Habitus and identity

Some theoretical and methodological issues in empirical research on the individual

Abstract

This paper examines two fundamental concepts in micro-sociological research on the individual, habitus and identity, without offering precise definition of the similarities and the differences between them. Instead, it first looks at the conceptual similarities and differences between habitus and identity from the theoretical perspective, drawing on some dichotomies and conceptual overlaps. As these approaches do not allow a clear distinction between these two concepts, the paper orients itself towards an empirical application. First, the problem of unconsciousness and unreflectiveness, complicating the empirical study of habitus and identity, is addressed, then the habitus clivé (cleft habitus) is analysed in terms of a reflexivity that possibly mediates between the two concepts. Since the concepts of identity and habitus are intertwined in the (life history) interview, which is a fundamental source of empirical research on the individual, the conceptual choice between habitus and identity can be examined from the perspective of empirical research. Although the type and the technique of interview define which concept is easier to ‚retrieve’ from an interview, i. e. which concept can be better examined in which theoretical-methodological approach, the choice between habitus and identity is influenced by how typologically and model-like or how deeply and complexly we aim to understand the individual and his/her social actions and practices.

This distinction can be further refined by the notions of individual and class habitus, so the focus and the direction (general-individual) of the empirical analysis represent the most important issues that define empirical research on individuals.