Requisitos del Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus works alongside those of capital, field, doxa, and illusio; and is used to interpret a number of oppositions that determine how we determine the social world. Habitus refers to embedded tendencies, attitudes, and values about society and culture that all people inherit and receive through a process of socialisation. As people live within a culture and develop, they subconsciously develop a habitus that is appropriately modified for their circumstances and in turn passed on to their young dependents, at which point the process repeats itself, albeit in a constant state of gradual flux. This relates to the concept of ‘reproduction’ being applied to social status through the systems of education, and is developed by Bourdieu and Passeron in Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1990 [1970]).

Habitus relates to the conundrum of individual autonomy versus sociological determinism. In today’s western societies, people like to consider themselves as free agents in a ‘free world’. Bourdieu asked how individuals can be free agents when we constantly base our decisions on other people’s predictable behaviour, character and opinions – albeit unconsciously. By way of

illustration; it is a fair assumption to make that educated middle-class people are not the usual customers in betting shops and working-class people (especially women) have not traditionally joined golf clubs in any great

numbers. These are within the doxa of the respective social groups and are not written rules - more unspoken and accepted embedded dispositions - that could limit individuals’ motivation to enter a betting shop or a golf club

(respectively). Their habitus is likely to be at odds with such establishments and entering them would make them feel uncomfortable and ill at ease.

Through the use of the concept of habitus, Bourdieu’s intention was to see how individual agency can be reconciled with sociological determinism. Bourdieu

58.

states that the habitus is ‘necessity internalized and converted into a disposition that generates meaningful practices and meaning-giving perceptions’; it is a

‘structured and structuring structure’ (2010 [1984]: 166-167). As an another example of habitus in action one young, working-class respondent to a study on access to higher education is quoted as saying, ‘university's not for me - I'm a Nike person’ (Archer et al., 2007: 219). Their habitus is reflected in this statement, in that they make a matter-of-fact assumption about their own life choices. This directly links to Bourdieu’s oft-quoted observation about members of social groups referring to exclusions to their tastes as ‘not for the likes of us’ (Bourdieu, 2010 [1984]: 480).

As detailed in the previous chapter, there is a small range of scholars who have written on the spaces and places of cinemas and the varying significances of their locations to the distinctive experiences that they offer. These studies often refer to Bourdieu’s habitus as a structure for examining embodied film-going tastes. Amongst these scholars are Phil Hubbard (2002; 2003b; 2003a;

2004; 2011; 2016), Jancovich et al (2003) and Maltby et al (2007). Other scholars in this field are: Fiona Devine et al who investigate the linkbetween habitus and capital, and space and place in relation to working class culture (2005), Mark Rimmer and his work on young people and their musical habitus (2006; 2012), and Ailsa (Hollinshead, 2011) on ‘art-house cinema and the absent audience’. Hollinshead’s research involved interviews with adult residents in areas of deprivation; people that did not attend Edinburgh’s two art-house cinemas. Similarly to my own research design, she analysed talk on film viewing choices and practices to ‘gain insights into ways in which these choices and practices could be seen as related to Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural and symbolic capital’ (2011: 392). Hollinshead argues that there is a link between symbolic and cultural capital, and educational and economic deprivation. Her conclusions point to a number of practical proposals that she believes could increase awareness of art-house cinemas’ appeal to people from deprived areas. She concedes however that people from disadvantaged

communities’ ‘lack of knowledge kept returning to issues of cultural capital and habitus’, and points to ‘the continuing significance and [detrimental]

consequences of classed cultural activities, particularly for those who live in

59.

areas of multiple deprivation’ (2011: 409).

Another scholar to use Bourdieusian concepts in relation to cinema is Elizabeth Evans (2011) () (), who conducted a study into the audiences of three

independent cinemas in the East Midlands; The Phoenix in Leicester, The Broadway in Nottingham and The Quad in Derby (PBQ consortium). In Bourdieusian terms, this in an investigation into the rules of the specialised cinema field. Evans asserts that the average age of the independent cinema customer is skewed towards older age groups and similarly to Hollinshead, she is concerned with assessing participants’ taste patterns. Evans recognises that Bourdieu’s conclusions on social hierarchy and taste apply to her sample;

‘audiences share a number of attitudes towards films and commercialism in rhetoric strongly reminiscent of Bourdieu’s theories of taste’ (Evans, 2011:

332). A concept of ‘indirect communities’ is introduced by Evans (drawing on Benedict Anderson’s theory of ‘imagined communities’ (2004 [1983]), and relating to Stanley Fish’s interpretive communities (Fish, 1980). She discusses Anderson’s ()()theory of ‘imagined communities’ as being distinct from her concept mainly in that his members do not usually share a physical space and have limited interaction with each other. Evans refers to her observations of groups of people regularly sharing the cinema space and not conforming to the usual definitions of a community - where members communicate directly with each other.¹³ Evans elaborates that her respondents are ‘dismissive of

audiences that do not fit into a specific set of criteria defined by class, age and etiquette’ and instead seek out places and spaces shared with ‘indirect

communities’ that exhibit similar cultural tastes, values and behaviours (2011:

332). As well as the similar class, age and behaviour in evidence, Evans’

‘indirect communities’ have more factors in common with attendees at music concerts or supporters at sports matches; they are essentially strangers except for their common cultural (or sporting) interest and a fleeting sharing of

physical space. In a similar vein, Wilinsky discusses the ‘tight community’ that

13 For more on the concept of Community see Day G (2006) Community and Everyday Life. Taylor and Francis., Boyle K (2010) Watch with Baby: Cinema, Parenting and Community. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13(3): 275-290., and Delanty G (2010) Community. London ; New York: Routledge.

60.

she experienced when undertaking research for Sure Seaters: ‘the small size of the art film industry and the warmth with which the interviewees spoke of the art film culture suggests the bond formed by their participation in this

unconventional and marginalized community’ (2001:9). These discussions of community coalesce with Bourdieu’s idea of ‘group habitus’, in which he puts forward that a collective habitus is possible after an extended period of time, where a shared social experience results in drawing up of boundaries and an exclusivity of practice (Bourdieu, 1984).

Janna Jones coined the specific term ‘movie habitus’ (2011) in relation to her research on the place of film consumption in the lives of her American undergraduates as they were growing up. She explains here why the term movie-going (or cinema-going) is inadequate and not comprehensive enough in the era of increased domestic and mobile film consumption:

…‘movie-going’ implies that audiences must ‘go out’ to experience its rituals, structures and pleasures, we might do well to replace it with a different term that intimates a situated set of practices that take place in a multiplicity of temporal and spatial zones.

(Jones, 2011: 102) Jones justifies the use of the term ‘movie habitus’ by emphasising that it encompasses both geographical factors and place-based practices. For Jones the term also ‘accommodates cinema’s persistent role in daily life and implies (and reminds us) that movie-going practices exist in multiple temporalities and are situated in shifting geographies' (2011: 102). She cites John Fiske as a forerunner of this idea who states that the concept of habitus:

…contains the meanings of habitat, habitant, the processes of habitation and habit; particularly habits of thought. A habitat is a social

environment in which we live; it is a product of both its position in the social space and of the practices of the social beings who inhabit it.

(Fiske, 1992: 155) My empirical chapters adopt this idea of the ‘film habitus’ as a ‘structuring structure’ for analysis, as well as the other elements of Bourdieu’s thinking tools of cultural capital, and field, in order to conclude on practices.

Additionally, in later chapters, I adopt and adapt Jones’ term to discuss the

‘domestic and mobile film habitus’ of my young cohort.

61.