Habitus

The Latin term habitus, originally derived from the ancient Greek word héxis (ἕξις), refers to a permanent behavioral disposition that is reflected in the attitude of an individual in the sense of an outward appearance as well as an inner disposition. It encompasses the totality of individual behavior patterns, from the way of speaking and gestures to personal values and overall lifestyle. From ancient Greece to the present day, the term has undergone different variations of meaning in the context of rhetoric, philosophy, and sociology (cf. Simonis 2013, 287).

Changes in the meaning of the term

In ancient Greece, Aristotle in particular coined the term héxis (ἕξις), by which he understood a permanent behavioral disposition of an individual that has become habitual through experience and practice (cf. Hügli 2013, 387). Accordingly, héxis is a faculty or generating principle for bringing about future actions (cf. Krais 2014, 29). In the context of the Roman doctrine of rhetoric, habitus referred to a very specific mode of behavior and expression for which a specific posture, manner of speaking, and mental attitude were considered necessary. In the Renaissance, these categories were supplemented by a particular style of speech as well as the appropriate pitch of a speech. (cf. Sominis 2013, 287-288)

The concept of habitus in Norbert Elias

In the field of sociology, the approaches of Norbert Elias and Pierre Bourdieu were particularly influential. The sociologist and cultural philosopher Norbert Elias (1897-1990) assumes that there are strong interdependencies between the patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior of the individual and the social structures that surround him or her (cf. Volkmann 2013, 164). Thus, in Process of Civilization (1939), he describes that the respective customs and manners are to be considered in relation to the respective culture, a point in time, and a social position.

Because of this dependence, Elias also always ascribes a distinctive function to the specific manners of a social group. The observance of a certain table etiquette, a greeting ritual, or the differentiation of what is private or public served to distinguish one from another social group. However, since the lower classes always try to imitate the mores of the higher classes, the latter must always refine their conventions, which continuously shifts the boundary of what is socially acceptable in the respective group. The larger the social groups or states become, Elias argues, the more distinctive the mores of the individual groups become.

For Elias, this mechanism is not only an external, social process, but also a psychological one. Social mores and conventions become internalized in our social habitus through the upbringing and imprinting of the social environment, so that social rules and social coercion become our ’second nature‘ (cf. Eichener 2013, 64). This would give rise to „the peculiar stability of the psychic self-coercion apparatus that emerges as a crucial trait in the habitus of every ‚civilized‘ human being“ (Elias 1976b, 320).

Consequently, for Elias, the social habitus is the psychologized civilization itself, which can vary according to culture, epoch, and social class.

The concept of habitus in Pierre Bourdieu

The theory of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), however, is most strongly associated with the concept of habitus. Like Elias (also following the theses of Marcel Mauss or Erwin Panofsky (cf. Krais 2014, 24)), Bourdieu attributes the homogeneous behavior of individuals (cf. Schroer 2017, 326) who come from similar social contexts to the existence of a shared habitus. Accordingly, the individual habitus is not to be understood as an expression of the individual personality, but as essentially determined by social relations. Bourdieu understands habitus as a „system of durable and transferable dispositions“ (Bourdieu 2015, 98) that encompass and structure a person’s entire appearance, decision-making, thinking, and behavior, including consumer behavior, use of art objects, preferred clothing, taste in housing, political stance, eating habits, gender roles, speech patterns, and ultimately overall lifestyle.

Depending on the volume and type of capital an individual has (economic, social, cultural, symbolic capital), he or she occupies a different position in the social space of a society. Belonging to a social class or milieu is thus not only reflected in economic capital, but also in subtle differences between individuals, such as taste, lifestyle and habitus. In this respect, habitus is nothing more than „incorporate[d] cultural[s] capital of preceding generations“ (Bourdieu 1987, 129)-or similarly to Elias, internalized socialization. The expression of a taste is thus ultimately the expression of a class taste, acquired like a ‚generative grammar‘ (see Chomsky) through socialization in family and school (cf. Ibid.,143).

„Taste is the basis of all that one has […], as of what one is to others, of what one classifies oneself with and is classified by others“ (Ibid., 104).

As a learned pattern of behavior, the habitus is fundamentally stable and constrains the social practice of the individual (cf. Schroer 2017, 333). Nevertheless, in the long run, the behavioral pattern of individuals can change (cf. Ibid., 318) if the position of the individual in the social space changes. From a sociological perspective, habitus is thus the link between individual freedom and the constraint of social structures (cf. Schroer 2017, 317). For Bourdieu, too, the habitus has the function of distinction (cf. Jurt 2013, 86), i.e., the demarcation of a social group from others, so that it is the expression of social difference and of a class struggle in which individuals try to maintain or improve their position.

Thus, habitus is simultaneously a product of social practice, as well as a means of reproducing and manifesting those practices, hierarchies, and ultimately relations of domination.

Habitus and communication

Habitual differences between individuals can be observed not only between social groups within a culture, but also between individuals of different cultures. With regard to communication processes it becomes clear that the habitual behavioral horizons of actors determine the communicative possibilities. Thus, misunderstandings can easily occur when individuals of different cultures, generations or milieus have to communicate with each other. Since, in Bourdieu’s sense, every habitus goes hand in hand with demarcation from other lifestyles, reflection on one’s own and others‘ patterns of behavior is necessary to counteract a resulting attitude of rejection. After all, a fundamentally appreciative and tolerant approach to the other is central to intercultural communication.

Literature

Bourdieu, Pierre: The Fine Differences. Critique of Social Judgment. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1987.

Bourdieu, Pierre: Social Sense. Critique of theoretical reason. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2015.

Eichener, Volker u. Ralf Baumgart: Norbert Elias zur Einführung. 3rd fully revised ed. Hamburg: Junius 2013.

Elias, Norbert: On the Process of Civilization. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Studies. Transformations of behavior in the secular upper classes of the Occident. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1976 (= 1).

Elias, Norbert: On the Process of Civilization. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Transformation of society and draft of a theory of civilization. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1976 (= 2).

Hexis. In: Philosophielexikon. Personen und Begriffe der abendländischen Philosophie von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Edited by Anton Hügli and P. Lübcke. Reinbeck: Rowohlt 2013. p. 387.

Jurt, Joseph: Bourdieu, Pierre. In: Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. Ansätze – Personen -Grundbegriffe. Ed. by Ansgar Nünning. 5th updated & expanded ed. Stuttgart: Metzler 2013, pp. 85-87.

Krais, Beate u. G. Gebauer: Habitus. Bielefeld: Transcript 2014.

Schroer, Markus: Sociological Theories. From the classics to the present. Stuttgart: Wilhelm Fin 2017. (=UTB).

Simonis, Linda: Habitus. In: Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. Approaches – persons – basic terms. Ed. by Ansgar Nünning. 5th updated & expanded ed. Stuttgart: Metzler 2013. pp. 287-288.

Volkmann, Laurenz: Elias, Norbert. In: Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. Approaches – Persons – Basic Concepts. Ed. by Ansgar Nünning. 5th updated & expanded ed. Stuttgart: Metzler 2013. pp. 164-165.