Pierre Bordieu, the French sociologist introduces the concept of ‘HABITUS’ which are generative structures which conditions the individual’s practice and are
dispositions which are present prior to participation, in other words one brings it to the world of practice even before one entered it (Bourdieu, 1986). Habitus is
defined as ‘systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures’, basically an acquired disposition produced by ‘conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence’ (Bourdieu, 1990). In Bourdieu’s case it is worth mentioning the
‘conditioning’ of the social reality referred to is that of the French elites, which was
central to his study on the process of perpetuation of elite dominance through habitus in the fiercely ‘apparently meritocratic’ educational system.
According to Bourdieu: ‘the apparently most insignificant techniques of the body – ways of walking or blowing one’s nose, ways of eating or talking … [reveals] the most fundamental principles of construction and evaluation of the social world’
(Bourdieu, 1986) and when a person with a certain habitus encounters a familiar
world for its habitus ‘it is like a ‘fish in water’… it takes the world about itself for granted’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Some of the salient points about habitus; it
is unconsciously acquired, is context-independent, structures one’s response to the
social world and can reproduce itself under different circumstances. Bordieu’s ‘habitus’ are particular dispositions, patterns of thinking acquired early on unconsciously and are ‘embodied principles’ acting like manuals for negotiating
social realities and practices.
Bourdieu’s focus on practice interests researchers on Communities of Practice
(Wenger, 1998) and has appeared in literature on organization, learning and knowledge (Von Krogh et al., 2000; Delamont & Atkinson, 2001). Recently the concept of habitus in Communities of Practice influencing practice has received attention by Mutch (2003) in his work on UK public house managers. It would be interesting to explore the dispositions participants bring to the Community of
Practice through their ‘habitus’ and how it influences their practices. ‘Habitus’
there is a divergence with Wenger (1998) who affirms that ‘habitus’ is generated by
participation in practices within a CoP, dispositions inherited outside a CoP can be modified by the practices of the CoPs, and when there is a discrepancy between the
inherited ‘habitus’ prior to engagement with the CoPs and that of the one developed
within CoPs, there will be tension in the negotiation of meaning of the individual. This tension between acquired dispositions and that required in the participating CoPs in individual identity is illustrated by the work of Mutch (2003). So the researcher can safely critique that Wenger (1998) has not done rigorous treatment about ‘habitus’ formation within CoPs and the accompanying processes to stake the claim that practice alone generated in a particular CoP can influence the ‘habitus’ of an individual belonging to a particular CoP. It is important to emphasize that a group of individuals belong to multiple CoPs and the discussion in this section
moves swiftly from plural to singular and should realize that ‘habitus’ conditioning
might not take place in any of the CoPs one belongs to or might be influenced by some one belongs to.
In context of this particular research ‘elite’ dimension of the IAS collective is
incorporated as a concept which might possibly emerge given the nature and background of the Indian civil service, that is, the tradition and legacy of ICS specific to the West Bengal cadre. There is no separate literature review on elites and the influence on formation of CoPs and the associated processes of CoP-
facilitated learning and innovation since this particular research study did not intend to study them as a group of elite individuals. Initial pilot-study results did not reveal
any clear notion of IAS being an ‘elite’ with a distinct cultural capital, habitus but
more a professional holding important positions in society.
This ‘elite’ dimension became evident while conducting the West Bengal cadre IAS
study and had to be incorporated as a separate chapter. The conceptual framework here developed for interpretation of the collected data from the West Bengal cadre IAS officers case-study is that of ‘Habitus’ and the influence on ‘Participation in
Practice’. According to the researcher this ‘elite’ dimension emerges from West
Bengal being a Presidency cadre, where the ICS officers ruled directly and the legacy and influence they left behind. In this context the seminal work of West Bengal cadre IAS officer, Mr. Bhaskar Ghose(1960 batch), ‘In Service of the State;
IAS Revisited’ lucidly captures this social reality of a distinct group of officers
hailing from an Anglophone Indian middle-class background with “….the ideals that
are brought from one’s formative years”(Ghose,2011).
ICS officers clearly belonged to an elite in every sense of the term with the trappings of power, prestige and glamour and the social respect accorded to them by ordinary Indians. Important to state that ICS officers possessed a specific and typical elite habitus in terms of habits, manners, conduct and speech as manifested in the literary works of memoirs and biographies.
In case of this specific research the specter of ‘Habitus’ appears in three very
important socio-cultural contexts:
(1) The state cadres where the ICS officers ruled directly, defined for the current study as Presidency cadres, the elite influence would be
discernible vividly. The elite habitus described is more a product of the world of the ICS officers of the British Raj.
(2) The Training academy in Mussorie influences the habitus of recruits particularly those for whom the transition from college to IAS was not implicitly assumed and thought to be a natural one by acculturating the habitus of an ICS officer modeled along the lines of an English
gentleman. The Academy training program was in tune with that of the
ICS officers who were groomed to be ‘Gentlemen Civil Servants’.
Hence the researcher will look for evidence if the dominant habitus encouraged at the Academy was similar to that of the ICS officers.
(3) The dominant habitus encouraged at the Training Academy is that of the British-styled Gentlemen ICS which in turn is similar to that of the Anglophone Indian upper-middle class urbane society. For them there
seems to be an aura of ‘a cut above the rest’ for the ones who speak impeccable English, educated in one of the few ‘English-styled’ schools
and have been exposed to public life at an early formative stage. Across the entire spectrum of Indian public life are present and particularly within the IAS there seemed to be a ‘social set’ drawn from the old Anglicized elite who can straddle between the world of private club,
Oxbridge education, reading Jane Austen, playing tennis and attend to the tough ground realities of district administration. Hence the researcher wishes to investigate, record and capture if the IAS officers hailing from Anglophone upper-middle class Indian society were more at ease with the dominant habitus of the Academy and the IAS in general.
The specific research questions which emerge from the conceptual framework discussions on elite research pertaining to the West Bengal cadre IAS officers are:
1.0 Do the IAS officers hailing from Anglophone Indian upper-middle class backgrounds naturally form CoPs amongst themselves due to their shared habitus and the dominant habitus of the IAS as inculcated by the Training Academy being similar to their inherited one through family and education?
2.0 How does the elite habitus brought from the social backgrounds of IAS officers influence their Participation in Practice of the CoPs?
3.0 How does the Training Academy encourage and instill this habitus which is the elite habitus in the Indian context?
The researcher will draw from the theoretical framework of ‘habitus’ both acquired at the academy and inherited at an early stage to observe and record any influence in their participation in CoPs. Interestingly the question would be if the natural
formation of CoPs within the IAS reflects any particular affinity amongst those who
have shared ‘habitus.’
7.5 RESEARCHING THE ELITES – METHODOLOGICAL