Abstract
This paper critically examines Pierre Bourdieu's Outline ofa Theory of Practice in order to clarify his ambiguous definition of habitus and to reveal the theoretical assumptions inherent in the concept. It will be shown that the exact retracing of Bourdieu's break from structuralist epistemology will render the habitus incapable of conceptualizing social change, hence contradicting Bourdieu's own definition.
Habitus is depicted as having two contradictory aspects. In the first chapter of Outline, it is presented as a generative principle of strategic practices that are predisposed for profit. In the second chapter, however, habitus is presented as the principle of regularized practices that are predisposed to suit the objective economic structure. The contradiction between the two aspects is not to be dismissed as a mere reflection of practices in real life, since a careful examination of the text reveals an exact correspondence between the property of the practice which the habitus engenders, and the property of the structure with which the habitus interacts. That is, Boudieu seldom emphasizes the strategic aspect in relation to the economic structure, and he seldom emphasizes the regulatory aspect in relation to the symbolic structure.
The arbitrariness of emphasis is epistemologically unacceptable, and must be overcome by abolishing the boundary between the first and second chapters. Since Bourdieu grants habitus the ability to strategically utilize the symbolic structure in pursuit of economic profit, to the extent that the symbolic structure exists only so far as it is utilized by the habitus, the same must be applied to habitus in chapter two. However, when it comes to utilizing economic structure, there is no other structure with which to define "profit". Therefore, profit must be defined self-referentially by the economic structure itself, thus logically confining habitus to its mechanistic reproducer; or else economic structure is nonexistent.
