Abstract
Many health scholars find that Pierre Bourdieu's theory of practice leaves too little room for individual agency. We contend that, by virtue of its relational, field-theoretic underpinnings, the idea of leaving room for agency in Bourdieu's theory of practice is misguided. With agency manifested in interactions and social structures consisting of relations built upon relations, the stark distinction between agency and structure inherent to substantialist thinking is undermined, even dissolved, in a relational field-theoretic context. We also contend that, when treated as relationally bound phenomena, Bourdieu's notions of habitus, doxa, capital and field illuminate creative, adaptive and future-looking practices. We conclude by discussing difficulties inherent to implementing a relational theory of practice in health promotion and public health.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
