Mediatized semiosis and power: interfaces for thinking about algorithmic means and platforms 211 On the other hand, Bourdieu has, with Piaget, the understanding of habitus as cognition, that is, forms of intuition, perception, schemes, and systems of thought, not necessarily conscious. In Bordieu, those schemes and structures, conscious and unconscious, are, at the same time, classifications of the so- cial, socially constructed. They are structured and structuring structures, subjective, investigated for decades by Bourdieu, relating to economic, cultural, and political conditions (objectively observable fields) of agents and institutions. By relating these conditions (fields) and the habitus, Bourdieu updates, at the same time, the Marxist and Weberian heritage. With this, Bour- dieu broke with existentialist phenomenology, especially Sartre, and, at the same time, by developing the genetic perspective, with the structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, and Saussure, seeking evidence that everyday life is not a space of infinite de- grees of freedom, but neither it is a simple execution of social structure I s t . s formulation suggests habitus as inventive, creative, improvising, even in the context of social fields and their constraints, through successive adaptation processes (and not just assimilation and accommodation to these). This epistemologi- cal differentiation will also be about the relation between “pure” interactionism, which disregards the schemes, structures, and social systems that condition and induce the reproduction of so- cial relations (BOURDIEU, 2004, p. 157). *** The second justification for the inclusion of Bourdieu in the interfaces relates to the question of power, according to the social theory approach. Bourdieu’s main proposition, in the perspective under construction, is the understanding of the symbolic as a space for classifying social struggles, allowing for an intelligibility of social phenomena marked by conflict. This proposition accompanies his studies. In a dialogue that we suggest with the previous perspectives (Peirce and Lacan), there is a diversity of beliefs, according to the social habitus, situated in relation to the fields, where the cultural, economic, and political capitals of individuals (agents, in the Bourdian conceptualiza-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz