Subjectivity and Sociality

A Relational Ontology of Repetition and Habitus

Public Defence of PhD Thesis by Mette Vesterager.

 

This thesis is an attempt to clarify the relationship between subjectivity and sociality. If we accept that categories of subjectivity have historical origins, subjectivity is evidently related to sociality, and power becomes a viable concept for grasping this relationship. Consequently, the pivotal questions arise: Why and how do we collectively sustain inequalities of power? The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu provides a comprehensive theory of practice that interweaves social, objective structures with the individual subject through the conceptual triad: habitus, field, and capital. It accounts for how symbolic power is distributed and maintained and becomes a source for shaping the inner dispositions of subjects and exercising symbolic violence. I claim that Bourdieu erroneously reduces the central role of interactions and propose to reformulate habitus as an interactional concept. To properly understand the subject as a social and cultural being, it is necessary to invoke the concept of the social group to address the full matrix of subjectivity, social groups, and society. Following a clarification of the requirements for an ontological concept of social groups, I propose the concept of group habitus, which equiprimordially binds individuals and social groups together while anchoring them in social structures. Both individuals and groups are disposed to repeat patterns of interactions. To understand the emotional investment in the social world and the patterns of domination, I turn towards a psychoanalytic concept of repetition. In his critical depthhermeneutic account of subjectivity, the psychoanalyst Alfred Lorenzer operates with an interactional concept of repetition as taking place in scenes. I propose to synthesize the reformulated concept of habitus with this interactional concept of repetition to transcend the dichotomy between subject and society. It allows for a detailed understanding of how the subject’s inner dispositions and urges are formed through the unequal distribution of symbolic capital transformed into symbolic power. Notably, doxa, common knowledge, is naturalized and legitimized through defense mechanisms such as repression and disavowal, leading to a transformation of language and falsification of meaning in which symbolic content is hidden and displaced, hindering the grasping and acknowledgment of oppression. Finally, I develop an account of collective repetition compulsion by expanding the synthesis of habitus and repetition to include social groups. It enables the explanation of why and how social inequalities are sustained. This happens because subjects are continuously constituted as disposed for codependent repetitive patterns of interactions. They can take a compulsory form of unconscious drive-based collective reenactments imbued with symbolic power and legitimized through misrecognition (méconnaisance). The relationship between subject and sociality can thus be described through a relational ontology of habitus and repetition.

 

 

Denne afhandling er et forsøg på at afklare forholdet mellem subjektivitet og socialitet. Hvis vi accepterer, at kategorier for subjektivitet har en historisk oprindelse, er subjektivitet uomtvisteligt relateret til socialitet, og magt bliver et væsentligt begreb til at forstå dette forhold. Det centrale omdrejningspunkt bliver spørgsmålene: Hvorfor og hvordan opretholder vi kollektivt ulige magtforhold? Sociologen Pierre Bourdieu tilbyder en omfattende praksisteori, der sammenvæver sociale, objektive strukturer med det enkelte subjekt gennem den konceptuelle triade: habitus, felt og kapital. Den redegør for, hvordan symbolsk magt fordeles og vedligeholdes og bliver en kilde til at forme subjekters indre dispositioner og til udøvelsen af symbolsk vold. Jeg hævder, at Bourdieu fejlagtigt reducerer interaktionernes centrale rolle og foreslår at omformulere habitus til et interaktionelt begreb. For indgående at forstå subjektet som et socialt og kulturelt væsen, er det nødvendigt at inddrage begrebet om den sociale gruppe for at adressere den fulde matrix af subjektivitet, social gruppe og samfund. Efter en afklaring af kravene til et ontologisk begreb om sociale grupper, foreslår jeg begrebet gruppehabitus, som ækvi-primordialt binder individer og sociale grupper sammen, samtidig med at de forankres i sociale strukturer. Individer og grupper er begge disponerede til at gentage interaktionsmønstre. For at forstå den affektive investering i den sociale verden og dominansmønstrene vender jeg mig mod et psykoanalytisk begreb om gentagelse. I sin kritiske dybde-hermeneutiske fremstilling af subjektivitet opererer psykoanalytikeren Alfred Lorenzer med et interaktionelt begreb om gentagelse som foregående i scener. Jeg foreslår at syntetisere det reformulerede habitusbegreb med det interaktionelle gentagelsesbegreb for at transcendere dikotomien mellem subjekt og samfund. Det muliggør en detaljeret forståelse af, hvordan subjektets indre dispositioner og behov dannes gennem den ulige fordeling af symbolsk kapital omdannet til symbolsk magt. Særligt er doxa, almen viden, naturaliseret og legitimeret gennem forsvarsmekanismer såsom fortrængning og benægtelse, der fører til en transformation af sproget og forfalskning af betydning, hvorved symbolsk indhold bliver skjult og forskudt, hvilket hindrer forståelsen og anerkendelsen af undertrykkelse. Afslutningsvist udvikler jeg et begreb om kollektiv gentagelsestvang ved at udvide syntesen af habitus og gentagelse til at omfatte sociale grupper. Det muliggør forklaringen af, hvorfor og hvordan sociale uligheder opretholdes. Det sker, fordi subjekter kontinuerligt konstitueres som disponeret for indbyrdes afhængige gentagelsesmønstre af interaktioner. De kan tage en tvangsmæssig form af ubevidste drift-baserede kollektive ”reenactments” gennemsyret af symbolsk magt og legitimeret gennem miskendelse (méconnaisance). Forholdet mellem subjekt og socialitet kan således beskrives gennem en relationel ontologi baseret på habitus og gentagelse.

 

Assessment Committee

  • Professor Sabrina Ebbersmeyer, Chair (University of Copenhagen)
  • Professor Helene Aarseth (University of Oslo)
  • Senior Lecturer Joona Taipale (University of Jyväskylä)

Moderator of the defence

  • Professor Vincent F. Hendricks (University of Copenhagen)

Supervisors

  • Principal supervisor: Associate Professor Søren Overgaard (University of Copenhagen)
  • Co-supervisor: Professor Simo Køppe (University of Copenhagen)

Copies of the thesis will be available for consultation at the following three places:

  • At the Information Desk of the Copenhagen University Library, South Campus, Karen Blixens Plads 7
  • In Reading Room East of the Royal Library (the Black Diamond), Søren Kierkegaards Plads 1
  • At the Department of Communication, South Campus, Karen Blixens Plads 8