Imitation and Processes of Institutionalization — Insights from Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice

Abstract

New institutional theory highlights the importance of language in processes of institutionalization, but Bourdieu argues that institutions are also transmitted by mimesis, i.e., the unconscious imitation of other actors' actions. The aim of this paper is to develop a framework that explains institutionalization through imitation. I show that through imitation, actors unconsciously incorporate a field's practices and build field-related cognitive schemata that enable them to better adapt to a field's specificities. The paper contributes to new institutionalism by developing a new perspective on the process of institutionalization.

Bourdieu, Habitus and Social Research

“…assumed that reproduction proceeds through perception, appreciation and action. We suspect that mimesis might play a crucial role in the transfer of habitus between people and fields when it involves encoding the underlying meaning of practice (Sieweke, 2014). The processes of transfer are yet neither straightforward nor automatic or assured.…”

“How on earth did this happen?” The relationship of practical consciousness and institutional evolution

“…Through the experience of one’s own movements and the movements of the bodies of others in specific situations, actors are able to intuitively understand individual intentions, social conventions, or the means to accomplishing certain purposes (Tomasello, 2000; Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). This form of “embodiment,” upon which we build our argument, involves the multi-modal experiences of praxis via actors’ visual, haptic, auditory, motor, and vestibular systems (Barsalou, 2008; Clark, 1997; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) and the ability of actors to grasp the meaning behind these bodily states (Carpenter, Uebel, & Tomasello, 2013; Sieweke, 2014; Tomasello, 2000). Bodily states are directly perceived to be meaningful (Bourdieu, 1977) because the same brain areas responsible for the comprehension and representation of practical dispositions are also responsible for the enactment of praxis (Gallese, 2006; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004).…”

“…(2) Institutions grounded in practical dispositions are durable because they are transmitted via the mimesis of the implicit meanings of reoccurring praxis (Sieweke, 2014). They achieve the status of durable practical dispositions when actors mimic the meaning behind the praxis of others and accept praxis as externally given, without reflecting upon it (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990).…”

Pierre Bourdieu in management and organization studies—A citation context analysis and discussion of contributions

“…Both steps are important for the process of institutionalization: Since the same practice can be associated with different meanings, institutionalization requires both the routinization of a practice and the transfer of meaning associated with the practice (Zilber, 2002). Although research in psychology (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) and cognitive anthropology (e.g., Tomasello, 2001) provided evidence for the importance of mimesis in cultural processes, institutional scholars have paid little attention to mimesis in the process of institutionalization (for an exception, see Sieweke, 2014). However, mimesis might complement the current focus on linguistic processes of institutionalization (see, e.g., Phillips et al, 2004) and might provide a more comprehensive understanding of the micro-level process of institutionalization.…”