Hi Daniel. This is a really interesting question. Initially I thought I could answer but as I started to write I'm not so sure. Habitus, that is the way of being in a particular social situation, must also be structured by the body. In turn I would argue the body is also structured by habitus. If being active and engaging in athletic pursuits is part of a person's upbringing and therefore forms an element of the habitus it will in turn affect the body. As Bourdieu points out "the dispositions durably inculcated by objective conditions engender aspirations and practices objectively compatible with those objective requirements..." For me then the two are inextricable linked and shape one another. I would be intersted to see others view as this is just my first impression. Good luck with your work . Paul

Paul Cowie, thank you for the answer and your contemplation

Hi Daniel

I agree to Pauls first impression. Sociologists think that each person has its individual roles which he has to play. These roles are determined by four main paradigmas. Homo sociologicus, Homo oeconomicus, Emotional Man and sort of an Identity defending type. These are, as they say in common sociology parted in what you "want" (Logic of consequeantiality, emotional and or "identity defending") to do and what you "should" (what does society expect for proper behaviour) do. But all of these types exist simulataneously and function reciprocally. So why shouldn't there be a role interconnected with strong loyalty feelings and trust hiding in an extraordinary industrious swimmer, someone who puts effort in to something, he is keen for being the fastest swimmer in the world- kind of type. That would affect his body and therefore connect outward appearance with habitus based social "boundaries".

Greetings

Erik

@Erik Kliver,

Thank you for the answer. A appreciate your "helicopter-view" approach towards the interrelation of different paradigms within social sciences

I think Erik Kliver makes a useful observation. We never know into what social situation we might be born into: we may be born the son of an American millionaire or the daughter of an Afgan sheep herder. So nature has to prepare individuals to be capable of reacting appropriately to whatever surroundings they find themselves in - to benefit both their own life and the lives of the group they have been born into.

This subject has been discussed extensively in The Theory of Dual Morality where it is suggested that each of us are born armed with two distinct moral patterns embedded in the psyche through which we interpret and react to our world, however we find it.

One is a pre-established set of moral guidelines that helps us in times of plenty -- the other guides us in navigating circumstances of stress, want and danger.

The first rests on the axiom, when there is enough for all, all should have enough - and encourages us to value equality and equity in our relations.

The second allows us to accept inequality and has us recognize that some can be more valuable than others ... more deserving of reward than others ... and some can even be dispensable. In other words, our second embedded moral pattern enables us to think that the recognition of our INEQUALITES is right and best, and most useful to success in our world.

Stephen Martin Fritz, thank you for your answer

Daniel Iormark ,

This is an intriguing discussion thread relative to my specialization in comparative literary studies because it calls to my mind the enigmatic writings of Franz Kafka, who spent many years in Prague. Your focus on contemporary social theory opens the possibility of a new and interesting angle for my Kafka research-in-progress.

Thank you and best regards.

Nancy Ann Watanabe,

Thank you for your appreciation for my answer. I am glad, that it managed to enrich your research.