Integration of Bourdieu’s Habitus into Bernstein’s Code

Citation: Niati M. (2018) Integration of Bourdieu’s Habitus into Bernstein’s Code. Open Science Journal 3(1) Received: 15 September 2017 Accepted: 17 February 2018 Published: 13 March 2018 Copyright:© 2018 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work Competing Interests: The author have declared that no competing interests exists. This paper aims to sketch dialectically two great sociologists’ views, those of Bernstein and Bourdieu on one canvas so as to increase the transparency in three specialized aspects of education. First, Bernsteinian sociolinguistic dimension of habitus and its relation to cultural reproduction is delineated; second, the educational knowledge and its transmission in accordance with habitus is provided; finally, providing a draft to an interdisciplinary curriculum regarding Bernstein’s verticality and Bourdieu’s subjectivity of knowledge is given. The answer to why it is possible to juxtapose Bernsteinian pedagogy and habitus in one plateau is that while habitus provides a lens for understanding practice and knowledge within the social milieu (Costa and Stahl, 2015), Bernstein explains how this knowledge is classified, and transmitted (1977). Although habitus is a social subjectivity, the integrated curriculum, and not the collected one, provided by Bernstein can supposedly pave the way for this subjectivity to develop in the social milieu of school. Bernstein holds that his work is “complementary” to that of Bourdieu, seeing Bourdieu’s work as an explanation of the “structure of reproduction” and his as the “process of transmission” (1977, p. 14). Complementarily, habitus allows for the study of individual and collective dispositions and also shows how individuals’ perspectives, values, actions, conceptions of hierarchies and social positions are formed (Costa, 2015). Habitus folds and unfolds itself outside and inside school. Accordingly, both these views put an effort to analyse pedagogic pupil. Open Science Journal

This paper aims to sketch dialectically two great sociologists' views, those of Bernstein and Bourdieu on one canvas so as to increase the transparency in three specialized aspects of education.First, Bernsteinian sociolinguistic dimension of habitus and its relation to cultural reproduction is delineated; second, the educational knowledge and its transmission in accordance with habitus is provided; finally, providing a draft to an interdisciplinary curriculum regarding Bernstein's verticality and Bourdieu's subjectivity of knowledge is given.The answer to why it is possible to juxtapose Bernsteinian pedagogy and habitus in one plateau is that while habitus provides a lens for understanding practice and knowledge within the social milieu (Costa and Stahl, 2015), Bernstein explains how this knowledge is classified, and transmitted (1977).Although habitus is a social subjectivity, the integrated curriculum, and not the collected one, provided by Bernstein can supposedly pave the way for this subjectivity to develop in the social milieu of school.Bernstein holds that his work is "complementary" to that of Bourdieu, seeing Bourdieu's work as an explanation of the "structure of reproduction" and his as the "process of transmission" (1977, p. 14).Complementarily, habitus allows for the study of individual and collective dispositions and also shows how individuals' perspectives, values, actions, conceptions of hierarchies and social positions are formed (Costa, 2015).Habitus folds and unfolds itself outside and inside school.Accordingly, both these views put an effort to analyse pedagogic pupil.

Introduction
Comparatively, Bernstein pays more attention to family and school rather than any other institutions as he did not want to apply organisational theory in order to understand the pedagogical device and the transmission theory flowing through schools (1974).As it is obvious to notice in works by educationalists such as Hoy (2013), organisational management theories applied in theorising educational management do not regard or have not considered at least fully the inside pedagogy, thus this would be another reason why this paper struggles, however roughly, to bring together two great sociologists theories together so as to delineate a more transparent picture out of pedagogy .Another reason why habitus is applied in this paper is that it involves elements such as age, knowledge, identity and also reflexivity all together (Costa, et al., 2015).As Bernstein mentions in his study (1990), Bourdieu's habitus as one of his thinking tools, generalizes individuals' selection and their moving through formal educational device without explaining how the inside pedagogy acts in a specialised form on habitus.While Bourdieu makes a general picture of habitus in dominating pattern of school, by applying Bernsteinian pedagogic discourse, habitus is supposed to be seen in a much more explicit way, and how it undergoes classified experiences through hierarchy of symbolic power.Bernstein starts his work by explaining the sociolinguistic features of social agencies in families, school, and continues delineating the classification and framing of educational knowledge on a social basis.The code theories, the knowledge structure and visible/invisible pedagogies form the backbone of his study.He used Durkheim, Bourdieu, and Halliday as a starting point in his study (1974, 1977, and 1990).The question is that how it is possible to set up a place for habitus, with its folding, and unfolding mechanism, in totally bureaucratised institutions.

Sociolinguistic codes of habitus in cultural reproduction
The importance and neglect of sociolinguistic study of social learning is given quite a high attention in Bernstein study (1974).It is true that the social groups have their own specific language habits, thus, their way of perceptions.The sociological effects of one specific form of language is a concept, which Bernstein believes, controls the social relationships among pupil and family and school.According to Bernstein (1974), the elaborated code gives a greater field of producing speech variants based on a vaster grammatical structures than restricted code.Bernstein pulls the attention of reader to the idea that there is a semantic, and grammatical selection in the speech variants belonging to two social groups of middle and working (1974).The next concept which Bernstein puts forward is figuring out the semantic relationship of a sentence with its grammar medium by making a distinction between those meanings which are independent (universalistic) or dependent (particularistic) from and to the text.Here, the point is the determinative factor of social relationship which plays a paramount role in either social control or performance between father and son, or at school, between pupil and teacher.Bernstein sees the consideration of social structures necessary to recognise a code for each sentence, that is to say, he claims experimentally that there would be no code for any speech without taking into account the social structures (Moore, 2013).The semantic structures hidden or learned have a high place in his studies through social class language.Further to say, he struggles to put a distinction among patterns of speech which undergo social relationships and their underlying principles.The basic inference, here, puts an idea forward that if a regulative code such as an elaborated one emerges, the pattern of speech will change in a different way.On the other hand, the place of social class is a descriptive indicator of a specific social class, which is of paramount significance in Bernstein's studies.He furthers his research on family roles, social relationship among family members, dividing family social controls as positional and personal (1974).Although he makes a variety of dichotomies through his studies, it should be marked that his purpose alongside these dichotomies is to depict and analyse educational transmission by the pedagogic structure in school (1977).
Regulation of sociolinguistic features of habitus may well be analysed through the dichotomy of restricted and elaborated code, in which restricted code regulates the dominated working class' language and elaborated code fits in the dominating middle class' language of school.Decreasing the seven linguistic categories recognized by Halliday, Bernstein provides four functions in the social relationship, including as (1) regulative, (2) instructional, (3) inter-personal, and (4) imaginative.He confirms that each of these functions takes place at a specific social frame.One important concept described by Bernstein is that there is a regulative code lying beyond the four-mentioned categories.It can be claimed, however theoretically, that the pedagogic device delineated by Bernstein paves the way for tracking habitus' perceptions, particularly its language dimension and resistance toward pedagogy.Habitus and its conceptions are considered through the dominating middle-class language with its symbolic violence on working class pupils in Bourdieu's study.On the other hand, analysing habitus' linguistic conceptions can also be looked through Bernstein's speech codes in two broad fashions by which habitus would be formed through a dominating code of middle class, and consequently, another type of habitus would emerge: dominated habitus of working class.From this conclusion, dominated social groups at schools, analysed by Bourdieu (1977), presumably apply the restricted code, and their language develops in a less transparent way than those whose grammar carries more structural colours.Figure 1 summarises the role of code in accordance with two forms of habitus.

Regulative elaborated code
Elaborated speech variant through dominating habitus Regulative restricted code Restricted speech variant in dominated habitus Considering the semantic aspects of sociality within family and school, Bernstein divides language patterns through two lenses, first, family as institutional (macro), second, school(micro), and believes that the codes are produced and reproduced in the bed of these two agencies.Regarding this idea, it can be supposed firmly that habitus regulates itself through the codes.The restricted code regulates the speech variants by common interests which are predictable, implicit and lack subjectivity, which is opposite to the elaborated code.In terms of sociolinguistics, children of the middle class are able to use both elaborated and restricted code; however, children of working class have the control only based on restricted code (Bernstein, 1974).The social inequality mentioned by Bernstein (1974) refers to the idea that while middle class children apply elaborated, independent code with a purpose in educational system, children of working class use a restricted, dependent code.The restricted code acts selectively on words in a way that before any word to be used by its user, it goes through the social value filter (1974).That is to say, it is the structure of family which determines which language should be spoken.The language of less formally organized family of working class is public, tangible and non-verbal.Thus, the public language of working class family starts resisting against the formal educational language of school which is a product of middle-class family, the dominating structure which Bourdieu mentions in his study (1977).Generally speaking, what Bernstein explains and dichotomises in his first work (1974) is the social effect on language, behaviour and consequently on perceptions.The problem caused by working-class child against formal language of educational knowledge originates from the fact that the public language is grammatically simple, lexically more limited than elaborated code of teacher and middle-class children.The public language, with the restricted code regulating it, lacks the objectification and impersonality of the third person (Bernstein, 1974).This code has a legitimacy which moves to and back between mother and her child, pupil and teacher in an unreasonable way, that is to say, illogical distribution of power.However, the authority dominating on social relationship among middle-class groups is logically developed (Bernstein, 1974).Thus, habitus can be categorized for both working-class with their lack of subjectivity, self and lexicon and middle class with an elaboration of lexicon, subjectivity and independence from the context.Taking into consideration of what Bourdieu explains as the domination of middle class at school where cultural reproduction takes place (1977), it seems that one of the fundamental aspects of cultural domination happens through the language of elaboration, simply enough to pinpoint the idea that the elaborated code of both middle class and formal educational language used at school work in a parallel way through their habitus.Accordingly, it is of importance to claim that any change in social structures can bring about changes in communicative models since social relations form their own specific models.
Moreover, every social context brings about its own specific language, and consequently its specific social control.This is the social control which is imposed on individual's habitus and its perceptive development, which paves the way for its resistance.Further to say, this is the social context which contextualizes a specific form of language and consequently provides the dominating, dominated classes, and guides habitus through the social context of knowledge and practice.Configuration of codes as restricted with implicit, particularistic speech variants and elaborated with explicit, universalistic speech variants is a lens by which the complexity of habitus can be explained by researchers working in the field of educational knowledge.From this sharp distinction, it is generally acceptable that Bourdieu and Bernstein would like to depict the same discontinuity.As regards the first, there is a symbolic violence committed on working class, and for the second, there is a cultural disconnection between school and working-class child through communications and code (Bernstein, 1974).How different forms of communication emerge within social relations and how a particular form of social relation selects consciously a particular form of language is of importance to Bernstein.It is held, by Bernstein (1974), that a variety of social relations create different linguistic codes.Nonetheless, the way a pupil applies linguistic codes in a social relation with his teacher is different from the one used in relation with his family.One of the answers to the criticism made by Bourdieu against the cultural reproduction can be found in the idea that restricted code of working class is not able to handle with the dominating language of schools which is elaborated and matched with the code of middle class.Generally, Bernstein sees plausible the idea of integration, rather than imposition, of the structure and meaning of the school within working class arena.As a simplified solution for this part, bringing social class culture into the school culture with its dominating pattern of elaboration may well be suited for habitus of working class children.Simply enough, habitus can be specialised in a sociolinguistic way into one category of combined form of elaborated and the developing integration of restricted code into elaboration.Although it seems highly abstract that this integration can only work in a thematic way, it should not be forgotten that the general educational level of families, either middle class or working class are on the way of increase in comparison with the past.

Pedagogic device as a regulator of habitus
The pedagogic device depicted by Bernstein can provide us with a tool to trace and understand relationally how habitus, collective identity of pupils' dispositions, is structured, relayed through classification and frames of knowledge contents in educational transmission.First, knowledge is selected, classified, then distributed and finally evaluated through rituality of exams.Through this sequence, the principles of social control and power are managed.The educational knowledge refers to fundamental principles which have power to form curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation.Bernstein proposes that the form of this educational knowledge depends on social principles.In order to analyse the transmission of educational knowledge, Bernstein uses two distinct but interrelated categories, classification and frame.Furthermore, Bernstein categorises two forms of open and closed curriculum (1977).Whereas open curriculum is classified when the subjects of study are relationally juxtaposed within each other, closed curriculum's contents are isolated and next to each other.Drawing attention to the socialization in educational transmission by Bernstein (1977), it seems quite reasonable to maintain that habitus socialises itself in educational transmission conducted by teachers and the whole educational system.As an example, the new terms such counter-habitus, averageness are in relation with individuals' dispositions toward the social field (Stahl, 2015).However, it is necessary to make this point that habitus and its relationship with curriculum and evaluative system has not been taken into a careful consideration.It can be claimed generally that this is the educational knowledge which regulates the structure of experience and forms of an individual or collective habitus, and resistance against itself or even the symbolic violence.Symbolic violence, conformity, and counter-habitus (Stahl, 2015) are formed within the educational transmission.The structure of educational knowledge and its transmission have that power which reproduces culture and legitimates the control declared by Bourdieu (1977).A further question which needs detailed consideration is that how pupils and teachers react against each other and form their own perceptions within and between the classification and framing.
Taking into account Bernstein's macro factors' impact on pupil, it would not be far from a conclusion that these four basic macro factors as family, age, school and "occupational fate" affect habitus of child relationally (1977).It is also plausible that by juxtaposing habitus within the structure of transmission through the expressive and instrumental orders, habitus' formation and its conceptions can be recognised in a detailed manner.Through transmission structure, especially the instrumental order, and dividing learners into different groups, teachers are also divided, subjects of study are distributed among learners and finally occupational fates are determined.Furthermore, by considering the expressive order (Bernstein, 1977) as a conceptual tool for understanding pupils' behaviour,and the binding role of expressive order with its focus on moral, and conduct, habitus takes a form of a collective being at school.
Habitus as a social process, having an identity of being individual and collective, is mobilised through "inside pedagogy" which provides an objective knowledge.What makes leaner's' habitus complicated is that it is surrounded by its peers, family, and the educational knowledge (figure 2).Habitus may be well considered in its relations within educational transmission, the structure of pedagogic discourse, and the relations to education.Broadly categorising, habitus has the potentiality to be visible through its place in the social field, in this case, school and family, and time "units" (Bernstein, 1977).The way by which learners' habitus conceptualises itself through the ± classification and ± frame of educational knowledge needs to be explained in the field of education.By the strong classification and framing in the collection type of curriculum, proposed by Bernstein, it is understandable that habitus can be classified, and symbolic violence would exert its power on learner through visible, elaborated pedagogy.In this case, counter-habitus (Stahl, 2015) and a form of resistance can simultaneously emerge.However, through weak classification and weak framing, habitus would probably be more permeable to the knowledge formation through socialising.Nonetheless, bringing cultural capital of social class to the social field of educational transmission is an idea which is supported by Bourdieu (1977).Theories of learning refer to socializers, and "interrupters" since, in accordance with the classificatory system of education, socialisers are mobilised with visible or invisible frames (Bernstein, 1977).Bernstein holds that the invisible forms of pedagogy, first starting at pre-school, can be seen in different schools and maintains that, for instance, art education with its strong classification at the primary level, has a tendency toward an integrated code with an invisible pedagogy (1977).Given Bernstein's lens, habitus undergoes educational transmission in two ways, character development with expressive order, and formal learning of skills with instrumental order.Through instrumentalism of learning, habitus would probably objectify itself consciously, visibly and invisibly at the same time.Collective habitus would divide itself through social agents in accordance with the instrumental order into individual habitus at higher levels of educational transmission.At the final process of classification of contents and frames, habitus will have been divided into different social classes of engineers, teachers, artists and so on.While collective habitus of social platforms bind together its social agents, individual habitus will deconstruct this binding by providing a different language to verticality of knowledge.A very basic outline of collective habitus regarding the social agents is given in figure 2: Habitus and its relational disposition with social agencies I propose that both collective and individual habitus are formed through these codes and ask if pupils form the looked-for desire of teachers or their own.Are two forms of habitus, one for pupils, the other for teachers, against each other or complementary?Accordingly, when the degree of instrumental order goes up, this binding power of habitus loses its sociality by children who tend to choose an "anti-school manner" (Bernstein, 1977).It is worth noting that the cultural reproduction may occur much more through the instrumental order rather than the expressive order.After being recognized by children, the expressive and instrumental orders take the shape of rituality, thus habitus, either individual or collective, repeats its being ritually through school.
These rituals have power to cause alienation for some groups of children as Bernstein holds that exams as ritual activities contribute to alienation of less able students (1977).Division of pupils into successful, unsuccessful, abled and disabled, rewarded and unrewarded forms a kind of alienation which can be interpreted as symbolic violence with the complicity of collective habitus.Another conflict emerging between school and society refers to the different values that each of these categories produce.While the rituality requires a stable form, social classes change alongside the newly created concepts of education and market.As an example, the digital world has made a social field for the practice of habitus.A digital form of social practice has its own role in making habitus go in a plethora of ways especially for researchers (Costa, 2015).With all the changes occurring in societies, it can be said that the only ritual, which is celebrated constantly by individuals, is the ritual of change.Broadly speaking,

Peers Contents Teachers
Policy Capital education itself and its structure of transmission play the role of habitus and its identity formation.This structural experience takes place within cultural transmission.
One important question regarding the transmission of knowledge at school is that whether by adjusting classification and framing, and making them weak or strong through different contingencies depicted by Bernstein, it would be possible to reduce the inequalities at school.As Bernstein explains in his work (1977), strong framing restricts teacher from getting mobilized to other topics, consequently, content lacks social reality, the social reality which is between peers and pupil and his family.

Grammaticality as a theory of knowledge for development of habitus
The classification of knowledge, through its specialized contents, started by Bacon (Gilead, 2014;Bernstein, 1977;Muller, 2006).Bernstein proposes and explains two kinds of knowledge structure, first, horizontal and vertical, second grammaticality.The horizontal one is general, theoretical and combinatory, and vertical one has different "languages" and is asymmetric.The vertical theory is Descartesi an pure one which is also holistic.The verticality of pure knowledge formation occurs alongside the holistic and other descriptive languages.(Muller, 2006).The verticality of knowledge is divided into two forms of pure knowledge with its practicum, and one-dimensional structure with its origin in positivism.On the other hand, the grammatical knowledge is related to external world and experiences (1977).Although Bernstein does not reject the method proposed by Descartes' approach so as to reach a "pure knowledge", he also proposes that the underlying principles in social relations should be taken into consideration in developing theory of knowledge (1977).From drawing demarcation between sociolinguistic variants toward differentiating and Baconian knowledge stratifications in the bed of Durkheimian categorization of social classes, Bernstein maps the structure of knowledge transmission by resorting to two concepts of classification and frame (1977; 1990).In a parallel way, Bernstein confirms the "classical" theory forms through verticality in a hierarchical manner but also gives the idea that research experiences can be considered through "weak grammar" in developing theory (Moore).A question which can be raised here is that what will happen to an individual's habitus by changing the form of knowledge transmission and how it is possible to define habitus in accordance with the form of educational knowledge.I propose that a specific language requires a specific conscious format and consequently a specific habitus.Dispositions produced by habitus of both individual and social class as a whole, whether working class or middle class, are classified according to the theory of knowledge categorised by classification and frame depicted by Bernstein.It seems plausible that for any specific type of knowledge, there should be a unique pedagogy of teaching with an eye on social habitus and grammatical knowledge.The basic conflict emerging here comes from the encounter of individuals' social habitus with the form of educational transmission.Teachers as contextualizing agents working for the transmission of vertical knowledge stand against pupils' economic, linguistic, perceptive habitus.Labelling the acquired knowledge in school by learners as worthless (Stahl, 2015) may probably have the idea, proposed by Bernstein, that the knowledge chosen from a variety of fields such physics, chemistry by teachers lacks the logic of knowledge structure, thus pupil does not learn the logic of knowledge (1977).Bernstein puts forward the example of research-based knowledge in the field of physics and holds that the social physics is different from research-based physics (1977).It can be interpreted that pupils' habitus is social and not epistemic.It seems that at a very high level of abstract concepts of educational contents, the collection code is replaced with the integrated one (Bernstein, 1977).
In fact, there are two broad topics which need to be explained here.The first topic proposes a scientific objective category which is relationally classified through educational transmission.The second category is of externality related to social classes with a variety of basis which is subjective (Bourdieu, 1977).It can be generally concluded that the conflict occurs when these two categories come face to face.In other words, two forms of pedagogy can be noticed through educational transmission: formal collection pedagogy, and habitus-based pedagogy.Thus, as Bourdieu proposes there is a need to use simultaneously the knowledge of even that least educated researcher and "pre-scientific world" and the mere scientific data (1977).Moreover, the consideration of habitus and its dispositions, whether of teachers or learners, and its integration toward knowledge transmission structure seems relatively important to reduce the "counter-habitus" in formal education process.

An interdisciplinary pedagogy using knowledge theory of Bernstein and habitus
Bernstein holds that only two topics, the knowledge transmission and its evaluation, should be considered by sociologist of education (1977).He draws a distinctive line between two types of curriculum as collection and integrated one (1977).The collection type separates the contents from each other through units of time.However, in an integrated type, the contents are related to each other, teachers are in relation with each other and pupils have a larger space to move.The horizontal relation of topics, sometimes with grammaticality, that is to say, by experiences, sometimes analytically contribute to the formation of an interdisciplinary pedagogy.In this case, the collective habitus of educational knowledge makes itself adjust to the pedagogy of inter-disciplines.At lower levels of primary and secondary education, the interdisciplinary knowledge is hidden through the collection type, but at higher education, it is already differentiated and synthesized.
It is proposed that there would be an interdisciplinary knowledge which is "supra-content" covering social sciences and engineering sciences.Through this potential occurrence of knowledge transmission, the questions such as which contents should take priority and how they can be formed start to emerge.(Bernstein, 1977).One specific topic of knowledge has to resort to another field, whether by giving examples or simply changing the field analytically, the topic of interdisciplinary pedagogy would emerge automatically by teacher or educational system.The current teacher does not consider deeply any specific field of study because there is a "supra-idea" flying over the topic which is related to other fields (Bernstein, 1977).It is clear to notice that there has been an applied movement through unique disciplines toward interdisciplinary subjects.Interdisciplinary subjects such as "mathematical finance", "plasma physics", "quantitative psychology" ,a few to name, are an indicator to delineate a new form of knowledge transmission structure that can at least be delineated for secondary schools.Accordingly, the integrated code provides learner with a relational and common pedagogy to create a new form of knowledge (Bernstein, 1977).In this case, pedagogy would be divided into the learner pedagogy and teacher pedagogy.While teacher chooses which topic should be transferred and how, learner selects what topic and how it should be learned.From what Bernstein explained in his work, the educational research can be conducted pedagogically better through a weak classification and frame than strong classification.(1977).Furthermore, Bernstein provides a division of middle class, based on Durkheim's analysis of labour, into a new middle and an old one, proposing that the new middle class shows and desires for having an invisible pedagogy (1977).The new middle class with an organic solidarity and its extensively different subjects requires differentiated social roles, consequently, pedagogy might be an interdisciplinary one, and rules would be blurred through integrated type.Thus, both collective and individual habitus will move together interdependently.I have struggled to provide a draft for an interdisciplinary pedagogy for educational transmission using Bernstein's knowledge code and habitus through four steps in figure 3. The interdisciplinary pedagogy can be varied through "weak grammar of knowledge" toward strong vertical and hierarchical knowledge through habitus' development.

More recent studies on Bernstein's and Bourdieu's works
Recently there has been a large number of papers on both Bourdieu's theory, covering a variety of topics including relations within job sites (Schneidhofer et al. 2015); formation of migrants' individualistic tendency (Samaluk 2015) ; organization and management ( Nikolopoulos et al. 2015); reflexivity theory (Brummans 2015) ; power struggles ( Hamadache 2015), power relations in regard with gender equality (Hofbauer et al. 2015); the field and doxa (Taksa et al. 2015) ; epistemology in research methods (Rawolle and Lingard 2013;Green 2013); critical theory and the Frankfurt Ecole (Gartman 2013) ; practical forms of theory (Grenfell et al. 2005), and Bernstein's code (Establet 2011;Davis 2011;Daniels 2011;Maton 2011;Muller 2011;Moore 2006;Hugo 2006;Arnot et al. 2006;Power 2006;Ivinson et al. 2006) .The practicability of the theories and concepts in education these sociologists provided is clearly obvious.Indeed it is definitely impossible to consider all the works done in regard with Bourdieu's and Bernstein's works in one paper, however, I try to put forward few works of some recent researches in this sub-field of education.
One of the studies done regarding Bernstein's heritage is that of Arnot and Reay (2006).They applied the clause of "yet to be voiced" which was mentioned by Bernstein (1990) as a process of socialization in the context of classroom wherein pupils' voice starts to emerge.Here, the distinction is emphasised between "voice sociology "and "sociology of pedagogic voices", the former referring to the voice of oppressed groups and the latter comes from the reactions to the rules in the pedagogy.Having conducted their research on collective and individual pupils' voices and discussed on the potential implications of pupils' voice on teaching, Arnot and Reay (2006) made a dichotomy between social identity and pedagogic one, gathering pupils' perspectives on the relationship with teacher.This study can pave the way for consulting pupils and also have psychosocial value in educational planning and is of useful tangible clues for teacher training.Another study conducted in relation with that of Bernstein's concepts of framing is by Power (2006) who investigated the relationship between the education system and social institutions, particularly the identity relationship between new and old groups of middle class.Comparing Bernstein's identity classification including " decentred, retrospective, and prospective (1996) with her findings out of study on biographical data of 300 young women and men in the UK, Power (2006) found out that Bernstein's framework and classification of identity rarely matches to her data configuration.While Power (2006) admits and contradicts, based on her data, Bernstein's classificatory system, she also puts forward the necessity of making more and different classification of identity.On the other hand, Ivinson and Duveen (2006) did a research on recontextualizing of pedagogy on children, and took under consideration two concepts of classification and framing in three schools, resorting to Bernstein's tools.According to their findings, the views seem go hand in hand with those of Bernstein's.In their study, they developed the competence model standing for weak classification and framing, and the performance model takes the form of strong classification and frame.
Finally, one of the papers written over Bernstein's work is of an epistemological and metaphorical importance by Hugo (2006), who struggles to make a parallel line between Plato's view of knowledge and hierarchical manifestation of knowledge by Bernstein. Hugo (2006) resembles the Symposium and the Republic (Plato: quoted by Hugo 2006) to hierarchical knowledge of pedagogy of Bernstein, depicting an imaginary curriculum for pupil who should take a journey from outer world into an inner world and reaching a higher grasp of knowledge.

Discussion
The rejection of organisational theories by Bernstein is because of their isolated approach to topics such as culture, personal expectations and individual.Organisational theories do not take into account the "inside voice" of pedagogy: "I was not very hopeful of the possibilities of applying organizational theory to schools, and I wanted to develop a different approach which placed at the centre of the analysis the principles of transmission and their embodiment in structures of social relationships".(Bernstein, 2003, p. 3) Another criticism related to the organisational theories is that they do not regard the positional role of families in forming children's behaviour.Whether families should know about the means and ends of educational transmission code is a topic which undergoes a fair analyse through contingency-based dichotomies in Bernstein's work (1977).
Next criticism which can be made against organisational theories is that they do not consider whether or not families are aware of curriculum subjects, the means used for knowledge transmission, and the expressive moral order.The institutionalizing structure of elaborated codes within school and the inter-relationship of symbolic orders with their distribution of power and consequently the topic of control form the process of educational transmission and its evaluation in Bernstein's study.Another problem which needs to be clarified is the differentiation of pupils based on their abilities and the autonomy of schools and teachers versus the market.The movement toward differentiated, elaborated, and individualized schools and changing stratified schools to pluralistic identity (Bernstein), alongside the insufficient physical place for learners makes habitus move to an identity which is extremely economic, occupational.Finally, all these concepts may come to this point that there is a need to reconsider pluralism and individualism so as to keep the system of transmission folding and unfolding, stable and changed in order to track habitus.Bernstein mentions that every educational experience is controlled by pupil (1974).The pupil who acts selectively based on his/her habitus.It can be suggested that in order to understand pedagogic device, three fundamental fields of study should be regarded carefully, first the emerging social theories such critical theory, progressive education and the science philosophy.Without having a holistic, universalistic consideration of the individual thinking patterns, and social structures among families, there would be an uncompleted map in the field of pedagogy whether it refers to inside or outside factors.All the dichotomies explained by Bernstein in his system of thoughtcan track habitus' evolvement through social field with practices and knowledge.Again, it seems that inequalities with sharp social, communicative, and capital distinction will be on the way of being blurred by the integration code which can act as an intermediary tool running through pupils and teachers.In a clarifying manner, Bernstein sheds light on the internal organization of the school when he criticises the compensatory education with its axis on the families and children, declaring that there is not a lack in the family or children of working class (1974).He continues that labelling children as "culturally deprived" brings about the neglect of working class families.Needless to mention that there is a need to tap into the paradoxical dimensions on liberal system of education with its tendency toward individualism in comparison with the regulative power of pedagogy as a "device" imposed by the state and school itself.
It seems that the integration of these two sociologists' concepts can be of importance for educating pupil as a whole being and not as a fragmented entity scattered through educational transmission.What is of significance to Bernstein's and Bourdieu's education works relies on two factors of external and internal voice of pedagogy which play their own specific roles in forming an identity which takes a journey through the beaten track of education.Simply enough, Elimination of inequalities as a result of reproduction of the education field explained by Bourdieu might be realized by taking into consideration the frame, concepts, and knowledge "ladder" proposed by Bernstein.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Speech codes in accordance with cultural reproduction of habitus

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.Interdisciplinarycurriculum in accordance with knowledge theory and habitus