Practice Theory

Practice theory is a theory of how social beings, with their diverse motives and their diverse intentions, make and transform the world which they live in. It is a dialectic between social structure and human agency working back and forth in a dynamic relationship. Practice theory, as outlined by Sherry Ortner, "seeks to explain the relationship(s) that obtain between human action, on the one hand, and some global entity which we call 'the system' on the other". The approach seeks to resolve the antinomy between traditional structuralist approaches and approaches such as methodological individualism which attempted to explain all social phenomena in terms of individual actions. Main Points: The anthropological concept of Practice theory is not necessarily a defined theory, but a perspective used in collaboration with other anthropological theories, such as functionalism or symbolic anthropology. The main idea of Practice Theory is analyzing the relationship between established structures of culture and how the people in reality act within that structure. Practice Theory focuses on the idea that people are not only influenced by their social structure, but influence their social structure as well. This idea of a circular relationship between people and society is a founding aspect of practice theory. In Sherry Ortner's description of Practice Theory she lays out three main aspects of this practice: the Power Shift, Historic Turn, and the ReInterpretation of Culture. Power Shift The power shift was characterized by a changing view of power. This view changed from defining power as the dominance of one class over the other, to power relationships between every individual. In this way, power is viewed as a product of human agency, not as an objective force in society. "Habitus" is a term central to the power shift as well. It refers to how people habituate their power roles, and therefore create the structure that exists. Other founding practice theorists believe that power relationships have a certain level of consciousness and therefore people actively create resistance to the structure that exists. Historic Turn The historic turn was a anthropological movement that strayed away from conventional theories, and focused on individual cultures rather than universal theories. It focuses on temporality, or history as a key element to cultures, and a key element of shifting ways of feeling in these cultural structures. Studying the history and time factor in a cultural practice is crucial to understanding the reasons why it has occurred. The analysis of time was sometimes used in short-term contexts, such as the importance of time length in the reciprocation of a gift. If the gift was returned too soon, it could show that the giver wishes to end the relationship quickly. It it is returned later, then it may show disrespect, or disinterest in continuation of the relationship.2 The historic turn served as a way to study a culture's history and its effects on the current customs of the culture. Re-interpretation of Culture In previous interpretations of culture, there was an accepted concept that people are influenced, and possibly defined, by their culture. Anthropologists would attribute human action and practice in relation to their respective culture. However, this frame sometimes led to cultural stereotyping and profiling of people to explain how they acted in relation to their culture. In contrast to this approach, Practice Theory acknowledges that culture is a thing that is mobile, and therefore does not exist where certain ethnicities are based, but can spread across areas. In this view of culture, it is a thing that does not define people; rather the people define it by giving it meaning in their lives. This re-interpretation of culture's definition was an important characteristic of Practice Theory. Habitus One of the main points illustrated about Practice theory is the concept of habitus. This was brought up by Bordieu in his book, The Logic of Practice (1992), in a section titled "Structures, Habitus, Practices." Habitus is explained to be “...systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is as a principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them.” In layman's terms, habitus can be defined as being the collective set of practices and habits that an individual or collective group partakes in on a day to day basis. By looking at how habitus materializes, we can see the similarities between individuals and classes who are more likely to undergo the same experiences and understand how these have become homogenized to become an indicator of a culture. Pierre Bourdieu Bourdieu’s work contributed and was very influential to anthropology through his development of the Practice Theory. He wrote two books, Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977) and The Logic of Practice (1990)that truly explains and elaborates upon the concept of Practice Theory. Bourdieu explained the theory of practice by arguing that culture is the exclusive product neither of free will nor of underlying principles, but is instead actively constructed by social actors from cultural dispositions and structured by previous events. Contributing to Practice Theory, Bourdieu introduced the terms doxa, habitus and practice to help comprehend the rules that underlie social behavior. Outline of a Theory of Practice (Pierre Bourdieu) Practice Theory seeks to find the context of events that a structuralist theory is unable to address and/or explain. Pierre Bordieu's Outline of a Theory of Practice is centralized on habitus , unconscious behavior that is constructed and limited by an individual's previous experiences, or as Bourdieu defines it, "spontaneity without consciousness or will" . In direct contrast to structuralism, practice theory believes social structures to be set forth and defined by the actions of the people, in particular habitus. He theorizes that, to an extent, structures also influence one's habitus, but only in regards to social 'norms' that have already been set forth by society. In this respect, habitus and institutionalization coexist in self-perpetuating cycles. Bourdieu goes on to explain how class and habitus perpetuate each other. Stating, "each member of the same class is more likely than any member of another class to have been confronted with the situations most frequent for members of that class", Bourdieu explains the ways in which people simultaneously depend upon and construct solidarity within their specific class. Humans learn to institutionalize and internalize these common 'choices' from an early age. This sense of belonging and oneness with the class is a key part of a child's enculturation and will effectively influence the 'choices' the child makes for the remainder of his or her life. Habitus is the basis of the social norms set forth by a specific society. In addition to habitus' influence on particular classes within a society, habitus has a very key role on all the 'choices' people make. As Bourdieu explains, the so called 'choices' people make are in fact mere reflections of both their personal and their class habitus. One's new experiences are constantly changing their prior experiences; however, Bourdieu suggests that the elder experiences are more influential because they have given a foundation for the 'choices' made later in life. Bourdieu goes on to suggest that human beings seek the 'choices' that will help to reinforce their habitus; he compares this process to a "...sequence of programmed actions produced by a mechanical apparatus". He claims the choices people make to be created by an objective, unconscious avoidance of anything that may disturb the equilibrium of the world in relation to the habitus. According to Bourdieu, all 'choices' made are the answer to "...the paradox of the information needed in order to avoid information" that might otherwise harm the habitus. He explains this as a self-defense mechanism set in place by the habitus in order to avoid questioning the previously acquired information. Critiques 1. One of the key and only authors critiquing practice theory is Stephen Turner in his book Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presupposition (1994). In his book, Turner argues that practice theory’s focus on agency and social constructs is too limiting in the analysis of other cultures and societies. He states that although Practice Theorists may be trying to find an overarching idea that defines all cultures, this generality is a product of the assumption that knowledge is tacit, or that knowledge is understood or implied without being specifically stated. According to Turner, however, cultures do not have an identifiable means by which a "practice" can be transmitted or recreated. Essentially, Practice Theorists' dependency upon the idea of tacit knowledge limits their description and understanding of how "practice" is shared and handed down. Thus, without this basis of tacit knowledge there can be no such theory of practice. 2. Another critique of Practice Theory comes from renowned critic and novelist, Raymond Williams. He is most notably known for his contribution to the Cultural Marxist critique, in which he espouses upon the hegemony present in all cultures. Marked by his childhood class origins, Williams consistently emphasized class and power at the root of most cultures (Phillip, 2010). Though not explicitly, Williams here notes an often-cited flaw in Practice Theory, its absence of hegemony and power roles altogether. Used by Laura Ahearn in her ethnography Invitations to Love: Literacy, Love Letters, & Social Change in Nepal, this presence of power and hegemony is becoming more and more integrated into Practice Theory as anthropologists and other researchers understand the significance that power and hegemony have within any particular culture. Doxa: Those deeply internalised societal or field-specific presuppositions that 'go without saying' and are not up for negotiation. A constructed vision of reality so naturalized that it appears to be the only vision of reality learned, fundamental, deep-founded, unconscious beliefs, and values, taken as self-evident universals, that inform an agent's actions and thoughts within a particular field, e.g. 365 days, 24hrs, 60 seconds. Hexis: The way in which social agents 'carry themselves' in the world; their gait, gesture, postures, accent etc. Cultural capital: Assets which enable holders to mobilize cultural authority e.g., competencies, education, intellect, style of speech, dress, or physical appearance. Social Capital: Social capital broadly refers to those factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity.