cultural capital.

Economic capital demonstrates the ability to produce, maintain or increase wealth through income received from employment, investments or inheritance (Devine, 2004). Economic capital is the most powerful asset needed to ‘buy-in’ middle class privileges and to gain educational advantage over less wealthy families (Reay, 1998b).

Cultural capital includes an understanding of information regarding the wider world through knowledge transference (Devine, 2004). Reay (1998b) examines how cultural capital is utilised by mothers to improve their children’s educational success and the contrasting experiences of mothers who were not in a position to access such levels of capital. Similarly, Devine (2004) explores case studies of parents who had the choice of either one of the best state schools in the country or a private school, but still chose the private system. Her conclusion from the responses of her participants was that the private education offered better security and prospects. Devine (ibid.) considers that the social and cultural networking was as important to these parents as academic achievement. Here, parents are exercising their understanding of social and cultural capital beyond academic, creative or vocational success within the school setting, to consider the child’s future achievements after compulsory education.

Social capital is a term to define the expectation of receiving intangible benefits derived from co-operation with other members in a group (Grenfell, 2008). Social networking is more prevalent among the middle classes (Vincent and Ball, 2007; Reay, 1998). Middle class mothers are able to influence their children’s network of friends through their own choice of adult friendship.

The relational nature of habitus, field and capital and the conditions for differentiated outcomes can be expressed through the conversion between capital and class. The ownership of capital produces power in different fields through an exchange of investment (Bourdieu, 1986). For example, educational qualifications are only valuable if converted successfully into the labour market, with subsequent personal and financial reward. Social and economic exchanges promote power relations, differences in social mobility and class distinctions. All are affected by income levels and associated lifestyle choices (ibid.; Bourdieu, 1998).

The concepts of habitus, field and capital can be applied to the participants in this study and explored through the women’s educational and familial backgrounds. This line of enquiry provides an understanding of the mothers’ childhood habitus and their educational fields of compulsory schooling and higher education. The mothers’ childhood habitus can then be considered in relation to the potential capitals they bring to their own daughters’ educations, which highlights further the relationship between agency and structure in educational choice.