In the Habitus of the New - University of Illinois at ChicagoIn the habitus of the new 2 The habitus...

Inthehabitusofthenew1

IntheHabitusoftheNewStructure,agencyandthesocialmediahabitusZiziPapacharissiEmilyEaston

Becausethingsarethewaytheyare,thingswillnotstaythewaytheyare.BertoltBrecht

Changerequiresbothprocessesofinterruptionandcontinuityinorderto

advancenewermodesofdoing.Breaksfrompracticesofthepastenableswitchingover

topracticesofthepresentandfuture.Atthesametime,ameasureofstabilityhelps

individualsintegratethesepracticesintotheireverydayroutinesandreassuresallthat

changeisheretostay.Thus,gradualchangestabilizesonlytobeagainrearrangedby

thesameprocessesofinterruptionandcontinuitythatbroughtitintobeing.The

dynamicsofnewmediaarefoundeduponthepremiseandthepromiseconstant

changeandpermanentevolution.Thischapterexamineshowthedynamicsofnew

mediainterruptandsustainthesocialityofeverydaylife.WeuseBourdieu’sconstruct

ofthehabitus,tounderstandwhatsortsofsocialplacesmediaofpermanentnovelty

presentandthetextureofsocialdispositionstheseplacesinvite.Wealsoexaminethe

practicesthathabituateddispositionscultivateandhowthoseareengagedby

communitiesofpractice.Ultimately,weemploytheconceptofthehabitustotracehow

structureandagencyareevokedandreconciledviathepracticesofeveryday

[mediated]sociality.


ThehabitusisperhapsoneofBourdieu’smostpopularideas,developedto

overcomeanumberofbinarydivisionsinthesocialsciences,andinparticular,to

addressthedualityofstructureandagency.Inexplicatingthisrelationship,Giddens

(1979)underscoredthat“socialstructuresarebothconstitutedbyhumanagency,and

yetatthesametimearetheverymediumofthisconstitution”(p.121).Broadlydefined

asasetofdurabledispositionsthatenablestructuredimprovisationsofindividuals,all

guidingsociallife,thehabitusbothinvitesambiguityandflexibilityintermsofhowitis

interpreted,perhapsbydesign(Park,2009).Regardless,isitusefulbecauseitdoesnot

separatestructurefromagency,explaininghow“embodieddispositions...are

generatedbystructuralfeaturesofthatsamesocialworld”and“agents’dispositionsto

actarethemselvesformedoutofpreexistingsocialcontexts”(Couldry,2004:358).In

mediatedarchitecturesofeverydaysociality,likethosepresentedbysocialnetwork

sites,socialbeings’behaviorsemergeoutofthesocialcontexttheyfindthemselvesin.

Agencyclaimedchallengespre‐existingstructurebutissimultaneouslyreproducedby

andreproductiveofstructure.Inthecontextoftechnologicalconvergence,the

propertiesofonlinemediaaffordthedualityofstructureandagencyanaccelerated

reflexivity.

Wearguethatthisacceleratedreflexivityisbothsustainedandremediatedviaa

habitusofthenew;asetofdispositionsinvitedandregeneratedbyandviaastateof

permanentnovelty.Thisideaisappliedtothecontextofsocialitybywhatonemight

refertoasasocialmediahabitus:asetofdispositionsthatemergeoutofthesocial

architectureofsocialmedia,andframebutalsoconstantlyinvitetheremediationof


agency.Althoughwerefertomediaplatformsthatdiffer,thetermisdefinedbroadly

andintendedtocapturetheubiquityofabrandforsocialitythatpopularsocialnetwork

siteshaveintroduced.Forgreaterspecificity,onemightrefertoaFacebookhabitus,or

speakofaTwitterhabitus,oraGoogle+habitus,inreferencetothepredispositions

thatpopulatethesesocialenvironments.All,however,aredefinedbythehabitusofthe

new,theworkofnetworkedenvironments,actors,andconvergentnewtechnologies.

Webeginwithanoverviewoftheoryofthehabitus,andexaminehowitconnectswith

Bourdieu’scommunitiesofpracticeandgenerationofavarietyofformsofcapital.We

thenreviewtheaffordancesofnew(er)orconvergentmedia,anddiscussthesocial

architecturestheyassemble,outofwhichahabitusofthenew,andthatofFacebook,is

formed.

Habitus,agencyandstructure

Bourdieu’sconceptofhabitusprovidesawayoftranscendingthedualismsof

theoreticalparadigmsandmodels(Abdelhay,2010;Park,2009).Throughhistheoryof

practiceandthenotionsofhabitusandfield,Bourdieumakesitpossibleto

problematizecommonsensepracticesthatarefrequentlytakenforgranted(Abdelhay,

2010).Bourdieu(1990)suggeststhat“beingtheproductofaparticularclassofobjective

regularities,thehabitustendstogenerateallthe‘reasonable,’‘commonplace’,

behaviours,”whichprovidesacomfortinghomogeneityfortheindividual.Thehabitusis

theproductoflong,andongoingprocessesofsocializationthatimpartpracticestaken

forgranted,butisbynomeansmerelyacollectionofembodieddispositionsthatare

actedoutmechanically.Thereflexivityembeddedinthehabituspermitsthecultivation


ofpracticesthatconnecttofields,ororganizedstructures,dialecticallyandrelationally.

Thesepracticesdopresenthabituatedactionsbutareexercisedthroughpatternsthat

maybemoreorganicandlesscodifiedorobedienttothesestructures.Atthesame

time,thesepracticesgainmeaningastheyareenactedwithincommunitiesofpractice,

thusreferencingstructuralcontext.

Habitusofferstheoreticalgroundingthatrecognizesandincorporatesboththe

internalandexternalconstructionofacquiredanddevelopingpredispositions,

schemata,andtastes,wherethe“habitusisnotonlyastructuringstructure,which

organizespracticesandtheperceptionofpractices,butalsoastructuredstructure”

(Bourdieu,1984:170).WithrootsinthewritingsofAristotleandmentionsintheworks

ofmanysociologists,thehabitushasemergedasanoptimalconstructthatreconciles

structureandagencyasmutuallydefined,inthatstructure“becomessomethingthatis

givenmeaningtotheextentthatitisembodiedinindividuals”(Park,2009:4).In

responsetodichotomiesthatperceiveagencyandstructureasseparateandopposing

processes,Bourdieu’sdescriptionofhabitus“depictssocialpracticeastheoutcomeofa

dialecticofincorporationandobjectification”(Sallaz,2010:296).Forexample,in

discussingnewentrantstothefieldofjournalism,Bensonnoteshowboththe

“objectivestructure”andthemorepersonalhabitusofeachindividualagentconflateto

informhowtheindividualisabletostructuretheirreality;sothatthe“complexity,

capacities,andcharacterofanyparticularagentisduenottohisorhersubmissiontoor

freedomfromtheeffectsofafield,butrathertotheparticularityofanylife’strajectory

withinandthroughaseriesoffields”(Benson,1999:467).Allactionandmeaningare


bothpersonalandsubjective,whileformingamutualfeedbackloopwiththemore

objectivesocialstructuresoutsidetheindividual.

Thisprocessofnavigationoccursorganicallyandwithoutconscious

consideration,asthehabitusresidessodeeplyinone’sexperienceandexpectationof

sociallifeastobeimpossibletoseparatefromtheauto‐pilotofalmosteverysocial

action;weactreflexivelywithintheboundariesofoursocialconditionasthehabitus

“generatesandorientsanagent’spractice,despitethefactthatanagentwouldbe

hard‐pressedtoexplainany‘rule’or‘purpose’behindtheiraction”(Anderson,2004:

266).Sincethesemutuallyreinforcingexchangesoccursoseamlessly,thetheoryaffords

anewwaytoexplicatesocialrelationsandphenomenawithoutassigningtheburdenof

explanationtotheobjectiveorsubjective.Assuch,ithasbeenusedtoreconcileand

exploreissueswheretheseingrainedpracticesmightbeproblematicaspersonalhistory

andexpectationconfrontanewsocialstructure,forexample,culturalassimilation

(Adkinsetal.,2006;Kim,2007;Bangeni,2009;Sallaz,2010);translation(Inghilleri,2003;

Ben‐Ari,2010;Meylaerts,2010);languagerightsandusage(Boussofara‐Omar,2006;

BrownandCrawford,2009;Abdlehay,2010);andoccupationofphysicalspace(Parker,

UprichardandBurrows,2007;Centner,2008).Theinterplayofchange,theold

intersectingwiththenew,offersanotherdichotomywherehabituscanhelptoexplain

howtheindividualnavigatesashiftingculturalstructure,whileherselfbeinganagentof

thatchange.

Socialactorsnavigatemorespecificsocialrealms,orfields,whichareshapedand

shapingofahabitus,accordingtoBourdieu.Thesearebroadlydelineatedassocial,


political,cultural,economic,andaredifferentiatedbasedonthedifferentformsof

capitaltheyaffordandtheirrelativeautonomyfromeachotheranddominantpolitical‐

economicfields(Benson,1999).Eachfieldoperatesasadistinct,butinterconnected

andmutuallyinfluentialculturalsphereofthelargersocialrealm,madedistinctbywhat

typesofcapitalofferthemostvaluetotheindividualholders.Much(ifnotall)ofthis

capitalisnotliteral,butsymbolic,“accordedspecialmeaninglargerthanitselfbythose

exchangingthecapital”(Centner,2008:197).Avastcollectionofrarevintagesor

patchworkquiltsmayofferholdersintherightfieldanadvantageovertheirpeers,but

notbecauseanyoneisthirstyorchilly;thefieldanditsmembersassignhighersymbolic

capitaltocertainobjectsandpractices,regardlessofthephysicaloractualbenefitsthat

mightarisefrompossession.Unintentionally,everyagentinthefieldwilltrytoextract

themaximumamountofprofit(or,additionalcapital)fromeverysymbolicexchange

(Bourdieu,1991).Assymboliccapitalisexchangedandmaximized,agentsgainstatusin

thefieldandadjusttheirdispositions,inrelationtopeers,fieldandthoseoutside,along

witharevisedsocialstanding.Thevalueofcapitalthusshiftsone’shabitus,whilethe

fieldadjuststotheindividualchangesaswell,alongwiththevalueofthecapital;fields,

symboliccapitalandhabitusareallinterconnectedandfluid.

Habitushasalsobecomeapopulartheoryformediaculturescholars,interested

inhowproducersandconsumersinfluenceeachothertocreateaudiencetastesand

understandings(Jewkes,2004;O’Connor,2004;Lewis,2006;Park,2009).While

populistswouldassigntastetothepersonalandthoseintheFrankfurtSchoolwould

faultthemediaproducers,Bourdieu’stheorytakesamorecomprehensiveviewofhow


tasteisformed.Asaproductofthehabitus,tasteacquiresa“doublenature:ontheone

handitisimmediateandemotional,beyondstrategiccalculation;ontheother,itis

structuredbyandfundamentallylinkedtopowerandsocialposition”(Scheuer,2003:

145).Asaresult,whatwelikeisconnectedtowhowearerelativetoourplaceinthe

largerstructure,specificallywhichfieldsweassociateandareassociatedwith,sothat

“thereallocusofstruggleovermeaningliesnotintherelationbetweenanyparticular

setofculturalproducersandtheiraudiences,butamongfieldsofculturalproduction

(bothproducersandhomologousaudiences)thatvieamongthemselvesoverthepower

toproducelegitimateknowledgeaboutthesocialworld”(Benson,1999:487).Meaning

arisesfromthemutuallyconstructedandagreeduponvaluesandmoresofeveryfield,

leavingneitherproducerorconsumerpowerlessorincontrol,butsubjecttothesame

push‐and‐pullofstructureversusagencythatthetheoryofhabitushelpstoexplain.In

explainingour“culturalhabitus,”wemusttakeintoaccountbothourowncapabilities,

butalsothesurroundingfieldthathelpstoshapewhatispossibleandwhatwecometo

valueandprefer.

Structureandagencyinthehabitusofthenew Asthemediaindustryexpandstoincreasinglydigitalterritories,producersand

audienceshavecometooccupynewlydefinedfieldsthatactandreacttomodifytheir

collectivehabituses.Analysesofthesocio‐culturalandpoliticalimpactoftheinternet

frequentlyevokedualitiesofdystopiaandutopia,promiseandperil,constructionism

andessentialism,determinismandfreewillandmanyotherdichotomiesthatservethe

purposeoforganizingthoughtandtheoryaroundthenet.Whileitisimportantto


engagetheperspectivesimpliedintheoreticaldichotomies,itisalsonecessarytorealize

thatpeoplelivetheireverydaylivesbyconstructingpracticesinthehopeofreconciling

andpolarities,andsomustatheorythatexplainshumanbehaviors.

Naturally,thehabitusisbothstructuringstructureandisstructuredstructure

itself,reconcilingfixityandchange,whilealsoallowingthatchangeisdefinedbythe

parametersofstructurethatpresentitscontext(Abdelhay,2010).Thus,ahabitusbased

analysisexaminesnotonlymacro‐levelstructuresatwork,butrather,howtheyconnect

tomicro‐levelpraxis.Inthecontextofnewmedia,ahabitusbasedanalysiswould

acknowledgedominationpatternsinmediaownershipandconvergencebutwould

focusonconnectingmicro‐levelpraxisthatdevelops(Park,2009).Itistheflexible

structureofthehabitusthatprovidesaperson,andthefamilytheabilitytodealwith

theuncertaintiesineverydaylife,eventhoughthatflexibilityisframedbypre‐existing

structures(Bourdieu,1984).

Theconceptofthehabitusisintendedtodescribethegeneraltendencyof

peopletoreproducecertainpatternsofaction,includingconformity,butalso

divergence(Sela‐Sheffy,2005).AccordingtoBourdieu(1990),actionsarenotmechanic

orrule‐based,butstrategic.Actorsemployconformityanddivergenceasspecific

strategiesinrelationtocultural,political,social,oreconomicfieldsofactivity.Thus,the

habitusisnotstatic,althoughitisdurable.Thedynamicsofnewmediainviteand

rewardchange,whichcanonlybesustainedatthemicro‐levelviaahabitusoffamiliar

predispositionsthatgrantindividualssome[promiseof]agencyinhowchangesimpact

theireverydayspheresofsociality.Inthecontextofchange,agencymeansthat


individualsareabletomaintainfamiliarpracticesdespitechange.Anditalsomeansthat

individualsmaintainautonomytodefinechange,althoughwithinthehabitus,this

autonomyisexercisedmostlyviahabituatedactionsthatdevelopgraduallythrough

communitiesofpractice.Thehabitusofthenewpromisestheseformsofagency.

Theaffordances,orpotentialities,ofthestructuralenvironmentformasocial

architecturethatsuggestsaflexiblesetofchoicesforagency,whichbothadvances

changeinthehabitusofthenewbutalsosustainsacomfortingfamiliarity.Thesetof

choicesisflexibleandaffordsautonomyinchoosing,butalsospecificviaasocial

architecturethatinvitesorencouragesparticulardispositionsandactions.Inthenext

paragraphs,wediscusstheaffordancesofthissocialenvironment,thesetofembodied

dispositionstheylendthemselvesto,andthepracticesthatdevelopoutofahabitusof

thenew.Alternatively,wemaythinkoftechnologiesas“crystallizationsofsocially

organizedaction,”andnot“asexceptionalorspecialphenomena,”butrather,as“other

kindsofsocialpracticesthatrecurovertime”(Sterne,2003:367).Inthatsense,

technologyishabitus,andthehabitusofthenewisconvergence.

Affordancesandthehabitus

Thedynamicsofnewmediarestupontechnologiesofconvergence,which

collapseboundariesandcombinethemeansthroughwhichindividualssocialize

(convergenceoftechnologies),butalsothephysicalandimaginedarchitecturessocial

individualstraverse(convergenceofspaces)andthecontinuumofactivitiesthatshape

andareshapedbyaconvergedtechnologicalarchitecture(convergenceofpractices)

(Papacharissi,2010).Likeallfields,technologiesareassociatedwithhabitsand


practices.Theystructureandarestructuredbypractices,andembodythedispositions

oftheepochthatgivesbirthtothem.Digitaltechnologiesshapeandareshapedby

usersandproducers,workingwithinnewfieldswheresymbolicvaluesshiftwithnew

meansofcommunication.Thisimpactsculturalconsumptionsandoutputsfrommicro

tomacrolevels,since“notonlydotheconditionofthereaderandtheconditionofthe

spectatoroverlapwithmoreandmorefrequency;botharereinventedwhen,as

Internetuser,wedownloadbooks,movies,andsongsfromtheWeb.”(Canclini,2009:

142)Ourtasteschangeasourabilitytotasteinthenewstructuresshapeswhatwehave

cometoconsiderpossibleinourculturalrealms.

Thesetofembodieddispositionsthatformahabitusareturnedintopraxis

throughcommunitiesofpractice,andinthecontextofconvergentarchitectures,these

taketheformofnetworkedpublics.boyd(2010)theorizesthefollowingpropertiesas

thefourstructuralaffordancesofnetworkedpublics:persistence,replicability,

scalability,andsearchability.Persistencereferstotheautomaticrecordingandarchival

ofonlineexpressions,replicabilityconcernstheeasewithwhichcontentmadeoutof

bitscanbeduplicated,scalabilitycapturesthepotentialofgreatervisibilityofcontentin

networkedpublics,andsearchabilitypermitscontentinnetworkedpublicstobe

accessedthroughsearch.Papacharissi(2011)suggestsafifthstructuralaffordance,

pertainingtoshareability,orthetendencyofnetworkeddigitalstructurestoencourage

sharingoverwithholdinginformation.Whatrendersnetworkslivelyistheflowof

informationbetweenindividualnetworknodes.Withoutinformationflowingbetween

individuals,thenetworkbecomesastatic,asocialenvironment(Papacharissi,2009).


Stutzman(2006)hasreferredtothisattributeastheinherentsocialityofsocialnetwork

communitiesandhasexplainedthatitaccountsforthehighlevelofdisclosureof

personalinformationonline.

Theseaffordancesdisposenetworkedpublicstowardparticularbehaviors.

Together,theypresentasetofembodieddispositionsthatcometoformahabitusof

thenew,characterizedbypersistence,replicability,scalability,searchabilityand

shareability.Inthismanner,thehabitusofthenewreflectsthedynamicsofconvergent

technologies,butisalsosuggestiveofacommonplacedrivinglogicthatblursprivate

andpublicboundariesinwaysthatruncontrarytothedominanthabitusofthefieldof

sociality.Thehabitusproducespractices,throughthe“durablyinstilledgenerative

principleofregulatedimprovisations”(Bourdieu,1977:78).Thus,developingpractices

aimtoreconciletheseconflicts,soastoadapttothenewbutsustainthefamiliar.

Forexample,inthefielddefinedbyasocialnetworkingtechnologylike

Facebook,orTwitter,thetheoryofthehabituscanbeusedtodescribedhowactors

movethroughonlinespacesasnewandcrowdedfieldsofmeaning‐making.Whilethe

premiseofFacebookmayappeartobetoexpressone’suniqueandsubjective

personality,allusersmayonlypresentthemselvesinthestandardstructureofthepage

template.Withintheseconfines,however,individualagencyandtasteallowusersto

articulateandrenegotiatethepossibilitiesofthesiteanditsmeaninginthelargerfield,

creatingnewmeaningsfromfamiliarstructuresandcommandingthenewlyvaluable

userattentionwithnovelty.FreishtatandSandlin(2010)understandFacebookasa

culturalspace,whereinnormativebehaviorsareestablishedandpolicedviathe


premiseofthehabitus.Theydiscusshowthehabitusoperatesindigitalandphysical

worldssimilarly,leadinguserstoadoptandadaptnormativebehaviorsbyperforming

online“inwaysthataresimilartothewaystheyperforminface‐to‐faceinteraction—

policingthepersonaandactionsofotherswithinthesocialnormsassociatedwiththose

personasinparticularculturalcontexts(p.517).Innavigatingtheseonlinespaces

individualspermitahybridsetofestablishedandnewlyformedpredispositionstoguide

theirbehavior(Papacharissi,2009).Still,thepremiseofthehabitusguidesandexplains

howindividualreconcilenewwitholdpracticesonterritoriesdigitalandphysical.

Individualsclaimagencytoreconcilethecommonplacelogicofthenewinto

praxis.Theydosobydrawingfromtheaffordancesofthenewtomaintain/adapt

dominantsocialpracticesandtodefinetheshapeofthehabitusofthenew,through

meansthatareprimarilylinguistic(Anderson,2004;Bird,2007;Osterman,2003).

Markersofclass,suchaseducationandprofessioninformthehabitusofindividuals,

whichinturnshapesdigitaltastes,creatingandreproducingdigitalcastesystems

(Kvansy,2005;North,Snyder&Bulfin,2008).Localityandspacearealsofurther

reflectedinhowsystemsoftastearedigitallyexpressed,remixed,andreproduced

(Centner,2008;Parkeretal,2007).Thehabitusofthenew,asconvergence,situates

theuserassocialactorbyinvitingandproducingcertainpracticesthatdominateonline

behavior.Thesearetypicallypracticesthatrevolvearoundexpressionoftheselfand

connectionwithothersocialactors.Weidentifythreedominantpracticesthatare

characteristicofthehabitusofthenew.Thesepracticesarerichlyaffordedbythe

technologybutarealsoaremediationofembeddedpredisposition.


(Authorshipand)Disclosure

Bourdieu(1984)explainsthatthehabitusisconstitutedviadiscursivepractices.

Inthismanner,structureisrhetoricallycreatedandaffirmed,aslanguageisa

constituentdimensionofthehabitus(Abdelhay,2010).Agencyisalsodiscursively

claimed.Thisrenderssocialactorsbothcreatorsandproductsoftheirhabitus,asthey

usenarrativepracticesforsensemakingandidentityconstruction(Bird,2007).Bourdieu

definedthelinguistichabitusas:

Asetofsociallyconstituteddispositionsthatimplyapropensitytospeakin

certainwaysandtoutterdeterminatethings(anexpressiveinterest),aswellasa

competencetospeakdefinedinseparablyasthelinguisticabilitytoengenderan

infinitearrayofdiscoursesthataregrammaticallyconforming,andasthesocial

abilitytoadequatelyutilizethiscompetenceinagivensituation(Bourdieu&

Wacquant,1992:145).

Inthehabitusofthenew,technologiesofconvergenceoffer,emphasizeand

rewardauthorshipasanarrativestrategy.Thelinguistichabitusisconstructedvia

authorshippracticesaffordedthroughblogs,microblogs,socialnetworksitesandother

platformsofexpressionandsocialawareness.Narrativepracticessuchasblogging,

tweets,orstatusupdatessustainwhatGiddens(1991)termedtheongoingstoryorthe

reflexiveprojectoftheself.Textualeventscallnetworkedpublicsintobeing.Language

itselfbecomesmediatedandremediated,andthediscursivespacesaffordedby

convergenceencouragepersistence,scalability,searchability,replicabilityand

shareability.Individualsareinvitedtotellstoriesaboutthemselves,andthestoriestold


aremadeofwordsdigitallytraceable,remixable,andbroadlyaccessible.Thesocial

architecturecompelsindividuals,morethanever,totellstoriesaboutthemselves,and

tomakethosestoriespublic.Thisisfrequentlymistakenforexcessivenarcissismor

excessivelyself‐referentialbehavior,butmayalsobeunderstoodasanexpressionof

agencythatconformstoandseekstorelatetheindividualtothehabitus.Itisthrough

thepracticeofauthorship,affordedsorichlythroughconvergence,thatindividuals

constructdiscourse,whichservesassymbolicassetinBourdieu’sunderstandingofthe

habitus.InthecontextoftheFacebookhabitus,authorshiptakesonaparticularform

thatsupportsspecifictropesofconnectionandexpression.InthecontextoftheTwitter

habitus,theformofauthorshiplendsitselftodifferenttropesofsociality,privacyand

publicity.

Forexample,theperformativityandfrequentdramatismoffacebookstatus

updatesortwitterpostsobserve,butalsoprovokethehabitusofthenew.They

conformtoitbygivingintoitsshareability;theydissentbysharinginwaysthatare

distinctivefromdurablesetsofsocialdispositionsthatthehabitusofthenewrests

upon.Asrhetoricalclaimsofagency,theyreferenceandremediatetheirstructural

context.Thehabitusofthenewaffords,andrewardsauthorship,yieldingsocialcapital

forthosewhoshareminiorlengthiernarrativeswiththeirnetworksofcontact.It

compelsindividualstoauthor,totellstories,andtosharestoriesaboutthemselves.The

habituspredisposesinawaythatisneitherconsciousnorintentional(Anderson,2004).

Ofcourse,individualshavealwayscreatednarrativestosustainhabitus,butthedigital

architectureenablesandaugmentsauthorship,inwaysthatpromoteparticularformsof


storytellingandinviteotherstolisteninthroughspecificpractices.Andbeyond

sustainingauthorship,italsorewardsdisclosureofnarratives.Asaresult,whereasa

personalnarrativelikethatofadiarycontainedpersonalcapitalfortheauthor,upon

disclosedwithinthehabitusofthenewasablogentry,itprovidesaccesstosocial,

cultural,politicalandpossiblyeconomiccapital.Authorshipisencouraged,andpublicity

becomesagency,inthesensethatitpermitsauthorsaccesstofieldsandformsof

capitalthatwerepreviouslyinaccessible.Thehabitusofthenew,assustainedby

convergentmedia,presentsastructuredstructureandaffordsparticularavenuesfor

agency.

Listening

Itisnotuncommonforlatemodernitytocreatespacestowhichindividualsare

invitedasflaneursorvoyeurs.Pritchard(2000)arguedthatbyremovingpersonalized

salesassistance,supermarketsrenderconsumersandcommoditiesasimpersonaland

voyeuristic(inAdkinsetal,2006).McCarthy(2001)hasexplainedthatambient

functionsoftelevisioninpublicplacesservetoaffordindividualsasenseofprivacyin

public,renderingtheindividual“captiveandmobile,bothreceptiveandhostile”(p.

100).Similarly,technologiesliketheWalkman,andmorerecentlytheipodenable

privacyinpublicspaces(duGay,Hall,etal,1997).ApplecommercialshailiPod‐wearing

individualsmaneuveringuponneon‐coloredbackdropsasdisplacedyetconnected

urbanflâneurs(Papacharissi,2010).Communicationtechnologiesfrequentlycreate

spacesthatindividualsmustinhabitascomplexcontainertechnologies(Adkinsetal,


2006).Thecontainertechnologyembeddedinsocialmediafrequentlyinvites

participantstoengageeitherinvoyeurorflaneurmode(boyd,2011).

Voyeurismandflaneuringpresentmodesofobservationthatcanalsobe

understoodaswaysoflisteninginonone’speripheralenvironment.Inthecontextof

socialnetworksites,thepracticeofsurveyingandtraversingthroughfriends’profiles

permits“peripheralawarenessandambientcommunity”(Erickson,2010:1194).The

practiceoffollowingopinionleadersonTwitterhasbeenlikenedtoemergingdisciplines

oflisteninginsocialmedia,characterizedbybackgroundlistening,reciprocallistening,

anddelegatedlistening(Crawford,2009).Inthismanner,thepracticeoflisteningmay

strengthenconnectednesswithothers(Hennenburgetal.,2009),resemblethe

practicesofconversation(HoneycuttandHerring,2009;Steiner,2009),andadd

elementsofphysicalitytowebdesign(Hohl,2009).Individualsmaintainasocial

informationhabitusthathelpsthemsustainsocialandperipheralawarenessoftheir

surroundinglifeworlds(Bock,2006).Peopleclaimagencyviadiscursivepracticesof

speaking(authorship)andlistening(Scollon,2001).Inthecontextofnewsaggregator

sites,forexample,thepracticeofreadingandendorsinganarticleconveysagency,in

theformofdissent,agreement,orinterestinaparticularviewpoint.Thetechnologies

inviteindividualstosurveyandtraverse,restinguponthehabituatedcustomofsocial

curiosity.Inseveralcasesinvolvingorganizedstructure,surveillanceandflaneuringare

commerciallyexploited.

InthecontextoftheFacebookhabitus,thepracticeofsurveyingandtraversingthrough

others’profilesisaremediationoflistening;areinterpretationofperipheralawareness


withthemeansthatthedigitalplatformaffords.Thus,predispositionsthatturninto

practicesofeverydaysocialityaresustainedandreinventedinthehabitusofthenew.

Asahabitusofinformation,thehabitusofthenewsetsahighpriceonattention,and

listeningishowwearesocializedtocommunicateattention.Inthismanner,the

structuredpracticeoflisteningisreintegratedintothecontextofnew,asattentiontoor

distractionfrominformation.Likestructureandagency,theoldandthenewmodalities

oflisteningexistinperpetual,dialecticalshift,buttocommandattentionintheonline

field,themostvaluablecapitalstandsasthemostnovel.

Redaction

Thepracticesofexpressionandconnectiononthehabitusofthenewinvolve

bothproductionofperformancesandsimultaneousorsubsequenteditingofthese

performances.Redactionenablesthebringingtogetherandeditingofidentitytraces,to

formandframecoherentperformancesofsocialityandselfexpression(Hartley&

Rennie,2009;Papacharissi&Yuan,2011).Thus,redactionalfiguresareprodusedas

representationaloftheself‐figuresthatpresenteneditedmixofavailablemeanings

(Bruns,2008;Hartley,2003).Redactionalprocessesaresimultaneouslysimplifiedand

compromisedbythestructuralaffordancesofplatformsathand.Localandtranslocal

performancesofsocialityareconstantlyedited,re‐tweaked,andremixed,tomaintain

thecoherence(orpurposefulincoherence)oftheperformancewithvarying

audiences/publics.Theseredactionalpracticesaredevelopedsothatindividualscan

managethepersistence,searchability,replicability,scaleabilityandshareability

convergenttechnologiesafford.


Self‐editinghasalwaysbeenapartofhowwepresenttheselftoothers,but

onlineplatformsfrequentlypromptself‐sharingbydefaultwithouteasilypermitting

self‐editing.RecentcontroversiesaroundFacebookprivacysettingpresentanexample

ofhowimportantself‐editingisforindividuals.Bycontrast,Google+circlespresenta

structuralstrategyforcontrolleddisclosureandredaction,whichareappealingtousers

whowanteditwhatgetssharedandwithwhom.Inthehabitusmediatedthroughsocial

awarenesssystems,self‐awarenessandself‐monitoringareheightenedasindividuals

advanceintoaconstantstateofredaction,oreditingandremixingoftheself.Hartley

referstoresultingperformanceasreflectiveofa“homonuntius,”orthe“messaging

human,”acontemporaryspeciesthatexpressesidentityviaandasmessage,and

“producesindividualidentityoutofsocial‐networkinteraction.”1InHartley’swords,“‐

Individualsinthespecieshomonuntiusdon’tjust‘send’messagesasanaction

(‘message’asverb),theyareasystemofmessages(‘message’asnoun);theyareboth

constitutedbyandproductivethroughmessages,whicharetheprocessbymeansof

whichreasonemerges(itistheproductofaprocess,notaninput).Wewouldinturn

addinthehabitusofthenew,agencyisclaimedthroughauthoring,listening,and

redactingmessagesabouttheselfandothers.Thispracticebecomesfluidandmay

presentastrategicclaimofcapitalacrossdistinct,orcombinedfields.

DigitalLiteracyasAgency

Thistheoryofhabitusoffersinsightintohowactorsareabletoaccessandmake

senseoftheresourcesintheirfield;someactorsmaynotpossesstheproperdisposition

1. Hartley, “Homo Nuntius,” 19.


toappropriatetheestablishedmeaningsofthetechnologicalresources.Inthesecases,

socialactorsmaystillclaimagency,butarriveatdifferentunderstandingsofhowa

technologycanbeandultimatelyisused.Theselimitationsformtheboundariesofthe

fieldinwhichfreeplaycomestoconstitutethesocialreality;withinthe“rules”ofthe

game,eachactresscanbeliberatedtoinvokeherstyle,motivation,actionandreaction

tocontributetothesocialworld.Withinthelargersocialstructure,technologyemerges

asanotherfieldwithitsownstructures,shapedbyactorsandthelimitationsofsocial

world,thatreactstothecapabilitiesandactionsoftheusers;usersdrivetechnologyas

muchastechnologydrivestheusers.

Wearguethatindividualswithredactionalacumenmaybeabletomanagethe

structuralaffordancesofconvergentenvironmentsfluently.Notonlymaytheybeable

tooptimallyexploittheexpressiveandconnectivepotentialofonlineplatforms,but

theyareabletocapitalizeontheembeddedconvergencetocombineandaccumulate

capitalthathasvalueandtranslatesacrossfields.Indoingso,theymaybeabletoedit

performedactionsinwaysthatremediatehabitsofthepastintothehabitusofthenew,

thusalsoavailingthemselvesofaperformativefluencythatleadstoenhancedagency.

Theabilitytoproduce,buttoalsotoeditrestsuponheighteneddigitalliteracy,or

fluency,thatisessentialforagencyinthehabitusofthenew.Digitalliteracypermits

dialogicnegotiationofacomplexsetoftextsthatflowacrossavarietyoffieldsand

spaces(Bulfin&North,2007).Digitalfluencyinturnsupportsperformativefluency

online,acrossallfieldsofinteraction,andpermitsthatindividualscultivateredaction

acumen.


Thehabitusofthenew,isahabitusofinformation,containingcultural,andthus

linguistichybridity(Robinson,2009).Embeddedintothepremiseofconvergence,it

collapsesseveralpublicsandaudiencesthatwemustsomehowreconcile,relyingon

practicesthatfrequentlyborrowfromtranslationalnormsandrequireskillsthat

resembleadigitalformofmultilingualism(Inghilleri,2003).Innavigatingthespacesthe

habitusofthenewaffords,wearenotjustconsumersbutprodusersofpolysemic

messages,someofwhicharecentraltocraftingoursenseofself.Redactionalacumen

isaneditingsensibilityessentialtothestorytellingoftheself,asthatunfoldsthrough

thehabitusofthenew.Structuredaroundthetendencytoeditandintegrateaspectsof

one’sidentity,redactionalacumenenablesindividualstopresentacoherentand

polysemicperformanceoftheselfthatmakessensetomultiplepublics,without

compromisingone’sauthentic,orrather,intendedsenseofself.Inthehabitusofthe

new,digitalfluencypavestheroadtoagencyandredactionalacumenpresentsthe

meansforcapitalaccumulation.

Asrecentfindingsonthedigitaldivideindicate(e.g.,boyd&Hargittai,2010;

Hargittai,2010),itbecomesclearthatitisnotjustaccesstotechnologythatblocks

lowerclassesfromusingthem–itisafundamentallydifferentdispositionthatdoesnot

enablethemoreacceptable(bycertainstandards)formsofaction.Digitalfluency,like

thepreferenceforsmallerportionsofhautecuisineortheabilitytochatatacocktail

party,comesfromthedeeplyingrainedworldsproducedinclassandeducation.While

therulesofthehabitusmayhavechanged,theclassconnectionremainsfirmlyinplace;

thosewithoutfluencyloseagencyandfluencyisaproductofclass.


ReferencesAbdelhay,A.(2010)“AcriticalcommentaryonthediscourseoflanguagerightsintheNaivashalanguagepolicyinSudanusinghabitusasamethod,”InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,206:21‐45.Adkins,B.etal.(2006)“Publicspaceas‘context’inassistiveinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesforpeoplewithcognitiveimpairment,”Information,Communication&Society,9(3):355‐372.Anderson,D.(2004)“QuestioningtheMotivesofHabituatedAction:BurkeandBourdieuonPractice,”PhilosophyandRhetoric,37(3):255‐274.Bangeni,B.(2009)“Negotiatingbetweenpastandpresentdiscoursevaluesinapostgraduatelawcourse:implicationsforwriting,”SouthernAfricanLinguisticsandAppliedLanguageStudies,27(1):65‐76.Ben‐Ari,N.(2010)“Representationsoftranslatorsinpopularculture,”TranslationalandInterpretingStudies,5(2):220‐242.Benson,R.(1999)“Fieldtheoryincomparativecontext:Anewparadigmformediastudies,”TheoryandSociety,28:462‐498.Bird,S.(2007)“SensemakingandIdentity:theinterconnectionofstorytellingandnetworkinginawomen’sgroupofalargecorporation,”JournalofBusinessCommunciation,44(4):311‐339.Bock,M.(2004)“Familysnaps:Life‐worldsandinformationhabitus,”VisualCommunication3:281‐293.Bourdieu,P.(1977)Esquissed’unethéoriedelapratique,precededetroisetudesd’ethnologiekabyle.Switzerland:1972);trans.R.Nice,OutlineofaTheoryofPractice.Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977.Bourdieu,P.(1984)Ladistinction:Critiquesocialedujugement,Paris:1979);trans.R.Nice,Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgmentofTaste.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Bourdieu,P.(1990)InOtherWords:EssaysTowardsaReflexiveSociology.tr.M.Adamson,Cambridge:PolityPress.


Bourdieu,P.(1991)LanguageandSymbolicPower.Trans.G.RaymondandM.Adamson.Cambridge:PolityPress.Firstpub.1977‐1984.Bourdieu,P.&Wacquant,L.J.D.(1992).AnInvitationtoReflexiveSociology.Cambridge:PolityPress.Boussofara‐Omar,N.(2006)“Learningthe‘linguistichabitus’ofapolitician:Apresidentialauthoritativevoiceinthemaking,”JournalofLanguageandPolitics,5(3):325‐358.Brown,B.andCrawford,P.(2009)“PolitenessstrategiesinquestionformulationinaUKtelephoneadvisoryservice,”JournalofPolitenessResearch,5:73‐91.Bruns,A.(2008).Blogs,Wikipedia,SecondLifeandBeyond:FromProductiontoProdusage.NewYork:PeterLang,2008.boyd,d.(2010)"Socialnetworksitesasnetworkedpublics:Affordances,ynamics,andimplications,",inZ.Papacharissi(ed.)NetworkedSelf:Identity,Community,andCultureonSocialNetworkSites.NewYork:Routledge,pp.39‐58.boyd,d.(2011)"Dearvoyeur,meetflâneur…Sincerely,socialmedia."SurveillanceandSociety8(4):505‐507.boyd,d.&Hargittai,E.(2010)“Facebookprivacysettings:Whocares?.”FirstMonday.15(8).08/21/11,http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589Bulfin,S.andNorth,S.(2007)“Negotiatingdigitalliteracypracticesacrossschoolandhome:CasestudiesofyoungpeopleinAustralia,”LanguageandEducation,21(3):247‐263.Canclini,N.C.(2009)“Howdigitalconvergenceischangingculturaltheory,”PopularCommunication,7:140‐146.Centner,R.(2008)“Placesofprivilegedconsumptionpractices‐Spatialcapital,thedot‐comhabitusandSanFrancisco'sinternetboom,”City&Community,7(3):193‐223.Couldry,N.(2004)“Liveness,realityandthemediatedhabitusfromtelevisiontothemobilephone,”TheCommunicationReview,7:353‐361.Crawford,K.(2009)“Followingyou‐Disciplinesoflisteninginsocialmedia,”JournalofMedia&CulturalStudies,23(4):525‐535.


duGay,P.etal.(1997)DoingCulturalStudies:TheStoryoftheSonyWalkman.London:Sage.Erickson,I.(2010)“Geographyandcommunity‐Newformsofinteractionamongpeopleandplaces,”AmericanBehavioralScientist,53:1194‐1207.Freishtat,R.andSandlin,J.“Shapingyouthdiscourseabouttechnology,”EducationalStudies,46:503‐523.Giddens,A.(1979)CentralProblemsinSocialTheory:Action,Structure,andContradictioninSocialAnalysis.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Giddens,A.(1991)ModernityandSelf‐Identity:SelfandSocietyintheLateModernAge.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Hargittai,E.(2010)“Digitalna(t)ivesvariationininternetskillsandusesamongmembersofthe‘netgeneration,’”SociologicalInquiry.80(1):92‐113.08/21/11,http://webuse.org/p/a29/Hartley,J.(2003)AShortHistoryofCulturalStudies.London:Sage.Hartley,J.andRennie,E.(2009)“Aboutagirl:Fashionphotographyasphotojournalism,”Journalism,5(4):458‐479.ßHenneburg,S.,Scammell,M.,&O’Shaughnessy,N.(2009).Politicalmarketingmanagementandtheoriesofdemocracy.MarketingTheory,9(2),165‐188.Hohl,M.(2009)“Beyondthescreen:visualizingvisitstoawebsiteasanexperienceinphysicalspace,”VisualCommunication,8(3):273‐284.Honeycutt,C.andHerring,S.C.“Beyondmicroblogging:ConversationandcollaborationviaTwitter,”ProceedingsoftheForty‐SecondHawai’iInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(HICSS‐42).LosAlamitos:IEEEPress.08/21/11,http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/honeycutt.herring.2009.pdfInghilleri,M.(2003)“Habitus,fieldanddiscourse‐Interpretingasasociallysituatedactivity,”Target,15(2):243‐268.Jewkes,Y.(2002)“Theuseofmediainconstructingidentitiesinthemasculineenvironmentofmen'sprisons,”EuropeanJournalofCommunication,17(2):205‐225.Kim,T.“Thedynamicsofethnicnamemaintenanceandchange,”JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment,28(2):117‐133.


Kvasny,L.(2005)“Theroleofthehabitusinshapingdiscoursesaboutthedigitaldivide,”JournalofComputer‐MediatedCommunication,10(2),article5.08/21/11,http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/kvasny.htmlLewis,T.“Seekinghealthinformationontheinternet:lifestylechoiceorbadattackofcyberchondria?”Media,Culture&Society,28(4):521‐539.McCarthy,A.(2001).AmbientTelevision.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.Meylaerts,R.“Habitusandself‐imageofnativeliteraryauthor‐translatorsindiglossicsocieties,”TranslationandInterpretingStudies,5(1):1‐19.North,S.etal.(2008)“Digitaltastes‐Socialclassandyoungpeople'stechnologyuse,”Information,Communication&Society,11(7):895‐911.O’Connor,A.“Punkandglobalization:SpainandMexico,”InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies,7(2):175‐195.Ostermann,A.C.(2003)“Communitiesofpracticeatwork‐Gender,faceworkandthepowerofhabitusatanall‐femalepolicestationandafeministcrisisinterventioncenterinBrazil,”Discourse&Society,14(4):473‐505.Papacharissi,Z.(2009)“Thevirtualgeographiesofsocialnetworks:AcomparativeanalysisofFacebook,LinkedInandASmallWorld,”NewMedia&Society,11(1‐2),199‐220.Papacharissi,Z.(2010)APrivateSphere:DemocracyinaDigitalAge.Cambridge:Polity.Papacharissi,Z.&Yuan,E.(2011)“WhatiftheinternetdidnotspeakEnglish?Newandoldlanguageforstudyingnewermediatechnologies,”,inN.Jankowskietal.(eds.)TheLongHistoryofNewMedia.NewYork:PeterLang,pp.89‐108.Park,D.W.(2009)“PierreBourdieu'shabitusandtheeconomyofthemedia,”DemocraticCommuniqué,23(1):1‐21.Parker,S.etal.(2007)“Classplacesandplaceclasses:Geodemographicsandthespatializationofclass,”Information,Communication&Society,10(6):902‐921.Pritchard,W.N.(2000)“Beyondthemodernsupermarket:geographicalapproachestotheanalysisofcontemporaryAustralianretailrestructuring,”AustralianGeographicalStudies,38(2):204–218.Robinson,L.“Atasteforthenecessary:ABourdieuianapproachtodigitalinequality,”Information,Communication&Society,12(4):488‐507.


Sallaz,J.T.(2010)“Talkingrace,marketingculture:Theracialhabitusinandoutofapartheid,”SocialProblems,57(2):294‐314.Scheuer,J.“Habitusastheprincipleforsocialpractice:Aproposalforcriticaldiscourseanalysis,”LanguageinSociety,32(2):143‐175.Scollon,S.(2001)“Habitus,consciousness,agencyandtheproblemofintention:Howwecarryandarecarriedbypoliticaldiscourses,”FoliaLinguistica,35(1‐2):97‐129.Sela‐Sheffy,R.“Howtobea(recognized)translator:Rethinkinghabitus,norms,andthefieldoftranslation,”Target,17(1):1‐26.Steiner,H.(2009).Referenceutilityofsocialnetworkingsites:Optionsandfunctionality.LibraryHiTechNews,26(5‐6),4‐6.Sterne,J.“Bourdieu,techniqueandtechnology,”CulturalStudies,17(3/4):367‐389.Stutzman,F.(2006).“Anevaluationofidentity‐sharingbehaviorinsocialnetworkcommunities,”JournaloftheInternationalDigitalMediaandArtsAssociation,3(1):10‐18.

In the Habitus of the New - University of Illinois at ChicagoIn the habitus of the new 2 The habitus...

Documents

Transcript of In the Habitus of the New - University of Illinois at ChicagoIn the habitus of the new 2 The habitus...