Institutional habitus and the production of educational inequalities: the case of two state secondary schools in the City of Buenos Aires (Argentina).

MEO, ANALIA

Praga, Republica Checa

Otro; ECSR Summer School: Integrating Sociological Theory and Research in Europe (ISTARE).; 2006

European Consortium of Sociological Research

Since the 1980s, some authors have argued that the education system in Argentina seems to be organized as crystallized circuits of schools that have differential nature of human and material resources and promote unequal educational experiences (Braslavsky 1985). During the 1990s, according to some research, the raise of the leaving age and the expansion of the number of secondary school students, coupled with profound economic recession and high levels of unemployment in recent years,  seem to have deepened the unequal nature of secondary schooling despite national and local educational policies targeted at educational and social inclusion. Tiramonti, for instance, argues that schools (sometimes, groups of schools) seem to work like independent institutional arenas divorced from the education system (what she calls educational fragments) (Tiramonti 2003; Tiramonti 2004; Tiramonti and Minteguiaga 2004). My research aims to analyse a) how two state secondary schools participate in, produce and are produced by the stratified state system of the City of Buenos Aires, b) how different social groups of students interplay with and contribute to the production of these different types of schooling, and c) how their class and/or gender identities and subjectivities hamper or promote their social and educational participation in these schools. To explore these different yet interrelated aspects, my research draws on Bourdieu’s main concepts such as habitus, social fields / games, capitals (cultural, economic, social and symbolic), class, and symbolic power (Bourdieu 1976; Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu 1985; Bourdieu 1987; Bourdieu 1989; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Furthermore, my research also uses an elaboration of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus to address the effects that particular organisations have on the configuration of social sub-fields (such as state secondary schooling in my research). Reay et al (2001) argue that institutional habitus (IH) encompasses a complex amalgam of agency and structure and, following McDonough (1996), should be interpreted as the influence of a cultural group or social class on an individual´s practices as it is mediated through an institution. Reay et al (2001) further argue that the IH is an important variable that interplays with class, race and gender to influence secondary school and further education college students’ experiences and choices of higher education institutions. Despite the analytic advantages of Bourdieu’s theory of social practice, his perspective requires a “developed theory of multiple subjectivity” (McNay 2000a: 72). Therefore, I use McNay (2000) to understand the intricate nature of subjectivity and how this is “worked through at the level of motivation and self-understanding" (McNay 2000a: 72). McNay attempts to go beyond Bourdieu’s analysis in order to pay attention to the narratives that subjects produce to make sense of themselves without falling into the trap of a postmodernist account that may deny any coherence of the self.  McNay postulates the fragmented and ever changing nature of the identities without losing a focus on cultural and symbolic dimensions and the material and economic disadvantage and inequalities that might otherwise be disregarded (Brooks 1997; Fraser 1997; Hall 1996; Maynard 1995; McNay 2000b). This is a qualitative research. The fieldwork was carried out from March to November 2004 in two secondary schools in the City of Buenos Aires (Argentina). Regarding methods, I used different techniques for collecting data: participant observation, self-completion questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, group interviews, and photographic material produced by a group of girls and boys.  The schools were located in a middle class neighbourhood and occupied the same block, sharing some wings of one building, some offices, halls, corridors, stairs, toilets and classrooms.  A number of the teachers worked in both schools.  One school was a Normal, offering nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary education which was quasi-selective at secondary level, whereas the other school, a Liceo, offered only secondary education and its access was open to all. Each school also had exclusive access to certain spaces such as their administrative secretary’s office, chemistry and computer laboratories, and libraries.