sociology class 12.23

while biking to sociology class today, i found myself thinking about social science, and our conversation last night about analyzing people. and i recalled something my sociology professor said once in class

a good social science student learns to always ask about the relations happening under the surface

and i think that’s what i appreciate most. because as much as the hard sciences give you an understanding of what’s happening in the physical world, it doesn’t give you a complete perspective on how to play the game of life (and increasingly, i think, even hard sciences are becoming a social game)

habitus and field

how do you know if something is right for you? you do it one day, then the next day you think about it, and if the only thing you remember is how tired you felt, then that thing isn’t for you.

the professor talked about bourdieu’s equation on education/career

habitus x capital + field

compare career to a card game:

• habitus: how good you are at playing cards
• capital: what cards you drew
• field: what rules you’re playing under

wouldn’t it be nicer to know how every game is played before playing, rather than finding out as you go? schools don’t seem interested in teaching you how to play or even teaching you the rules (these might be good questions to ask mentors).

capital:

• embodied state: your own essence, culture, virtues, etc.
• institutionalized state: certificates, diploma

field:

• society isn’t one game, it’s many different fields
• what is rewarded in one field (academia) is not rewarded in another (industry)

habitus:

habitus is to a large extent habitually ingrained in you, or “embodied history”. we talked about your habit of being nice to everyone (imprecise wording but alas). my sociology prof says that habitus is unchangable. dependent to a large extent on how you grew up.

i disagree.

my mom was not very free from gender notions, she wouldn’t ever have thought of sending me to dance class. she was also not free from class notions, she wouldn’t have ever sent me to acting class.

the prof told us a story of someone interviewing for huawei:

• the first couple interviews were technical, and those went fine.
• but then the strongest companies have the strongest cultures, and the later rounds always look for cultural alignment.
• the interviewer asked “if we were to give you this offer, who would you tell first?”
• the guy: that’s my own business why would i tell someone?
• interview: you wouldn’t immediately tell your mom and dad?¹
• later, interviewer: 你觉得我们公司最基本的原则是什么？
• guy：是啥？
• interviewer：不贵！
• guy: 噢，对哦！你们东西确实不贵
• interview: 什么不贵。我说的「不跪」！！ 不向美国下跪！！！！
• professor: 要是没有想过《为国出征》这种意念，装都装不出来

but we are, for one reason or another, not people with strong habitus. you, maybe because your parents are relatively free. me, maybe because of the things i’ve read.

on the one hand it’s tough to have flexible habitus, because it makes the search space for what to do larger. but that, i think, could also be a habitus on its own.²

in the end, this is all good news.

it means you can find alignment between habitus and field. it means you don’t have to contort yourself to do a job. it means you only have to apply to work that genuinely appeals to you (though sometimes you may need to built up capital).

sociology doesn’t give you the answers. it helps you ask the right questions

habitus is one such question.

distance from the game enables you to free yourself

because they let you de-naturalize received notions:

• in sociology you learn many stories that make you realize many tastes are purely social constructions
• like how lobsters used to be eaten by the poorest of the poor in boston
• same with caviar
• same with sugar
• or how the boston accent used to be elite
• champagne for celebrations
• same for 茅台 in china
• avocados

how can you be free if you’re oblivious to the choices that you’re not making?