The Possibility Of Using Bourdieu’s Concept Of Habitus To Explain Social Change

Muhammet Talha Sağlam

Makale detayları

The Possibility Of Using Bourdieu’s Concept Of Habitus To Explain Social Change

Yazarlar:

Muhammet Talha Sağlam

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.60-77

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319320

pISSN:

2757-8399

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Social change has been one of the most fundamental problems that the discipline of sociology deals with. Classical period sociologists tended to explain social change as the laws of history and society by reading them through meta-theories. This situation caused the structure to be prioritized within the structure-perpetrator relationship and the perpetrator to be ignored. It is possible to say that over time, meso theories came to the fore instead of meta theories, and eventually a new paradigm that privileged the agent with a symbolic interactionist and phenomenological approach became popular. This study aims to show that the concept of habitus used by Bourdieu, who tries to overcome the structure-agency dichotomy at every opportunity, can be extremely useful when addressing the problem of social change. In the research based on literature review, a significant part of Bourdieus works were subjected to content analysis. Thus, how the author makes sense of the concept of habitus and what meanings he attributes to it are revealed through his works. Moreover, by trying to penetrate the authors views on social change; Bourdieus views have been evaluated and systematically put forward in the context of the relationship between habitus and social change. In this framework, Bourdieus method is mentioned in the first title and the meaning he attributes to the concept of habitus is discussed. The concept of habitus is based on Aristotles concept of hexis and has been used by different sociologists and philosophers. However, it was Bourdieu who virtually rediscovered habitus and positioned it in a central place in the thought system. The most decisive aspect of Bourdieus method is his effort to overcome the dichotomous structure-agent, subjectivism-objectivism distinction of sociology. Concepts such as habitus, field, space, different types of capital all serve this endeavor. As a matter of fact, Bourdieu, while explaining his philosophy of action, uses the aforementioned concepts very functionally to establish the bidirectional link between objective structures and embedded structures. Bourdieu has interpreted habitus in such a way that the reader sometimes gets the impression that this concept prioritizes the structure to a great extent and the agent to at least the same extent. Nevertheless, although he tries to privilege the agent, it can be said that its structural aspect stands out one step forward. In the second section, the relationship between social change and habitus is discussed and a systematic evaluation is attempted. Bourdieu considers everything about society, such as social classes, lifestyles, modes of production and tastes, as the product of past history and the principle of the next history. If the past shaping the present indicates a static tendency, the present shaping the future emphasizes a dynamic tendency. Society is in a constant state of change with this dynamism in history. The principle of change is the struggle to hold the monopoly of elitism. Therefore, everything changes, the only thing that remains unchanged is the effort of the elite to distinguish themselves from the others and the effort of the subordinates to take the place of the elite. Considering the meanings that Bourdieu attributes to the concept of habitus and the relationship he establishes between this concept and other concepts he developed, it is possible to say that habitus is closely related to social change. Habitus has a dynamism that can create countless results that are not directly caused by the conditions of production. Accordingly, within the framework of the relational method he adopted, it is understood that Bourdieu sees social change as a process shaped by compound forces without sharp boundaries. The concept of habitus, on the other hand, together with different concepts such as space, routes, various types of capital, and social positions, offers the possibility of explaining social change without ignoring both the structure and the agent. This study is also a modest contribution in terms of presenting Bourdieus views on social change more systematically and focusing on the relationship between habitus and social change.

 Sosyal değişme, sosyoloji disiplininin ilgilendiği en temel problemlerden biri olagelmiştir. Klasik dönem sosyologları sosyal değişmeyi daha çok meta teoriler üzerinden okuyarak tarihin ve toplumun yasaları şeklinde izah etme eğilimi göstermişlerdir. Bu durum yapı-fail ilişkisi içinde yapının öncelenmesine, failin ise göz ardı edilmesine sebep olmuştur. Zamanla meta teoriler yerine mezo teorilerin gündeme geldiğini ve nihayetinde sembolik etkileşimci ve fenomenolojik yaklaşım ile faile ayrıcalık atfedilen yeni bir paradigmanın revaç bulduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Bu çalışma, her fırsatta yapı-fail dikotomisini aşmaya çalışan Bourdieunün habitus kavramının, sosyal değişme problemini ele alırken son derece kullanışlı olabileceğini göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Literatür taramasına dayanan araştırmada Bourdieunün çalışmalarının önemli bir kısmı içerik analizine tâbi tutulmuştur. Böylece yazarın habitus kavramını nasıl anladığı, ona hangi anlamları yüklediği, çalışmalarından hareketle ortaya konmuştur. Bunun da ötesinde yazarın sosyal değişime dair görüşlerine nüfuz edilmeye çalışılarak Bourdieunün görüşlerinin habitus ve sosyal değişme ilişkisi bağlamında değerlendirilip sistematik şekilde ortaya konmasına gayret edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede ilk başlıkta Bourdieunün yöntemine değinilmiş ve kendisinin habitus kavramına nasıl bir anlam yüklediği ele alınmıştır. Kökeni Aristotelesin heksis kavramına dayanan habitus kavramı, farklı sosyologlar ve filozoflar tarafından kullanılmıştır. Ancak habitusu adeta yeniden keşfederek düşünce sisteminde merkezî bir yere konumlandıran kişi Bourdieu olmuştur. Bourdieunün yönteminin en belirleyici yanı, toplumbilimin dikotomik olarak ele aldığı yapı-fail, öznelcilik-nesnelcilik ayrımını aşma gayretidir. Habitus, alan, uzam, farklı sermaye türleri gibi kavramların tamamı bu çabaya hizmet etmektedir. Nitekim Bourdieu, eylem felsefesini açıklarken nesnel yapılar ile katıştırılmış yapılar arasındaki çift yönlü bağı kurma noktasında anılan bu kavramları son derece işlevsel kullanmaktadır. Bourdieu, habitusu öyle anlamlandırmıştır ki; okuyucu, kimi zaman bu kavramın büyük ölçüde yapıyı kimi zaman da en az aynı ölçüde faili öncelediği izlenimine kapılmaktadır. Buna rağmen habitusa dair açıklamalarda her ne kadar faile ayrıcalık atfetmeye çalışsa da yapısal yönün bir adım öne çıktığı söylenebilir. İkinci başlıkta ise sosyal değişme ve habitus ilişkisi tartışılarak sistematik bir değerlendirme ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bourdieu; toplumsal sınıflar, yaşam tarzları, üretim biçimleri ve beğeniler gibi topluma dair her şeyi, geçmiş tarihin ürünü ve sonraki tarihin ilkesi olarak kabul etmektedir. Geçmişin bugünü şekillendirmesi bugüne ait statik bir eğilime işaret ediyorsa, günümüzün geleceği şekillendirmesi de aynı ölçüde bugüne ait dinamik bir eğilimi vurgulamaktadır. Toplum, tarih içindeki bu dinamizmle sürekli bir değişim halindedir. Değişimin ilkesi ise seçkinlik tekelini elinde bulundurma mücadelesidir. Dolayısıyla her şey değişir, değişmeyen tek şey ise seçkinlerin kendilerini ötekilerden ayırma, tâbi olanların ise seçkinlerin yerini alma çabasıdır. Bourdieunün habitus kavramına yüklediği anlamlar ve bu kavram ile geliştirdiği diğer kavramlar arasında kurduğu ilişki göz önüne alındığında habitusun, sosyal değişmeyle yakından ilgili olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Habitus, doğrudan üretim koşullarından kaynaklanmayan sayısız sonuç yaratabilecek bir devinime sahiptir. Buna göre benimsediği ilişkisel yöntem çerçevesinde Bourdieunün toplumsal değişimi; keskin sınırları olmayan, bileşke kuvvetlerin şekillendirdiği bir süreç olarak gördüğü anlaşılmaktadır. Habitus kavramı ise alan, güzergâhlar, çeşitli sermaye türleri, toplumsal konumlar gibi farklı kavramlarla birlikte hem yapıyı hem de faili göz ardı etmeden sosyal değişimi açıklama imkânı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca bu çalışma Bourdieunün sosyal değişime dair görüşlerini daha sistematik hale getirme ve habitus ile sosyal değişim ilişkisine odaklanma açısından da mütevazı bir katkı niteliğindedir.

 Social change has been one of the most fundamental problems that the discipline of sociology deals with. Classical period sociologists tended to explain social change as the laws of history and society by reading them through meta-theories. This situation caused the structure to be prioritized within the structure-perpetrator relationship and the perpetrator to be ignored. It is possible to say that over time, meso theories came to the fore instead of meta theories, and eventually a new paradigm that privileged the agent with a symbolic interactionist and phenomenological approach became popular. This study aims to show that the concept of habitus used by Bourdieu, who tries to overcome the structure-agency dichotomy at every opportunity, can be extremely useful when addressing the problem of social change. In the research based on literature review, a significant part of Bourdieus works were subjected to content analysis. Thus, how the author makes sense of the concept of habitus and what meanings he attributes to it are revealed through his works. Moreover, by trying to penetrate the authors views on social change; Bourdieus views have been evaluated and systematically put forward in the context of the relationship between habitus and social change. In this framework, Bourdieus method is mentioned in the first title and the meaning he attributes to the concept of habitus is discussed. The concept of habitus is based on Aristotles concept of hexis and has been used by different sociologists and philosophers. However, it was Bourdieu who virtually rediscovered habitus and positioned it in a central place in the thought system. The most decisive aspect of Bourdieus method is his effort to overcome the dichotomous structure-agent, subjectivism-objectivism distinction of sociology. Concepts such as habitus, field, space, different types of capital all serve this endeavor. As a matter of fact, Bourdieu, while explaining his philosophy of action, uses the aforementioned concepts very functionally to establish the bidirectional link between objective structures and embedded structures. Bourdieu has interpreted habitus in such a way that the reader sometimes gets the impression that this concept prioritizes the structure to a great extent and the agent to at least the same extent. Nevertheless, although he tries to privilege the agent, it can be said that its structural aspect stands out one step forward. In the second section, the relationship between social change and habitus is discussed and a systematic evaluation is attempted. Bourdieu considers everything about society, such as social classes, lifestyles, modes of production and tastes, as the product of past history and the principle of the next history. If the past shaping the present indicates a static tendency, the present shaping the future emphasizes a dynamic tendency. Society is in a constant state of change with this dynamism in history. The principle of change is the struggle to hold the monopoly of elitism. Therefore, everything changes, the only thing that remains unchanged is the effort of the elite to distinguish themselves from the others and the effort of the subordinates to take the place of the elite. Considering the meanings that Bourdieu attributes to the concept of habitus and the relationship he establishes between this concept and other concepts he developed, it is possible to say that habitus is closely related to social change. Habitus has a dynamism that can create countless results that are not directly caused by the conditions of production. Accordingly, within the framework of the relational method he adopted, it is understood that Bourdieu sees social change as a process shaped by compound forces without sharp boundaries. The concept of habitus, on the other hand, together with different concepts such as space, routes, various types of capital, and social positions, offers the possibility of explaining social change without ignoring both the structure and the agent. This study is also a modest contribution in terms of presenting Bourdieus views on social change more systematically and focusing on the relationship between habitus and social change.

 Social change has been one of the most fundamental problems that the discipline of sociology deals with. Classical period sociologists tended to explain social change as the laws of history and society by reading them through meta-theories. This situation caused the structure to be prioritized within the structure-perpetrator relationship and the perpetrator to be ignored. It is possible to say that over time, meso theories came to the fore instead of meta theories, and eventually a new paradigm that privileged the agent with a symbolic interactionist and phenomenological approach became popular. This study aims to show that the concept of habitus used by Bourdieu, who tries to overcome the structure-agency dichotomy at every opportunity, can be extremely useful when addressing the problem of social change. In the research based on literature review, a significant part of Bourdieus works were subjected to content analysis. Thus, how the author makes sense of the concept of habitus and what meanings he attributes to it are revealed through his works. Moreover, by trying to penetrate the authors views on social change; Bourdieus views have been evaluated and systematically put forward in the context of the relationship between habitus and social change. In this framework, Bourdieus method is mentioned in the first title and the meaning he attributes to the concept of habitus is discussed. The concept of habitus is based on Aristotles concept of hexis and has been used by different sociologists and philosophers. However, it was Bourdieu who virtually rediscovered habitus and positioned it in a central place in the thought system. The most decisive aspect of Bourdieus method is his effort to overcome the dichotomous structure-agent, subjectivism-objectivism distinction of sociology. Concepts such as habitus, field, space, different types of capital all serve this endeavor. As a matter of fact, Bourdieu, while explaining his philosophy of action, uses the aforementioned concepts very functionally to establish the bidirectional link between objective structures and embedded structures. Bourdieu has interpreted habitus in such a way that the reader sometimes gets the impression that this concept prioritizes the structure to a great extent and the agent to at least the same extent. Nevertheless, although he tries to privilege the agent, it can be said that its structural aspect stands out one step forward. In the second section, the relationship between social change and habitus is discussed and a systematic evaluation is attempted. Bourdieu considers everything about society, such as social classes, lifestyles, modes of production and tastes, as the product of past history and the principle of the next history. If the past shaping the present indicates a static tendency, the present shaping the future emphasizes a dynamic tendency. Society is in a constant state of change with this dynamism in history. The principle of change is the struggle to hold the monopoly of elitism. Therefore, everything changes, the only thing that remains unchanged is the effort of the elite to distinguish themselves from the others and the effort of the subordinates to take the place of the elite. Considering the meanings that Bourdieu attributes to the concept of habitus and the relationship he establishes between this concept and other concepts he developed, it is possible to say that habitus is closely related to social change. Habitus has a dynamism that can create countless results that are not directly caused by the conditions of production. Accordingly, within the framework of the relational method he adopted, it is understood that Bourdieu sees social change as a process shaped by compound forces without sharp boundaries. The concept of habitus, on the other hand, together with different concepts such as space, routes, various types of capital, and social positions, offers the possibility of explaining social change without ignoring both the structure and the agent. This study is also a modest contribution in terms of presenting Bourdieus views on social change more systematically and focusing on the relationship between habitus and social change.

Makale detayları

The Possibility Of Using Bourdieu’s Concept Of Habitus To Explain Social Change

Yazarlar:

Muhammet Talha Sağlam

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.60-77

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319320

pISSN:

2757-8399

Sociology

Pierre Bourdieu

Social Change

Habitus

Structure-Agency Relationship.Sosyoloji

Pierre Bourdieu

Sosyal Değişme

Habitus

Yapı-Fail İlişkisi.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Muhammet Talha Sağlam

Yayıncı: Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Dergi: Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.60-77

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001319320

pISSN: 2757-8399

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Muhammet Talha Sağlam

Yayıncı:

Afyon Kocatepe University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Araştırmaları (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocatepe İslami İlimler Dergisi Vol.7 Issue 1, pp.60-77

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001319320

pISSN:

2757-8399