Some notes about the arguments in the book:
- Practices are not based on rules or agreements.
- Habitus is a system, which produces and organize practices and representations.
- Habitus is produced in interaction with environment.
- Habitus and institutions are two means to objectify history.
- Two habitus could theoretically be identical if two individual would have same body, same experiences, in the same order.
- People in same area interacting within a group of people are encountering same practices are likely to have much common in the habitus.
- “The relation to the body is fundamental dimension of the habitus that is inseparable from a relation to language and to time. It cannot be reduced to a ‘body image’ or even ‘body concept’ […], a subjective representation largely based on the representation of one’s own body produced and returned by others” (p. 72).
- Habitus and a situation have interdependencies: habitus will produce acts only in relation to a situation. Extreme situation can reveal potentials that that one wasn’t aware of
- This interdependencies is exploited, for example in film “when they bring together habitus (chosen, intuitively, as a principle generating a particular style of words, gestures, etc.) and an artificial situation designed to trigger it off, thus creating the conditions for the production of practices (which may be completely improvised) complying with their expectations” (p. 295).
Some reflections:
- Role-playing and playing, in general, are practices.
- Certain (role-playing) game is based on rules and agreements.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Translated by Richard Nice.
Petri Lankoski 