As the world constantly advances the population also increases, and at the same time social environments also begin to adapt and change. It is through the compresses of social constructions of people, institution, groups, network systems and forms of organisations that shape Individuals lives on the way how they perceive themselves and how the wider society views and expects from them. Thus, the interrelationship between the human life of individuals and the social environment became inextricably associated, it is also through this exploration of this core component of the discipline of social imagination theory and interrelation of the macro and micro environment that potentially alters one’s habitus, that successfully allows and steers us into interpreting the contemporary society.
With the emergence of globalisation, individuals have become linked to the context of micro and macro environments. This is showcase through Jenkins statement, “the pavement [of] any modern city [today] we are confronted with diversity as a matter of routine everyday expectation” (Jenkins 2014: 32) depicts the notion how the profusion of culturalism, languages, religions, and beliefs has become the daily rituals of living. Similarly, this notion of diversity and multiculturalism are also delineated in Pueere Bourdieau (1930-2002) social theory of habitus and cultural capitals, which intricately reflects on the notion of complexities, that shapes and constructs one personal and social identity. Bourdieu expresses the notion that individuals are always shaped by its social and environmental context, that is usually known as social facts. Social facts defined by Emile Durkheim (1857–1917) as something that exists outside of an individual that has the potential to significantly influences their lives. Individuals ‘habitus’ is associated and influenced by the social facts such as the knowledge of ideas, values, norms, and behaviours in contemporary society. This notion is further supported through Bourdieu’s demonstration of identity and cultural background through immigration.
First of all, we can describe the customary ideas through some examples, that is, through the geographical relocation of individual immigrants. For example, when a geographically dispersed person relocates from the countryside to the urban area, their own habitus is often also brought along with them, the “cultural embedded model of speech, body language, taste, and form of humour “(AAAS 1990), of course, these behaviours all influence and follow how they interact with others in the realm of social, interactive, intellectual and sensuous behaviour. Therefore, due to differences and similarities in the community, people will experience. It is through this state of social marginalization, it becomes the behaviour of outsiders and insiders. These sorts of habits and behaviours are related to events in their daily lives. This example is particularly able to reflect personal identification, especially their ethnicity and nationality. This can explain the powerful behaviour of the social background and can change a person’s views and ideas about themselves and others.
For instance, like Hong Kong, which is known as a densely populated city on the south coast of China, the city is densely populated with people of different nationalities and races. Even in streets of Hong Kong, you can see people who are non-Chinese, such as those born in China but not culturally (heritage) originated in this country, who are from South Asian countries like India, Pakistan or Nepal, which are often considered unusual by society. Despite, these people were born and raised in Hong Kong and are fluent in the local language as they were like citizens people are still criticised by the social norms.
These are attributed to their own “ancestors” identity mark. For example, for Indians, because of differences in race and ethnicity, decent individuals in India are unconsciously considered in society as belonging to different ethnic groups ( Ideas mixed in different cultures). Chinese in Hong Kong tend to make stereotyped assumptions, that is, those non-Chinese ethnic Chinese, areas and areas of birth have caused society to mistakenly turn them into “foreigners” rather than “locals”. In fact, as an illustration, this shows how it is attributed to the “unconscious [practice and experience]… Nature in the second essential behavior: Yesterday’s inevitably occupied [us]’s Different proportions … Since we formed and formed our results” (Bourdieu 1972:79), as Bourdieu has described, people have been educated and embedded differently since their incarnation of (microscopic level) norms and beliefs, human minds unconsciously carried out knowledge and perceptual thinking, and were so “embedded” (AAAS 1990), and these were people who never had consciousness. All in all, this highlights that Bourdieu’s concept of “habitually” still plays an unavoidable role in determining how each class in a society has its “own” structured world, and these concepts are governed by a series of rules and Doxa’s definition.
Just as people are part of society and social institutions, it is an example of whether it is “traditional or emerging” that can affect the social and social spheres. Like the concept of personal habits, the social system must have a firm direction and form of action. And through these natures, the society is condemned by the not expected and recognized as qualified and acceptable to classify.
...(download the rest of the essay above)