Transcript Embodied social capital and geographic perspectives

Embodied social capital and
geographic perspectives:
performing the habitus
Louise Holt
University of Reading, UK
[email protected]
4th International Population Geography Conference, Chinese
University of Hong Kong, July 10-13 2007
1
Structure
I
Introduction - Is social capital dead?
II
Geographical accounts of social capital
III Retheorizing social capital as a
mechanism for reproducing privilege
IV Embodying social capital
V
Discussion and conclusion
2
Introduction – Is social capital almost dead?
Mainstream geographical debates have disengaged with social
capital
Despite vibrant discussions in other social sciences
And policy arenas (e.g. World Bank, Social Exclusion Unit)
1.
2.
This is problematic
Policy approaches continue unabated
Social capital has analytic value – and can help to theorise
how social inequalities are reproduced within populations at a
variety of interconnected spatial scales
Critique is tied to its capture by dominant, approaches
Here I engage critical social science approaches (e.g. Morrow,
2001; Adkins, 2004; Reay, 2004a)
> embodied social capital how inequalities are reproduced via
embodied identities
Bourdieu’s habitus/capitals & Butler’s performativity/subjection
3
Geographical accounts of social capital
Diverse interpretations of social capital, from Bourdieu,
Coleman to Putnam (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004)
Dominant policy interpretations are tied to Putnam’s vision
of social capital and/or ontologically incompatible
approaches
Putnam criticised on methodological, conceptual and
theoretical grounds (e.g. Amin, 2005; Foley and
B.Edwards, 1999; etc.)
Troubling ontological, universalising tendency:
‘an impressive and growing body of research suggests
that civic connections help make us healthy, wealthy
and wise’ (Putnam, 2000: 228)
Particularly unappealing to geographers
A lack of a critical conceptualization of space. Putnam
treats spaces as static, pre-existing, and ‘given’
4
Putnam’s social capital
Despite its many critics some aspects have
proved enduring
The nature and formation of social capital
Social capital has been equated to both being
and as constructed by membership of formal
civic organizations
even in critical accounts (e.g. Li et al, 2003;
Mohan et al., 2005).
Sub-themes of:
informal social relationships
generalized norms of trusting-ness
trustworthiness and reciprocity are also evident.
5
Putnam’s social capital
‘…it is untenable to posit social capital
as an independent variable and poverty
as a dependent variable because the
economic-political conditions of poor
people have an enormous constraining
effect on social capital itself and its
supposed material benefits for the poor’
(Das, 2004: 27)
6
Retheorising social capital as a mechanism
for reproducing privilege
Has been widely utilised in broader social sciences,
and urban studies
Posits social capital as inter-dependent with other
forms of capital
cultural (embodied, objectified, institutional)
economic
symbolic
Differing values of social capital
Social networks and relationships to maintain
advantage in particular, interconnected ‘fields’
(objective arenas of social relations, e.g. economic,
political, educational etc.)
Reproducing privilege and advantage rather than a
generalised social good
Tied to informal and formal social relationships
7
Habitus: a more nuanced conception of agency
Capitals reproduced via unreflexive & reflexive practices
Move away from a fully conscious and rational actor
Deconstruct objective/subjective dichotomy
Habitus ‘internalized capital’ embodied dispositions, largely
subconsciously inculcated primarily in childhood (Bourdieu and
Thompson, 1991).
“…embodied rituals of everydayness by which a given culture
produces and sustains belief in its own “obviousness”’ (J.Butler,
1999: 114)
Deconstructs mind/body, conscious/unconscious (Lawler, 2004)
and body/society (Shilling, 2003) dichotomies
As a property of:
Individuals (e.g. R.Nash, 2003)
A Collective consciousness, mapped onto spaces (e.g. T.Butler
and Robson, 2001; D.Smith and Phillips, 2001).
‘…the internalisation of the social order, which in turn
reproduces the social order’ (Cresswell, 2002: 381).
8
Critiques of Bourdieu’s (social) capital /
habitus
…often prioritizes social reproduction above
transformation (via habitus/field distinction)
Economic reductionism - the political-economy as at
the root of all capitals > theories of agency &
applicability for theorizing differences other than class
/ class faction (although see Bourdieu, 2001).
Not particularly sensitive to spatial differences
(dualistic distinction between objective/social space)
–
could
more
fully
explore
performative
understandings of space (Gregson and G. Rose,
2000)
9
Performing the habitus
Synthesising Bourdieu’s capitals and habitus with J. Butler’s
performativity/subjection overcomes some critiques of Bourdieu (and
Butler)
Commonalities between both theorists
Emphasise on beyond conscious, on everyday practices to reproduce
embodied inequalities
Beginning to deconstruct body/society dualism
Butler – reproduction of embodied inequalities via everyday practices –
a variety of axes of difference
Identity performances are not entirely conscious, rationalized or
staged; they are often just ‘done’
Contextuality of performativity and the performativity of space
(Gregson and G.Rose, 2000)
Negotiates transformation and endurance
Has been critiqued for underplaying the material consequences of
everyday performances
10
Embodied social capital
Value accorded to different embodiments
Process of becoming an embodied individual is bound up with sociospatial contexts, social networks and relationships
An individual’s previous social encounters are embodied and influence
their future social performances
Destabilizes the benign norms presented in dominant accounts of social
capital, by drawing upon theorizations of the diffuse power of
normalization
Individuals becoming recognized as knowable subjects/agents is always
configured within a normative frameworks of personhood (J.Butler,
1997, 2004)
Interdependence of human beings. This interdependence is both
physical and emotional
‘…desire is always a desire for recognition and that it is only through
the experience of recognition that any of us becomes constituted as
socially viable beings’ (J.Butler, emotional interdependence is a central
mechanism for the inculcation of norms that ultimately confer
embodied capital
11
Embodied social capital
•
•
•
E.g. performances of disability as dependent within particular sociospatial school contexts –
often internalised and accepted by disabled children
– reproduces broader patterns of inequality tied to disability and
dependence
As Ben, a boy with mind and body differences, states:
‘‘[My friend] always comes with me at playtime ’cause he didn’t have a friend, and
now, whenever I’m lonely and he’s there, he always comes and cares for me’’
(Holt, 2004a: 225).
12
Spatiality and transformation
These norms are socio-spatially variable, and, importantly, intersecting
This focus on things coming together in specific spatial contexts
provides an opening for a more spatially sensitive theory of capitals
Capital reproduction occurs within specific spatial moments –
themselves not neutral and pre-existing, but becoming though
everyday performances and within broader ‘power geometries’
(Massey, 1994)
Individual embodied identities are specific moments within broader
social (economic, political, ‘cultural’) processes that emerge from a
variety of intersecting spatial scales from the individual (including
dynamic bodily materiality) to the global
Allows for transformation
Via conscious acts, such as re-signification (J.Butler, 2004) or
contestation.
Slippage
13
A brief empirical example
Young people:
resignify the meaning of both disability and composite components
of dominant representations of disability
forge relationships of recognition wherein mind-body-emotional
difference is either suspended or not understood within a framework
of otherness (Holt, forthcoming)
The positive or negative relationships forged within one context can
become embodied within individuals and influence their negotiation
of future social situations (see also Valentine and Skelton, 2003).
However
Dominant facets individual tragedy models of disability are often
(re)produced, rather than transformed.
Attention needs to be paid to how individuals’ socio-spatial
positionings influence their capacity to transform broader societal
processes and representations (McNay, 2004)
Without negating the potentialities for a range of non-conforming
practices, ranging from ‘resilience’, ‘reworking’ to ‘resistance’ (Katz,
2004).
14
Discussion - Empirical Mobilisation
Difficult
Move beyond uncritical analyses of formal social relationships that have little
conceptual basis and which exclude certain groups
Messy, gratifying and difficult social and cultural relationships that feature in
everyday life (both formal and informal)
Reconnect with other capitals (cultural and economic)
Deconstruct the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy to utilize a variety of
methods, either in conjunction within specific projects or via collaboration
between researchers across the field (see Holt, 2006 for fuller discussion)
Network analysis provides useful insights into the type and extent of individuals’
networks (Savage et al., 2004)
However, it does little to demonstrate the normative power embedded within
such relationships.
Innovative methods could be utilized, that seek to point to limits of
representation (see for instance Morton, 2005),
Ethnographies (see McNay, 2004, for an exploration of Bourdieu’s
phenomenology).
15
Conclusion: why bother with social capital?
Has focused policy attention to social networks and relationships – which are
significant in people’s lives (what is most important to you)?
Can help to refocus upon mechanisms for reproduction of privilege and
disadvantage, and inequalities within populations
It is utilised extensively, and thus needs critical resignification
Embodied social capital provides one way forward – reconnecting the cultural,
social and economic - drawing upon concepts of bodies as interconnected rather
than bounded
The paper provides an impetus to re-open debate and discussion about the
usefulness and mobilization of ‘social capital’ for geographers.
Such debates can promote the cross-fertilization of conceptualizations of social
capital and spatiality between geography and the broader social sciences.
16