Introduction

Since hysteresis, generational change, dislocation of habitus, social crisis and field restructuring are all terms closely related in Bourdieu's discussion of social phenomena and how they change over time, “Bourdieu and change” could be an alternative title for this chapter. Bourdieu saw that hysteresis was a necessary consequence of his defi- nitions of habitus and field as mutually generating and generated. These interrelations are the focus of this chapter. The chapter is presented in three main sections: first, definition and historical context of hysteresis; secondly, Bourdieu's usage of the concept in his published writing; and, thirdly, some practical applications of the concept are considered. A brief discussion of practical and theoretical implications concludes the chapter.

Bourdieu and change

Bourdieu's definitions of habitus and field have change as a necessary consequence of their condition – a change in one necessitates a change in the other. As such change is often taken for granted in his own writing since it does not require a distinct theorization. Because change is presupposed in this way, it is often not made explicit in Bourdieu's social analyses. It is perhaps understandable, then, if his work has been criticized for being deterministic, in particular with respect to social class. Bourdieu strongly and explicitly refutes this claim. For him, an individual's history is ongoing and the resulting accumulation of symbolic and economic capital which constitute habitus is also continuous, habitus itself is in a state of constant flux. As Bourdieu writes in In Other Words: “Habitus, as a product of social conditionings, and thus of a history (unlike character), is endlessly transformed” (Bourdieu 1994d: 7).