Introduction

In this chapter I bring in Norbert Elias's notion of habitus applied to ethnographic settings (the boxing gym and aikido dojo). Complemented by other conceptual tools such as ‘tension balance’, ‘thresholds of violence’ or ‘double-bind process’, I try to contribute in the advance towards the possibility of a real ‘carnal sociology’ (Wacquant 2005a, 2011). Even though Elias's usage of habitus is less well known than Bourdieu's, I argue that it is as important as a topic of research (especially when dealing with martial arts and combat sports) and as a tool for conducting ethnographic studies. In both Bourdieu and Elias, the notion of habitus refers to some kind of tacit disposition, a kind of ‘second nature’ that allows a pre-reflective relation to the world affected by the social conditions of its production. Nonetheless, there are some differences. Whereas in Bourdieu (1990b, 2000; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992), the notion of habitus implies a whole common sense, a way of perceiving and acting, in Elias, the notion of habitus is restricted to the balance between spontaneity and constriction in the expression of affects and emotions. This difference does not prevent both notions from being complementary. On the contrary: as we can see in Wacquant's study of boxing in Chicago (Wacquant 2004a), the specific conditions of being/learning in the gym affects the whole common sense of boxers but also the way they express and control their affections, especially (but not only) those related to violence.