Hypothesis Do we really choose anything?

[eudaimonia]

Spoiler: I don’t think so ( here is why)

When I say I like something, is it really me who likes it?
According to Bourdieu, our tastes are not purely individual. They are largely shaped by our social environment. For example, when we say we enjoy a certain food, music, or film our social surroundings can even influence our perception of beauty. Among men, for instance, an attraction to slimmer women has been associated with higher social status (with exceptions obviously ).
In short, our interests directly reveal which social group we belong to.
To understand this, Bourdieu introduces a fundamental concept: “habitus” the set of dispositions we have internalized through growing up in a particular environment. He speaks of an embodied ( incorporated) habitus, “in-corpore” meaning within the body itself to the point where we are no longer even aware of it. Every time we distinguish something, we distinguish ourselves.
This distinction is ambivalent: it is at once the act carried out by the individual expressing a taste, and simultaneously the social distinction from which that taste originates. More often than not, it is unconscious, because it is the product of habitus.
Our tastes, then, are not truly individual from the drink we pick at the supermarket to the person we fall in love with.

 

[junebug]

Spoiler: I don’t think so ( here is why)

When I say I like something, is it really me who likes it?
According to Bourdieu, our tastes are not purely individual. They are largely shaped by our social environment. For example, when we say we enjoy a certain food, music, or film our social surroundings can even influence our perception of beauty. Among men, for instance, an attraction to slimmer women has been associated with higher social status (with exceptions obviously ).
In short, our interests directly reveal which social group we belong to.
To understand this, Bourdieu introduces a fundamental concept: “habitus” the set of dispositions we have internalized through growing up in a particular environment. He speaks of an embodied ( incorporated) habitus, “in-corpore” meaning within the body itself to the point where we are no longer even aware of it. Every time we distinguish something, we distinguish ourselves.
This distinction is ambivalent: it is at once the act carried out by the individual expressing a taste, and simultaneously the social distinction from which that taste originates. More often than not, it is unconscious, because it is the product of habitus.
Our tastes, then, are not truly individual from the drink we pick at the supermarket to the person we fall in love with.

dnr but wow this take is smart as hell

 

[eudaimonia]

dnr but wow this take is smart as hell

No worries.

 

[junebug]

No worries.

ok now I feel bad. I revoke my dnr. reading it now

 

[Unkown tea maker]

Yh had this thought before tbh quite interesting to think anout

 

[scotfield]

Spoiler: I don’t think so ( here is why)

When I say I like something, is it really me who likes it?
According to Bourdieu, our tastes are not purely individual. They are largely shaped by our social environment. For example, when we say we enjoy a certain food, music, or film our social surroundings can even influence our perception of beauty. Among men, for instance, an attraction to slimmer women has been associated with higher social status (with exceptions obviously ).
In short, our interests directly reveal which social group we belong to.
To understand this, Bourdieu introduces a fundamental concept: “habitus” the set of dispositions we have internalized through growing up in a particular environment. He speaks of an embodied ( incorporated) habitus, “in-corpore” meaning within the body itself to the point where we are no longer even aware of it. Every time we distinguish something, we distinguish ourselves.
This distinction is ambivalent: it is at once the act carried out by the individual expressing a taste, and simultaneously the social distinction from which that taste originates. More often than not, it is unconscious, because it is the product of habitus.
Our tastes, then, are not truly individual from the drink we pick at the supermarket to the person we fall in love with.

i get what you're saying but i don’t think that means we don’t have any choice
yes maybe society shapes us but we can still decide to do our own thing and
we can still make our own choices if we realize how we’re influenced

i didn't know how to word it better, my vocab is so limited in english

 

[eudaimonia]

i get what you're saying but i don’t think that means we don’t have any choice
yes maybe society shapes us but we can still decide to do our own thing and
we can still make our own choices if we realize how we’re influenced

i didn't know how to word it better, my vocab is so limited in english

I agree somehow. It’s obvious that we choose something’s. I just feel like social reproduction ( reproduction sociale idk if you can say that in English too) plays a huge role in the paths we choose to peruse. Some espace that loop, not the majority. We might also have a bit more access to knowledge than in his time so our critical thinking could be better. I don’t know for sure for now. As our choices are supposedly subconsciously influenced how can we know if we’re choosing?

 

[eudaimonia]

Yh had this thought before tbh quite interesting to think anout

It’s a sad thing to think about.

 

[scotfield]

I agree somehow. It’s obvious that we choose something’s. I just feel like social reproduction ( reproduction sociale idk if you can say that in English too) plays a huge role in the paths we choose to peruse. Some espace that loop, not the majority. We might also have a bit more access to knowledge than in his time so our critical thinking could be better. I don’t know for sure for now. As our choices are supposedly subconsciously influenced how can we know if we’re choosing?

we cant know with 100% certainty if we truly choose everything ,our choices are always influenced by family, the time we live in and the rest of the blablabla


we never start from a “neutral” place but that doesnt mean we dont choose at all
imo the closest thing to "real choice" is self awareness
so "habitus" shapes much of our choices but were not entirely controlled by it ,we still have some room to make decisions esp when we become aware of these influences
also, the harder the decision, the more it feels like a real choice


for the critical thinking part , you should check "flynn effect "studies

 

[eudaimonia]

we cant know with 100% certainty if we truly choose everything ,our choices are always influenced by family, the time we live in and the rest of the blablabla


we never start from a “neutral” place but that doesnt mean we dont choose at all
imo the closest thing to "real choice" is self awareness
so "habitus" shapes much of our choices but were not entirely controlled by it ,we still have some room to make decisions esp when we become aware of these influences
also, the harder the decision, the more it feels like a real choice


for the critical thinking part , you should check "flynn effect "studies

Makes sense. I’ll check that out thanks!

 

[nervous]

Spoiler: I don’t think so ( here is why)

When I say I like something, is it really me who likes it?
According to Bourdieu, our tastes are not purely individual. They are largely shaped by our social environment. For example, when we say we enjoy a certain food, music, or film our social surroundings can even influence our perception of beauty. Among men, for instance, an attraction to slimmer women has been associated with higher social status (with exceptions obviously ).
In short, our interests directly reveal which social group we belong to.
To understand this, Bourdieu introduces a fundamental concept: “habitus” the set of dispositions we have internalized through growing up in a particular environment. He speaks of an embodied ( incorporated) habitus, “in-corpore” meaning within the body itself to the point where we are no longer even aware of it. Every time we distinguish something, we distinguish ourselves.
This distinction is ambivalent: it is at once the act carried out by the individual expressing a taste, and simultaneously the social distinction from which that taste originates. More often than not, it is unconscious, because it is the product of habitus.
Our tastes, then, are not truly individual from the drink we pick at the supermarket to the person we fall in love with.

hmm this is a little cynical. if love and pleasure are “social” what is left for authentic individuality?

 

[eudaimonia]

hmm this is a little cynical. if love and pleasure are “social” what is left for authentic individuality?

I believe that as soon as one knows that your tastes are in fact somehow always shaped by this «habitus», they gain consciousness. Individuality is shaped by our environment wether we like it our not, however our environment is not only determined by our upbringing. Our experiences and emotions which could mean that our choices can be irreducibly personal. This theory explains where ours tastes come from. Not what we choose to do with them. It might also be too large to explain our choices. Maybe a bit too refutable, many philosophers have done it. I might look into that.