Culture includes the norms that are somehow tied to the processes of meaning-making within the social groups, which underpin the daily lives of these members. The science of us is unraveling the complexity of human relay and the nature of societies, which in sociology is of utmost importance for shedding light on the many fields of sociology. This paper attempts an elaborate comparison of three major theories – idioculture theory, interaction ritual chain theory, and habitus theory – aimed at profoundly understanding the factors that influence cultural interactions and evolution. By studying idioculture, whose forms of conduct are specific to one particular group, interaction ritual chains that keep repeating the same interactions over and over again with the same configuration, and habitus through which social norms are embodied in people, this paper aims to discover the potential roles of every theory in our understanding of culture. Further, this approach dedicates a particular place to the joint undertaking of the essential and complex functions of meaning-making inside distinct cultures. This article moves deeper into the empirical and theoretical extended, revealing how these ideas of interconnection between cultural foundations of social and human interactions. Anthropology is basically focused on the investigation of the complex meanings-generating processes within the group’s social systems. The essay will discuss the ideas behind idiocultures, interaction ritual chains, and habitus, indicating the similarities and uniqueness of these theories, which allow us to address cultural trends.
Culture on the fringe (hydroculture), as observed in the analysis of two different offices of the National Weather Service (NWS), recounts the localized culture and practices of a specific ensemble of context. The Chicago office clearly references an independent and power-driven culture of sorts, with disregard for authority, comparable to the one observed in a typical department of a higher learning institution (Becker, 1992). At the same time, the Flowerland office uses the bureaucratic model of culture in preference to the previously used rule from NWS headquarters. These two idiocultures within different backgrounds bring such differences that can affect occupational identities and consequently impact group behavior; consequently, this can cause broader work outcomes. “No strings attached” is the mantra of the London office. All members are bold, autonomous, and independent in every sense of the word. Employees relate to the culture where they work, underlining the continuation of encouraging critical thinking and increasing the values of autonomy in decision-making (Bourdieu, 2004). It is this very culture that helps create a unique work environment in which flexibility and creativity are the main elements, and each team member feels empowered to take responsibility for a particular task and collaborate with others on accomplishing the collective objectives of the workplace.
While at the Smiling Flowers office, the atmosphere is less bureaucratic, and rules of procedures are not there. The employees are more encouraged to follow established rules and procedures. When it comes to the Flowerland office, its culture mainly reflects the organizational structure and policies that NWS’s office designed. Consequently, people in the office are more rule-oriented and work within the boundaries of their set of rules. Staff base their activities on the given rules and regulations with less chance to take the initiative. Hence, little room is given for the staff to be innovative. However, in spite of the differences between the two idiocultures, each of them is of crucial importance for the intellectual and moral development of its members and determines the way they identify themselves as workers. An individual who becomes involved in a new workplace has to adapt to the company’s cultural norms and practices; these norms and practices determine the roles of the employees, how they relate and work with their colleagues, and how they approach their duties. Through this organizational culture etic-c culture comparison outside the offices of NWS, we get comprehensive information on the nature of the complex interplay between the organizational culture, group dynamics, and productivity.
Interaction ritual chains are a special feature whereby the wondrous intricacies of group bonds seem to emerge from these routine, high-energy interactions and games of social signaling. Highlighted by instances presented in the documentary “People Like Us,” interaction ritual chains make evident the irreplaceable place where rituals and joint experiences stand to build cohesion in society and reinforce cultural norms at the community level (Geoffrey, 2004). These common ceremonies and informal meetings contribute a lot to people’s characteristics and the transfer of cultural values from older to younger people. The members of the groups feel that they belong to the group stronger because they participate in the rituals, and, at the same time, the cultural traditions and practices that have existed for centuries are perpetuated. As we examine interaction ritual chains, we get new understandings of which interpersonal interactions shape group dynamics and forge the shared meanings that continually happen within diverse cultural environments. Summarily, interactions in a ritual chain constitute a powerful mechanism through which the people develop close relationships among themselves, feel a common type of identity as a group, and uphold the cultural assets that make the community unique.
Through the theories known as the “habitus,” the philosopher Pierre Bourdieu provides an in-depth framing mechanism that makes it easier to comprehend how individuals integrate and display cultural dispositions through their practices. Those cultural manifestations of society tinged by our way of life and learned experiences serve as cultural norms’ bright reflections. The empirical evidence discussed in the readings and lectures, such as how Bourdieu presents social class and cultural capital as the habitus through which the complex processes happen for cultural meanings to be internalized and continued in society, will be used to understand the nuanced comprehension of the sophisticated mechanisms that cultural meanings are socially constructed and retained within the society. Additionally, habitus shows us how habit is a cornerstone for reproducing inequality as well as conserving the dominant cultural worldview. Through the illustration of the interconnections between individual practices and a wider social frame, habitus contributes to our comprehension of how the societal system produces cultural hegemony and influences the individual behaviors of a person.
With issue-wise scrutiny of habitus, we dig out some of the basic mechanisms that are responsible for the reproduction and social stratification of cultural norms that we commonly witness in the modern-day world. When taking in the ideologies of idioburies, vitality circuits, and habitus, we see that those theories coincide with the cornerstone of the process of sense-making at the cultural knees. But Bourdieu’s idea of classement – habitus, in particular- gives another way to understand habits that are central to human life (Bourdieu, 2014). Bourdieu postulates that instinct, formed from past experiences and learned by the particular environment we are living in, is the primary basis on which creations of reason, deliberation and calculation in personality are based. The mind-environment interface that arises when individuals become familiar with particular habits is very complex and involves, first of all, language and the ability to classify things. The learned habits inevitably influence the way people interact with their environment and themselves. In addition, Bourdieu’s notion of the habitus was brought to challenge those traditional explanations of the social phenomena that have unidirectionality by explaining the interrelationship between the individual and his habits. This interactional and evolutionary theory respects this uncertainty and shows how there is a historical and evolutionary context to humanity. The incorporation of Bourdieu’s habitus theory by scholars is a step towards digging deeper into the seemingly ambiguous cultural aspects addressing complex social behaviors instead of the normal top-down or bottom-up explanations (Bourdieu, 2004). This would enable them not only to understand the intricate relationship between the unitary and collective forces but also to reach a deeper level of comprehension of the role of each factor in determining social conduct and societal change.
These three theories have much to commend, but when scrutinized, one sees that although they have different emphases and theoretical perspectives, they are converging on the common theme of making sense of the self within the culture. By the idiocultures, members strive to maintain their own local customs and their own way of life. They are also focused on the particular features of existing within small groups of people. Those are the unique behavioural aspects which are characteristics of the culture of specific social groups (Dewey, 1922). Furthermore, according to the interaction ritual chains theory, shared rituals constitute the centrepiece of fostering group loyalty or “solidarity” among the individuals that are within these particular groups by virtue of their repeated interactions. These bonds are thus simultaneously social and emotional. Further, habitus acknowledges the concretized beliefs and manners that sustain the social position of an individual within a larger system. What does habitus achieve in the preservation of cultural heritage that cannot be explained by more common theories? The theory focuses on how knowledge is acquired culturally and at a personal level through skilled routines and reveals the underlying patterns of behaviours which are found in employed practices. Even though those theories deal with different topics of meaning formation or music, they all together contribute to our understanding of how meaning is constructed and negotiated within cultural contexts by elucidating how social interaction and the identity formation processes take place.
From this comparative analysis of idiocultures, interaction ritual chains and habitus, it becomes clear that cultural dynamics and processes are a social phenomenon driven by cultural definition and order. While each theory offers separate directions regarding the process and result of meaning construal and negotiation, they are perfectly complementary to illustrate the complexity of human behavior, which reflects itself through the ongoing interaction of individual subjectivity and society. Idiocultures revile practices and self-views for who people are in their workplaces embedded in local community and group culture. The ritual chain is the reflection of the collective importance being associated with the shared rituals of the individuals, which play a role in increasing the solidarity among the members of the community by reinforcing their cultural norms. Last but not least, habitus exposes what contributors and roles an individual plays when behaving within given societal frameworks, reinforcing power structure and the ownership of certain ideologies. Socio-culturally pluralistic views are set against each other, as they are being melded together. This, in return, helps sociologists compose a vivid image of the cultural meanings, development, and reproduction processes within society. This way, sociologists deepen our comprehension of human interaction, identity formation, and society in general and help widen our horizons.
References
Becker, S. (1992). Habits, Addictions and Traditions, Kyklos, 45(3): 327–46.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Various works cited include “Outline of a Theory of Practice,” “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,” “The Logic of Practice,” and “Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action.”
Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. First edition, New York: Holt.Hodgson,
Geoffrey M. (2004). The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism. London and New York: Routledge.
Thorstein B. (1898). Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(3). July: 373–97, (Reprinted in Thorstein B. Veblen, The Place of Science in Modern Civilization and Other Essays, New York: Huebsch, 1919).
Wacquant, L. J. (1992). The social logic of boxing in black Chicago: Toward a sociology of pugilism. Sociology of sport journal, 9(3), 221–254.
write