Bourdieu Theory Analysis

Structural violence is structured and structuring that constricts the agency of its victims (Farmer 2004:315). It associated with the structural relationship between the subject and the society constituted social capital (Bourdieu 1984:242). He focuses on economy of practices that would examine as the distinctive logics and features of capital, and the processes of conversion between the different forms including economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. The project offers fruitful ways of looking at the interaction of social life (Bourdieu 1986:252). His work on the economic practices is part of an attempt to develop a theoretical position in which action is neither free nor determined; where actions are constrained and channelled,

The aspirations from Bourdieu in this issues mainly concerns three interrelated concepts: capital, habitus and field. Capital, in Bourdieu theory, is defined as an accumulated labour, or a kind of power embodied not only in economic but also in cultural, social and symbolic forms. Capital is related to the notion of habitus and field that are important to understand how actors strive for and gain access to health (Bourdieu 1984:86). Habitus is a concept that seeks to explain the dispositions that influence individuals to become who they are, condition of existence, everyday activities that display their relationship with society. It also explains how the body is present in the social world as well as social world present in the body (Bourdieu 1984:86 as cited in Reay 2004). The notion of field is used by Bourdieu to designate a specific space in the structural relation. The field, the setting in which practices take place, is a networks or configurations, of objective and subject relationship between

Capital-in-general as used by Bourdieu does indeed involve power, but it is a distinctive kind of power. It involves a set of different kinds of claims that can be made on the actions of others. For instance, social capital consists of claims to reciprocity and solidarity from particular others. What is fundamental to social capital, however, is that explicit claims are normally excluded from the performances within which they are made, so that the power over the actions of others is radically distinct from exercises of power utilizing the discourse and apparatus of command (Bourdieu 1986:241). Hence, this study relies on CMA to understand the power of culture on the connection between social structure and health behaviour regarding the prevention of diseases (Singer 1995:81; Morsy 1996 as quoted by Singer 2004:26). Practices also associated with the habitus which is the cultural framework and set of ideas possessed by a social class, into which people are socialized, initially by their families, and which influences their cultural tastes and choices (Bourdieu 1971 as cited in Brown 2007:26). What I found particularly useful of CMA is that it addresses social forces such as personal experiences of being sick as well as the wider social setting of illness and health - care (cf. Singer 1995:81; Singer 2004:23; Bhasin 2007:2). CMA is