Outline Of A Theory Of Practice

From the mechanics of the model to the dialectic of strategies: In this part of the chapter, Bourdieu talks about how there are three modes of theoretical knowledge which make up the mechanics of the model. The three modes of theoretical knowledge are primary knowledge, practical and tacit. Primary knowledge can be looked at as the knowledge we have gained over the years of growing up. Primary knowledge could also be the different rules and laws society has to keep people in order. Practical can be thought of as the knowledge that humans have that allow them to make decisions based on what they know is right or wrong. For example, practical knowledge could be the knowing within that the killing of another human being is wrong therefore, causing individuals to make practical decisions.

The last part that makes up the theoretical knowledge is called tacit. I experienced some confusion with this mode. From what I got from it is that tacit is the knowledge within that “we” do not know “we” possess. The tacit knowledge is valuable and can only be experienced when close interaction between two occurs creating trust. As defined by Reference.com, “With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Tacit knowledge is considered more valuable because it provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust” (www.reference.com/browse/tacit).

All three of these modes are what makes up how and the reason for the way we act towards each other. Later in this section of the chapter Bourdieu goes on talking about how “time” plays an important role. I did not get what he was trying to make of this. Was he trying to say that the time in which we live has an important part as to how we act towards each other and the degree at which our knowledge is?

From the rules of honour to the sense of honour: This section of the chapter deals with honour and how it is obtained. The sense of honour is not obtained as simply by saying you’re honorable. One of the rules that Bourdieu discusses is that the sense of feeling honorable comes over a long period of time by which the individual basically played their cards correctly. Bourdieu describes how every action a person makes there is a counter action to it and different consequences to each action. The individual must make the correct decisions and know how to handle each counter action in order to be considered honorable.

As stated by Bourdieu, “This practical knowledge, based on the continuous decoding of the perceived but not consciously noticed indices of the welcome given to actions already accomplished, continuously carries out the checks and corrections intended to ensure the adjustment of practices and expressions to the reactions and expectations of the other agents. It functions like a self-regulating device programmed to redefine courses of action in accordance with information received on the reception of information transmitted and on the effects produced by that information” (Bourdieu pg.84).

Practice and discourse about practice: The first paragraph of this section was extremely wordy and I had confusion picking out what was important to the section. However, the second paragraph was easier for me to comprehend. The second paragraph basically talks about how one of the benefits of following the rules and conforming to society is prestige and respect. I think what Bourdieu is trying to say is that an individual who does conform to society can be looked at by others as responsible therefore, classifying that individual as prestige who is deserving of respect.

As described by Bourdieu, “Thus, quite apart from the direct profit derived from doing what the rule prescribes, perfect conformity to the rule can bring secondary benefits such as the prestige and respect which almost invariably reward and action apparently motivated by nothing other than pure, disinterested respect for the rule” (Bourdieu pg.85).

Symbolic capital: At the begging of the paragraph Bourdieu talks about how practice does not conform to economic calculation. It does not even conform even if it looks as if it is. The only way to not fall into the ethnocentric naiveties is to fully use economism. The economism is obtained is by providing economic calculation to all the goods.


Modes of domination: This part talks about how economic practice is the general practice, that is competent of treating all the other practices. It treats all practices even if they are unbiased. It also goes on to talk about how economic practices are used to maximize symbolic profit and material profit.