**2.2 Habitus and leadership**

Bourdieu defines habitus as 'internalized embodied social structures' ([8], p. 18). Habitus includes our beliefs, values, norms and attitudes and dispositions, which reflect our sociocultural contexts in which they are developed. Habitus is

*a kind of transforming machine that leads us to reproduce the social conditions of our own production, but in a relatively unpredictable way, in such a way that one cannot move simply and mechanically from knowledge of the conditions of production to knowledge of the products ([9], p. 87).*

Bourdieu explains that through the habitus individuals can generate a wide range of actions linked to their values, beliefs and dispositions. These actions can either be a transformation of dominant practices or the reproduction of the status quo. Ritzer for example argues that 'habitus is a structuring structure; that is, it is a structure that structures the social world. On the other hand, it is a structured structure; that is, it is a structure which is structured by the social world' ([10], p. 541).

Arguably, leadership practices emanate from leaders' habitus which involves the deployment of their beliefs, values and dispositions. Effective school leaders shift away from a set of rigid pre-programmed ideologies and embrace rather generative and transformative approaches that value multiple voices within their school community. This means, headteachers or school leaders must be critically aware of how their own dispositions can produce practices to structure teachers or offer them opportunities to be valued players within the school leadership process. If habitus shapes the ways individuals understand and relate to others in the social world, then it is inevitable that it can be developed to promote distributive leadership by dismantling structured powers of domination. Bourdieu argues that habitus is embodied in everyone which is nurtured through historical and institutional socialization and the embodiment of habitus is visible through practice [9]. In this sense, the enacted leadership practices of school leaders can be argued to emanate from their embodied habitus.

Arguably, the inclusion or exclusion of teachers in decision-making by headteachers or policy-makers depends on the values and dispositions that those who wield power have towards others. Viewing teachers as objects to be manipulated, which also draws from the human habitus, often leads to imposing predetermined structures or decisions on them. However, it is argued that a positive image of school community members often creates respectful spaces for all members of the school community to contribute to and share in the leadership of the school [8].

## **2.3 Capital and leadership**

Leadership in schools involves the use of multiplicities of capital. Bourdieu defines capital in various forms – economic, cultural, social and symbolic [11]. Economic capital functions as wealth or resources with monetary values. For example, school leaders draw on funding and other resources in their schools to help the school function to its maximum. Bourdieu explains cultural capital as a person's or an institution's recognized wealth, expertise, experience and wisdom to lead others [11]. Added to this is social capital, which can be explained as social relations that exist in schools between and among the members of the school community. Symbolic capital on the other hand describes individual status, honor or prestige within the existing relationships within schools [11]. Capital in its various forms can determine the nature of leadership and school management relationships that exist in the ecology of schools. By implication, school leaders that position themselves as having superior knowledge to other members of the school community are likely to engage in dictatorial leadership practice than leaders who view others as valued colleagues who are equally knowledgeable and worthy of consulting before important decisions are made in the school [12]. Indeed, recognizing the capital that others in the school community bring can help develop strong and effective leadership in schools.

It can be argued that the destabilizing experience of many school leaders emerges from the lack of respect for the capital of those they work with in their schools. According to Bourdieu, the struggles within education fields of any form are by far the result of the ways some leaders act towards their members of the school as if their capital is not worthy of utilization [13].

Bourdieu's ideas thus offer deeper understandings of how the positioning of a school leader can either engineer crisis or collaboration within schools. In addition, hierarchical leadership behahviours always induce issues of equity, social justice and human rights within schools [11]. This is because the lack of recognition for teachers' individual cultural capital and recognized knowledge may create perceptions and actions that perpetuate inequality and injustices against those who are considered inferior in the school community [11, 13]. To counter this, Bourdieu suggests that educators must move away from positioning people in deficits views by recognizing their various forms of cultural, symbolic and economic capital [12, 14]. By assigning important roles, or distributing leadership, leaders are signaling that they value and respect the capitals of others and that they recognize and authorize their collective contributions to the leadership and development of the school [13].

### **2.4 Field and leadership**

Bourdieu explains field in terms of spatial relations that people form in spaces of social and institutional practice. In his view, 'fields are hierarchical and contain dominant voices and powerful agents' ([5], p. 156). Within a field, 'constant,

## *Leading for Educational Change: How Can We Disrupt the Colonial Legacy? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108103*

permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which various actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field' [7]. Mills and Gale claimed that the concept of field helps us to analyze the complexities of social lived experience in schools [14]. The role of school leaders is interactively complex because it deals with a variety of human habitus and different forms of capital in fields. Field as a social arena of participation according to Bourdieu [12] creates opportunities as well as challenges when people interact, engage and fight for recognition in pursuit of efficiency [12]. Leaders' practices and decision-making in schools are often influenced by doxa or taken for granted beliefs. It is argued that habitus is, 'utterly taken-for-granted beliefs about the world and existence … sustained by shared beliefs and orientations' ([15], p. 340). School leaders and every action taken by them occur in social fields.

Arguably, since fields are spaces of the acquisition of knowledge, capital and credentials tensions exist, thus making it challenging for leaders in varying degrees to work inclusively and please everyone. Yet, school leaders have the responsibility to develop dispositions that could minimize tensions in schools between the leadership team and the rest of the school's community. This means, leaders must take a critical attitude to embrace distributive leadership practices that create opportunity for honest collaboration as a way of life in the school [16]. It is argued that distributive leadership 'takes as one of its central projects an attempt to be discerning and attentive to those places and practices where social agency has been denied and produced' ([17], p. 3]). Bourdieu also added his voice that when educators become conscious of their positioning relative to others in fields, it is then that collective knowledge can be brought together to enhance the efficiency of leadership in schools [13].
