Note:
Transcript of the sharing delivered at PUP Sta. Mesa, Manila
Good afternoon. I am thankful for the invitation sent me by Prof. Kristoffer Bolaños last week. I however have hesitated to accept this invitation because I felt that I am not equipped enough to talk about the subject on Pierre Bourdieu. I am a graduate student in Philosophy and an instructor in Theology (Religious studies, strictly speaking), and I have not been initiated yet into the discussions that were inspired by the thinker who has also inspired today’s forum.
Nevertheless,
I accepted the invitation because of two reasons: first because Prof. Bolaños coursed
the invitation through a very good friend of mine, Dr. Arvin Eballo, the
current president of PASR; and also because this forum will give me an
opportunity to visit PUP grounds once again. I am also an alumnus of PUP. I
have completed my PBTE (Post Baccalaureate Teachers Education) here. I think
that was in 2006 or 2007. Hence, since I said yes to the invitation, I had to
do research on the subject matter; and I hope for your indulgence and
understanding for the things that I have prepared for today’s discussion.
The
topic mentioned in Prof. Bolaños’ letter was: Special Mode of Habitus: Catholicism and the Papal Visits to the
Philippines; and it added that the discussion will hopefully highlight the
concept of Pierre Bourdieu on “habitus” and on how does “habitus” play itself
out in the religious practice of the country. With this, please allow me to
focus my paper on the concept of “habitus” and the possible contribution of
this concept in articulating and realizing the ‘social doctrine of the Church,’
especially those themes that had been highlighted by Pope Francis during his
visit to the Philippines.
So,
we begin with the concept of papal
visitations….
Visitations
are quite common in the tradition of the Catholic church. It’s pretty much the
same as any head of any organization visiting his people for varied purposes,
which are oftentimes primarily intended to assure the people of the continuing
good regard and presence of the leader. In the context of the Philippine
Catholic Church, the seat of the Roman Pontiff have had already made several
visitations to the country. Prior to Pope Francis, the Philippines was already
visited by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and Pope John Paul II in 1981 and 1995 (the
second was during the occasion of the World Youth Day). Most of these visits are
pastoral in nature. The term pastoral has its origins from the
context of the shepherd ‘pastoring’ or
caring for his sheep; so a pastor is somebody who is in charge for the care
of the a certain group – in the same manner as the shepherd is concerned with
the well-being of his sheep. That the nature of his visit was pastoral was even declared by Pope
Francis when he delivered his speech in Malacanang on January 16. And, even if
we would have to trace the visits of the two previous popes, we could also see
the pastoral orientation of those visitations: Pope Paul VI’s visit in 1970
highlighted an ordination of priests, his speech on air through Radio Veritas,
his visit to the poor of Tondo; and – something which will be common to all
three Popes who had come to the Philippines – an encounter with students and
the youth (which actually happened at the grounds of the University of Santo
Tomas).
Pope
(St.) John Paul II’s visits in 1981 and 1995 were also pretty much the same;
Marisse Panaligan and Jessica Bartolome of GMA news reported that John Paul
II’s 1981 visit to the country was even extended to several places outside
Metro Manila. He went to Baguio, to Rizal, to Legaspi, to Iloilo and Bacolod,
to Cebu and Davao. During this trip, John Paul II also spoke to many facets of the Philippine society –
he reaches out to religious women, to the professionals, to the community of
Chinese Catholics, to the Muslims, to laborers, farmers, the urban poor, and
the media (see reports of Panaligan and Bartolome; GMA News, January 13, 2015).
Then, his second visit in 1995 was on the occasion of the World Youth day
celebration, and so was primarily intended as an encounter for the students and
the young people. Pope Francis’ visit is no different. In fact, the highlight
of that visit was his meeting with the victims of the Yolanda typhoon in Samar
and Leyte – a goal which he had to pursue even when there was a threat of
another typhoon during that time. In addition to that, he also held meetings
with Families at the Mall of Asia arena, and the religious leaders and again
the youth at the University of Santo Tomas. So then, if we are to look into the
papal visitations that were done in the Country, and even in other countries, these visits were mostly intended to
reassure the people, to exhort and the inspire them to pursue certain goals,
ends and values that are central to the Catholic faith. The Pope visits the
people of God in order to assure us, faithful, of his continuing paternal care.
And so now we ask: what implications
do these visits have? What significance do they have for us? It is on this regard that Pierre
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus will
help us in our reflection.
I
have started this sharing with a disclaimer, and I would not really pretend to
be knowledgeable of Bourdieu. So, please allow me to base my descriptions of
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus from David Swartz article in Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, which he entitled as “The
Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu” (2002). Swartz tells us
that Bourdieu’s concept of habitus stems from a theory of action that rejects
“all objectivist views that depict moral behavior as a directly determined
response to some kind of external condition, be it cultural or material” (p.
625). Bourdieu was careful to avoid a theory of action that falls in either
extreme of external constraints or subjective whim. This means then that for
Bourdieu, when we do an action, we do not just simply follow norms, laws or
codes. In fact, the behaviorists’ stimulus-response schema is not a guaranteed
explanation on why ‘we do’ an action. Much less is it possible to reduce the
reason for action as merely a product of rational choice of the here and the
now. Bourdieu instead believes that most
of our actions are products of what he calls as habitus, which others would conveniently equate with habit
(although Bourdieu distinguishes the two and would always prefer habitus over habit).
What then is habitus?
Bourdieu (1990)[1]
defines habitus as a “system of
durable, transposable dispositions, structured
structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as
principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be
objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming
at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain
them” (p. 53). For my discussion, please allow me to focus on Bourdieu’s
description of habitus as structured structures predisposed to
function as structuring structures.
To
say then that actions are mostly governed or influenced by habitus is to claim that most of our actions are not really
conscious determinations of neutral ends. Our habitus has already pre-disposed
us to certain ends so much so that when we make our choice, even if we believe
it to be a free and uninfluenced choice, is always somehow colored by the
habituation or the habitus where we
are in. In other words, our habitus
(those habituated dispositions that become almost like second nature for us)
incline us toward certain actions over others. Habitus will probably help us understand the varying inclinations
of people who have been separately raised in different types of habituation or
environment. For, as Swartz observes, Bourdieu even used the concept of habitus to account for the class
differences across a broad range of aesthetic tastes and lifestyles. When our
grandfathers are fond of listening to songs of Engelbert Humperdinck or Frank
Sinatra; we have our young who listen to the rap music of Gloc-9. As the old
regard the music of the young as ‘not really music but noise,’ the young will
equally detest the melody that is soothing to the ears of the old. These tastes
moreover affect their actions. So an answer to the question about “what am I to
do on a given Sunday morning?,” even if both would say that they would want to
listen to an FM station – they would vary on the choice of radio stations to
tune in. It is on this similar account that habitus affects our actions and
decisions. On any given day, a person’s response to the question of “what may I
do today” is colored highly by the habitus
that have formed the tastes and disposition of that person: so while some find
joy in watching movies, others are contented with reading books, while others
would prefer to jog or play basketball. It is on this regard that one’s habitus may influence one’s actions; and
this is perhaps the reason why Bourdieu would call habitus as “structured
structures…” Habitus are “structures” because they are dominant
in a person’s tastes. Habitus are
settled dispositions. They are like structures that cannot be easily taken
down. In the classical language of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, they would
call habits as those dispositions that have the character of a second nature.
Their stability as a disposition allows us to say that they are “structures.” But Bourdieu also tells us
that habitus are “structured.” Though they become
dominant as a person’s disposition, habitus
were also structured, they were
actually formed in us. They are not innate in us. They are structured in a sense that our habits are actually also products
our individual actions. What come as our habit are actually outcomes of our
vigilant initial choices. So, the habitus
of a student that disposes him or her to regularly study the lessons are
not innate structures. They are rather born after a period of a disciplined
action to go through the rigor of studies. I remember one Dominican who told
his students that you would have to peg your balls on your chairs if you would
want to acquire good study habits (ipako niyo ang inyong mga bayag sa upuan
niyo if kung gusto niyong magkaroon ng magandang disposisyon sap ag-aaral). So
habits, though they are structures because they are stable dispositions, they
are also structured (they are not
innate) but are formed through constant vigilance and discipline.
Moreover,
habitus function as structuring structures.
Our settled dispositions allow us to program our actions. This is perhaps the
reason for Aristotle’s over-confidence on a ‘good natured’ or ‘virtuous man’
when he argued that the virtuous man is the measure for the good. Aristotle
seems to suggest that the virtue of the virtuous becomes the structuring structures of his actions so
much so that we could confidently believe that the virtuous man’s actions will
be mostly virtuous. In the field of moral philosophy, especially the brand of a
Thomistic-Aristotelian ethics, the emphasis on virtue-formation becomes primary
because of the conviction that continuous
acts of virtue develops virtuous character, and such virtuous character becomes
a settled disposition to do acts of virtue. This suggests that virtues are both products of continuous and
repeated actions (and so they are structured); and at the same time, virtues
dispose as to do more acts of virtue (and so it is structuring)… It is formed
in us as it also forms us…. It’s a cycle, not of vice but of virtues. When we continuously perform honest
actions, we become honest; and our honest character now becomes our settled
disposition to be always honest in our actions…
We
can see here then an important insight from Bourdieu’s emphasis on habitus as structured structures predisposed to function
as structuring structures… The aim then is to form good habits so that
those good habits become programmatic for more good actions.
This
brings us to the next point of this paper. Papal visitations are invitations to create those habits,
those practices that will inspire us to be better as a people; especially for
the believers who look at themselves as a people of God. We take the case of
Pope Francis’ visit as a focal point.
There
are two striking points that we could probably highlight from the visit of Pope
Francis: the first is the emphasis on forming the people; and the second
is the call to resist what Pope Francis has consistently termed as the culture
of exclusion.
Formation (forming the
people) is, I
think, a core project of the present Pontiff of the Catholic Church. In fact,
last year (October 5-19, 2014), Pope Francis has convened an extraordinary
Synod of bishops (or a global gathering of Catholic bishops) to talk about the
Family. That Synod has produced a working paper entitled, “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of
Evangelization.” The working paper is focused on many aspects of family
life ranging from the nature of the family, the threats to family life, and the
role of family life in building our contemporary societies. In the life of the
Catholic Church, the family is regarded as the first and the most important school
for Christian life. Hence, Pope Francis really took it as part of his agenda to
speak with the Families, where in their meeting he insisted that “the world ‘needs good and strong families” to overcome
threats of poverty, materialism, destructive lifestyles, and those caused by
separation due to migration’.” The Catholic Church is convinced that if
we are to talk about formation of personal character (especially the formation
of virtuous character), the family will have a big role to play. But such
promise of a family will be frustrated if the human family, with all the
threats that it faces today, will not be aided in the performance of its
mission. We could not deny the reality of so many families that have become places
of abuse and maltreatment, instead of being places of assurances, care and
unconditional love. It has become very difficult to form good individuals in a
family, if the family is already dysfunctional. So, for the church, a rather
important ministry is to look into our human families, and to defend it from
what Pope Francis would call as the ‘ideological colonization.’
This particular
stance of the church leads the Church to many unpopular positions. Probably
there are those in the present audience who will not agree with the church in
some of those positions that the Church would have to take in order to
safeguard the human family. Among the issues that the Pope regards as
‘ideological colonization’ are issues related to same sex marriage, the practicality
of divorce, the contraceptive mindset, etc. Many would disagree with the church
on these issues, but the Church’s guiding principle amidst those discussions is
the goal of accompanying the family in the performance of its very important
mandate of forming the people, especially the young. The Church believes that a
dysfunctional family could hardly provide the habitus (if we are to use Bourdieu’s terminology) to form virtuous
people.
Secondly, Pope
Francis’ visit to the Philippines is a reiteration of his crusade to fight the
culture of exclusion. In his Evangelii Gaudium (his recent Pastoral Exhortation), Pope Francis
calls all people of good will to resist any mechanism that excludes the people,
especially the poor and the powerless. This culture of exclusion is a constant
temptation especially for us who are habituated in the capitalist culture that
thrives in competition. As we all know, competition declares winners and
losers; and winning in a competition is always premised by one’s strength. In a
competition, the strong wins and weak loses. If others are left behind because
they have lost in the battle, they would have no one else to blame but
themselves. Losing is but part of the game, and to be left behind is but part
of the consequence.
Pope Francis has
insisted that it is this culture of exclusion that has condemned so many of us
to live miserable lives. The poor in the slums and the orphans in the streets
are just among the losers in our communities; their weakness cannot allow them
to compete, and so they are just left behind; and they are simply excluded.
Pope Francis’ call is
for us to think of alternative ways of
doing things. When the competitive culture of the modern liberalism develops
in us the habitus of looking after
only for our needs, sometimes even at the expense of others, Pope Francis is
asking us to look for an alternative way of doing things. Hence, he says to
those who were present during his encounter with the youth at the University of
Santo Tomas, “I want to encourage you, as Christian citizens of this country,
to offer yourselves passionately and honestly to the great work of renewing your society and helping to
build a better world.” This is an invitation to think of an alternative to the
dominant practice that has “structured” our actions to be self-directed and
forgetful of others. The pope has invited us to think of alternative structuring structures that could make
our society a better place.
I am not sure how
many from the audience have witnessed Pope Francis’ encounter with the youth in
UST; but in that encounter, Pope Francis has invited the people to be attentive
to the tears of the crying child, Glyzelle Palomar, who has represented all the
many other forgotten and excluded people in our society. The call is for us to
provide alternative structures that
could also structure us to be
responsive to the conditions of these often-forgotten sectors of our society.
As the other street child (Mar Jun) in that encounter testifies, “orphans in
the streets are helpless, and they are sometimes even led to do bad things
because of lack of guidance.” He was thankful for the people who have helped
them, especially the Tulay ng Kabataan Foundation
who have nurtured and sheltered them, but he has also noted that there are ONLY
FEW PEOPLE who are willing to help them. So, we ask ourselves as a community,
what sort of habituation must we adopt in order to encourage us to become more responsive to the conditions of the
excluded members of our society?
This is then the area I see where
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus may play out itself in religious practice in our
country.
Religiosity is not just acts of piety or devotions (though they are also
important of course). An equally important part in the convictions of a
believer is the kind of Christian message that he brings to his people.
Christ’s message for the people is nothing other than the LOVE of the Father;
and so, it becomes central in the life of a believer to make that love a
reality. Our religiosity then must not be plagued with those sometimes
scandalous disparities between our devotions and actions.
Inasmuch
as Bourdieu is concerned with working on the people’s habitus as structured structures predisposed to
function as structuring structures, the Catholic church, as reiterated by
the recent visit of Pope Francis I to our nation, calls us to create liberating structures that will proclaim and witness more
powerfully the love of God for his people. The invitation is for every
believer to form those virtuous habits – by being vigilant in our every action,
endeavoring to do acts of love and justice rather than that of malice and abuse
– so that those virtuous habits become structuring
structures that will later make us imitate Christ more consistently in our
lives.
Maraming
salamat po.
No comments:
Post a Comment