Bourdieu’s work is relevant to this thesis, particularly his use of habitus, field and capital to explain social and cultural disadvantage, he describes his philosophical position as ‘constructivist structuralism or structuralist constructivism’ (1989:14). Despite the ontological difference, many features of Bourdieu’s (1989) analysis are reflected in Jenkins’ (2014) understanding of identity and in combination they offer a framework through which discrimination and intersectional oppression can be understood.
4.4.1 Habitus:
Bourdieu, like Jenkins, describes the development of understanding the world as a dialectic process. ‘Habitus is both a system of schemes of production of practices and a system of perception and appreciation of practices’ (Bourdieu 1989:19). Through this dialectic process individuals are socialised from childhood to mirror the social divisions they experience. Bourdieu understands this process to result in individuals developing ‘habitus’, a set of loose, unconscious guidelines about expectations of themselves and others, similar to Jenkins’ description of group identity development. Although he does not believe these guidelines to be deterministic, Bourdieu believes power structures to be rooted in reality, opposing Jenkin’s understanding of these as constructed entities. Despite the differences, both authors acknowledge the interactive process of developing an understanding of the world and our place within it.
4.4.2 Field:
Bourdieu presents the different arenas of social life as ‘fields’, described by Houston (2002: 157) as ‘areas of social relationship that are characterised by power differentials amongst the actors that make them up’. Here the reference to individuals as actors resonates with Goffman’s (1956) exploration of social life as a theatre where ‘performances’ are enacted on a ‘stage’, described in more detail below. The majority of Bourdieu’s work focusses on education as the most unequal of ‘fields’ but also references the domains of social welfare
4.4.3 Capital:
For Bourdieu the source of inequality is class division, which also acknowledges the importance of other attributes including gender, ethnicity and disability as impacting on the opportunities afforded to individuals and groups. The distribution of four different types of capital is the system through which advantage and disadvantage is maintained. Bourdieu divides capital into; economic capital – finances and possessions; cultural capital – recognised knowledge; social capital – connections and social ties; symbolic capital – perceived status. Possession of these different forms of capital enables some to capitalise on their assets and sustain or enhance their position, whereas those without this luxury experience disadvantage and discrimination.
4.4.4 Social Work
Houston (2002) proposes that social workers can use Bourdieu’s theory in their work with service users. He encourages practitioners to reflect on their habitus, position in the field and possession of capital in order to prevent them contributing to the perpetuation of disadvantage. Two facets of reflection are outlined for practitioners however these are also applicable to researchers in the field of social work;
1. Reflecting on individual values and how these have developed based on experiences and knowledge of habitus, field and capital. This reflection then enables practitioners to identify how their identity has developed, and whether there are ‘blind spots’ as a result of these experiences. In social work research this is important when engaging with participants. Co-constructed narratives are developed in interaction between researchers and participants, so an understanding of and ability to address one’s own value judgments is vital to providing an environment where participants feel able to share their experiences.
2. Achieving self-awareness then facilitates practitioners to consider how inequality in the field distorts perceptions. In the field of social welfare this relates to notions of deserving and undeserving, which are entrenched in policy and practice (for example Forbat’s 2004 exploration of discriminatory legislation). There are over- representations of specific groups in some services and under-representations in
others, according to Houston these require exploration in order for social work practitioners to understand the impact of habitus, field and capital on the people they work with. Here social work researchers have a responsibility to uncover these inequalities and provide alternative models of practice.
Finally, Houston (2002) considers the role of Bourdieu’s work in enabling the development of cultural sensitivity. This is described in four stages and differs significantly to the fact- file approaches identified in the literature review as a favourite of practitioners. The approach focusses on empathy as an ‘accurate understanding of another person’s cultural experience, emotions and behaviour’ (2002:159). As narrative analyses such as dialogic performance analysis also seek to understand these elements, the process remains relevant to both social work practitioners and researchers alike.
1. Primarily Houston advocates a consideration of the person’s experiences with fields, remembering that the fields of education, welfare and politics are where most inequality is located. This means that as people using services, those that practitioners work alongside are likely to have experienced inequality in these fields, either consciously or unconsciously. For participants in this study, these interactions with the field may include confusion, exclusion and discriminatory experiences.
2. Practitioners are then encouraged to reflect on how an individual’s life events and childhood socialisations have affected their sense of self, others and the world they live in. Here Houston includes Bourdieu’s understanding of life events and socialisation as impacting on the development of identity. Although Bourdieu believes interaction with social structures also has a role in shaping identity, there is similarity here with Jenkin’s understanding of identity development as a dialectic process between the individual and the environment. Analysis of the interview transcripts of this thesis will enable me to uncover the nature of the participant’s self-identity and consider the impact of different events and interactions.
3. The ‘material aspects’ of life are then explored, Bourdieu prioritises social class over other groupings such as gender and ethnicity, although these also require exploration. Here Bourdieu differs from Jenkins and Goffman, who believe a combination of ‘group’ identities can affect individual identity formation. Gunaratnam specifically challenges this prioritising of one characteristic at the detriment of exploring the intersectional
nature of disadvantage. Given the over-representation of minority ethnic people experiencing lack of capital (Khan and Shaheen 2017) it is important that intersectional oppression is explored at this stage in both practice and research.
4. Finally, in practice environments, social workers must explore with service users how to maximise or develop existing capital. To manage this task, there should be a focus on awareness raising in relation to structural disadvantage, whilst rejecting deterministic explanations and focussing on empowerment. In current practice, the move towards rights-based social work, and service-user involvement has enabled collectivised challenges to traditional notions of cultural capital, for example the requirements to include ‘experts by experience’ in social work education has developed a new form of cultural capital. Research can help arm practitioners with detailed knowledge required to raise awareness, particularly where analysis methods enable an analysis of meaning rather than taking data at face value.
4.4.5 Hysteresis
Although Bourdieu’s primary focus is class, his work does encourage an exploration of other factors and proposes the term ‘hysteresis’ to describe situations were individuals experience a lag or mismatch between the habitus and significant rule changes in the field. Here the author encourages practitioners to focus on the impact this has on the individual and their ability to locate themselves within new power structures, where their existing capital may not hold the same worth. In this research project some participants had occupations that carried substantial capital prior to arriving in England, for example as teachers. The experience of reconciling this with their new status may have had an impact on self-identity, for example where qualifications were not transferable. Interestingly, within the same ‘group’ or community, some aspects of capital may still hold value, for example the symbolic capital that the profession carries, but other aspects may be lost, for example the economic capital associated with a professional salary.
Despite ontological differences between Bourdieu and other theorists discussed in this chapter, the concept of capital is important to understanding the impact of intersectional disadvantage on the participant’s identity formation, and on their experiences of interacting with health and social care professionals.