habitus

In the early 2000s, there were two films that came out, Bully {2001} and Thirteen {2003} that were cautionary tales about the darkside of teen life and bad influences. I’ve noticed that in the media recently, bullying is getting quite a bit of attention recently, with a focus on suicides, suicide attempts, and the use of the Internet, i.e., cyberbullying, which got widespread media attention with the Megan Meier suicide catalyzed by Lori Drew’s creation of a fake persona.

I’ve been watching how the media portrays these cases, often focusing on white and/or middle-class incidents, which is part of the “shock and awe” of the story. The narrative is that your kids aren’t safe where they should be—in school, public or private.

A few weeks ago, I was watching an Anderson Cooper special on CNN, where he returned to the Hollenbeck neighbourhood of Los Angeles. Anderson wasn’t talking about bullying, but about gangs.

Bullies and gangs often use similar tactics to instill terror and intimidation, but gangs are often made distinct by their “criminal activity.” The motives are linked to similar needs for perceived control, belonging, and identity. Is this an artificial distinction, one of degree and not of kind? I think so and I feel that if the media were portray suburban bullies like gangland thugs, there would be a backlash tied to attitudes surrounding class and race.

Anyone who has read Geoffrey Canada’s Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America {1995} {Amazon.ca} could see the social structure, habitus, and behavioural parallels between bullying in suburban schools and Canada’s recounting of growing up in the Bronx in the 1960s. This is a good summary of one of Canada’s anecdotes about growing up:

“One day his two older brothers came back from the playground. ‘Where’s John’s jacket?’ their mother asked. John answered, ‘A boy took it.’ She asked Daniel, ‘And what did you do when this boy was taking your brother’s jacket?Daniel muttered, ‘I didn’t do nuthin’. I told Johnny not to take his jacket off. I told him.’ ‘My mother exploded. ‘You let somebody take your brother’s jacket and you did nothing? That’s your younger brother. You can’t let people just take your things. You know I don’t have money for another jacket. You better not ever do this again. Now you go back there and get your brother’s jacket.’ Though his older brothers were both smaller than the playground bully, they got the jacket back. Their mother gathered them around and told them they had to stick together, ‘she would not tolerate our becoming victims.’ That philosophy of ghetto parents he summarized as, ‘Accept it, this is a violent world, so teach (children) to cope by acting more violently than the others.'” [*]

Canada goes on to describe how the institutions in the neighbourhood, schools, police, etc., aren’t factored into the social order for various reasons, cultivating feelings of powerlesness and fueling taking matters into one’s own hands, i.e., violence. Again, I see parallels here with the bullying being portrayed in the media. While some may argue that the parallels fall apart with cyberbullying, I disagree. The warfare of bullying is a psychological violence, which can have just as deadly consequences. Technology isn’t the enemy though. It’s the social institutions enabling the behaviours.

Twitterversion:: Bullying is media darling now, but what about insights re: gangs? Is drawing that parallel too radioactive? #ThickCulture  @Prof_K

Song:: Belle & Sebastian-‘We Rule the School’

Jessica Lussenhop says our kids are awash in pornography, but for the most part they can handle it, or at least exhibit a nonchalance about it. Shudder inducing quote (for me at least):

“I have 140 gigs of porn on my computer,” one of his buddies says. “I was going to put it all on an external hard drive and pass it to all my friends. And I said this in front of my friend’s parents.”

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, his frankness is astounding. Second, this very nice boy with the 140 gigs of pornography gives his first and last name to include in this article. I’m not going to print it here.

I’ve thought some about this ubiquitous pornography question because we had Naomi Wolf come to our campus a few months back and give a thought provoking talk about how the deluge of porn had the effect of demystifying (rationalizing – although she didn’t use that work) the female body. Channeling Max Weber, She called for bringing courtship and magic back into relationships.

My own view is similar to Weber’s in lamenting that “the romantic mystery ship has failed.” The broarder implications for me as a parent and as a political scientist is the hyper-rationalizing of our youth. Our students, in my view, are evolving into “hyper-processors” who are able to synthesize vast amounts of information. I think, in general, this makes them more goal oriented and focused. The flip side is that they are less reflective. I think my big fear is that our young people are losing an ability to be intentional in their behaviors….i.e. they are too preoccupied by their increasingly complex habitus that they find it increasingly difficult to exhibit the agency necessary to alter their habitus. Not to get all sci-fi, but it would seem like the technology pushes structural change in ways that are not rational or driven by conscious thought.

In the classroom and with conversations with researchers, I’ve discussed the idea that the environment is a luxury, in light of more pressing matters, such as food, jobs, etc. So, if we have a negative by-product of an activity {an externality such as pollution}, it creates a social cost that may be unfairly borne by others.  A key question is how to allocate such social costs, in light of competing interests?  What if these social costs in the form of taxes harm employers to the point where jobs are threatened?  Which should prevail?

The problem is that the value of the environment is not straightforward, as they often relate to a quality of life that is embedded in particulars, not universals.  When I lived in southern California, life without a car outside of Los Angeles would have been challenging.  My housing choices would be limited, possibly affecting my quality of life.  As it turned out, my decisions were independent of my environmental impact.  I had a 20 mile commute, albeit in a hybrid, but my choices affected everyone’s quality of life in terms of pollution, as well as the amounts of global greenhouse gasses.  Should policy affect choices like this?

In our everyday lives, we all have a set of practices that we take for granted.  In Pierre Bourdieu’s parlance, this would be habitus.  These practices are tied to environmental outcomes, whether we’re aware of them or not.  We only seem to be aware of them through consciousness or cost.

I don’t think the environment is a luxury that should take a back seat in an economic downturn, as it holds sacred the current mode of production and the current practices tied to it.  Of course, this could be disruptive, but should something that’s disruptive be avoided because of the uncertainty it generates?

Let’s assume the environment is a luxury when it comes to sustainable foods.  Organics should be toast in a recession, considered to be an overpriced luxury for most consumers.  In the UK, a Guardian article notes that consumers are less willing to spend on ethically-produced products {e.g., fairtrade} and organics, but are still want quality and are willing to pay a price-premium for locally-grown produce.  This shows how complicated markets can be, how consumers’ preferences shift, and creates implications for local production and land-use in Britain, creating challenges and opportunities for sustainable agriculture.  Habitus.

Policy can “incentivize” innovation, by enforcing standards such as those mandating increased fuel efficiency {CAFE standards in the US; CAFC guidelines in Canada}, state emissions testing, and the sale of lower-emissions vehicles.  Such approaches often are mired within institutional battlegrounds, places where economic sociology offer great insights.  While environmental policies enforcing change are disruptive and force auto manufacturers to move towards a different mode of production, the end societal results can be positive.  I agree with Alexandra Shimo of Macleans that the recession is bad for the environment, as oil prices fall, the incentives for the development of alternatives to fossil fuels wane.

So, is the environment a luxury?  Well, it may well be akin to the diamond-water paradox.  Why are diamonds so expensive relative to water, where the latter we need to live.  Scarcity.  If we just allow the market to dictate decision-making, we unfortunately will only value the environment when we perceive it as growing scarce.  Will that be too late?

Twitterversion:: Some argue that environmentalism and sustainability is a luxury, as when push comes to shove, pragmatics dictate pressing concerns prevail. @Prof_K

Song:: Honey Honey (BBC Sessions) – Feist on the Green Owl compilation – lyrics

Video:: Talking Heads- “Nothing But Flowers” w/ Johnny Marr & Kirsty MacColl

This will be the first installment of a multi-part series.  José, in a recent blog, brought up some excellent points regarding policy, power, and capital.  So, who are these villainous characters populating the halls of places like AIG, Lehman, and Merrill-Lynch?  A bunch of capitalist MBAs, who may never have read a word of Ayn Rand prose, but act out all sorts of wild, objectivist fantasies, right?

Well, there’s been a recent battle brewing on the Harvard Business blogs on the topic of the recent financial crisis and How to Fix Business Schools.   The editor-in-chief of the Harvard Business Review wanted to start a dialogue on the very topic::

“Are our business schools up to the job? Many critics have charged that the values imparted in MBA programs contributed significantly to the ethical and strategic lapses that led to the current economic crisis. Is that fair? And if so, what needs to change? How can business schools regain popular trust?”–Adi Ignatius

Joel Podolny, a Sociologist, notes in his blog post that “Business schools provide students with many technical skills, but they appear to do little, or nothing, to foster responsibility and accountability.”  Bob Sutton, an organizational sociologist, also brings up some interesting points on the Harvard blog, as well as his own::

• “One of the root problems with business schools is that too many are infected with assumptions that reinforce and bring out the worst in human-beings. In particular, the logic and discipline of economics usually rules the roost at business schools.”
• “I have had Stanford students tell me for decades that Merrill is (or was) fundamentally dog eat dog world to live in and there is no incentive for helping coworkers and you get ahead by ignoring them, doing your work, and occasionally sticking a knife in their back.”

Sutton points a finger squarely at economics, which is a dominant mode of thinking in business schools (more on this later).  On the other side of the fence, Steve Kaplan, an economist, offers up “The Economists Have It Right,” where he notes the positives of economic thinking and how not following good economics leads to bad results::

“The tools economists give to students better equip them to understand the business world they will experience. In fact, one of the ways CEOs of financial services firms (e.g., Lehman’s Dick Fuld, Merrill Lynch’s Stan O’Neal and Citigroup’s Charles Prince) failed was in not understanding the agency theory and economics taught in business school. In particular, it is a simple economic point that it is a bad idea to pay up front fees and bonuses for investments or loans that have long-term payoffs.”

He goes on to state that efficiency advances due to economics has increased world GDP and well-being through businesses and capitalism.

First off, I have three degrees from AACSB business schools, but I’ve always been interdisciplinary and my training was steeped in the social sciences, as well as having exposure to the humanities at the graduate level.  My take is that many business schools have created a received-view, dare I say the hackneyed term paradigm, of solving problems.  I’ve seen and heard arguments about adding rigor through quantitative logics or a emphasis on ethics in the curriculum as solutions.  Given this, I have often wondered what type of students are we creating.  Critical problem solvers or disciples of a rational economics worldview (tempered with business ethics)?  It’s not just about how many economics courses are taken, but rather which paradigms are being used to build knowledge.  Which normative logics are being taught?

I think students pick up from business schools and the workplace HOW work gets done and how to get ahead.  There needs to be no smoking gun memo issued by a manager or a PowerPoint slide by a professor stating this.  How is this so?  It’s all about habitus (i.e., our actions are guided by our learned dispositions within a context) and doxa (i.e., what is taken-for-granted in a given context), borrowing from Pierre Bourdieu.  Business schools teach “the game.”  Pop culture depicts the habitus and doxa of the business game with overkill, but the examples are nevertheless instructive.

Oliver Stone’s Wall Street (1987) {left} has Gordon Gekko state a declaration of principles, seeming to echo the very spirit of Adam Smith himself.  “Greed is good” is declared with almost religious fervor, a manifestation of the final trajectory of Max Weber’s take on Martin Luther’s “quiet revolution.”  Boiler Room (2000) {right} has Jim Young indoctrinate the noobs* to the culture.  Now, imagine these images of hyperbole toned down and couched in lectures, cases, and war stories.  This is not to say that it’s all bad and that all that is being taught is that opportunism and guile are justly rewarded.  I will say that there are patterns based upon dominant ways of thinking about business and organizations, often based upon assumptions of rationality and certain logics (but not others).  One might just say it’s simple pragmatics.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  Sutton, in a comment response to Kaplan, notes what is being done at Stanford::

“…The bulk of the class is getting the students out and spreading ideas — they have spread (or tried to spread — failure happens!): Firefox (by building real browsers); practices for making Wal-Mart employees more aware of the environmental impact of the products they sell; hip-hop music; financial responsibility among younger people; and Facebook. In all cases, they have done these things by working among real customers and employees, and their work was judged by real executives from this companies. In other classes, we have done stuff like redesign and change an all-hands meeting in a real company.

So although the image of practical education most business schools present is the telling of war stories, our approach (which is expensive and inefficient) is to start with and weave in some general principles (including design thinking), some stories about how it works, and then to require the students to actually implement some change. This is a different model of management education than most business school professors imagine.”

Exactly.  I know that this type of approach is likely only at top-tier schools and niche programs.

I’d like to see business schools move towards giving students concepts and tools to re-think processes and practices that go beyond how things are currently done.  I’d like to see programs as incubators of ideas.  Places where students can try things and fail, learning from their mistakes.  I’d like to see business schools get students to think in terms of social systems and to incorporate practical solutions to dealing with the interface of different forms of capital (i.e., financial, social, political, cultural, natural, etc.).  In other words, stop trying to boil everything down to financial capital or over-rely upon particular disciplinary thinking.

I think there is creative work ahead for business schools, particularly given the current scrutiny, as well as the fact that the market for programs is increasingly global.  I’ll leave this installment with a Goethe quote::

“To refashion the fashioned, lest it harden into iron, is work of an endless vital activity/Und umzuschaffen das Geschaffne,  Damit sichs nicht zum Starren waffne,  Wirkt ewiges lebendiges Tun.”–Eins und Alles