everyday-habitus

the habitus, Bourdieu says, is stylisation of repeated acts. an act that is a response to the surrounding world in all its materiality and immateriality.
made of daily acts, solutions to practical problems, material world that is imprinted on the body, that has introduced, infused into the language of body. the form that our responses gives to our codes. almost like reflexes.
that language, the fabric of the self is not woven in the dark, on a deserted island. to respond there must be something to respond to. an obstacle, an unexpected event, a hitch, anything that sticks out requires a rethinking, reformulation of our usual, habitual responses and makes ourselves aware of that thing, that does not fit. before becoming a habit, and becoming invisible a response goes through a process of puzzlement, amazement, a hint of dread, scare, anxiety towards that awkward thing that happened right at our threshold, a moment of  blank-outness, hesitation, pause, and then producing alternatives for a solution. you refer to a previous thing, a memory, someone else`s memory, if there is no such a thing in your life, you start making connections with different materials, connect things differently, probably not in a proper, appropriate manner, but fast and effective enough. directed towards the desired, achieved goal, and letting the rest to your imagination that sands, wipes away the small things towards that `sleek` result you are `aiming` for.
the world of everyday is the stage for the action. and its landscape is  formed by the elbow of that, bossom of this, smile of someone, warm, consolatory words of an acquaintance, the ryhthm of a language.
it is shaped by material and immaterial realities, which are, at the end related.
the culture is the sum of survival strategies, one said, accumulated, circulated and routinised acts, the ends and beginnings of which is no longer to spot any more. so seamless it looks, it is almost not visible, how it becomes, settles down into ones body, its knowledge is reproduced in individual level is hard to pin down.

…butler`s work has insisted that the subject`s viability is, if you like, a cultural question. If the bland and amorphous term `culture` does too much work and too little to illuminate here, it does at least convey something of the idea that how a subject is produced and sustained relates to the specificity of its environment as well as the sense in which subjects always emerge as part of wider shared processes.

(Bell, 2007, p.18)

the element of sharing,  brings to the stage the idea of circulation, the contiguousness of people, the other. the routinised behaviours, expectations travelling from one to another, connecting, tying them.

in order to get away from that unwanted cocoon of ` ishness`, that adjective that define, situate, weigh myself down, to peel it off I guess i need to indulge into a more difficult one, to unpack that `cultural`. Butler`s approach seems to provide a more appropriate, and wider scope, that would be enough to fit myself in, wouldnt squeze me within a narrow framework.

to survive, to keep some of the patterns, habits, rituals alive while leaving some behind and acquiring new ones.