The relational habitus, an adaptation of Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, is an ecological ensemble of relations including self, tools, tasks, and others that is intersubjectively constructed and sustained over time in formal and informal learning communities. The development of the relational habitus explains variances in the social organization of meaning making in local arenas of learning, referred to as dynamic fields. As a theoretical tool, the relational habitus encompasses two interrelated aspects of intersubjectivity: (a) an orientation to others in cultural contexts and (b) mutual perspective taking accomplished through communication. These two aspects of intersubjectivity explain how the meaning-making processes that promote learning and development involve both agential action and the situational structuring of these actions.

1.
Acredolo, L.P., & Goodwyn, S.W. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development, 59, 450–466.
2.
Albright, J., & Luke, A. (Eds.). (2008). Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education. New York: Rutledge.
3.
Al-Natour, S., & Benbasat, I. (2009). The adoption and use of IT artifacts: A new interaction-centric model for the study of artifact relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10, 661–685.
4.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
5.
Bateson, M.C. (1975). Mother-infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversational interactions. In D. Aaronson & R.W. s. Rieber (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics and communication.Vol. CCLXIII. (pp. 101–113). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
6.
Bateson, M.C. (1979). The epigenesis of conversational interaction: A personal account of research development. In M. s. Bullow (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 63–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Beck, S.W. (2006). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 413–460.
8.
Beebe, B., Knoblauch, S., Rustin, J., & Sorter, D. (2005). Forms of intersubjectivity in infant research and adult treatment. New York: Other Press.
9.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 193–281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Bourdieu, P. (1974). Postface (P. Bourdieu, transl.). In E. Panofsky (Ed.), Architecture gothique et pensée scolastique (pp. 133–167). Paris: E. Minuit.
12.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, transl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice (R. Nice, transl.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
14.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The genesis of the concepts of habitus and field. Sociocriticism, 2, 11–24.
15.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural reproduction. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action (R. Johnson, transl.). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
18.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Bråten, S. (Ed.). (1998). Intersubjective communications and emotion in early ontogeny. Paris: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks. Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
21.
Bruner, J. (1990). Act of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard.
23.
Chizhik, A.W. (2001). Equity and status in group collaboration: Learning through explanations depends on task characteristics. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 179–200.
24.
Christ, T., & Wang, X.C. (2008). Negotiation of ‘how to’ at the cross-section of cultural capital and habitus: Young children’s procedural practices in a student-led literacy group. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8, 177–211.
25.
Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
26.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Collins, W.A., & Laursen, B. (Eds.) (2009). Relationships as developmental contexts. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.
28.
Dewey, J. (2000). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications (originally published 1925).
29.
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139–175). Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
30.
Duranti, A. (2010). Husserl, intersubjectivity and anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 10, 1–20.
31.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Methuen.
32.
Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Toward an activity theoretical conceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 53–73). New York: Routledge.
33.
Flavell, J.H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28, 988–1005.
34.
Forman, E.A. (1992). Discourse, intersubjectivity and the development of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian approach. In L.T. Winegar & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social contexts.Vol. 1: Metatheory and theory (pp. 143–159). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
35.
Gergen, K. (1994). Realities and relationships: Sounds in social construction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
36.
Getzels, J.W. (1975). Problem finding and the inventiveness of solutions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 9, 12–18.
37.
Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
Göncü, A. (1993). Development of intersubjectivity in the dyadic play of preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 99–116.
39.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language studies (pp. 97–121). New York: Irvington.
40.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 489–522.
41.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden: Blackwell.
42.
Green, J.A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.
43.
Greenfield, P.M., & Gillespie-Lynch, K. (2008). Intersubjectivity evolved to fit the brain, but grammar co-evolved with the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 523–524.
44.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Hanks, W.F. (2005). Pierre Bourdieu and the practices of language. Annual Review Anthropology, 34, 67–83.
46.
Hardin, C.H., & Higgins, E.T. (1996). How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 28–34). New York: Guilford Press.
47.
Hobson, P. (1993). The intersubjective foundations of thought. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 283–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Holland, D., & Cole, M. (1995). Between discourse and schema: Reformulating a cultural-historical approach to culture and mind. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 475–490.
49.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W.J., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (Eds.). (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50.
Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. London: Collier.
51.
Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. Second book: Studies in the phenomenology of constitution (R. Rojcewicz & A. Schuwer, transl.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
52.
Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field, and discourse. Target, 15, 243–268.
53.
Introna, L. (2009). Ethics and the speaking of things. Theory, Culture, and Society, 26, 398–419.
54.
Jaffe, A. (Ed.). (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Janlert, L., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18, 297–314.
56.
Jenkins, H., McPherson, T., & Shattuc, J. (Eds.). (2002). Hop on pop: The politics and pleasures of pop culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
57.
Jones, S., & Enriquez, G. (2009). Engaging the intellectual and the moral in critical literacy education. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 145–168.
58.
Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. In L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
59.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
60.
Lave, J. (2009) The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 200–208). New York: Routledge.
61.
Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 701–737.
62.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
63.
Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 133–150.
64.
Lodewyk, K.R., Winne, P.H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29, 1–25.
65.
Luwel, K., Verschaffel, L., Onghena, P., & De Corte, E. (2003). Strategic aspects of numerosity judgment: The effect of task characteristics. Experimental Psychology, 50, 63–75.
66.
Lyons-Ruth, K. (2006). The interface between attachment and intersubjectivity: Perspective from the longitudinal study of disorganized attachment. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 26, 595–616.
67.
Mahn, H. (2003). Periods in child development: Vygotsky’s perspective. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 119–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25–45.
69.
Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 383–402.
70.
May, T. (1996). Situating social theory. Bristol: Open University Press.
71.
McDermott, R.P. (1976). Kids made sense. Unpublished Dissertation. Stanford University.
72.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
73.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
74.
Mehan, B. (1980). The competent student. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11, 131–152.
75.
Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview on transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 90–104). New York: Routledge.
76.
Miller, P., & Goodnow, J. (1995). Cultural practices: Toward an integration of culture and development. New Directions for Child Development, 67, 5–16.
77.
Mills, C. (2008). Reproduction and transformation of inequalities in schooling: The transformative potential of the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29, 79–89.
78.
Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27, 195–219.
79.
Mortimer, E.F., & Wertsch, J.V. (2003). The architecture and dynamics of intersubjectivity in science classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 230–244.
80.
Moss, E., & St-Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 37, 863–874.
81.
Nash, R. (2002). The educated habitus, progress at school, and real knowledge. Interchange, 33, 27–48.
82.
Nash, R. (2003). Social explanation and socialization: On Bourdieu and the structure, disposition, practice scheme. The Sociological Review, 51, 43–62.
83.
Nathan, M., Eilam, B., & Kim, S. (2007). To disagree, we must also agree: How intersubjectivity structures and perpetuates discourse in a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 523–563.
84.
Nelson, R.M., & DeBacker, T.K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170–185.
85.
Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1975). Intersubjectivity and the transmission of culture: On the social origins of symbolic functioning. Bulletin of British Psychology and Sociology, 28, 437–446.
86.
Nolen, S.B. (2001). Constructing literacy in the kindergarten: Talk structure, collaboration, and motivation. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 95–142.
87.
Perry, N., VandeKamp, K.O., Mercer, L.K., & Nordby, C.J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 5–15.
88.
Proctor, K. (2008). Habitus and high status culture: An empirical test of Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting.
89.
Reay, D. (2004). ‘It’s all becoming a habitus’: Beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25, 432–444.
90.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
91.
Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit & R.M. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought, and verbal communication.Vol. 93–108. London: Academic Press.
92.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 183–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93.
Rumelhart, D.E., & Ortony, A. (Eds.). (1984). The representation of knowledge in memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
94.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & P. Lehnert, transl.). Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
95.
Siegler, R.S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
96.
Smolka, A.L.B., De Goes, M.C.R., & Pino, A. (1995). The constitution of the subject: A persistent question. In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 165–184). New York: Cambridge University Press.
97.
Stone, L.D. (1996). The social construction of mathematical knowledge: Presented problems in mathematics classrooms. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7, 119–133.
98.
Stone, L.D., & Gutierrez, K.D. (2007). Problem articulation and the processes of assistance: An activity theoretic view of mediation in game play. International Journal of Educational Research, 46, 43–56.
99.
Stone, L.D., & Hart, T. (2007). Private speech: Semiotic mediation of agency in literacy activities. In R. Alanen & S. Poyhonen (Eds.), Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian legacy today (pp. 280–307). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
100.
Stone, L.D., & Hotchkiss, J. (2008). ‘Don’t draw yur ur tools only machines’: An activity theoretic analysis of intersubjectivity during writing activity. Paper presented at the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research, UC San Diego.
101.
Stone, L.D., Kerrick, M., & Stoeckl, R. (submitted). Practical-moral knowledge: The socialization of regulatory processes in academic settings. Mind, Culture, and Activity.
102.
Stone, L.D., Stoeckl, R., & Kerrick, M. (2011). Scaffolded and rhizome problems: Regulatory processes during literacy learning. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Berkeley, CA.
103.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
104.
Thompson, J.B. (1991). Editor’s introduction. In P. Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
105.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard Univerisity Press.
106.
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A.C., & Ratner, H.H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 495–552.
107.
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
108.
Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 15–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
109.
Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K.J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3–48.
110.
Tudge, J., & Rogoff, B. (1999). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In P. Llyod & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Vygotsky: Critical assessments: The zone of proximal development.Vol. 3. (pp. 32–56). New York: Routledge.
111.
Ueno, N. (1993). Reconsidering p-prims theory from the viewpoint of situated cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 239–248.
112.
Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind: Sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
113.
Valsiner, J. (2009). Cultural psychology today: Innovations and oversights. Culture & Psychology, 15, 15–39.
114.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
115.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press (Original work published 1934).
116.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5: Child psychology. New York: Plenum.
117.
Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2008). ‘Just don’t’: The suppression and invitation of dialogue in mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 143–157.
118.
Watson, R. (2006). Tacit knowledge. Theory, Culture, & Society, 23, 208–210.
119.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
120.
Wertsch, J.V. (2000). Intersubjectivity and alterity in human communication. In N. Budwig, I.C. Uzgiris, & J.V. Wertsch (Eds.), Communication: An arena of development (pp. 17–32). Prager Publishing.
121.
Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
122.
Widick, R. (2003). Flesh and the free market: On taking Bourdieu to the options exchange. Theory and Society, 32, 679–723.
123.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan.
124.
Zevenbergen, R., & Griffith, U. (2001). Mathematics, social class, and linguistic capital: An analysis of mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 201–215). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.