Karma and Bourdieu's concept of habitus

[Goob]

I was reading a section on the french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus - which can be roughly explained as our dispositions inherent in our mind and bodies, determined by our histories and social positions, which determine our outlook and possibilities - and was struck by how similar it sounded to the Buddhist notion of karma in that it structures our outcomes and opportunities but that there at the same time are at least potential possibilities for freedom of choice. Bourdieu was due to his own class background and his encounters with french bourgeois society interested in how class is reproduced and how different forms of capital (economic, social, cultural) determine our position in various fields, or spheres of activity, in society.

Does anyone know of any comparisons that have been made or have any thoughts on this?

From Wikipedia:

Habitus is a system of embodied dispositions, tendencies that organize the ways in which individuals perceive the social world around them and react to it. These dispositions are usually shared by people with similar background (in terms of social class, religion, nationality, ethnicity, education, profession etc.), as the habitus is acquired through mimesis and reflects the lived reality to which individuals are socialized, their individual experience and objective opportunities. Thus, the habitus represents the way group culture and personal history shape the body and the mind, and as a result, shape social action in the present.

Pierre Bourdieu suggested that the habitus consists of both the hexis (the tendency to hold and use one's body in a certain ways, such as posture and accent) and more abstract mental habits, schemes of perception, classification, appreciation, feeling, and action. These schemes are not mere habits: Bourdieu suggested they allow individuals to find new solutions to new situations without calculated deliberation, based on their gut feelings and intuitions, which Bourdieu believed were collective and socially shaped. These attitudes, mannerisms, tastes, moral intuitions and habits have influence on the individual's life chances, thus the habitus is both structured by an individuals' objective past position in the social structure; and structuring its future life path. Pierre Bourdieu argued that the reproduction of the social structure results from the habitus of individuals.

[davidbrainerd]

I think the concept of habitus used in this sense comes from Pelagianism or the response to Pelagianism (which is why the Latin is being used), and the obvious difference is it doesn't span multiple lives.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Not really kamma, but more comparable to perfections (pāramī), latent dispositions (anusaya kilesa), or character (carita).

Kamma is intentional action. If done repeatedly it becomes habit, and habits mould character. The Buddhist belief is that these character traits accumulate over multiple lives, and not just during one.

There are many stories like that of Ajātasattu, for example. The name means "Unborn enemy," as it was predicted by astrologers before his birth that he would kill his own father. His mother tried to abort the foetus, but his father (Bimbisāra), set a guard to prevent further attempts. In due course, the child was born, and he later killed his own father.

So, it's not all about nurture as Pierre Bourdieu seems to claim, but also about nature. Ajātasattu's parents were pious Buddhists, and he was raised in the best of circumstances, but he still turned out to be a patricide.

[davidbrainerd]

Kamma is intentional action. If done repeatedly it becomes habit, and habits mould character.

The Pelagian version of habitus. He teaches one must do good until it becomes their habitus or disposition, a sort of second nature.

In response to Pelagius, the Augustinians argue that habitus is not determined by or changeable by freewill. The fallen nature of mankind in general means we're all damned to a corrupted habitus, and only an infusion of God's grace can change it.

I realize Bourdieu is undoubtedly not intending that. He's co-opting a Latin theological term for secular use. But perhaps some idea of how its used in theology would be helpful in some way to this thread.