What are the concepts of "Doxa" and "Habitus" that Pierre Bourdieu created?
According to bourdieu, a society is a multidimensional space consisting of number of spaces or fields. These might be various institutions, social groups like workplaces, local communities, etc.When entering a field the individual has with him/her a habitus. Habitus is a kind of bundle of resources. It's a capital of different amought and types. This is either: - Economic (what do you own - money and such)- Social (who do you know and who knows you, your networks basically)- Cultural (knowing cultural norms, how to behave and what to do in various social contexts)As an idividual enters a particular space or a field all these forms of capital are transformed into Symbolic capital. Symbolic capital can be best explained as a capital having a particular meaning in a particular field. Like having a lot of money makes you important (economic). Or knowing an important individual makes you cool (social). It may also work the other way around - like having a Justin Bieber T-shirt will likely make you look stupid in a rock club.Doxa is a set of rules in a particular field. It is "the universe of possible discourses". It defines what is thinkable and sayable.Difference between doxa and opinion is that doxa is kind of a unquestioned truth, while opinion contains things that might be openly contested and discussed.Bourdieu believed doxa to be more than just a common belief. He has also seen it as a potential to give rise to common action.Based on doxa the group in the particular field will evaluate the endividual and prescribe him/her a legitimate position in the field.
Is everything in life truly relative?
Relative is a relative term. Relative to what?From science we learn that everything is relative to an observer. In this case, things happen relative to you, so yes, eveything is relative to you. When you were born you brought nothing with you. When you die you bring nothing with you. Everthing you experience in life, all you see, do and feel, is all that you take with you.That hot sports car is not going to mean a thing to you a thousand years from now. What you said and did with that hot sports car will be a part of you a thousand years from now.
Do Christians in the modern era equate being moral with believing nonsense?
I don’t think Christians in former times really believed they were believing nonsense. They would have thought that myths like Noah’s Ark and the Judeo/Christian creation myth were plausible; they had no reason not to. But of course Christians today have something that no other Christians in history have had; science. They have scientific explanations for the universe backed by mountains of supporting evidence and conclusive theories which are the result of centuries of hypothesizing and testing. To willingly believe myths and superstition in the age of modern science is to willingly believe nonsense. Do you think the reason they do this is because they want people to think that they’re moral and they equate being moral with believing what they know cannot possibly be true?
Where do our ethics come from? Society, Religion, our self, or a mixture?
Are they just dictated from society? Does religion play more of a role? They may stem from a time when religion and society where far more intertwined, which would explain alot of the crossover. Does our self-centered, individualistic society demand self-gratification over the sanctity of the rights of others? Why do eastern cultures seem to act with so much more ethical concerns that western ones? Does religon stem from a need for a moral code, dating back to early man? What were ethics like prior to religon? Any help with these would be greatly appreciated.