Writer Choose, About Problems And Perspectives In Cultural Studies Coursework

Writer Choose, About Problems And Perspectives In Cultural Studies Coursework Writer Choose, About: Problems And Perspectives In Cultural Studies â€" Coursework Example > Problems and Perspectives in Cultural StudiesChapter 1IntroductionIn this essay I shall highlight the fact that Pierre Bourdieu and Michel De Certeau have different theoretical approaches to the problem of understanding social practice, but both are attentive to the gap between what people do and what people say that they do. In order to confirm my assumption that both theorists have different points of view on the gap between what people do and what people say that they do, I shall use relevant literature from the texts of the above mentioned theorists. Chapter 2DiscussionPierre Bourdieu believed that the beliefs, values and ways of thinking, acting and speaking of a social class were embodied within the individual. Where as According Michel de Certeau Those without place occupy space and are therefore transitory. These people without traditional power bases are seen as relying on tactics rather than strategies and must make due with what is available. In other words, they can ca lculate and prescribe from a position of power. In The Practice of Everyday Life is instructive on investigating spaces of resistance. For de Certeau those in power with established strongholds are considered to have place and are therefore able to work strategically where as Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and field was concerned with overcoming the opposition between objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivists ignore agency and the agent, while subjectivists focus on the way agents think about, account for or represent the social world. Bourdieu favoured a position that is structuralist without losing sight of the agent (Ritzer, 2004 p 23). To side step the objectivist subjectivist dilemma, Bourdieu focused on practice, which he saw as the outcome of the relationship between structure and agency. He labelled his own orientation 'constructivist structuralism' or 'genetic structuralism' (Ritzer, 2004 p 25). This is because he saw the analysis of objective structures (those of differ ent fields) as inseparable from the analysis of the genesis. Bourdieu argued that social structures also exist in the social world itself. He saw objective structures as independent of the consciousness and will of agents. Bourdieu's constructively ignores subjectivity and intentionality. He thought it important to include in his sociology the way people, on the basis of their position in social space, perceive and construct the social world. However, the perception and construction that take place in the social world are both animated and constrained by structures (Ritzer, 2004 p 27). Although habitus is an internalized structure that constrains thought and choice of action, it does not determine them. The habitus merely suggests what people should think and what they should choose to do. People have the ability to engage in a conscious deliberation of options, although this decision-making process does in fact reflect the operation if the habitus (Ritzer, 2004 p 30). The habitus is the concept for which Bourdieu is most famous. Habitus are the 'mental or cognitive structures' through which people deal with the social world (Ritzer, 2004 p 24). People both produce their practices, and perceive and evaluate them. As a result, habitus reflect objective divisions in class structures such as age groups, genders, and social classes. Taking the issue of social class for example, an individuals tastes and preferences can often illustrate to what class they belong. For instance, perhaps people from the upper class would be more likely to appreciate the theatre than those from the lower class, as this is how they have been educated. In other words, those who occupy the same position in the social world tend to have similar habitus. This can be seen in the fact that art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences. The habitus allows people to make sense out of the socia l world, but the existence of a multitude of habitus means that the social world and its structures do not impose themselves uniformly on all actors (Ritzer, 2004 p 23).