Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew2
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
Inthehabitusofthenew3
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
Inthehabitusofthenew4
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
Inthehabitusofthenew5
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,
Inthehabitusofthenew6
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
Inthehabitusofthenew7
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
Inthehabitusofthenew8
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
Inthehabitusofthenew9
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
Inthehabitusofthenew10
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).
Inthehabitusofthenew11
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
Inthehabitusofthenew12
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew13
(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
Inthehabitusofthenew14
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
Inthehabitusofthenew15
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,
Inthehabitusofthenew16
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
Inthehabitusofthenew17
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew18
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew19
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew20
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew21
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew22
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew23
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew24
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.
Inthehabitusofthenew25
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.