in a sense subjective, are actually quite objectively produced by the social conditions of particular classes. 30 Bourdieu explores how structures can be patterned into a person's way of being--without being consciously accessible to the person.
The principles embodied in [the habitus] . . . are placed beyond the grasp of consciousness, and hence cannot be touched by voluntary deliberate transformation, cannot even be made explicit; nothing seems more ineffable, more incommunicable, more inimitable, and, therefore, more precious, than the values given body, made body by the transubstantiation achieved by the hidden persuasion of an implicit pedagogy, capable of instilling a whole cosmology, an ethic, a metaphysics, a political philosophy, through injunctions as insignificant as "stand up straight," as "don't hold your knife in your hand." 31
Bourdieu seems deterministic in describing the stubbornness of these dispositions and their inaccessibility to thought. I presume he intends to say, much as Paulo Freire does, that the taken-for-granted is ordinarily not questioned except through careful steps that disclose how it is socially constructed. The sort of cultural agency needed to map those steps will involve hard work, because the way modern communication functions is complex, and the way its meaning comes to reside in us is subtle. Bourdieu's writings, like those of Williams, represent just such an attempt to disclose the social construction of culture. 32
The following chapters on production and on images will offer educators, both church- and non-church-related, some clues as to how they can work with critical demystification through cultural analysis.