ASPECTOS ECONÓMICOS DE LA SOSTENIBILIDAD EN ESTRUCTURAS DE HORMIGÓN

76

This thesis borrows from the work of Bourdieu in understanding class difference through the conceptual tools of capital and the access to and availability of goods and services (Bourdieu 1984). Social capital is conceptualised as the ‘who you know’; the social networks that an individual is a part of and the social relations they have formed (Haydock 2014a). Economic capital refers to both income and wealth (Bourdieu 1984, Beagan et al. 2015, Williams 2003). Cultural capital includes qualifications, education, and knowing the ‘right’ things and also the “subtle non-material inheritance bestowed

(usually by one’s own family) to the next generation” (Willott and Griffin 2004: p55).

Bourdieu (1986) identified three forms of cultural capital; objectified, institutionalised and embodied. Objectified refers to cultural goods such as instruments, books, pictures etc. Qualifications and specialised knowledge are cultural capital in its institutionalised form (Bourdieu 1986). The embodied form of cultural capital concerns the forms of knowledge that is linked and incorporated within the individual, for example, language, accent, body, physique, traditions etc. In his earlier works Bourdieu identified embodied cultural capital as a form of physical capital (Bourdieu 1977), which has been much less theorised than other forms of capital (Shilling 2012). Physical capital can be seen as encompassing physical attributes and abilities that are embodied through social practice.

These heterogeneous forms of capital exist within a system of exchange (Harker et al., 1990); when they are accepted as legitimate, they are accumulated and can be converted into symbolic capital as prestige and social honour (Williams 2003, Skeggs 2004). Unequal access to both these resources and the opportunities to accrue and convert each capital type differentiates social groups, for example, by gender and race (Mellor et al. 2010, Skeggs 1997a). Bourdieu theorised that ‘taste’ or aesthetic

77

preference is crucial to the way in which class groups value and recognise symbolic capital and distinguish themselves (Bourdieu 1984, Weininger 2004). In other words, aesthetic preference reflects class position (Cappellini et al. 2015) and cultural capital is recognised by the dominant classes aesthetics or tastes (Haydock 2014a). Thus the societal legitimation of taste and the conversion of other forms of capital into symbolic capital within a society is controlled by the dominant group or class (Weininger 2004). Opportunities to accumulate and exchange capital are as a result, unequal, and in this way, inequalities are maintained and perpetuated through the control of the dominant class (Mellor et al. 2010). Working class young people are often lacking in symbolic capital and opportunities to accumulate all forms of capital are rare (Skeggs 1997a). Physical capital can be exchanged into other forms of capital, for example, economic capital through exchanging physical labour for a wage and to social capital through elite sports participation. In relation to this study, as we will see, the body is important to some drinking practices (through vomiting, passing out, and a lack of physical control) as is gender appropriate embodiment (Coffey and James 2016). This importance identifies the body as a site in which physical capital can be both acquired and exchanged, primarily for working class young people, to cultural or social capital which are both more accessible than symbolic capital (Coffey and James 2016). Bourdieu theorised social capital as comprising valued relations with significant others which are generated through resources, networks and group membership. Social capital, in addition to including social networks, was seen by Bourdieu (1986) as including ‘sociability’, which he perceived to be a continuous relationship which reaffirmed these personal networks (Barry 2011). Criticised for its lack of conceptual

78

clarity (Sullivan 2002), the concept of social capital has since been theorised as being either normative or non-normative. Non-normative, social capital is described as ‘bonding’ social capital (Fukuyama 2001), which is more private than normative or ‘bridging’ social capital (Boeck et al. 2006). Bonding social capital has been conceptualised as benefits arising from intimate relations within a close-knit group, whilst bridging social capital is that which is gained from traversing across less cohesive groupings (Putnam 2001). Of particular relevance to this thesis is a study by Bohn et al. (2014) who found that the use of, and regular communication on, social media enhanced access to both types of social capital. This thesis will operationalise social capital as a resource that is both private (bonding) and public (bridging). It is in the former context (bonding) that social capital accumulation has been much more accessible to young people from lower socio-economic groups although the increasing use of social media makes public or bridging social capital much more accessible (Bohn et al. 2014). The sharing of alcohol related content on SNS provides an opportunity for the careful crafting and management of online identity (Atkinson et al. 2014). The display of alcohol consumption practice materials such as particular brands, venues or bodies play an important role in the creation of online identities which are valued for their aesthetic and symbolic value (Bourdieu 1984, McCreanor et al. 2005). Through these online displays of practice materials, young people are able to project specific tastes and identities and by doing so acquire and accrue capital and status (Atkinson et al. 2014). Thus, Bourdieu’s theorising of capital and taste offers useful conceptual tools for this study. Within this thesis it is assumed that economic, cultural and social capital when legitimated by society can be exchanged or converted to prestigious symbolic capital and also that economic and cultural capital when legitimated by a

79

smaller cultural reference group can be converted or exchanged for social capital. This position is based on the premise that maximising capital resources and being valued or becoming a subject of value (Skeggs and Loveday 2012) is of importance. Thus, gaining status and recognition within this study is simply theorised as the exchange or conversion of capital(s) into more prestigious forms.

2.7.2 ‘Doing gender’

This thesis has highlighted how intoxicated drinking patterns are normalised, and how differences in the drinking patterns of young men and women have narrowed (Bailey et al. 2015, Armitage 2013, McCreanor et al. 2013). However, these alcohol consumption practices are not straight forward and has been discussed, earlier in this thesis, they are highly gendered practices undertaken in a traditionally masculine domain (Bailey et al. 2015). Risk has also been understood within this thesis as being highly gendered with constructions of risk and gender being interwoven (Leaker and Dunk-West 2011, Olstead 2011, Hannah-Moffat and O'Malley 2007). Thus finding the conceptual tools to understand how gender, as a key organising concept of practices (Robinson and Richardson 2015) which relates to the lived experience of alcohol consumption is important for this study. This section explores how the theorising of ‘doing gender’ can enhance this study’s empirical analysis followed by an illustration of how developments in gender theories have played an important role in developing understandings of the part the body plays in practice. This section does not seek to provide an analysis of gender theories or to analyse their relevance or otherwise to social practice theory. The section does however seek to examine the possibilities afforded by concepts taken from the theory of ‘doing gender’ (Butler 1990) and

80

combining them with the three element model of social practice for the purposes of this study. The reason for this approach is that the conceptualisation of ‘doing gender’ has the potential to integrate (Rouse 2007) with social practice theory, as both theoretical framings are concerned with ‘doings’ and reproduction through performance (Butler 2011, Shove et al. 2012). This integration can then be applied to the empirical data in this study to support the empirical analysis.

Within a theoretical framework of ‘doing gender’, gender is understood by ‘what you

do’, at a particular time, within a particular practice, rather than a universal ‘who you are’ and in this way is viewed as more than just expression or identity (Reddy and Dunne 2007, Nayak and Kehily 2013). It therefore follows, that gender is not fixed but is continually negotiated, constituted and reconstituted through repeated shared performances of practice (Paechter 2003, Wohlwend 2009). Thus men and women participate in gender practice or ‘do gender’ in response to situated expectations about masculinity and femininity.

Early theories on gender and sex had focused on biological differences between men and women (Robinson and Richardson 2015, Nayak and Kehily 2013), with gender regarded as a biological fact, that was predetermined by genitalia at birth. Through the 1970s and 1980s, feminist scholars, challenged these theories, by separating sex as determined by birth, from gender which they theorised as a social and cultural construction (Jackson and Scott 2002, Witz 2000). Gender at this time was theorised as being concerned with social distinctions about what it means to be a man or a woman, and the characteristics and identities embodied within each of these social groups (Jackson et al. 2010). For example, women are caring and men are aggressive

81

(Robinson and Richardson 2015). It has since been argued that sex is also socially constructed alongside gender, as one cannot be understood without the other (Hood‐ Williams 1996) as illustrated by Cream’s (1995) work on intersexed bodies. It is important therefore to not entirely deny the pre-social, and to acknowledge that although sex is based on bodily features, the attributing of both sex and gender is social (Jackson et al. 2010). To prevent a revisiting of the sex/gender binary it is useful to distinguish between the corporeal materiality of the body and the conceptualisations of gender as a social construct (Jackson and Scott 2002, Witz 2000). In this way then, the body is both an object and a subject of gender processes; with both being socially constructed but “remain as wilful agents that participate in their

own making and that of others” (Nayak and Kehily 2013). Thus, both the role and the

agency of the body and its corporeal activities can be recognised and incorporated into this research study. This way of conceptualising the corporeal materiality of the body fits with the earlier discussions in this chapter of social practice theoretical understandings of the body as a material element and embodied understandings (Shilling 2001, Sahakian and Wilhite 2013).

This thesis does not assume that there is one masculinity and femininity, rather the inference is that these relational concepts are fluid and that there are therefore multiple masculinities and femininities in any given social context or situation, and across any structural position, such as race, class, age and sexuality (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, Budgeon 2013, Nayak and Kehily 2013). Hegemonic masculinities are theorised as representing the overarching configuration within which different configurations of masculinity practice exist, some of which are subordinate or marginalised with appropriate configurations of the practice varying in different

82

social settings and within different social groupings (Connell 1987, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Hegemonic masculinity then is the ‘ideal’ or the normative type of masculinity, which is culturally dominant in a given setting and against which all other masculinities and femininities are constructed and performed (Connell 1993, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). This is despite not many men actually enacting this ideal (Paechter 2006, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005).

Hegemonic masculinity is theorised as the dominant discourse of masculinity and is characterised within Western society by toughness, risk-taking, heterosexuality, drinking to excess and wage earning (de Visser and Smith 2007). Thus, certain ways of performing masculinity and femininity are privileged, and some ways of doing femininity or masculinity have traditionally been deemed more appropriate than others and these are continually reproduced (de Visser and Smith 2007, Willott and Lyons 2012). However, it has traditionally been more difficult for young people from lower socio-economic groups to access both more dominant femininities and masculinities (Skeggs 1997b, Lyons 2009, Day et al. 2003). This is largely due to the way gender intersects with class (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, Fiaveh et al. 2015) which makes it difficult for working class young people to access these more dominant forms of masculinity and femininity. For example, respectable femininities are usually the preserve of the more privileged middle class and are associated with caring, co- operation, dependency, weakness, vulnerability and virtuousness (O'Connor and Kelly 2006, Fiaveh et al. 2015, Skeggs 1997b). Traditional or respectable femininity, then is tied to the management of physical risks and the performance of effective ‘safekeeping’ strategies (Campbell 2005). Women are charged with taking responsibility for their own safety and may be subjected to blame or alienation if they

83

are seen to have made themselves ‘vulnerable’ to risky situations through failing to adhere to standards of appropriate feminine behaviour (Brooks 2008, Hannah-Moffat and O'Malley 2007).

Gender within this thesis is understood as being situated in everyday lived experiences, social relations, activities, embodied experiences and social practices (Crawford 1995, Nayak and Kehily 2013). Butler (1990) provides a framework within her theory that understands gender as a ‘performance’. Gender is continually (re)created and resisted through repetitive and shared social practices (Paechter 2003) and is viewed as performative (Butler 1990). The meanings and the shared understandings of alcohol consumption practice are tied up in the rewards of the practice which stems from the performance and its contribution to symbolic capital (Groves et al. 2015). This theorising of performativity would appear to dovetail well with a social practice perspective as it challenges the idea that gendered identities are always there. Instead individuals are understood as constantly being gendered through performance (Robinson and Richardson 2015).

The practice performance then, is heavily gendered with various gendered practices being enacted through versions of masculinity and femininity (Lyons et al. 2014b). By way of an example is Campbell’s (2000) study of working men’s drinking in rural New Zealand; masculinity is performed by demonstrating competence in drinking large amounts of beer and by displaying knowledge of local affairs.

Despite the undoubted advances in gender theory, research generally, and alcohol research in particular, has tended to focus exclusively on either men or women with few taking a more holistic approach by integrating work on masculinities and

84

femininities (Nayak and Kehily 2013, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Connell (2005) points to the need for more attention to be paid to the interplay between femininities and masculinities. The concern of this thesis then is not to compare and differentiate the actions of the young men with the young women but instead to focus on how gender is (re)created and performed through alcohol consumption practices. In this thesis, men and women’s engagement in d practices and ‘risk’ activities are recognised as an active part of ‘doing gender’ (Butler 1990). Thinking about gender in this way will enable an empirical exploration of how ‘doing gender’ is embedded and resides in the meanings, materials and competences of alcohol consumption practices and risk activities and how they are performed, enacted and contested.