Structured structures and structuring structures

The habitus is a set of socially constructed dispositions that appear as embodied characteristics of social agents. Always functioning in relation to a market, the linguistic habitus is the main principle of production of linguistic practices53. The relationship between the habitus and the market is one of mutual definition: the linguistic habitus, as the “the product of the whole history of its relations with markets” (LSP, p. 81), functions both as ‘structured structures’ and ‘structuring structures’. From this perspective, the habitus can be defined as a set of schemes of production as well as perception and appreciation of practices:

The conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them. Objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without being in any way the product of obedience to rules, they can be collectively orchestrated without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor (TLP, p. 53).

‘Structured structures’ refers to the way the market shapes the habitus, whilst ‘structuring structures’ refers to the way in which the habitus shapes the market. Agents develop a set of dispositions which, according to the chances of access to the acquisition of the legitimate competence, are relatively attuned to the conditions of the linguistic market in which they function.

53 _{Given the habitus “is the most recurrent principle of practices” (IOW, p. 108) and that “the laws of speech}

production are a particular case of the laws of production of practices” (Bourdieu 1977b, p. 665), it results that the linguistic habitus represents the most fundamental principle of production of practices.

Through the recurrent contact between the linguistic market and the linguistic habitus, i.e., through linguistic exchanges, the linguistic habitus undergoes a constant process of internalization of the set of rules and laws of price formation of that linguistic market. This linguistic habitus is then a set of structured structures which consists of the linguistic competence of the agent, as well as the internalized understanding of how to employ this linguistic competence in a particular market54. By internalizing the rules and laws of price formation of the linguistic market, the linguistic habitus of agents becomes the most important principle of production of linguistic practices.

As has been shown above, linguistic exchanges never have a solely communicative function. Rather, such exchanges are “established within a particular symbolic relation of power between a producer, endowed with a certain linguistic capital and a consumer (or a market), and which is capable of procuring a certain material or symbolic profit” (LSP, p. 66). According to the amount of recognised capital that agents acquire, they gain certain positions in specific fields. The sum of these positions results in a position in the social space. According to these positions, that is, according to the relation between the amounts of symbolic capital that agents possess, and to the immanent rules of a specific linguistic market, interactions are shaped on this market. Thus, the production of linguistic practices is adjusted according to the rules and laws of price formation of the market, as well as to the positions of the interlocutors in the social space. Structured according to the entire history of its relations with the market, the linguistic habitus anticipates possible outcomes, and generates practices that are meant to be meaningful and valuable, i.e., to receive the highest profit possible:

The conditions of reception envisaged are part of the conditions of production, and anticipation of the sanction of the market helps to determine the production of discourse. This anticipation, which bears no resemblance to a conscious calculation, is an aspect of the linguistic habitus, which, being the product of a prolonged and primordial relation to the laws of a certain market, tends to function as a practical sense of acceptability and the probable value of one’s own linguistic productions and those of others on different markets. It is this sense of acceptability, and not some form of rational calculation oriented towards the maximization of symbolic profits, which, by encouraging one to the account of the probable value of discourse during the process of production, determines corrections and all forms of censorship – the concessions one makes to a social world by accepting to make oneself acceptable in it (LSP, p. 77).

Consequently, the anticipation of profit is usually an unconscious act. This is because the anticipation of profit is a product of the habitus understood as an agent’s set of a set of schemes of perception and appreciation of both their own linguistic productions55 and those of other agents. In Bourdieu’s (SSSP, p. 19) words, “habitus is both a system of production of practices and a system of

In other words, “competence, which is acquired in a social context and through practice, is inseparable from the practical mastery of situations in which this usage of language is socially acceptable” (LSP, p. 82).

55 _{In this regard, Bourdieu (LSP, p. 82) argue that “every speaker is both a producer and a consumer of his own}

perception and appreciation of practices … habitus implies a ‘sense of one’s place’ but also a ‘sense of the place of others’”. This has a two-fold consequence.

On the one hand, only by understanding the positions of other agents in relation to their own position in the social space can agents adjust their practices in order to maximize their profits on the linguistic market. Through each interaction with the market, the agent’s habitus evaluates other agents’ practices according to the positions of those agents in the social space, internalizing thus the rules and laws of price formation of the market. However, as Bourdieu explains (LSP, pp. 81-82), “the habitus is, indeed, linked to the market no less through its conditions of acquisition than through its conditions of use. We have not learned to speak simply by hearing a certain kind of speech spoken but also by speaking, thus by offering a determinate form of speech on a determinate market”56. As the operation of the habitus guides our actions according to the match or harmony between our expectations and objective chances of fulfilling them on a certain market (IOW, p. 106), it produces practices and representations which can be classified by those who possess the necessary code. The production of linguistic utterances is evaluated by the other agents/institutions, according to the rules and laws of price formation of the market; such evaluations can take the form of appraisal for what is recognised as legitimate use or sanctions and censorships for divergences from this use. Thus, the evaluation of the market (i.e. of other agents/institutions) can come in an array of forms, out of which the formal assessments conducted by the educational system are probably some of the most overt. It is through such interactions that an agent acquires both a certain linguistic competence and the ability to use it apropos.

On the other hand, this also implies that agents do not act only as ‘self-regulating’ producers of their own practices in relation to other agents, but also as ‘regulators’ (through their own position in different fields and in the social space) of other agents’ practices and their linguistic habitus57. This happens through the position of agents as evaluators and activators of the mechanisms of appreciation and sanctioning of the market: agents evaluate both their and other agents’ practices according to the already internalized rules and laws of price formation. In other words, agents adjust

Furthermore, Bourdieu (LSP, p. 82) explains how this entire process functions: “This occurs through exchanges within a family occupying a particular position in the social space and thus presenting the child’s imitative propensity with models and sanctions that diverge more or less from legitimate usage. And we have learned the value that the products offered on this primary market, together with the authority which it provides, receive on other markets (like that of the school). The system of successive reinforcements or refutations has thus constituted in each one of us a sense of the social value of linguistic usages and of the relation between the different usages and the different markets, which organizes all subsequent perceptions of linguistic products, tending to endow it with considerable stability” (LSP, pp. 81-82).

57 _{The notions of ‘self-regulated’ and ‘regulators’ are not to be taken literally (i.e. as a type of conscious action}

of agents), but are supposed to convey the results the linguistic habitus of an agent has both on the production of their own practices and on the practices and habitus of their interlocutors.

their practices to the conditions of the market, and they also appraise or sanction other agents’ practices. Through their position in the social space, and thus, through the possession of sufficient capital, agents’ practices may thus become the practices against which practices of the lower- positioned agents are measured and thus sanctioned58. By both producing practices and evaluating others’ practices, agents have an active part in modelling the actual structures and conditions of the linguistic market. In other words, through their position in the social space (which influences their linguistic habitus) and through each contact with the market, agents strongly shape the rules and laws of price formation of specific linguistic markets. Thus, being structured by all the history of contacts with the market, the linguistic habitus functions as a set of structuring structures. The following sub-section explores in detail how this relationship between the linguistic habitus and the linguistic market, while deeply rooted in the past, does not have as a result an endless, circular reproduction of the same rules and laws of price formation; indeed, the next sub-section explores the generative character of the habitus and its social transformative power.