SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE Habitus, relexivity, and the realization of intercultural capital: The (unfulilled) potential of intercultural education Andreas Pöllmann Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 Page 1 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE Habitus, relexivity, and the realization of intercultural capital: The (unfulilled) potential of intercultural education Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Received: 24 October 2015 Accepted: 29 January 2016 *Corresponding author: Andreas Pöllmann, Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Cultural Universitario, Coyoacán 04510, México, D.F., Mexico E-mail: apollm@unam.mx Reviewing editor: Jamie Halsall, University of Huddersield, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article Andreas Pöllmann1* Abstract: Nowhere does the need to appreciate a diverse range of diferent intercultural experiences appear more obvious than in the context of intercultural education. Yet, in times of neoliberal hegemony over educational politics and policies, less socioculturally dominant and often more colloquial funds of intercultural knowledge risk to sufer continued institutional marginalization and curricular obliteration. To counter such forms of symbolic violence and to create learning environments that value a wide range of processes of intercultural capital realization, intercultural education needs to overcome ideas of “bad habitus” and “good relexivity”, for they prematurely discredit the value of people’s practical sense, while failing to problematize the sociocultural contingency of their relexive capacities. In a critical appropriation of Bourdieu’s conceptualization of human agency, the present article highlights the reconcilability of relexivity and habitus, with a particular interest in processes of intercultural capital realization and the (unfulilled) potential of intercultural education. Subjects: Education - Social Sciences; Multicultural Education; Political Sociology; Race & Ethnic Studies; Social Class; Social Theory; Sociology & Social Policy; Sociology of Culture; Sociology of Education; Sociology of Knowledge Keywords: Archer; Bourdieu; habitus; human agency; intercultural capital; intercultural education; neoliberal hegemony; reflexivity; recognition Andreas Pöllmann ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Andreas Pöllmann (PhD 2008, MA 2004, Department of Sociology, University of Essex, UK) is a full-time associate researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City and adjunct professor at the Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales of the same university. Previous positions include a lectureship at City University London (UK) and postdoctoral fellowships at the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales (UNAM) and the Karlsruhe University of Education (Germany). Andreas Pöllmann has longstanding interests in national and supranational identities, intercultural relations, political sociology, cultural sociology, and the sociology of education. His current research focuses on links between formal education and sociocultural inequalities in the realization of intercultural capital, with a particular focus on institutions of teacher education. This article illustrates the importance of valuing both intuitive and relexive forms of intercultural learning. With the background of intensifying processes of economic globalization and the worldwide spread of neoliberal educational politics and policies, it urges for inclusive forms of intercultural education that avoid uncritical celebrations of relexivity, private initiative, and individual talent. At the same time, it underlines the vital importance of an intercultural education that recognizes a wide range of less formally established funds of intercultural knowledge. Throughout, the article advocates a perspective that views processes of individual development as closely related to the respective contextual circumstances, with a particular interest in implications in terms of sociocultural justice. © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Page 2 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 1. Introduction No doubt agents do have an active apprehension of the world. No doubt they construct their vision of the world. But this construction is carried out under structural constraints. (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 18) Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Since its conception, Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of habitus has received a controversial reception among theorists of human agency. Celebrated by some, rejected by others, but always pertinent to both—whether as a conceptual building block and a complex idea worthwhile of constructive criticism and further theoretical development or as an antithetical scapegoat. In the latter (rather unfortunate) case, the concept tends to serve its scholarly detractors merely as a negative foil for their own theoretical propositions.1 Margaret Archer, in particular, has become accustomed to delineating her multidimensional idea of diferent cognitive forms of human relexivity2—and, more generally, her morphogenetic vision of personal and sociocultural development—in stark contrast to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus (Archer, 2007, 2010, 2012). If viewed from a late Archerian perspective, habitus ultimately appears as little more than an increasingly irrelevant, if not entirely obsolete, anachronistic residual that, if anything, stands in the way of auto-relexive “internal conversations” of “fractured” or otherwise “confused” late modern individuals. Such a radical questioning of habitus—of its raison d’être so to speak—is as empirically problematic as heuristically unsound (Adams, 2006; Akram & Hogan, 2015; Decoteau, 2015; ElderVass, 2007; Farrugia, 2013; Farrugia & Woodman, 2015; Fleetwood, 2008; Sayer, 2010). Most ironically, perhaps, the drastic outcasting of habitus becomes possible only from a view of human agency in which habitus and relexivity feature as strictly distinct, unrelated, and irreconcilable parts of dissimilar coins. A particularly tragic dimension to the irony of such crude antagonistic dichotomies—and one more or less explicitly woven into Archer’s morphogenetic approach—alludes to value-laden phantasies about “bad habitus” and “good relexivity”. This article departs from Archerian-type caricatures of habitus and relexivity as quintessentially irreconcilable and diferentially valued dimensions of human agency, since they obscure their actual interdependency and joint signiicance for contextually embedded human (inter)actions in general—and for processes of intercultural capital realization in particular. In order to make explicit right from the beginning and productively work with a conception of human agency that reconciles people’s intuitive and relexive capacities within a Bourdieusian framework, the French sociologist’s idea of habitus as “structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53) requires some additional qualiication. Concretely, for the purposes of the present contribution and as a suggestion for further conceptual development, habitus shall be more speciically deined as structured psychosomatic structures that emerge from the respective individual’s (more or less conscious) experiences in pertinent ields as well as structuring psychosomatic structures that form the “operational basis” of his or her (inter) actions. In other words, the respective psychosomatic structures are both product and producer of contextually embedded practices. They mediate and “guide” the reception, memorizing, and processual generation of people’s sensory impressions and expressions. Based on a spirit of critical appreciation according to which “an invitation to think with Bourdieu is of necessity an invitation to think beyond Bourdieu, and against him whenever required” (Wacquant, 1992, p. xiv), the following discussion irst outlines a notion of human agency that embraces habitus, relexivity, and practical sense as its co-deining and interrelated constituents. It then moves on to illustrate the centrality of both relexive and intuitive elements of human agency in processes of intercultural capital realization—within and beyond established forms of formal education. The next section problematizes the sociocultural contingency of processes of intercultural capital realization, with a particular focus on the (unfulilled) potential of intercultural education in times of neoliberal Page 3 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 hegemony. The subsequent and inal section rearticulates the most important ideas by way of conclusion. 2. Beyond “bad habitus” and “good reflexivity” Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Contrary to common misrepresentations, habitus “is not a fate, not a destiny” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 45). Combining “constancy and variation” (Bourdieu, 2000; p. 161), it “is as remote from creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical reproduction of the original conditioning” Bourdieu, 1990, p. 55). As “a product of history, that is of social experience and education, it may be changed by history, that is by new experiences, education or training” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 45, original emphasis). Habitus can, and in most cases will, contain a complex set of plural, historically contingent, and contradictory (sets of) dispositions.3 Even comparatively static and little complex varieties of habitus do not constitute monolithic systems of ever-repetitive neurobehavioral mechanics. Importantly, however, while habitus can be(come) more or less lexible, it is per se non-relexive. As much as it makes no analytical sense to construe habitus itself as relexive,4 it is problematic to extrapolate its operational limits beyond the level of individual agency. Diferent individuals may share certain “judgments of taste” according to their particular class of habitus (Bourdieu, 1984), but a social class itself does not have a habitus. In a similar vein, diferent individuals’ feelings of national attachment may show important intersubjective similarities or overlaps (Pöllmann, 2008, 2009, 2012) that—while possibly indicative of a certain national culture or prevailing national doxa—do not form the habitus of a particular nation. The same logic applies to dubious notions of “family habitus” and “institutional habitus” that, in fact, allude to forms of group ethos, collective spirit, or other doxai—as Atkinson (2011) so convincingly demonstrates. Crucially, habitus does not stand in diametrical contrast to relexivity. As a psychosomatic receptor, memory, and generative matrix, it both evolves from and mediates relexive as well as intuitive contextually embedded practices. Depending on the respective ield conditions, and at diferent points in time and space, “the same individual may be highly relexive with regard to some aspects of his or her behavior, but strongly driven by social conditioning with regard to others” (Elder-Vass, 2007, p. 342). The resulting complexity of diferent (contextually variant) expressions of human agency can be imagined as oscillating between two ideal-typical poles: practical sense and relexivity. Within this model of human agency, the notion of practical sense comprises intuitive ways of acting, feeling, perceiving, and thinking that—while not exclusive of habituated relexivities and relexive relexes—distinguish it from more conscious and mindful deliberations or forms of relexivity. As a “natural” extension of habitus, practical sense implies an intuitive familiarity with the ield conditions in (relation to) which it operates—“a feel for the game in the sense of a capacity for practical anticipation of the ‘upcoming’ future contained in the present” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 66). The notion of relexivity, on the other hand, inherently implies a certain degree of conscious awareness and a critical distance from the respective object(s) of relection. Even so, however, relexive human agency is never purely relexive—at least in the sense that it always and necessarily depends on habituated processes of recognition, memorization, and articulation. Clearly, not every neurological stimulus, psychosocial memory, or cognitive cerebral function that underlies and shapes the unfolding of an individual’s “relexive deliberations” can itself be fully relexive; if it were so, it would lead to an eternal self-referential regress and, ultimately, to the end of socioculturally engaged practice. As much as it appears unwise to equate a practical intercultural sense hastily with dull routines or primordial sociocultural habits, it seems reasonable to view claims to the emancipatory (pedagogic) potential of relexive deliberations critically in terms of their sociocultural and ideological origins and interests (Adams, 2003; Atkinson, 2010; Caetano, 2015). Even if “relexivity is often portrayed as a strategy for fostering intercultural competence and tackling ethnocentrism, it should not be Page 4 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 assumed that it always has a benign impact or leads to critical distance from one’s own standpoints” (Blasco, 2012, p. 485). Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Ultimately, the relative interpersonal and sociocultural relevance of both relexivity and practical sense—far from constituting a hermetic ontological given—always emerges in (relation to) the concrete situation and context in which human (inter)actions actually take place. An invitation to engage in an open relection about diferent conceptions of race, racialized identities, and forms of racism, for example, might well feel more appropriate in a seminar at college or university than at the onset of a casual encounter between individuals of actual or perceived diferences in racial background. While Bourdieu’s work is replete with references to the complexity and situationality of human agency, it is fair to say that it tends to underestimate the range, plurality, and frequency of “ordinary” people’s relexive practices (Lahire, 2011; Mouzelis, 2007; Noble & Watkins, 2003). On the other hand, and in welcome contrast to less contextually embedded approaches to the study of human agency, his conceptual framework reminds us of the vital importance to conceive the development of people’s relexive capacities as closely related to their positions within ields of struggle over (symbolic) power. Notwithstanding the analytical force of Bourdieu’s ield theory (Bourdieu, 1985a, 1993; Wacquant, 1989) and the importance to highlight the intimate relationship between pertinent ield conditions and people’s habitus, a broader conception of salient contextual conditions would place more emphasis on people as both positioned within pertinent ields and their acting and interacting elements. After all, a ield can be(come) pertinent not only “as a network, or a coniguration, of objective relations between positions” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97), but also as a frame for interpersonal and social relations5—including those that lie at the heart of processes of intercultural capital realization. 3. Processes of intercultural capital realization6 “Intercultural capital can be realized in terms of (a combination of) awareness, acquisition, and application” (Pöllmann, 2013, p. 2). Processes of acquisition and application can be more or less intuitive or relexive, direct (e.g. in the course of international student exchange programs) or indirect (e.g. via books, television, or the Internet), iterative or continuous, inclusive or exclusive, enabled or constrained. In all their empirical complexity, however, they are always intimately—albeit not necessarily explicitly—linked to (diferent) cultures, that is, “pervious, evolving, more or less consciously learned, and more or less closely “shared” frames of perception, thought, and (inter)action that are both shaped by and shape their (histories of) objectiication and institutionalization” (Pöllmann, 2013, p. 1). With the background of increasing global interconnectedness, intercultural capital constitutes not only an evermore important economic asset and a vital interactional resource, but also a key marker of sociocultural distinction (Pöllmann & Sánchez Graillet, 2015). First and foremost, those at the margins of pertinent ields, whose sociocultural positioning does not “favor a habitual, efortless, and largely taken-for-granted embodiment of highly prized and widely convertible intercultural capital,” (Pöllmann, 2013, p. 5) rely on a socially just and culturally inclusive intercultural education that enables and oicially recognizes a wide range of both intuitive and relexive forms of intercultural learning. After all, the degree of objectiication in and through institutions “guarantees the permanence and cumulativity of material and symbolic acquisitions which can then subsist without the agents having to recreate them continuously and in their entirety by deliberate action” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 130). The relative exchange value of individually embodied reservoirs of intercultural capital depends fundamentally on the realities and potentialities of their objectiication and institutionalization within pertinent educational, sociocultural, and political ields. Those already favorably positioned within Page 5 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 such ields of struggle for (symbolic) power—by having access to inluential and well-resourced family networks, by social class privilege, and/or by membership in dominant ethno-cultural, religious or other groups—will meet no major obstacles in applying their respective intercultural capital acquisitions. On the contrary, those less favorably positioned will have to challenge the status quo and by implication the dominant doxa of taken-for-granted and oicially established (symbolic) hierarchies of diferentially valued capital resources (Pöllmann, 2013). When talking about diferentially valued capital resources, it is worth considering Yosso’s (2005) cautioning that Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital has frequently been (mis)used to construct and justify illusive imageries of cultural inferiority and superiority. Yet, while misrepresentations of that kind are still alive and well, they have long been unmasked as blatantly distorting the famous French sociologist’s academic contributions and public interventions (Harker, 1984; Swartz, 1997; Wacquant, 2004). Indeed, in times of neoliberal hegemony over educational politics and policies (Hill & Kumar, 2009; Hursh, 2007; Klees, 2008; Plehwe, Walpen, & Neunhöfer, 2006; Torres, 2009), Bourdieu’s conceptual framework ofers an alternative vision that complements rather than contradicts other critical approaches to the study of sociocultural inequalities and the (re)production of privilege, (symbolic) power, and (symbolic) forms of domination. Contributions from the realms of Critical Pedagogy (Freire, 1970, 1973; McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007) and Critical Race Theory (Crenshaw, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001)—as well as notions of “funds of knowledge” and “community cultural wealth” (Moll, 2005; Moll, Amanti, Nef, & Gonzalez, 1992; Rios-Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, & Moll, 2011; Vélez-Ibañez & Greenberg, 1992)—could be usefully reconciled with Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital. In fact, the constructive reconciliation of the respective approaches may well be vital to the advancement of (symbolic) struggles for the recognition of a wider range of more or less consciously internalized intercultural knowledge and skills—and of the diferent contexts in which they are acquired (e.g. in bicultural families, in multicultural neighborhoods, in schools and universities with diverse student populations, or as a result of voluntary or forced migration). Direct in situ intercultural experiences can ofer particularly “context-intensive” opportunities for intercultural learning. When based on physical rather than virtual movement across cultures, such personal experiences can lead to insights into what it feels to be (perceived as) the “Other” that may—especially in cases where they coincide with changes in the relative currency value of hitherto embodied capital resources—challenge and gradually modify existing receptive, memorial, processual, and generative psychosomatic structures. The respective alterations in habitus can “interrupt” both long-accustomed practical sense and taken-for-granted ways of being relexive, possibly stimulating new forms of relexive intercultural awareness and a renewed feel for the intercultural game. It is worth noting that Bourdieu himself concedes the possibility of habitus crises through encounters with new or signiicantly altered ield conditions (Bourdieu, 1990, 2000). But it has to be made more explicit than in (what seems to follow from) his work that such habitus crises do not merely, nor on many occasions primarily, involve agents who ind themselves confronted with new objectiied structural conditions (e.g. institutions and laws). Instead, it is largely through contact and interaction with other individuals or groups where they get to feel the power of new structural forces—as, for example, in the case of international migrants who ind themselves immersed in a world of new linguistic, ethno-racial, religious, or sociocultural majority backgrounds. There is indeed good reason to believe that direct intercultural interactions should play a vital part in the development of both a practical intercultural sense and a critical intercultural relexivity. After all, “the more experience of other cultures a learner has, the more easily they will see the relativity of their own culture or cultures” (Byram, 2003, p. 65). Paradoxically, however, in the realms of schooling and school management, the pedagogical signiicance of extracurricular and often more habitual forms of intercultural learning still tend to be underestimated and negatively contrasted with the transmission and relective analysis of predesigned curricular contents. To be sure, the point here is Page 6 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 not to discredit the latter—whose didactic signiicance has been tried and tested for decades and centuries—but to problematize their widespread predominance as counterproductive to a more holistic realization of intercultural capital and the development of socioculturally just and inclusive intercultural learning environments. 4. Realizing intercultural capital through intercultural education: prospects and limitations Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Pedagogical action can […], because of and despite the symbolic violence it entails, open the possibility of an emancipation founded on awareness and knowledge of the conditionings undergone and on the imposition of new conditionings designed durably to counter their efects. (Bourdieu, 1999, p. 340) Schools, colleges, and universities hold, no doubt, the potential for facilitating both relexive and intuitive forms of intercultural learning. They can pave the way for intercultural dialog through diverse and inclusive institutional arrangements. They may ofer opportunities for cross-cultural mobility to those who cannot draw on supportive family networks, whose voluntarily adopted or externally ascribed group memberships may place them at the margins of mainstream society, or who might face otherwise unfavorable circumstances. However, as much as institutions of formal education can inform and enable, they can also feed into the naïve assumption that the legal provision of formal equality alone would suice to guarantee “identical educational opportunities”—with the (unintended) result of cementing existing sociocultural inequalities under the veil of an “unbiased meritocracy” (Bourdieu, 1974; Bourdieu & De Saint Martin, 1974; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Lamentably, global trends toward the commodiication of education—and the respective economistic logic and business interests involved—tend to privilege entrepreneurial skills, private initiative, and cognitive forms of (economically viable) instrumental relexivity over cooperative forms of learning and the vision of a more just and socioculturally inclusive world (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1998; Giroux, 1988, 2012; Matthews & Sidhu, 2005; McLaren, 1999). Worse still, the commodiication of education contributes to the marginalization of already vulnerable individuals and groups (Apple, 2001; Connell, 2013; Giroux, 2004; McLaren, 2005). The collection of tuition fees and the lack of appropriate compensatory maintenance grants, for example, aggravate the situation of those students who are, due to their unfavorable sociocultural positioning, already less likely to achieve higher levels of formal education in general, and of highly convertible varieties of intercultural capital in particular. In one way or the other, neoliberal ideologies of educational mercantilization have made it a pervasive and enduring fashion to lay the burden of responsibility for personal successes and failures almost entirely on the individual—on his or her motivations, deliberations, and willful eforts. However, as much as it is necessary to stimulate the creative power of relexive practice and to highlight the value of motivating individuals to maximize their potential, it is important to avoid uncritical celebrations of private initiatives. For it should not be forgotten that the realization and realizability of people’s personal capital resources depend to an important extent on circumstances that are beyond their (direct) control (Pöllmann, 2013). Without a critical consideration of the respective ield conditions, the promotion of people’s creative potential and relexive capacities— which is supposed to lead to (a sense of) empowerment—in fact risks fueling unrealistic expectations in the face of adverse contextual circumstances and, by implication, feelings of guilt and self-blame. The point here is certainly not to accuse everyone involved in what goes more or less explicitly under the banner of “neoliberal education reform” of scrupulous economic motivations and capitalist self-interests. Many calls for individual initiative, deliberate action, and a spirit of enterprise— neoliberal or else—undoubtedly have the very best intentions at heart. But good pedagogical intentions alone are not enough—at least in the sense that their expected individual-level efects Page 7 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 cannot be meaningfully separated from structural injustices in pertinent educational and sociocultural environments (Banks, 2008; Cummins, 2000; Gorski, 2008; Olneck, 2000).7 Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Meanwhile, past decades testify to a seemingly inexorable academic hype about the pervasive quasi-inevitable emergence of increasingly volatile and less homogenous structural conditions and forces on the one hand, and the growing signiicance of relexive individuality on the other (Archer, 2007, 2014; Beck, 1992; Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994; Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1991, 1992; Lash, 1999). In times of intensifying processes of economic globalization, it is no doubt tempting to proclaim a new age of relexivity as Margaret Archer has done in her recent book on The Relexive Imperative in Late Modernity (Archer, 2012). But in failing to duly engage with the sociocultural conditions that are likely to enable or constrain people’s relexive capacities, Archer’s “narrative of social change becomes uncritically optimistic, unable to understand the material inequalities which continue to structure late modern subjectivities” (Farrugia & Woodman, 2015, p. 2). To be sure, many parts of the world have seen a rising demand for a lexible and adaptable workforce, creating a climate in which workers need to invest a great deal in (the renewal of) their qualiications and skills. However, whether and to what extent such an economic climate implies businesses that desire to employ relexive workers, who critically interrogate their situation beyond the range of (technical) relections required to carry out their job eiciently, poses an open question that too often remains unanswered. At the very least, instead of rushing into uncritical celebrations of relexivity, it would appear sound to recognize that “relexive action is not always associated with morphogenesis, nor does habitual action remain doomed to reproduce the social order” (Decoteau, 2015, p. 9). If it is generally advisable to think beyond notions of “good relexivity” and “bad habitus”, it is vital to do so within intercultural education. Consider, for instance, the learning of non-native languages, which arguably plays a crucial part in the development of any more substantial intercultural literacy (Burck, 2005; Byram & Risager, 1999; Fuss, Garcia-Albacete, & Rodriguez-Monter, 2004; Starkey & Osler, 2003). Yet, when limited to classroom-based deliberations about vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, it contributes comparatively little to the development of a critical intercultural awareness— and less to the generation of a practical intercultural sense (Byram, 2008). It matters greatly what types of embodied intercultural capital schools, colleges, and universities recognize as legitimate and worthy of oicial certiication (i.e. as worthy of being transformed into institutionalized intercultural capital). Consider, for example, how educational systems “directly helped to devalue popular modes of expression, dismissing them as ‘slang’ and ‘gibberish’ […] and to impose recognition of the legitimate language” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 49)—that is, more precisely, the (arbitrary) legitimization of the dominant language. To counter such forms of symbolic violence and to create learning environments that empower students of diverse sociocultural backgrounds and with diferent capital resources (or funds of knowledge), intercultural education needs to: • Enable and value a wide range of relexive and intuitive processes of intercultural capital realization • Question dominant notions of relexivity and practical sense • Combine classroom-based instruction with opportunities to gain less formalized irsthand intercultural experiences • Dislocate habitus through cross-cultural mobility To be sure, these recommendations need to be read in relation to the respective sociocultural and political ield conditions at hand. But in spite of their contextual contingency, they may serve as orientation in scholarly, institutional, and public debates over the oicial recognition and valuation of diferent empirical varieties of intercultural capital. To emphasize anew how such endeavors may draw on Pierre Bourdieu’s conceptual legacy; this would appear to be a itting moment to revisit some of the central points raised in the course of the present article by way of conclusion. Page 8 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 5. Conclusion Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Contrary to persistent misperceptions, habitus is neither diametrically opposed to nor irreconcilable with relexivity. As a psychosomatic receptor, memory, and generative matrix, it both evolves from and mediates relexive as well as intuitive contextually embedded practices. While undoubtedly forming a constitutive part of human agency, it by no means implies “the fate that some people read into it. Being the product of history, it is an open system of dispositions that is constantly subjected to experiences” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 133; original emphasis). Depending on the nature of personal experiences within (diferent) cultures and ields of struggle for (symbolic) power, an individual can acquire new relexive and new intuitive funds of intercultural knowledge that he or she may previously not have known of and perhaps considered as unknowable or not worth knowing. To be sure, unknowing can include genuine forms of not knowing (Thrift, 1996)—in the sense of being unable to know at a particular time and in certain cultural and geopolitical contexts. Many times, however, meanings and knowledge are accessible through conscious relexive investigations or more accidental intuitive discovery—both of which are mediated by the respective individual’s habitus—and both of which can be substantially enabled or constrained by ields of formal education and the broader sociocultural environment. Schools, colleges, and universities, for example, may or may not provide opportunities for the kind of habitus dislocations through cross-cultural mobility that are likely to stimulate the development of students’ intercultural relexivity and practical intercultural sense. Nowhere does the need to appreciate a diverse range of diferent intercultural experiences appear more obvious than in the context of intercultural education. Yet, in times of neoliberal hegemony over educational politics and policies, less socioculturally dominant and often more colloquial funds of intercultural knowledge risk to sufer continued institutional marginalization and curricular obliteration. It is within this broader context of (symbolic) domination that often unsuspected pedagogical preferences for (allegedly) relexive knowledge acquisitions over alternative and less formally established forms of learning need to be subjected to critical scrutiny. After all, such pedagogical preferences do not merely relate to questions of didactic method or educational esthetics, but are likely to afect students’ chances of intercultural development and of getting their particular personal intercultural experiences and skills oicially recognized or not. If the aim is to achieve more genuinely enabling intercultural learning environments, institutional support needs to go beyond legal guarantees of formal equality and toward concrete measures to value a wide range of both intuitive and relexive intercultural funds of knowledge—including those informally acquired at the “margins” of dominant sociocultural institutions and groups. It is high time to overcome ideas of “bad habitus” and “good relexivity”, for they prematurely discredit the value of people’s practical sense, while failing to problematize the sociocultural contingency of their relexive capacities. As much as it is desirable to conceive the potential for relexive practice as germane to all humankind, it is deceitful to take its realization and realizability for granted. Uncritical celebrations of relexivity—fueled by ignorance toward the particular ield conditions that may enhance or inhibit its development—distort systematic forms of sociocultural inequality, marginalization, discrimination, and disadvantage, while exaggerating the explanatory weight of (alleged) diferences in private initiative, introspective capacities, and individual talent. Bourdieu’s legacy continues to provide invaluable inspiration to counter such voluntaristic reductionism and the symbolic violence it entails. Funding The author received no direct funding for this research. Author details Andreas Pöllmann1 E-mail: apollm@unam.mx 1 Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Cultural Universitario, Coyoacán 04510, México, D.F., Mexico. Citation information Cite this article as: Habitus, relexivity, and the realization of intercultural capital: The (unfulilled) potential of intercultural education, Andreas Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915. Page 9 of 12 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Cover image Source: Author. Notes 1. Ironically, while Bourdieu’s notion of habitus continues to inspire creative research around the world, its most radical and unforgiving critics still appear as repetitive and alarmed as ever—albeit that they are noteworthy mostly for their strikingly selective and supericial reading of the proliic French sociologist’s empirically grounded contributions to social theory. Alexander’s (1995) critique continues to stand out as a particularly presumptuous misrepresentation of Bourdieu’s conceptual intentions. 2. Margaret Archer distinguishes between communicative relexivity, autonomous relexivity, meta-relexivity, and fractured relexivity—all of which she construes as involving (important degrees of) meditative internal conversations on behalf of the respective individual agents (Archer, 2003, 2007, 2012). 3. After all, “the mobilisation of skills and dispositions in a speciic interaction situation is hardly ever unproblematic” (Mouzelis, 1991, p. 198)—as, for example, evidenced by research that reveals “considerable inconsistency of behavior across situations and between verbal measures of a disposition and speciic nonverbal behaviors” (Ajzen, 2005, p. 39). 4. Sweetman’s (2003) idea of a “relexive habitus”, for example, can and has been critiqued for conlating distinct dimensions of human agency (Archer, 2012). It is, however, worth recalling that the present article attempts to overcome such conlations not by rejecting any possibility of reconciliation between habitus and reflexivity—as Archer does—but by analytically locating the latter (together with the notion of practical sense) as integral extensions of the former. 5. Given “that the truth of [… a particular] interaction is never entirely contained in the interaction” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 81) itself, and that diferent (groups of) interactants often hold unequal shares in (symbolic) power, the conceptual incorporation of relationships between people constitutes a valuable extension rather than a viable alternative to “Bourdieusian ield theory”. Undeniably, the latter—and particularly its recurrent emphasis on homologies “between the space of positions and the space of dispositions” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 157)—has generated abundant (and often legitimate) criticism. Rather unfortunately, however, most of the more radical rejections of any (partial) duality between psychosomatic and objectiied structures have tended to ignore Bourdieu’s timely and explicit cautioning that “one must be careful not to treat homology of position, a resemblance within diference, as an identity of condition” (Bourdieu, 1985b, p. 737). 6. In the present article, the expression “processes of intercultural capital realization” serves as shorthand for “processes of realization of embodied intercultural capital”. Moreover, when mentioned without qualifying adjective, “intercultural capital” stands for “embodied intercultural capital”. 7. For instance—as experiences from the realm of bilingual and intercultural education in Mexico’s indigenous communities illustrate—even well-meaning governmental programs and initiatives can struggle signiicantly under the weight of (their own involvement in) systematic inequalities and asymmetric distributions of (symbolic) power (Fuentes-Morales, 2008; Hamel, 2008; Pöllmann & Sánchez Graillet, 2015; Stavenhagen, 2015). References Adams, M. (2003). The relexive self and culture: A critique. British Journal of Sociology, 54, 221–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000080212 Adams, M. (2006). Hybridizing habitus and relexivity: Towards an understanding of contemporary identity? Sociology, 40, 511–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803850663672 Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Akram, S., & Hogan, A. (2015). On relexivity and the conduct of the self in everyday life: Relections on Bourdieu and Archer. The British Journal of Sociology, 66, 606–625. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12150 Alexander, J. C. (1995). Fin de siècle social theory: Relativism, reduction, and the problem of reason. London: Verso. Apple, M. W. (2001). Creating proits by creating failures: Standards, markets, and inequality in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5, 103–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110010020840 Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315 Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618932 Archer, M. S. (2010). Can relexivity and habitus work in tandem? In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about relexivity (pp. 123–143). Abingdon: Routledge. Archer, M. S. (2012). The relexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108058 Archer, M. S. (2014). Structural conditioning and personal relexivity: Sources of market complicity, critique, and change. In D. K. Finn (Ed.), Distant markets, distant harms (pp. 25–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199370993.001.0001 Atkinson, W. (2010). The myth of the relexive worker: Class and work histories in neo-liberal times. Work, Employment & Society, 24, 413–429. Atkinson, W. (2011). From sociological ictions to social ictions: Some Bourdieusian relections on the concepts of “institutional habitus” and “family habitus”. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32, 331–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.559337 Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37, 129–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317501 Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Relexive modernization. Cambridge: Polity Press. Blasco, M. (2012). On relection: Is relexivity necessarily beneicial in intercultural education? Intercultural Education, 23, 475–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2012.736750 Bourdieu, P. (1974). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Contemporary research in the sociology of education (pp. 32–46). London: Methuen. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507 Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Page 10 of 12 Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 Bourdieu, P. (1985a). The genesis of the concepts of habitus and of ield. Sociocriticism, 2, 11–24. Bourdieu, P. (1985b). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/202060 Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The ield of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Scattered remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 334–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684319922224563 Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2005). Habitus. In J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitus: A sense of place (pp. 43–49). Aldershot: Ashgate. Bourdieu, P., & De Saint Martin, M. (1974). Scholastic excellence and the values of the educational system. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Contemporary research in the sociology of education (pp. 338–371). London: Methuen. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). The purpose of relexive sociology (the Chicago workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L. J. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to relexive sociology (pp. 60–215). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Burck, C. (2005). Multilingual living: Explorations of language and subjectivity. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Byram, M. (2003). On being “bicultural” and “intercultural”. In G. Alred, M. Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 50–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and relections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., & Risager, K. (1999). Language teachers, politics and cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Caetano, A. (2015). Deining personal relexivity: A critical reading of Archer’s approach. European Journal of Social Theory, 18, 60–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368431014549684 Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. I: The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell. Connell, R. (2013). Why do market “reforms” persistently increase inequality? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34, 279–285. Crenshaw, K. (2002). The irst decade: Critical relections, or “a foot in the closing door.” In F. Valdes, J. McCristal Culp, & A. Harris (Eds.), Crossroads, directions and a new critical race theory (pp. 9–31). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Decoteau, C. L. (2015). The relexive habitus: Critical realist and Bourdieusian social action. European Journal of Social Theory. doi:10.1177/1368431015590700 Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press. Elder-Vass, D. (2007). Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an emergentist theory of action. Sociological Theory, 25, 325–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soth.2007.25.issue-4 Farrugia, D. (2013). The relexive subject: Towards a theory of relexivity as practical intelligibility. Current Sociology, 61, 283–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392113478713 Farrugia, D., & Woodman, D. (2015). Ultimate concerns in late modernity: Archer, Bourdieu and relexivity. The British Journal of Sociology, 66, 626–644. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12147 Fleetwood, S. (2008). Structure, institution, agency, habit, and relexive deliberation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 4, 183–203. Freire, P. (1970). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleield. Fuentes-Morales, R. G. (2008). The discursive construction of intercultural education in the Mexican indigenous context (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Fuss, D., Garcia-Albacete, G., & Rodriguez-Monter, M. (2004). The role of language skills and foreign country experiences in the development of European identity. Sociológia, 53, 273–292. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Giroux, H. A. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19, 515–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980802568319 Hamel, R. E. (2008). Indigenous language policy and education in Mexico. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 301–313). Heidelberg: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3 Harker, R. K. (1984). On reproduction, habitus and education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 5, 117–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569840050202 Hill, D., & Kumar, R. (Eds.). (2009). Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences. New York, NY: Routledge. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 493–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306764 Klees, S. J. (2008). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: Misleading analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6, 311–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720802506672 Lahire, B. (2011). The plural actor. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lash, S. (1999). Another modernity, a diferent rationality. Oxford: Blackwell. Matthews, J., & Sidhu, R. (2005). Desperately seeking the global subject: International education, citizenship and cosmopolitanism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3, 49–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720500046179 McLaren, P. (1999). Research news and comment: A pedagogy of possibility: Relecting upon Paulo Freire’s politics of education: In memory of Paulo Freire. Educational Researcher, 28, 49–56. McLaren, P. (2005). Capitalists and conquerors: A critical pedagogy against empire. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleield. Page 11 of 12 Downloaded by [189.217.146.214] at 08:44 23 February 2016 Pöllmann, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1149915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1149915 McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now?. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Moll, L. C. (2005). Relections and possibilities. In N. González, L. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 275–288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Nef, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534 Mouzelis, N. P. (1991). Back to sociological theory: The construction of social orders. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Mouzelis, N. P. (2007). Habitus and relexivity: Restructuring Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Sociological Research Online, 12, 1–6. doi:10.5153/sro.1449 Noble, G., & Watkins, M. (2003). So, how did Bourdieu learn to play tennis? Habitus, consciousness and habituation. Cultural Studies, 17, 520–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950238032000083926 Olneck, M. (2000). Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural capital? American Educational Research Journal, 37, 317–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002317 Plehwe, D., Walpen, B. J., & Neunhöfer, G. (Eds.). (2006). Neoliberal hegemony: A global critique. Abingdon: Routledge. Pöllmann, A. (2008). National attachment among Berlin and London head teachers: The explanatory impact of national identity, national pride and supranational attachment. Educational Studies, 34, 45–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690701785277 Pöllmann, A. (2009). Formal education and intercultural capital: Towards attachment beyond narrow ethno‐ national boundaries? Educational Studies, 35, 537–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690902880240 Pöllmann, A. (2012). Locating ancestry in notions of Britishness/Germanness: Beyond waning myths of civic and ethnic nations. SAGE Open, 2, 1–6. doi:10.1177/2158244012466666 Pöllmann, A. (2013). Intercultural capital: Toward the conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical investigation of a rising marker of sociocultural distinction. SAGE Open, 3, 1–7. doi:10.1177/2158244013486117. Pöllmann, A., & Sánchez Graillet, O. (2015). Cultura, lectura y deporte: Percepciones, prácticas, aprendizaje y capital intercultural, Encuesta Nacional de Cultura, Lectura y Deporte 2015. Federal District, Mexico: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, National Autonomous University of Mexico. Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9, 163–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776 Sayer, A. (2010). Relexivity and the habitus. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about relexivity (pp. 108–122). Abingdon: Routledge. Solorzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14, 471–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365 Starkey, H., & Osler, A. (2003). Language teaching for cosmopolitan citizenship. In K. Brown & M. Brown (Eds.), Relections on citizenship in a multilingual world (pp. 25–35). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Stavenhagen, R. (2015). Indigenous peoples’ rights to education. European Journal of Education, 50, 254–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejed.2015.50.issue-3 Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sweetman, P. (2003). Twenty-irst century disease? Habitual relexivity or the relexive habitus. The Sociological Review, 51, 528–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2003.00434.x Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London: Sage. Torres, C. A. (2009). Education and neoliberal globalization. New York, NY: Routledge. Vélez-Ibañez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313–335. Wacquant, L. J. (1989). Towards a relexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7, 26–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/202061 Wacquant, L. J. (1992). Preface. In P.Bourdieu, & L.J.Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to relexive sociology (pp. ix–xiv). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wacquant, L. (2004). Pointers on Pierre Bourdieu and democratic politics. Constellations, 11, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cons.2004.11.issue-1 Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8, 69–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Page 12 of 12