Key contemporary sociological theorists, such as Foucault or Habermas rarely explicitly discussed gender in their studies. This fact has not caused a lack of interest in the critical examination of the theoretical systems of these authors within a feminist perspective. During the 1990?s feminists? attention was drawn to Pierre Bourdieu?s social theory. French sociologist?s study Masculine Domination deals with issues of gender dynamics and its reproduction. In this study the persistence of the asymmetric distribution of social power between women and (...) men is explained by concepts of habitus and symbolic violence. As this article will show, social change cannot be explained by Bourdieu?s concept of habitus, as a key link between social structure and action, due to its reduction of actors to socialized bodies, which are practically deprived of any true action potential. On the other hand, with regard to social activism as a permanent feature of feminist theory, this paper seeks to examine whether critical examination of Bourdieu?s conceptual apparatus achieves to provide the means to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings of the theoretical system of French sociologist. In other words, this article seeks to answer the question whether such a modification of habitus is possible, which will allow for actors whose action is truly structured and structuring, and lead to possible change of existing power relations. Kljucni mislioci savremene socioloske teorije, poput Fukoa ili Habermasa, u svojim studijama su, uopsteno govoreci, retko kad eksplicitno razmatrali pitanja drustvenog polozaja zena ili roda. Ova cinjenica nije uslovila izostanak interesovanja za kriticko preispitivanje teorijskih sistema ovih autora unutar feministicke perspektive. Tokom devedesetih godina proslog veka paznju feministicke teorije privlaci delo Pjera Burdijea. Francuski sociolog se pitanjima rodne dinamike i njene reprodukcije bavi u svojoj studiji Masculine Domination. Na tom mestu istrajavanje asimetricne raspodele drustvene moci kojom raspolazu zene, odnosno muskarci, objasnjeno je, pre svega, pojmovima habitusa i simbolickog nasilja. Kao sto ce ovaj tekst pokazati, Burdijeovim konceptom habitusa, kao kljucnom sponom izmedju drustvene strukture i delanja, nije moguce objasniti drustvenu promenu usled svodjenja aktera na kruto socijalizovana tela, prakticno lisenih istinskog delatnog potencijala. Sa druge strane, s obzirom na drustveni aktivizam kao trajne odlike feministicke teorije, nastoji se ispitati da li je kriticko preispitivanje Burdijeovog konceptualnog aparata uspelo da pruzi sredstva za prevazilazenje pomenutih nedostataka teorijskog sistema francuskog sociologa. Drugim recima, ovim tekstom se pokusava dati odgovor na pitanje da li je moguca takva modifikacija pojma habitusa koja ce omoguciti postajanje aktera cije je delanje istinski strukturisano i strukturisuce, cime moze voditi promeni postojecih odnosa moci. (shrink)