I tackle some major criticisms addressed to Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habitus by foregrounding its affinities with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notion of rule-following. To this end, I first clarify the character of the habitus as a theoretical device, and then elucidate what features of Wittgenstein’s analysis Bourdieu found of interest from a methodological viewpoint. To vindicate this reading, I contend that Wittgenstein’s discussion of rule-following was meant to unearth the internal connection between rules and the performative activities whereby rules are brought into life. By portraying rules as tools that allow agents to stabilize and renegotiate practices, I illustrate the active role social agents play in the production of shared accounts of practices. I conclude by showing that, if viewed through this prism, the habitus proves to be meant to provide guidance on how social theory helps historicize and denaturalize the social world.
AchtenbergDeborah. 2002. Cognition and Value in Aristotle’s Ethics: Promise of Enrichment, Threat of Destruction. New York: State University of New York Press.
2.
AdamsMatthew. 2006. “Hybridizing Habitus and Reflexivity: Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Identity?” Sociology40(3):511–28.
3.
ArcherMargaret. 1988. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ArcherMargaret. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ArcherMargaret. 2010. “Routine, Reflexivity, and Realism.” Sociological Theory28(3):272–303.
BakerGordon P.HackerPeter M.1984. Scepticism, Rules and Language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8.
BakerGordon P.HackerPeter M.2009. Wittgenstein: Rules, Grammar and Necessity: Essays and Exegesis of §§ 185–242. 2nd ed.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9.
BarkerNicola. 2013. Not the Marrying Kind: A Feminist Critique of Same-sex Marriage. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
BhaskarRoy. 1991. Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
11.
BhaskarRoy. 1993. Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso.
12.
BloorDavid. 1997. Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions. London: Routledge.
13.
Bonderup DohnNina. 2011. “On the Epistemological Presuppositions of Reflective Activities.” Educational Theory61(6):671–708.
14.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BourdieuPierre. 1987. “The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field.” Hastings Law Journal38:814–53.
16.
BourdieuPierre. 1989. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory7(1):14–25.
17.
BourdieuPierre. 1990a. In Other Words. Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
BourdieuPierre. 1990b. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
BourdieuPierre. 1992. An Invitation to Reflective Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
20.
BourdieuPierre. 1996. The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
21.
BourdieuPierre. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
BourdieuPierre. 2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
BourdieuPierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
BouveresseJacques. 1999. “Rules, Dispositions, and the Habitus.” Pp. 45–63 in Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by ShustermanR.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25.
BrandomRobert. 1994. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
CroceMariano. 2014a. “Desiring What the Law Desires: A Semiotic View on the Normalization of Homosexual Sexuality.” Law, Culture and the Humanities. October7, 2014. doi:10.1177/1743872114553070.
27.
CroceMariano. 2014b. “Governing through Normality: Law and the Force of Sameness.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. December4, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10767-014-9195-6.
28.
CroceMariano.2015a. “From Gay Liberation to Marriage Equality: A Political Lesson to Be Learnt.” European Journal of Political Theory. April16, 2015. doi:10.1177/1474885115581425.
29.
CroceMariano. 2015b. “Homonormative Dynamics and the Subversion of Culture.” European Journal of Social Theory18(1):3–20.
30.
D’CruzCarolyn eds. 2013. After Homosexual: The Legacies of Gay Liberation. Crawley: University of Western Australia.
31.
DépelteauFrançois. 2008. “Relational Thinking: A Critique of Co-deterministic Theories of Structure and Agency.” Sociological Theory26(1):51–73.
32.
Elder-VassDave. 2007. “Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an Emergentist Theory of Action.” Sociological Theory25(4):325–46.
33.
EmirbayerMustafa. 2010. “Tilly and Bourdieu.” American Sociologist41(4):400–22.
34.
FrankeKatherine M.2006. “The Politics of Same-sex Marriage Politics.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law15(1):236–48.
35.
FrascollaPasquale. 1994. Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics. London: Routledge.
36.
GerransPhilip. 2005. “Tacit Knowledge, Rule Following and Pierre Bourdieu’s Philosophy of Social Science.” Anthropological Theory5(1):53–74.
37.
JenkinsRichard. 1992. Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
38.
JoshiYuvraj. 2012. “Respectable Queerness.” Columbia Human Rights Law Review43(2):415–67.
39.
KingAnthony. 1999. “Against Structure: A Critique of Morphogenetic Social Theory.” Sociological Review47(2):199–227.
40.
KingAnthony. 2000. “Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘Practical’ Critique of the Habitus.” Sociological Theory18(3):417–33.
41.
KripkeSaul. 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
LizardoOmar. 2004. “The Cognitive Origins of Bourdieu’s Habitus.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour34(4):375–401.
43.
MargolisJoseph. 1999. “Pierre Bourdieu: Habitus and the Logic of Practice.” Pp. 64–83 in Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by ShustermanR.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
44.
NeJaimeDouglas. 2003. “Marriage, Cruising, and Life in Between: Clarifying Organizational Positionalities in Pursuit of Polyvocal Gay-based Advocacy.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review38:511–62.
45.
RobsonRuthann. 2009. “Compulsory Matrimony.” Pp. 313–28 in Feminist and Queer Legal Theory: Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations, edited by FinemanM. A.JacksonJ. E.RomeroA. P.Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
46.
RouseJoseph. 2007. “Practice Theory.” Pp. 639–81 in Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 15: Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, edited by TurnerS. P.RisjordM. W.Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
47.
RuskolaTeemu. 2005. “Gay Rights versus Queer Theory.” Social Text23(3–4):235–49.
48.
SchatzkiTheodore R.1997. “Practices and Actions: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Bourdieu and Giddens.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences27(3):283–308.
49.
SchulmanSarah. 2012. The Gentrification of the Mind: Witness to a Lost Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
TaylorCharles. 1993. “To Follow a Rule . . ..” Pp. 45–60 in Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, edited by CalhounC.LiPumaE.PostoneM.Cambridge, UK: Polity.
51.
VoltoliniAlberto. (2010). “Is Wittgenstein a Contextualist?” Essays in Philosophy11(2):150–67.
52.
WilliamsMeredith. 1999. Wittgenstein, Mind and Meaning: Toward a Social Conception of Mind. London: Routledge.
53.
WinchPeter. 1990. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. 2d ed. London: Routledge.
