Bourdieu’s idea of the “habitus” is a duplex simultaneity that explicates the both the persistence of the current state of inequalities and the irruption of social changes in society today. A prima facie look at Bourdieu’s work will only affirm the first proposition and elide the latter. In my analysis, I will show how Singapore’s “meritocracy”, “democracy”, and the “middle-class” ideologies are paradigmatic forms of symbolic violence that reproduce the both the advantageous and disadvantageous habituses and as a corollary, perpetuate inequalities in society. Thereafter, I will also attempt to also show how Bourdieu’s “habitus” is a set of eventualities and potentialities (Loic, 1998) that provides agents with the ability for innovation in their respective fields. This essay will also outline the dialectic between the ‘field’ and ‘habititus’ and elucidate how both interpellate and shape each other. Towards the end, I will use Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ to show how social change is possible.
At the crux of Bourdieu’s theory, he rejects Leibniz’s monadology, which advocates that monads inhere internal principles, or predicates that effects natural change and that no external cause can influence it internally (Leibniz, 1991). For Bourdieu however, the ‘habitus’ decries Leibniz’s monads. The habitus is the “internalization of externality” such that it objectifies a person’s positional standing in the social space which translates the intrinsic and relational characteristics of a position into a set of styles, modus vivendi, world views and internalized dispositions (Bourdieu, 2002). Thus, the individual does not inhere internal principles like monads but derive them externally based on one’s social position and internalizes them. The habitus thus “retranslates intrinsic and relational characteristics of a position into distinct unified choices and styles that corresponds to one’s position” (Bourdieu, 2002). The brilliance of Bourdieu’s theory thus lies in how we can apply it as a grand classificatory scheme to understand basic social differences as exemplified by how the scintillating and overly pretentious and ostentatious styles of dressing is unpalatable to the affluent who dresses sleekly; why some people are preoccupied with trivial concerns while others indulge in philosophical and sociological debates; why some people go to better schools while others languish in neighbourhood schools. For Bourdieu, these differences in stands, taste, and perception can be attributed to the different occupation of position in social space which begets different life trajectories, lifestyles, concerns and choices and that structures his perceptions and experiences. Thus, Bourdieu suggests that the primary habitus that forms our early experiences and schemes of perceptions predispose us or incline us to see things in a particular manner contingent on the various capitals that ensconce in us. As a corollary, we are likely to reinforce or reproduce our experiences (Bourdieu, 2002) thereby result in the reproduction of social inequalities.
Moreover, as we enter different fields that constitute our social cosmos such as the political field, the art field, the business field or the sociological field, these fields in which the agent is situated will again influence his ‘habitus’ and shape his choices. For Bourdieu, fields are substratums for the deployment of capitals and competences derived from the agent’s habitus (Bourdieu, 2002). People’s primary habitus will valorize and colour the field with meaning strands and fields will in turn shape people’s habitus as it influences people’s interests and concerns. Hence, there exist a continual dialectic between the habitus and field. As Bourdieu puts it, the habitus is a structured structure consisting of systems of durable and transposable dispositions that acts as a structuring structure which structures new experiences according the structures produced by past experiences (Bourdieu, 2002). Thus, based on this further understanding, we can draw a further conclusion that the habitus of an agent embodies the totality of the systemic structure and also shows his specific location in it and because agents internalize particular habituses that gives to him an advantageous or disadvantageous position, this tends to result in the reproduction of inequalities.
By virtue of internalizing the habitus which reflects different social positions, this will endow individuals with differential capitals and provide agents with different perceptions, potentialities, paths, routes and trajectories in life. Thus, the habitus is the pretext of social reproduction of inequalities and stratification as the affluent endowed with a more bountiful supply of economic and cultural capital and who have prolific social connections will have be able to put their children into better schools, provide them with better enrichment and tuition. The less economically advantaged however, who do not have such economic, cultural and social capital place themselves or their children in this case in a systemic disadvantage. In other words, we can also safely claim that the internalization of the habitus creates a homology between the structural social space and mental cognition or perceptive schemata (Bourdieu, 1989) in which what is consecrated by our education system is the homology of the rich who are well positioned in the social space with copious capitals of all sorts. If we use Bourdieu’s framework of analysis then, the meritocratic school system in Singapore thus privileges not virtues of tenacity, assiduousness and diligence like what it preaches but this system based on ‘merit’ in actuality, consecrates precocity (Bourdieu, 1989) or knowledge that children have even before school starts which can only be attained only if one is in a good position taking in the social space, has copious capitals and is affluent enough to give his or her kids prior infusion of knowledge. What happens is then that “meritocracy” obscures differences in habitus that privileges the habitus of the richer over the poorer. Such an unmeritocratic system is not overhauled but reproduced even at this very point in time we speak because of ‘symbolic violence’ or the misrecognition of the legitimacy of this meritocracy in Singapore. Bourdieu (1989), claims that reproduction of social space is possible because agents are never fully conscious of what they are doing despite being armed with the ability to discern, ruminate and discursively thrash out things. He thus suggests then that it is because we misrecognize the partisan nature of things that we fail to act judiciously towards an unfair system and this is so because academic titles or certificates are public and official warranties awarded by a recognized authority, being the state (Bourdieu, 1989) and these titles conferred upon people are endowed with transcendence of the social with an objectivity or universality (Bourdieu, 1989) that brings forth a sense of fairness concealing away all the subjectivity, arbitrariness and partiality of the ‘meritocratic system’. Thus the Singaporean state is the culprit of symbolic violence since it exercises monopoly on symbolic violence through being able to confer symbolic significance of academic certificates and achievements of people thereby concealing the birth prerogatives that allowed these achievers to achieve. Thus, those habituses that are advantaged and those that are disadvantaged in the system will always be reproduced because people do not recognize this symbolic violence at play.
Singapore’s government whose legitimacy is founded on the elaboration of a “national interests” (Chua, 1995), to protect “every legitimate interest” (Chua, 1995) of each individual and the “common material interests” (Chua, 1995) of the nation, creates a form of disinterestedness (Bourdieu, 1989) in egocentric desires on the part of the state elites. But this disinterestedness and devotion to the public (Bourdieu, 1989) or national interest is also quintessential of symbolic violence. The denial of any self-interest in governance prescribes legitimacy of the PAP to govern over the country in its entirety, over and above all “racial” divisions even though the government is highly concentrated with people of consanguineous relationships manifested clearly in the shareholders of Temasek Holdings for instance. As a corollary, a façade of fairness is perpetuated and concomitant with the “meritocratic system”, the state elites are able to reproduce their social advantages behind this misrecognition of arbitrariness on the part of the public or what I would call, behind this pompous masquerade.
I bring the argument further and suggest that this symbolic violence is not only corralled to our “meritocratic” educational system but it can also explicate the general quiescence and dormancy of Singaporeans in society. I posit that the ideology of “middle class” and “consumerism” in Singapore are also paradigmatic forms of symbolic violence. In Singapore, many people subjectively self-identify themselves as middle class (Mak, 1993). In fact, many of such “middle class” discourses like “Singapore has been transformed from an Asian port of coolies and taukehs to a global metropolis inhabited by an affluent middle class” (Troki, 2006) are abound to the extent that some people suggest very vaguely that the middle class is simply everything that is between the two polar ends (Mak, 1993). But the “middle class” is, is to me, a form of is a form of symbolic violence that misrecognizes the vast and rising inequality and polarity in the Singapore society. The “middle class” ideology forges a false sense of wellbeing in Singapore because if everyone is “middle-class” it implies that everyone is naturally fairly well-to-do on the average and thus, insinuates that there is no need to precipitate any demands upon the Singapore government. Hence, the government who has a predilection for boundaries makes no stand to rigorously and forcefully monitors strict demarcation of “middle-class” like how they so perspicaciously monitor the ethnic boundaries of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO divisions). The “middle class” ideology elides over unequal and different position-takings and habituses of Singaporeans and creates a wonderful chimerical sense of equality. One would only need to refer to the most recent news recognize this misrecognition. A special report from Forbes by Nam (2009), reported that the total net worth of Singapore's top 40 is $39 billion which is a 20% from last year's $32 billion. Big time industrial players like Ng Teng Fong, Kuok Koon Hong and the Kwee Brothers all saw an increment in profits by the billion (Nam, 2009). On the other hand, job losses as a corollary of a contracted economy saw DBS Group releasing 900 employees (“DBS cuts 900 jobs, reports 38% fall in Q3 profit,” 2008). But these news are not always brought up as cardinal to the public signifying widening inequalities. Hence, I propose that the misrecognition of “middle class” is crucial in maintaining this tranquility or apathy in Singapore because the converse is precarious to the PAP’s legitimacy since its legitimacy is always prided upon the ability to placate and deliver materially to the “middle class” and economic dislocation and drastic display of income inequalities would only shatter this chimera of progress and wellness. Thus, the misrecognition of “middle class” plays a fundamentally crucial role in Singapore because it is a bulwark against any possible civil disobedience, putsch or coup d’état against the government and it allows for the continual reproduction of habituses that advantage certain groups of people over others.
But if symbolic violence results in the perpetuation of people’s unequal standing in social spaces and habituses that disadvantage the less well to do, then where are the points of resistance? Bourdieu does not suggest that there is no room for innovation. In fact, Bourdieu asserts that the categories of perception and schemas of thought internalized as our habitus provides us with the ability for self-determination and innovation (Bourdieu, 1998). Similarly with reference to Habermas, we can utilize rationality as tools of evaluative criticism to evaluate the current stock of knowledge and contents in the life world. What is cardinal to Bourdieu’s works is also, the annulment of agents as objects of determination. Agents are construed as potentially cognizant and perspicacious who can utilize the habitus bequeathed to them to modify and transform the fields they are in. Thus, this is why AWARE in Singapore has been able to propagate for equal medical benefits for male and female civil service servants (“History & Achievements,” 2009) Also, AWARE, recognizing the insalubrious and inimical effects of the dominant image of women as thin and svelte has also formed a Training Institute (ATI) that offers a workshop to help girls in their youth to change their conceptions of beauty and attractiveness and to stay healthy (“State of the Nation’s Women’s Report,” 2008). Elsewhere, the farming populace in Jiangxi disputed against tax policies instituted by the authorities in China (Hewitt, 2002) and in Thailand, The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) led by media magnate Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang has protested against Thaksin’s nepotism and corruption (“Q&A Thailand Protests,” 2009). Similarly, decades ago, Nelson Mandela fought for African rights against the Apartheid and Martin Luther King launched the civil rights movement for African Americans. All these exemplifications buttresses how agents in the field do not only apathetically accede to the current status quo but as agents with equipped with their habituses, modify and transform their fields to what best suits their interests. This then forms the objective structure of the field, which will influence later generations of perceptive schema of thoughts.
In retrospect, it is in the objective of this paper to show how social reproductions of advantageous and disadvantageous habituses are constantly reproduced in the context of Singapore as a corollary of the symbolic violence as manifested in the various cases such as “meritocracy”, “democracy” and the “middle-class” ideology as I have afore-mentioned. However, that is not to say that any innovation or change is totally stifled because as agents, in the field, we can act to transform and modify the structures to suit contemporary needs and self interests.
References
Wacquant, Loic (1998) ‘Pierre Bourdieu’, in Rob Stones (ed.) Key Sociological Thinkers, Houndmills: Macmillan, pp. 215-229.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002) ‘Social Space and Symbolic Space’ and ‘Structures, Habitus, Practices’ in Craig Calhoun et al. Contemporary Sociological Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 267-288.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989) ‘Prologue’; Part I Chp 1; Part I Chp 2; Part V, in (ed.) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, pp. 1-6; 7-29; 30-53; 371-389.
Leibneiz, G.W (1991) ‘The Principles of Philosophy, or, The Monadology (1714),’ in
Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays. Indiapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company pp 68-81.
Chua Beng Huat (1995) ‘Ideological Trajectory: From Authoritarianism to Communitarianism’, in Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge, pp 9–39.
Trocki, Carl A. (2006). “The Managed, Middle-Class, Multiracial society” in Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. London and New York: Routledge
Mak Lau-Fong (1993). ‘The Rise of the Singapore Middle Class: An Analytic Framework’, in Hsiao Michael Hsin-Huang (ed) Discovery of the Middle Classes in East Asia. Taiwan: Institute of Technology, pp. 307–335.
Websites
Channelnewsasia.com 2008. “DBS cuts 900 jobs, reports 38% fall in Q3 profit.”
Channel News Asia, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/388278/1/.html)
Suzanne Nam (2009). “Special Report: Singapore’s 40 richest.”
Forbes.com, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/09/singapore-richest-wealth-singapore-billionaires-09-southeast-asia-intro.html)
AWARE (2008). “State of the Nation’s Women report” AWARE.org.sg, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://www.aware.org.sg/2009/07/state-of-the-nation’s-women-report/)
AWARE (2009). “History & Achievements” AWARE.org.sg, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://www.aware.org.sg/2009/07/state-of-the-nation’s-women-report/)
BBC News (2009). “Q&A: Thailand protests” BBC.co.uk, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm)
Duncan Hewitt (2002). “China’s rural tax revolution” BBC.co.uk, Retrieved September 19, 2009
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2067724.stm)
No comments:
Post a Comment