Popular Habitus: Updating the Concept of “Habitus” as a Guide for the Selection of Cases of Analysis in Qualitative Digital Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
Thank you for your interesting contribution, which I read carefully and with great interest. The aim of your work – to update and promote the use of the concept of habitus as a tool for case selection in qualitative digital research – is ambitious and certainly relevant in the context of digitalized social practices. However, I noticed some critical points, both theoretical and methodological, which I believe deserve further clarification and development.
From a theoretical perspective, the proposal to include erotic capital and autochthonous capital as new forms of capital, alongside Bourdieu’s classical ones, is stimulating and fits well with your intention to update the model. Still, the text lacks a clear and convincing theoretical justification for this choice. For example, one may wonder: why include exactly these two forms of capital, and not others already present in sociological literature, such as aesthetic, linguistic, bodily, or political capital? What criteria guided your selection?
In particular, I would like to highlight the following aspects:
- Erotic capital, as defined by Hakim, is based on subjective and partly "natural" traits (beauty, sex appeal, charisma), which seem not to be fully compatible with Bourdieu’s structural and relational framework, where capital is built and recognized within a social field.
- Autochthonous capital is described as a set of symbolic resources linked to local territorial and cultural belonging. However, it is not clear to what extent this can be considered an autonomous form of capital, distinct from social or symbolic capital, and why it should be integrated into the Bourdieusian model.
I suggest the author(s) include a more explicit discussion of existing literature and consider the possible alternatives to the selected capitals. This would help strengthen the theoretical foundation of the work.
Moreover, the concept of habitus plays a central role in your model, not only as an object of analysis but also as a methodological tool. For this reason, I was surprised to find no reference to the historical development of the term. Habitus has a long conceptual history that predates Bourdieu, dating back to Aristotle's concept of hexis, as well as Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schutz, who developed the idea about intersubjective typifications in the social world. A brief overview of these contributions – even just to explain why the Bourdieusian definition is preferred – would give your theoretical framework more depth and clarity, especially considering the importance given to habitus as a methodological compass.
From a methodological point of view, the research offers several interesting elements, especially in the analysis of the malessere trend on TikTok and its reflection in offline settings (barbershops, educational services). However, some weaknesses should be addressed before publication:
- The 24 variables used for classification are listed but not critically discussed. It is not clear which ones were most relevant or how they align with the theoretical model.
- Translating digital content into analytical indicators is a delicate step, methodologically speaking, and it would benefit from further reflection. For example: how did you avoid arbitrary coding? What are the limits of this operation?
- The author(s) propose a mix of digital observation, ethnography, and content analysis, but it is unclear how these approaches were integrated. The theoretical discussion of the online/offline divide (onlife) is interesting but not well developed in the actual research practice.
Finally, I would like to point out the presence of some typos and formatting issues in the text (e.g., inconsistent use of quotation marks in line 146, and small punctuation or spelling errors). Careful proofreading would improve the overall readability of the paper.
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for carefully reading my manuscript, for your keen interest in this research, and for your profound knowledge of Bourdieu. I appreciate that you have highlighted some critical aspects of the work and listed the areas that need improvement point-by-point. This has made it easier for me to improve my work. I have tried to address the gaps you pointed out and will list the changes made to the document based on your comments step by step.
In addition to the existing description of the two forms of capital, I have added a clear and convincing theoretical justification for this choice, as you suggested. Furthermore, I have explained why erotic capital should be included in my structure, despite being defined by Hakim as a subjective trait that does not seem entirely compatible with Bourdieu's structural and relational framework. I have done the same for indigenous capital, explaining the elements that differentiate it from social and symbolic capital. Below is a list of my responses:
“I have adopted these two forms of capital that are already present in the literature because according to the interpretation of this phenomenon, they are better suited to understanding online practices and as additional “indicators” for the selection of cases for analysis.
Erotic capital lends itself well to the activities that individuals engage in online, although, as defined by Hakim, erotic capital is based on subjective traits. In this study, using the Bourdieusian framework, I highlight how this form of capital takes on value about “common sense” and with the ability of subjects belonging to a field to categorize beauty and sex appeal according to a specific context and a specific social field. Although Hakim’s original definition is overly economistic and departs from Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, it can be considered an additional subjective resource that allows for categorization when intersected with other forms of capital. Furthermore, the framework proposed in this article for the study of digital sociology also takes into account the bodily capital discussed in the ethnographic studies of Bourdieu [1-3] and Wacquant [8]. However, I prefer to adopt erotic capital because the concept of habitus, already in its definition, includes the centrality of embodiment and the centrality of the body in its formation. This is why Bourdieu himself does not include bodily capital among other forms of capital. In any case, Bourdieu intuited the importance of esthetics as an available resource [18]. Esthetics is understood as the need to acquire an appearance that through body size, clothing, and demeanor, embodies cultural meanings that are capable of ensuring success in the social sphere [1]; this definition came about in the wake of Bourdieu’s insights that Catherine Hakim went on to use in order to define the notion of erotic capital. The elements that make up erotic capital, as I show in my empirical work, are constantly at play in digital contexts, and specifically in the case study of this work. At the same time, I have included autochthonous capital, which cannot be exhaustively contained in symbolic and social capital. Autochthonous capital, like all other forms of capital, is part of symbolic capital [1]; it not only encompasses symbolic goods, but also designates concrete forms of power, since belonging to a particular territory is not a neutral fact but, on the contrary, is likely to have a social weight that allows one to position oneself advantageously in various markets (political, labor, marriage, associations, etc.) [7].
Although autochthonous capital has been used almost exclusively to understand conflicts of belonging between the countryside and the city and rural life, I believe, in line with Retière [7], that it is an excellent resource to be used in the urban context as well, particularly in relation to the study of suburbs. Therefore, I suggest in this work that this form of capital is an excellent indicator for studying social action in complex hybrid societies between online and offline. In this research, I highlight the fact that even the intermediation of digital platforms, specifically TikTok, cannot do without the indigenous context to give meaning to its content and thus ensure its enjoyment and successful dissemination [32]. In summary, all forms of capital [33] in this scheme are never completely autonomous or divided by clear boundaries, but reinforce each other, as in the most obvious case of erotic capital and autochthonous capital [35-37].
- As you pointed out, I did not justify my choice of using the concept of habitus in reference to Bourdieu, in contrast to other scholars who had adopted this philosophical concept. I found this suggestion valuable and am glad to have modified my text by adding a little history of this concept and the reasons why; in line with Wacquant, I decided to adopt Bourdieu's perspective and use it as a method for the social sciences. I have included these reasons below:
“The concept of habitus is actually an old philosophical idea that originated in the thinking of Aristotle and medieval scholasticism; it was taken up and developed by the French sociologist after the 1960s. However, Bourdieu was not the only one to use this ancient philosophical concept. Wacquant [8] highlights how, erroneously, sociological studies attribute the concept of habitus to Bourdieu. In fact, habitus can be found in Aristotle’s notion of hexis, which indicates a moral character that guides our feelings and desires. Habitus also received considerable attention in the studies of Thomas Aquinas, who stated that the term derives from habeo, meaning to acquire or possess [8 In addition, other French sociologists had used the concept of habitus before Bourdieu, including Durkheim and his student Mauss in their study of religions, in which they argued for a “Christian habitus” [39]. The concept of habitus was also adopted by the German phenomenological school, by Husserl, who understood habitus as the mental connection between past experiences and imminent actions, as well as by his student Schutz, who used it to indicate “habitual knowledge”, i.e., a notion that resonates with that of habitude, as developed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty [8].
However, in this study, and as I try to highlight in the course of my research, I adopt the interpretation offered by Bourdieu, who wanted to use this concept to construct a dispositional theory of action that was capable of reintroducing time and the inventive capacity of agents within a structuralist anthropology. Pierre Bourdieu’s work constitutes a sociological refoundation of the concept in order to overcome the opposition between objectivism and subjectivism. [9] According to the French sociologist, habitus is a mediating construct that helps us reject the dualism between the individual and the social aspect that is widespread in common sense; therefore, it is a useful methodological tool for categorizing practices, as Wacquant has pointed out and as I try to highlight in this work.
- In response to the limitations you identified in the Methodology section, I have meticulously followed your advice, which has added rigor to the manuscript: in addition to listing the variables, I have also highlighted those that are most important for my research in this passage:
“In this way, I built a dataset of 24 variables and included only subjects who showed significant constants for the trend in question. The indicative variables, in addition to gender, relationship status, and publication dates, concerned elements that characterize the trend of malessere: aesthetics, hairstyle, clothing, brand, music, dialect, jealousy, possessiveness, and violence. The analytical element capable of capturing dispositions, practices, tastes, and positions in the social field, as extensively explained in this article, is habitus. The main variables taken into account were those useful for tracing erotic capital and autochthonous capital, such as aesthetics, hairstyle, or dialectal expressions etc. Other variables, more easily operationalizable, such as those of engagement, although useful for understanding the intensity and pervasiveness of the phenomenon, proved less useful for categorizing the cases analyzed.
- Closely related to the first request for clarification on variables, I have also highlighted how I translated digital content into indicators, trying to avoid arbitrary coding through this step.
:
“Repeating the above research on the phenomenon of malaise after constructing the 24 variables, I took greater account of autochthonous and erotic capital, considering those elements linked to the culture under investigation. By indigenous capital, I mean idiomatic expressions, dialectalisms, local objects and concepts, modes of representation; slang expressions, Neapolitan dialect, music (urban, trap, neomelodic) in Neapolitan, geolocation, and other elements related to the customs and traditions of the reference context, as can be seen in the example shown in Table 1 In analyzing erotic capital, I traced the behavior of subjects in wanting to increase their erotic desirability, taking into account various components: captions, expressions, promotion of self-care and personal appearance, physical predispositions, clothing, and hairstyles. I identified the dimensions of erotic capital using the elements of analysis described in Table 2 . Among the variables used in the dataset, I took into account concepts that are difficult to operationalize, which I described in an interpretative and qualitative manner: for example, haircut, outfit, beard, jewelry, etc. This classification model involved the use of elements to outline these two forms of capital, which I briefly define as 'indirect indicators', i.e., mental categories that allow concrete or abstract objects to be classified and named to descend to a lower level of abstraction and make them empirically detectable. For example, I qualitatively used the erotic capital indicator to try to “make empirically detectable” the concept of Cultivation of Erotic Desirability, with elements such as beard care, outfit care, haircut, and these elements can be seen in Table 2. In the same way, I also traced indirect indicators for autochthonous capital. For example, in addition to geolocation, I used the autochthonous capital indicator to make the concept of 'importance of place' empirically observable by including elements of analysis such as: the subjects in the video speak dialect, use slang, etc., as can be seen in Table 1. Through these conversion methods, I was able to make elements and items that refer to a particular culture empirically observable. In the social sciences, many concepts in the social sphere have a high level of generality and are therefore not directly observable [15]. Many concepts of great theoretical importance are so general that they cannot be satisfactorily defined by a single 'measurement' operation. [15]. For this reason, I believe that habitus is not only the object of this study but also the method, i.e., the tool through which to interpret these measurement tools. In this way, I partly avoid the arbitrary categorization of subjects as belonging to a popular background or not, as they are items that are recognizable and directly observable through the reading of habitus in the specific social field of observation. This technique of “analysis,” as in anthropological research, is purely qualitative and falls within the scope of complex research that involves belonging to the same culture as the researcher working in a given field and relation to the concept of culture”.
Finally, I specified how digital observation, ethnography, and content analysis are integrated, but it is unclear how these approaches were integrated and researched in the onlife context:
“Through these tools for categorizing elements, the interaction between erotic capital and autochthonous capital proved to be fundamental, since cultivating aesthetics based on the reference culture and indigenous context made it possible to reconstruct the symbolic capital of subjects in a condition of life belonging to popular culture. Thanks to these new indicators, I was able to classify the aesthetics of the videos, distinguishing them according to whether or not they belonged to popular culture. Specifically, in an attempt to answer the research questions, I created new TikTok accounts without algorithmic alterations (Airoldi, 2024) of user preferences, then limited the spatial context to Naples. Furthermore, during the exploratory phase of digital ethnography, which took place between November 2023 and April 2024, I tested some keywords in the platform's search bar in order to explore what the social media algorithm returned. For the search and extraction of profiles, I used the following keywords in the platform's search bar: “relationships,” “couples,” “love,” and “romantic relationships.” In April 2024, I had a large number of posts with the hashtag #malessere on TikTok, from which I selected 70 profiles based on certain distinctive characteristics that were evident and interesting for content production: medium-high engagement, aesthetic and communicative style, and number of comments generated. Based on their apparent characteristics, I made an analytical distinction between 1) individual male profiles, 2) individual female profiles, 3) couple profiles, and 4) commercial profiles. For each profile, I then selected a video deemed relevant for the reproduction of desirable masculinity, which was analyzed in depth using topic analysis as an analysis technique. I did not use any automation software for scraping, nor did I use the platform's API. From exploration to extraction of empirical material, I carried out everything in a qualitative and manual manner without any automation. Therefore, thanks to these qualitative techniques using the dimensions of capital described in the habitus model, I selected profiles based on their distinctive characteristics, which can be symbolically connoted as subjects that embody a popular habitus. As I have described in the previous paragraphs, the updated concept of habitus, thanks to its characteristics of flexibility, is a methodological tool that can be used to objectify naturalized preconceptions, both in the analysis of digital content and in the selection of cases for traditional field research, and offers tools that can be used to objectify subjective elements. Therefore, once the elements of the different distributions of capital have been reconstructed, it is possible to categorize subjects into specific social spheres and begin the reasoned selection of cases to be analyzed. In fact, the only distinction between social research, science, and common sense is the method that allows us to produce explanations of empirically verifiable phenomena, define the specific properties of the object of investigation, and arrive at a generalization of the recurrences highlighted in the reality under investigation [14]. Given these premises, I used the popular habitus model as a qualitative analysis tool to understand whether there was a 'real effect' between the digital trend 'the malessere' and the living conditions of young people living in the 'hyper-ghettos' [40] of the city of Naples, where this trend originated. The intention of this exploratory phase, through the use of the habitus tool, is to understand the common thread that connects the daily lives of young people in the suburbs of Naples and their reproduction in the online media, analyzing the trend described above. Digital ethnography follows the same implementations listed in the previous paragraph. In the section dedicated to field research, I conducted multi-sited ethnographic research [ with the intention of understanding the complex interconnection of social action in the hybrid context between online and offline. Furthermore, the study was conducted by following the traces of the phenomenon under study across different locations. Specifically, the ethnographic approach I used to conduct the field research is defined as 'the ghetto approach', whereby the object of study is not the city, but rather the social groups within the city and in specific contexts, in this research, as specified above, the 'Neapolitan hyper-ghettos'. I conducted direct and 'open' observation of the activities of educational services in the city Naples, which work in collaboration with the municipality. In this exploratory phase, the aim was to understand how young people living in working-class neighbourhoods relate to digital trends and, specifically, to the phenomenon of malaise. By attending educational services, I was able to interact with privileged observers (service coordinators, educators, and volunteers), with whom I conducted semi-structured interviews that allowed me to learn about the distribution of capital among those living in educational services, also comparing this with databases of service beneficiaries. Having information on social, economic, and cultural capital in its various forms allowed me to understand the extent of the digital trend and to consider it as a form of reproduction of popular culture in the suburbs. At that point, while I believed that the trend t of "malalessere" ise reflected the practices of the young people analyzed in the educational services in Naples, and while I was aware of the distribution of traditional capital, I did not yet have sufficient empirical evidence to rigorously classify the selection of cases for the analysis of the trend of malessere, which I highlighted in the previous paragraphs, with a sample of carefully chosen beneficiaries of educational services in Naples. To link the elements of analysis between the beneficiaries of the service and the creators of content in the video of malaise, I used the previously described model of the complete popular habitus of the two forms of capital: autochthonous capital and erotic capital. For the fieldwork, I also identified the elements to outline these two forms of capital, which I briefly define as 'indirect indicators', i.e., mental categories that allow concrete or abstract objects to be classified and named in order to descend to a lower level of abstraction and make them empirically detectable. For example, I considered the elements described in Tables 1 and 2 with regard to autochthonous capital and erotic capital and the methods adopted by young people to cultivate their erotic desirability, and I found a very close analogy between the 'malessere' model and young people in educational services, which I summarize as: behavioral attitudes, aesthetic style, and hairstyle. It was also very useful to observe the brands, the same ones used by the creators of malessere: “Adidas, Nike, dsquared2, leather jackets, jeans, Kappa tracksuits, North Face, etc. This allowed me to reconstruct the symbolic capital of both the subjects of the digital selection and the sample of beneficiaries of educational services. Popular symbolic capital was reconstructed through qualitative analysis of the mutual interaction between erotic capital and indigenous capital, and the ways in which young people in educational services cultivated their desirability and attractiveness through certain indigenous codes. During the interviews, I also observed and investigated consumption practices, both with beneficiaries and with privileged observers, because in his theory of practice, Bourdieu demonstrated that it is social stratification that determines consumption choices and not vice versa. I used the 'follow the habitus' approach, empirically following communicative, behavioral, and aesthetic practices, and was able to categorize subjects who embody the popular habitus. Table 1. Indicators of autochthonous capital.”
I have also added Section 4.2.
“4.2. The Popular Habitus in Participant Observation
To investigate the mutual onlife interaction of young people with a background in popular culture, I also used the habitus model in participant observation. In fact, in this phase, I chose two commercial profiles from my dataset, specifically two barbershops, and decided to conduct 'covert' participant observation over one year from November 2023 to October 2024 in these two commercial activities to observe the mutual interaction between the local context and digital platforms and how this interaction contributes to shaping subjective identities. In both the digital and traditional enography phases, I followed' the popular habitus to interact with and observe the everyday behavior of young Neapolitans belonging to popular culture. During this phase, I was able to observe in an extremely intrusive and in-depth manner how erotic capital is cultivated in relation to indigenous capital. I chose to observe the modus operandi of two businesses that have marked the construction of a desirable masculinity, namely two barbershops for men offering a 'malessere' hairstyle. Before going into the field, I tried to adopt a behavior and aesthetic that could be symbolically traced back to the popular culture mentioned above. So, to gain access to the field, I effectively became a 'loyal' customer of both barbershops, changing my appearance and behavioral patterns. This choice allowed me to follow the habitus from online to offline and also allowed me to understand how viral phenomena on digital platforms can be existing cultural products, stubbornly reproduced on the web. In fact, in the two barbershops identified during my digital exploration and included in the dataset because they published short videos of 'malaise' hairstyles, I was able to observe the same dynamics during the field observation phase. Actively participating as a young person who engages with the commercial offerings of content creators allowed me to confirm the idea that the two forms of capital (autochthonous and erotic) play a fundamental role in the construction of habitus. In this case, too, I analyzed autochthonous capital, taking into account language, aesthetic style, and the music listened to in clubs, and I was able to observe the time and volume of resources used by the subjects to cultivate their erotic capital. Again, thanks to the popular habitus model, I was able to categorize the subjects of study and place them in a specific field of investigation using a traditional ethnographic method which, together with digital studies, allows us to analyze the interaction between digital platforms and social subjects and how this contributes to shaping identities and social choices.”
Finally, I corrected the English language with the help of the journal's editorial staff, as layout and editing tools are not my forte, and I also asked for help with revising the English, as it is not my first language.
I would like to thank you for your valuable contribution and for the enormous improvement I noticed after the revisions to my article. I am also very pleased with your knowledge of Bourdieu.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents an interesting topic. However, in my opinion, it requires a thorough revision.
Firstly, the author (I write in the singular since the article is entirely in the first person) should make stylistic corrections to the text: 1) eliminate the first person from the text and write in the third person; 2) the text is poorly formatted and should be properly formatted to avoid spacing issues; 3) some sentences that seem less "English" should be carefully reviewed; 4) Review the bibliography; it is not formatted correctly.
Subsequently, there are content revisions to be made: 1) the text contains some points where sentences are incomplete, such as at line 441; this should be carefully reviewed; 2) the text does not include a section that concisely explains the research objective and the related research questions. By reading carefully, one can reconstruct a semblance of the objective, but it should be presented upfront to guide the reader through the methods and results sections; 3) the methods and materials section seems confusing. Assuming the author wants to use the concept of habitus as a tool to study the phenomenon of malaise, it is not clear how this will be achieved. I propose reconstructing paragraph 3 by integrating subsection 4.1. Additionally, in paragraph 4, there is a discussion of ethnography; it would be interesting to explain how the netnography was conducted in this paragraph; 4) I would use the results section to explain the fieldwork that was done. I would eliminate the part about the three case studies and focus solely on the case study conducted in the first person by the researcher; 5) I would add an additional paragraph for the discussion of results. This way, the author can comment on the findings of their research in light of the theory presented earlier; 6) the conclusions are not true conclusions. They mainly present the limitations of the research; I would move this part to the discussion paragraph that will be added to the text. The actual conclusions should summarize and recap what has been discussed in the article; 7) finally, I would ask the author to make an extra effort in elaborating on the limitations of the research. There is too much focus on the fact that the proposed tool is a tool for evaluating QUAL research; this is not a limitation in itself, as it would eventually position itself within that realm of social research. The limitations I see are regarding the a priori applicability of the model, which seems somewhat risky; I would work on this; 8) finally, I would suggest including some reflections on possible future research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am very pleased with the advice you offered on my contribution. Before showing you how I have modified the paper based on your revisions, I wanted to thank you because, after making the changes based on your suggestions, the paper has a completely different flow. First of all, the structure now highlights every aspect of the work.
I have tried to address the gaps you pointed out and will list the changes made to the document based on your revisions step by step.
I have revised the entire bibliography and edited the English with the help of MDPI Author Services, as well as the text formatting. I have accepted all revisions as an opportunity for reflection and growth.
However, I have chosen to retain the use of the first person, as it is connected to a fundamental element of the proposed research, specifically the capital of autochthony. Some of the cultural elements of the imagination identified are related to my own social field, and it is therefore appropriate to describe them in the first person.
With regard to the critical issues in the content, I have included a section dedicated to the research objective, which I report below:
“The main objective of this research is to use the conceptual framework of Bourdieu's epistemological work on the concept of Habitus as a tool to guide researchers in selecting cases to analyze in digital research. Thanks to the characteristics outlined by Bourdieu [1,3], Habitus provides researchers with the cultural tools to classify subjects in a specific position in the social field [3]. Furthermore, in order to make habitus an effective categorization tool in contemporary society, it is necessary to update the analytical construction of the habitus model. This is an additional objective of the present research, in which I integrate new forms of capital well suited to the digitalized society into Bourdieu's classic scheme, generating a new model. In summary, the main objective of the research, in line with Wacquant's studies, is to propose the concept of habitus as a methodological tool and not just as an object of research. In this study, to highlight this roposal, I emphasize how it is also possible in the platform society [19] to generate categorizations capable of critically studying social inequalities. To highlight the applicability of this model, I use as a case study the categorization of subjects who embody a popular habitus, i.e., I propose a rigorous effort to find tools capable of determining which subjects are symbolically categorized in a 'popular' representation and in their practical predispositions, and which are not. In an attempt to achieve this goal, I use as a case study the digital trend on the TikTok platform: the phenomenon of “malessere” (meaning discomfort or unease).”
I have integrated the Methods section as you advised, adding the paragraphs that I had mistakenly included in the Results, and everything now appears much more coherent. I have explained better how I use Habitus to study the phenomenon of “malaise”. I have also described in more detail how I conducted the digital ethnography.
“Through these tools for categorizing elements, the interaction between erotic capital and autochthonous capital proved to be fundamental, since cultivating aesthetics based on the reference culture and indigenous context made it possible to reconstruct the symbolic capital of subjects in a condition of life belonging to popular culture. Thanks to these new indicators, I was able to classify the aesthetics of the videos, distinguishing them according to whether or not they belonged to popular culture.
Specifically, in an attempt to answer the research questions, I created new TikTok accounts without algorithmic alterations [26) of user preferences, then limited the spatial context to Naples. Furthermore, during the exploratory phase of digital ethnography, which took place between November 2023 and April 2024, I tested some keywords in the platform's search bar in order to explore what the social media algorithm returned. For the search and extraction of profiles, I used the following keywords in the platform's search bar: “relationships,” “couples,” “love,” and “romantic relationships.” In April 2024, I had a large number of posts with the hashtag #malessere on TikTok, from which I selected 70 profiles based on certain distinctive characteristics that were evident and interesting for content production: medium-high engagement, aesthetic and communicative style, and number of comments generated. Based on their apparent characteristics, I made an analytical distinction between 1) individual male profiles, 2) individual female profiles, 3) couple profiles, and 4) commercial profiles. For each profile, I then selected a video deemed relevant for the reproduction of desirable masculinity, which was analyzed in depth using topic analysis as an analysis technique. I did not use any automation software for scraping, nor did I use the platform's API. From exploration to extraction of empirical material, I carried out everything in a qualitative and manual manner without any automation. Therefore, thanks to these qualitative techniques using the dimensions of capital described in the habitus model, I selected profiles based on their distinctive characteristics, which can be symbolically connoted as subjects that embody a popular habitus.”
In the Results section, I have explained what emerged from the fieldwork.
I have described my case study in more detail, focusing only on the case in question and avoiding examples that could be misleading. As you suggested, I added an additional paragraph for the discussion of the results. This allowed me to comment on the results of my research in light of the theory presented earlier. I am inserting it here:
“Discussion
This study aims to represent an epistemological and methodological advance on one of the most important concepts in social sciences, namely habitus. Furthermore, in line with Wacquant [8], this study proposes to use this concept not only as an object of investigation, but also as a methodological tool, reintroducing it into qualitative studies of digital sociology. The empirical example highlighted the possibility of using habitus as a tool for categorizing and selecting cases to be analyzed, both in digital ethnography and in the interaction between digital and traditional research. As I have tried to argue in the theoretical section, habitus is a tool capable of understanding categorization systems starting from aesthetic dispositions, and this emerges both in the selection of cases to be analyzed in the digital ethnography phase and in the ethnographic field study, particularly in barbers. Habitus therefore provides a “structuring structure” [1], a general system of classification of practices, the 'generative principle' [1] (p. 173) underlying the conditions of all the lifestyles analyzed in the research conducted in the suburbs, where it was possible to observe these classifying elements with the help of the two forms of capital, erotic and autochthonous, the only constants present in all phases of the research, from digital to fieldwork. The habitus model is useful when the object of research is social action. Furthermore, this analytical model clearly has a limited capacity for statistical inference, since models considered “desirable” in a local context are not necessarily followed by all individuals living in those contexts and who have more or less similar distributions of capital. However, while not guaranteeing the exhaustiveness of representativeness, which is clearly not the goal of this model, it offers a rigorous compass for researchers because it allows them to empirically verify the model in order to guide and monitor common sense and not be guided by it in the selection of cases to analyze. Furthermore, given the qualitative nature of the work, although the habitus model is used in digital studies and therefore in a potentially global perspective, the geographical context is considered of vital importance; it is unthinkable to use this analytical model without considering the context in which digital content is generated. In conclusion, the example of the research conducted has shown that with this model it is possible to categorize the social subjects studied in the field of onlife, and to do so not necessarily using numerical variables, but also by cross-referencing numerical variables and qualitative indicators.”
I modified the limitations of my research based on your suggestions and extended the research to possible future developments and possible fields of application, as shown below:
“5. Limitations and follow-up of the research
This methodological tool for selecting cases for analysis has limitations that require an understanding of the cultural elements of the phenomenon to be analyzed. In short, the researcher should have prior knowledge of the cultural elements that refer to different imaginaries. The researcher's position in the social field becomes more crucial than ever when using this model. For example, in the case study used, I was able to see that the elements of autochthonous capital refer to a popular imaginary, thanks in part to my biographical knowledge of these cultural elements and the imaginary. The elements described in the tables of erotic capital and indigenous capital used in this study are valid in this particular research because they represent elements of Neapolitan popular culture. Therefore, although the model is flexible with degrees of malleability, it must be remembered that social reality is very complex and that categorization tools must always be justified based on the study through a thoughtful and reasoned choice. There is therefore still a risk of categorizing subjects in certain social positions that may not represent them. To be replicated in other contexts, the model must be tested through other empirical research. I would like to try this model for other possible future research, such as the study of the 'Maranza' phenomenon in the suburbs of Milan, or in other contexts at high risk of marginalization defined by Wacquant [40] as hyper-ghettos.”
Finally, I wrote some conclusions as you suggested, summarizing all the work as follows:
- 5. Conclusions “
In this study, I proposed, in line with Airoldi [26], to use the theoretical framework of Bourdieu's sociology in the study of the digitalized society to categorize subjects in a specific social position. First, I briefly review the limitations encountered in categorization methods in the social sciences. I describe in detail the various definitions that Bourdieu has given to habitus, tracing the history of this philosophical concept. Following Bourdieu and the study of popular culture by Italian anthropologists, I develop an operational definition of habitus for the categorization of subjects belonging to popular culture. However, in order to update habitus to adapt it to digital studies, I had to update it by including new forms of capital, specifically autochthonous and erotic capital, two forms of capital that are observable resources in the interactions of subjects on digital platforms. I have described how the habitus model with new indicators (forms of capital) can be useful for selecting cases in digital ethnography, as well as for selecting non-probabilistic samples based on reasoned choice in traditional field research. Finally, I highlight the strengths and some limitations of this model and propose a follow-up for possible future research.”
best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour idea of extending Bourdieu with erotic and autochthonous capital for digital‑platform case selection is timely, but the manuscript needs substantial tightening and fuller disclosure. State clearly what existing digital‑Bourdieusian work still lacks and how your model fills that gap (e.g., vs. Airoldi 2024, Benevento & Stark 2023). Settle on one operational definition of “popular habitus” and use it consistently. Clarify the line between erotic and symbolic capital. Provide the TikTok scraping frame (dates, hashtags, API settings), coding manual, inter‑coder reliability, and basic descriptive stats (N posts, users, timeframe). Add an ethics section: IRB approval, consent, anonymisation, compliance with platform TOS and privacy law. Go beyond three illustrative vignettes: show how case selection differs with vs. without the two new capitals. Tie each vignette back to the specific capital(s) it exemplifies. Cut redundancy—especially repeated Bourdieu quotes—and break long sentences. Source or delete broad claims such as “classic capitals are no longer sufficient.”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is broadly intelligible, yet clarity suffers from several stylistic problems: sentences are often excessively long, causing the main point to be obscured; one fragment in the Abstract even ends mid‑thought (“which are no.”). Over‑reliance on abstract verbs such as “actualize,” “problematize,” and “valorize” further clouds meaning, while frequent comma splices signal the need for stronger punctuation and sentence breaks. Redundant phrases - most notably the repeated assertion that “popular habitus provides a compass” - inflate word count without advancing the argument, and long, minimally framed block quotations from Bourdieu disrupt narrative flow. A careful copy‑edit focusing on shortening sentences, replacing jargon with concrete verbs, correcting punctuation, trimming repetition, and integrating quotations more smoothly would greatly enhance readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I wanted to thank you for the accuracy of your revisions, which have allowed me to significantly improve my article.
Specifically, I have indicated what is missing from Bourdieu's digital work with the suggestions you gave me. I have described them as follows:
“Although this work owes much to Airoldi's theoretical mapping [26], habitus refers to the objectified subjective dimensions of social actors and not to platforms or 'machines'. Scientific literature owes much to Airoldi for bringing Bourdieu's sociological thinking back into the study of digital sociology. However, the author's concept of habitus and theory of practices have not yet found their place as a key to interpreting social action on the web and as a methodological tool in digital sociology. This work aims to fill this gap. This research proposes the concept of habitus as an element of investigation of the practices of online subjects and their hybrid interaction between digital and indigenous contexts. The habitus model presented in this work analyzes the different distributions of capital as subjective resources that can be considered by researchers as tools for classifying subjects.”
I have established an operational definition of “popular habitus” and have tried to use it consistently, as you suggested. I report it as follows:
“Consequently, as shown in the diagram below, the interaction of different forms of capital determines symbolic capital. The reconstruction of capital as indicators and of symbolic capital in its recognition and misrecognition by individuals living in the social field has allowed me to operationalize and describe popular habitus as: 'the set of practical dispositions, models, and behavioral attitudes, characterized by a precise aesthetic, connoted in specific historical and social contexts, which take on an internalized semantic meaning recognized by subjects who occupy more or less the same positions in society according to a tacit but ever-present autochthonous root that guides their direction'.
By popular, I refer to the legacy of the term popular from cultural anthropology. In particular, the cultural frame of reference is that of Italian anthropologists who played a disruptive role in the study of popular culture, such as Cirese [38] and De Martino [39], who were interested in the study of the daily life of the working classes and mass consumption practices. Furthermore, the concept of popular also takes into account the studies of the Birmingham School. Following this tradition, 'popular' refers to the set of traditions, knowledge, ideas, and customs handed down and spread by the lower social classes, which are economically, socially, and culturally disadvantaged.”
I have clarified the boundaries between the different types of capital in sufficient detail, and I thank you for your advice on being more rigorous in defining them. However, the boundaries between types of capital are never clear-cut, as Bourdieu also points out in his studies. Consequently, it is clear that, in the act of recognition (symbolic capital), there is a part of erotic capital, but specifically, erotic capital is the accumulation of erotic desirability that flows into symbolic capital just like other forms of capital; I report below the changes I have made:
“I have adopted these two forms of capital already present in the literature because, according to the interpretation of this phenomenon, they are better suited to understanding online practices and as additional “indicators” for the selection of cases for analysis.
Erotic capital lends itself well to the activities that individuals engage in online, although, as defined by Hakim, erotic capital is based on subjective traits. In this study, using the Bourdieusian framework, I highlight how this form of capital takes on value about “common sense” and with the ability of subjects belonging to a field to categorize beauty and sex appeal according to a specific context and a specific social field. Although Hakim's original definition is overly economistic and departs from Bourdieu's conceptual framework, it can be considered an additional subjective resource that allows categorization when intersected with other forms of capital. Furthermore, the framework proposed in this article for the study of digital sociology also takes into account the bodily capital discussed in the ethnographic studies of Bourdieu [41] and Wacquant [39]. However, I have preferred to adopt erotic capital because the concept of habitus, already in its definition, includes the centrality of embodiment and the centrality of the body in its formation. This is why Bourdieu himself does not include bodily capital among other forms of capital. In any case, Bourdieu intuited the importance of aesthetics as an available resource [41]. Aesthetics is understood as the need to acquire an appearance that, through body size, clothing, and demeanor, embodies cultural meanings capable of ensuring success in the social sphere [41]. It is, in fact, in the wake of Bourdieu's insights that Catherine Hakim went on to define the notion of erotic capital. The elements that make up erotic capital, as I show in my empirical work, are constantly at play in digital contexts, and specifically in the case study of this work. At the same time, I have included autochthonous capital, which cannot be exhaustively contained in symbolic and social capital. Autochthonous capital, like all other forms of capital, is part of symbolic capital [1] but does not only encompass symbolic goods; it also designates concrete forms of power, since belonging to a particular territory is not a neutral fact but, on the contrary, is likely to have a social weight that allows one to position oneself advantageously in various markets (political, labor, marriage, associations). [7
Although autochthonous capital has been used almost exclusively to understand conflicts of belonging between the countryside and the city and rural life, I believe, in line with Retière [7], that it is an excellent resource to be used in the urban context as well, in the study of suburbs. I therefore suggest in this work that this form of capital is an excellent indicator for studying social action in complex hybrid societies between online and offline. In this research, I highlight that even the intermediation of digital platforms, specifically TikTok, cannot do without the indigenous context to give meaning to its content and thus ensure its enjoyment and successful dissemination. In summary, all forms of capital in this scheme are never completely autonomous or divided by clear boundaries, but reinforce each other, as in the most obvious case of erotic capital and autochthonous capital.”
I have provided the information you requested on the scraping frame and report it as follows:
“Specifically, in an attempt to answer the research questions, I created new TikTok accounts without algorithmic alterations (Airoldi, 2024) of user preferences, then limited the spatial context to Naples. Furthermore, during the exploratory phase of digital ethnography, which took place between November 2023 and April 2024, I tested some keywords in the platform's search bar in order to explore what the social media algorithm returned. For the search and extraction of profiles, I used the following keywords in the platform's search bar: “relationships,” “couples,” “love,” and “romantic relationships.” In April 2024, I had a large number of posts with the hashtag #malessere on TikTok, from which I selected 70 profiles based on certain distinctive characteristics that were evident and interesting for content production: medium-high engagement, aesthetic and communicative style, and number of comments generated. Based on their apparent characteristics, I made an analytical distinction between 1) individual male profiles, 2) individual female profiles, 3) couple profiles, and 4) commercial profiles. For each profile, I then selected a video deemed relevant for the reproduction of desirable masculinity, which was analyzed in depth using topic analysis as an analysis technique. I did not use any automation software for scraping, nor did I use the platform's API. From exploration to extraction of empirical material, I carried out everything in a qualitative and manual manner without any automation. Therefore, thanks to these qualitative techniques using the dimensions of capital described in the habitus model, I selected profiles based on their distinctive characteristics, which can be symbolically connoted as subjects that embody a popular habitus.”
With regard to the illustrative vignettes explaining the difference between the selection of cases with and without capital forms, I have accepted the request for clarification regarding the choice of case selection, but have decided to maintain a narrative register rather than a graphic narrative for greater clarity. Thanks to these changes, the article is now much clearer. I quote the following:
“The use of these forms of capital was necessary in order to categorize young people as belonging to popular culture and therefore as subjects who embody a popular habitus, in relation to the operational definition of popular habitus described above with the elements present in the tables illustrating the two forms of capital. The selection of cases would not have been possible without the two forms of capital included, because the operational definition given to popular habitus necessarily draws on the two forms of capital:
1) 'the set of practical dispositions and behavioral models and attitudes:
-facial expressions, self-promotion and self-care with a precise aesthetic connotation in clothing, hairstyles, body posture, etc. (erotic capital);
2) Set of elements connoted in specific historical and social contexts:
dialectisms; idioms; expressions, native language, local objects and concepts, music (autochthonous capital)
which take on an internalized semantic meaning recognized by individuals who occupy more or less the same positions in society according to a tacit but ever-present indigenous root that guides their direction. In categorizing the subjects, I took into account the popular habitus of all the elements present in the tables shown above.”
Regarding the English language and bibliography, I made use of the services offered by MDPI to authors to improve my contribution and ensure that it met the journal's standards. In this way, I have improved the level of English.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors/
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your detailed response and for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. It is evident that you have indeed undertaken significant revisions, thoughtfully addressing the points raised in the previous review. Thank you for your thorough engagement with the feedback.
