How

sexual misconduct will no longer

It affects how an agent behaves in be tolerated in a certain field given It affects also affects the
different fields. that people inside of it know its development of the agent’s habitus.
possible consequences?

Durable and Structured, Structuring

Transposable & Structures Rules Practices

HABITUS CRITICAL SOCIAL FIELD

THINKING CHANGE

This way of thinking can Habitus will be

Brings the “undiscussed” into Introducing CHANGE in the field,
lead to social movement conditioned according to
“discussion” & challenges the doxa demands change in the habitus.
or change of structure. the desired changes.
in the field.

The clergymen are tolerating sexual misconduct in the seminary. Reason being is that their act emphasizes more on reproduction, wherein when they go to a whole new different field, their past habituses are carried with them. These habituses are said to be transposable and durable and also structured,
structuring, and structures that affects how they behave on a particular field.

“When the religious ministers try to live out their vows, they are thus actually caught in between various ways of affirming the wider liberal society which they have already internalized since childhood and the ways of the institution which they are constantly trying to internalize. Their older modern habitus
getting in the way would indeed make this ‘‘constant trying’’ become a more difficult process. The religious ministers may have the choice of blending such modern habitus with the institutional schemes. The blending of those various ways towards a more creative and enriching lifestyle inside the institution is
actually a very challenging struggle and many times agonizing; where the genuine practice of new virtue (see Bowditch 2008) is extremely difficult or where misconduct or compromise would be easier to practice” (Dagmang, 2011).

“Formally, Bourdieu defines habitus as a property of social agents (whether individuals, groups or institutions) that comprises a “structured and structuring, structure” (1994d: 170). It is “structured” by one’s past and present circumstances, such as family upbringing and educational experiences. It is “structuring”
in that one’s habitus helps to shape one’s present and future practices. It is a “structure” in that it is systematically ordered rather than random or unpatterned. This “structure” comprises a system of dispositions which generate perceptions, appreciations and practices (1990c:53)” (Grenfell, 2008).

These dispositions or tendencies are durable in that they last over time, and transposable in being capable of becoming active within a wide variety of theatres of social action. The habitus is thus both structured by conditions of existence and generates practices, beliefs, perceptions, feelings and so forth in
accordance with its own structure. (Grenfell, 2008)

On the other hand, when a clergyman shift into a new field, there is a tendency to acquire the normalized misconduct and practices inside. Even though there is a mismatch, still he will try to fit in the context in order to be a “fish in the water”. The rules that had been normalized affected the behavior of the
clergymen that soon resulted into the tolerance of sexual misconduct inside the holy ground. The inappropriate practice that had been tolerated for so long became a part of the circular cycle due to the notion of reproduction of the newly formed habituses.

“Practices results from relations between one’s dispositions (Habitus) and one’s position in a field (capital), within the current state of play of that social arena (field). This concise formulation highlights something crucial significance for understanding Bordieu’s approach: the interlocking nature of his three main
“thinking tools” (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1989d: 50): habitus, field, and capital. Practices are thus not simply the result of one’s habitus but rather of relations between one’s habitus and one’s current circumstances”. (Bourdeiu, 1979 p. 51)

“The game has specific rules which novice players must learn, together with basic skills, as they begin to play. What players can do, and where they can go during the game, depends on their field position. The actual physical condition of the field (whether it is wet, dry, well grassed or full of potholes), also has an
effect on what players can do and thus how the game can be played” (Grenfell, 2008).

Since, if habitus affects how a clergyman behave in a particular field (seminary) and if this field (seminary) also affects the clergyman’s development of behavior, social change can be a solution for it was stated that these two affect the behavior of a person and since “A social field is not fixed, and it is possible to
trace the history of its specific shape, operations and the range of knowledge required to maintain it and adapt it. To do so is to understand how change happens within a field” (Grenfell & Bourdieu, 2008). So, it is possible that if there would be an introduction of change in the field, the habitus could be reflexive
to adjust to the changed practices in a particular field. Since field affects the development of an agent’s behavior and in that way, the sexual misconduct will no longer be tolerated due to the chage of practices and rules, the field will be the one to transform them not the acts inside that are the main cause of
reproduction and tolerance of these malicious deeds. It was also mentioned “In the religious life, the candidate is expected to imbibe the institution’s character in order to achieve a singular purpose” (Dagmang, 2011). From this, the seminary should be the one to transform the people to have a single purpose
and this will lead to a whole new concept of change as the concept of reproduction and circular cycle will be destroyed.

Another one, it is possible that people would be aware of the possibilities inside so discussing the undiscussed could be a solution to challenge the whole belief of the clergymen and to awaken their minds to change their beliefs that it is all good to tolerate sexual misconduct in the holy ground. Because of this,
sexual misconduct might be avoided in that particular field since the behavior and doxa of people depend on the social field.

“Social agents who occupy particular positions understand how to behave in the field, and this understanding not only feels “natural” but can be explained using the truths, or doxa, that are common parlance within the field” (Grenfell & Bordieu, 2008).