Corporatising school leadership through hysteresis

Abstract This article builds on the established notion that schools are hierarchised through policy, accruing different amounts and types of symbolic capital, by examining how this is reflected in the habitus of the leaders of new, privileged school types. The article uses Bourdieu’s concept of hysteresis, or a dislocation between the habitus which formerly produced success in the field and the habitus currently necessary following changes in field conditions. Using crafted narrative accounts from two headteachers, I argue that rather than simply being an effect of change, hysteresis may be an actively sought outcome whereby the state intervenes in a field – education – to deprivilege welfarist leaders and privilege corporatised leaders through structurally facilitating their habitus and mandating its dispositions for the field. However, insofar as deprivileged actors may draw strength and an identity from rejecting corporatisation, the concept of hysteresis must be extended to include notions of agentic dissidence.


Introduction
For contemporary leaders in English schools, the field conditions that structure their practice and identities are increasingly corporatised (Courtney 2015a;Thomson 2005). Some demonstrate the ability and desire to position themselves advantageously by playing the new game following these rules, or lead schools whose characteristics are conducive to the accumulation of further capital (Coldron et al. 2014). However, for others, their dissonant embodied histories produce dispositions out of sync with those privileged in a corporatised education landscape.
In this article I draw on Bourdieu's concept of hysteresis to explain and theorise this disjuncture between the welfarist (Gewirtz 2002) school leader's embodied dispositions, or habitus, and those of the corporatised school leader. Gewirtz (2002) called this form new managerialist: my term reflects the shift in leadership from a managerialist technology to a set of practices and policy dispositions located in private-sector networks with corporate objectives for education concerning, for example, economic productivity (Apple 2004). I argue that the corporate habitus increasingly confers advantage in an educational leadership field which has been moved on through policy, and I explain through employing Bourdieu's hysteresis how these corporate values and practices misalign with and subordinate those of the welfarist leader who is left behind.
The relationship between these school leaders' histories and the alignment or otherwise of their habitus with current field conditions is not coincidental; capital in this new world is accruing for those accustomed to having it. Indeed, field conditions purposively represent their preferred and habitual practices and dispositions, which privilege or invoke innovation, autonomy and privatisation. To make these arguments and explain this dissonance in school leaders' habitus, I analyse data in the form of two crafted narratives from a study of school leaders in neoliberal times. I have drawn on Bourdieu (for example, 1990aBourdieu (for example, , 1990bBourdieu (for example, , 1998 because his theoretical toolkit enables new and insightful perspectives on the nature of and interplay between structure and school leaders' agency (see, for example, Gunter 2012; Thomson 2010).
I am using and developing Bourdieu's concept of hysteresis because this speaks directly to the phenomenon of transition as rupture that characterises how the field of educational leadership has been changed through 30 years of reform. My use of hysteresis allows me to make two important and original contributions to the field: first, empirical -in thinking through data to illuminate and theorise the way in which conditions are imposed upon the field through policy to benefit those already in possession of symbolic capital as entrepreneurial, corporatised school leaders. The second is theoretical: through these imposed field changes, I argue that hysteresis is no longer simply an effect of an out-of-sync habitus; it is the state's desired outcome for those it seeks to de-privilege through its agentic reproduction of unequal power structures and reinforcement of neoliberal ideology. Further, the concept is here expanded to include notions of the dissenting habitus, adopted as a source of identification and as a resource for leadership values. I use the case of England to illuminate a global shift from welfare state to corporatised conceptualisations of school leadership, with similar neoliberal reforms taking place from Sweden (West 2014) to Australia (Eacott 2011).

Bourdieu's concepts of field, habitus and hysteresis
Bourdieu conceptualised social space as semi-autonomous, hierarchised fields, each being understood: … as a field of forces, whose necessity is imposed on agents who confront each other, with differentiated means and ends according to their position in the structure of the field of forces, thus contributing to conserving or transforming its structure. (1998,32) Whilst social agents may be commonly invested in a particular field, their aims and the capital they possess to prosecute those aims differ; the field is not a site, but 'relations of power and struggle' (Bourdieu 1990b, 87; emphasis added) constituting structures which reflect 'the successful strategies deployed by field participants in their struggles to use their accumulated capital … to occupy desirable positions within the field' (Hardy 2008, 138). These structures in turn produce dispositions to enact agency and think in certain ways; these dispositions are embodied in social actors as habitus. The field is consequently a product and producer of habitus; a reifier of historical positions and provider of tools for navigating the future, or a 'generative and unifying principle which retranslates the intrinsic and relational characteristics of a position into a unitary lifestyle, that is, a unitary set of choices of persons, goods, practices' (Bourdieu 1998, 8).
Fields are consequently in constant flux, transformable not just by the success of agents' strategies within them to gain positional advantage and/or more capital, or by material changes within the field owing to, for example, demographics or new technologies (Thomson 2008), but also by changes deriving from beyond the field. For instance, Bourdieu's field theory has been used to explain the domination of the education by the economic field in sites internationally, where neoliberal policies structure understandings of educator and educational leader (for example, Rawolle 2005;Thomson 2005Thomson , 2010. What is illuminated in such moments of field synchronicity, or breach, is how habitus formed in the corporate field provides a template and resource through embodiment and discourse for school leaders' habitus in the educational. School leaders' practices and identities deriving from this corporate habitus are privileged through, inter alia, policy texts, legal structures and discourse. The corporate habitus is also privileged by the mere fact of its promulgation by the already capitalised. Not all school leaders possess sufficient capital 'to recognize (or assert) the desirability of new field positions' (Hardy 2008, 130). As Bourdieu notes: 'it is the people who are richest in economic capital, cultural capital and social capital who are the first to head for new positions ' (1996, 262). Along with symbolic capital, Bourdieu understood that these forms of capital are exchangeable, where the bearers of what is arbitrarily deemed 'superior' in each, and which are only so as a product not a producer of these bearers' advantage, influence the exchange rate between them and maintain their distinction through reproducing materially and discursively their objective distinction by means of symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2010), whereby the dominated misrecognise their subaltern status as the way things should be, or doxa. The privileged dispositions of those endowed with capital lead to their engaging in practices, in what appears to be a natural way, that further benefit them. Therefore not only do they demonstrate a feel for the game through taking advantage of currently advantageous field positions, like certain of the 'well-positioned headteachers' in the study by Coldron et al. (2014), but they 'master in a practical way the future of the game' (Bourdieu 1998, 80) through establishing structural conditions for future capital accumulation from which they particularly will benefit. Field conditions may also be changed by the state through law or policy, or by new technologies, where the newly disadvantaged may include even those who previously had the most highly valued symbolic capital (Hardy 2008).
This process highlights how the field is advanced in ways that disadvantage players in the game whose capital is insufficient or (newly) insufficiently valorised. The de-privileged habitus is left chronologically stranded, its dispositions out of sync with the new rules. Bourdieu called this effect hysteresis, where 'the relative values of symbolic capitals are altered and the interactions between field structures and habitus are dislocated' (Hardy 2008, 138). Although used relatively infrequently, hysteresis has proved a productive theoretical tool for exploring the intersection of policy, power relations, practices, identities and values. For instance, McDonough and Polzer (2012, 357) employ it to theorise the effect of a regional state policy-induced change in the 'taken-for-granted ways of being' of unionised public-sector employees in Canada, where, as here, newly privileged or mandated practices derive from a neoliberal reform agenda. Kerr and Robinson (2009) challenge scholars to foreground agency when theorising with hysteresis, as in their examination of Ukrainian workers actively seeking homologies between their outmoded habitus and that required in the shift to western-style corporatisation. It is no coincidence that both of these examples are locatable within a wider set of changes conceptualised collectively through globalisation, where, according to Thomson (2005), the economic, political and media fields are implicated in successive crises producing more or less coherent responses in policy and ideology, and which inevitably provide a challenge to those habitus formed under different conditions. McDonough and Polzer's (2012) and Kerr and Robinson's (2009) insights into how actors understand and locate their agency and also how power structures are reproduced through state action enable my claim here that hysteresis is not just an effect of dislocated habitus, but may constitute a desired outcome through symbolic violence.

The corporatisation of education and its leadership
Education is a field experiencing particularly intense flux. Along with much of the public sector, education is being rapidly corporatised in England and internationally (Eacott 2011;West 2014) through ideologically neoliberal policies responding to crises in what Clarke and Newman (1997) have identified as the post-war political-economic, social and organisational welfare settlements. New corporate actors are taking on the responsibility for -and indirectly the profits from -providing, resourcing, servicing and governing in educational institutions; and co-constructing and delivering curricula and learning experiences deemed crucial to developing students' preparedness for the 'real world' of business (Ball 2007;Courtney 2015a). Much of this 'modernisation' has taken place through the vehicle of leadership: headteachers have been responsible for ensuring the local delivery of reforms in return for higher status and pay (Gunter 2012). This is easier to achieve where heads are believers; consequently, corporate actors increasingly have ownership of the modes of leadership preparation and development through, for instance, privileged corporate charities such as Teach First and Teaching Leaders, where corporate values such as entrepreneurialism are espoused. This turn to corporatism in leadership is discursive as well as embodied: it is communicated to school leaders through normative texts and research commissioned by what is presently known as the National College for Teaching and Leadership (Gunter 2012). It is also institutionalised, in two principal ways: first, successful headteachers may become Executive Heads or CEOs following mergers or acquisitions; and second, they may lead new types of school, based on the academy model, whereby corporatism is institutionalised through, for example, new governance arrangements with corporate sponsors and/or trust partners, independence from the local authority, and freedom from statutory obligations concerning staff pay, conditions and, under the Coalition and Conservative Governments, teaching qualifications. Success in the field is increasingly corresponding structurally and discursively with the leadership of one of these new types of independent state school, including free schools. It is no coincidence that these are 'independent': their model is the independent, fee-paying sector where a successful and long-standing private structure and ethos are integral to its usefulness as a normative construct (Gunter 2015).

The study
The findings presented here are part of a wider study into school leadership at a time of system diversity, competition and flux. Between 2013 and 2014, I interviewed nine headteachers/principals of different types of school three times to understand how they conceptualised themselves as leaders and practised leadership in a fragmented 'system' functioning through technologies of corporatisation and competition. The three interviews had different foci: the leaders' professional biographies; what they thought it meant to do leadership in their particular type of school; and how they positioned their leadership in the wider landscape. This analysis draws on data generated in all of the interviews with two of these nine leaders. I selected Paul, the principal of a new free school, because this school type is the material product of the discursive innovativeness and entrepreneurialism of supply-side reform and so it is important to understand who is leading such schools and what that means. I selected Les over my two other maintained-school participants because the corporatising turn in leadership of all types of school that I have described elsewhere (see Courtney 2015a) is less pronounced in his case as the executive headteacher of a federation of special schools. Les's special-needs and disabled pupils are not susceptible to having value added to them in the manner of children in mainstream schools according to this discourse and so he retains a view of the purposes of education that is necessarily discursively dissonant. These two leaders represent opposing positions within the spectrum suggested over the nine headteachers/principals. I used a narrative approach to generating the data from the first round, because 'humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead storied lives' (Cooper and Heck 1995, 196) and consequently my invitation for participants to recount their biographies resulted in their attempts at sense-making, post hoc rationalisation and the creation of causal relationships between selected, chronologically meaningful events. In other words, they use plot as 'the narrative structure through which [they] understand and describe the relationship among the events and choices of their lives' (Polkinghorne 1995, 7). I have constructed narratives from the data of these two participants, following Polkinghorne's (1995) definition of narrative analysis (which he contrasts with the paradigmatic analysis of narratives). Their stories are re-presented to highlight the leaders' positioning in relation to a privileged discourse which idealises corporate, innovative leadership, and subjects that associated with 'bureaucratic' local authorities to 'discourses of derision' (Ball 1995, 260). I have altered some biographical details to protect the participants' anonymity whilst keeping the spirit and significance of the original. I have changed, too, the order of some utterances and added words to create a coherent, chronological story in the first person, thereby retaining the subjective foregrounding in the original. This method has antecedents in studies by, inter alia, Pepper and Giles (2015, 47), whom I follow in calling the result 'crafted narrative accounts' .

Les's story
I had quite a strange kind of upbringing, I guess. I was born in Glasgow, shipyards, all the rest of it. My dad was an engine fitter and he got a job working on pipelines for oilrigs, so we all set off for Europe. I went to primary school in Belgium and Holland and Germany, and my parents just sent us to the local public school. It was just a phenomenal decision to have made. I came back and did my secondary education back in Glasgow in a massive school. Exactly the same as the schools in later years I've taught in. In my year group, on today's measure of five or more A* to C with English and Maths, there were three of us who got it, and I'm still in contact with all three. And you know it was all very, very working class. Ah, but I saw everything. I saw some very, very good people who are my friends, but had all sorts of difficulties and backgrounds. So my school really was truly comprehensive. That kind of helped form my political philosophy. I nearly didn't get into university. My mother said, 'but I don't know why you want to do anyway; there's loads of jobs in the shipyard, just go down there. They'll give you a job tomorrow' . 'Yeah, OK' .
When I went into teaching I was all about the underdog, and so I chose to work in a very rough school. I stayed ten years there and progressed up to senior teacher. I knew that what I wanted to do was to stay with those kinds of children. But what happens when you're with those kind of children in those kind of areas, is, people come along and say, 'ooh, you're a rubbish school, let's close you' .
So anyway, that got closed.
Then there was a school in the east of the city which has its own little problems. By January, I was made an Assistant Head and by the following Christmas I was Deputy Head. In that school. And that's really what I wanted, because I was working with the children I wanted. So then I stayed there nine years, before they closed that one. Erm, and by that time, I was Acting Head. Then the Local Authority said, 'do you fancy working in this school?' What it was really a kind of multi-faith school. So I thought, yeah, that'll be quite interesting, I'll try it. Didn't like the idea of it being good for behaviour. Which it was. And I was going to provide some kind of, because they were going through amalgamation and all sorts of other things, just to provide some support for the leadership within school. So I signed up for a year. Loved the school. Loved the kids. Ended up being persuaded to stay for three years. And then at the end of that, just when we were settling in the new building, they said, 'will you come and, you know, do another year for us?' and I said 'nah, I've really got to get back to the kind of kids that I like' . You know, I love these kids, but I really like the kind of, the difficult ones. So, I said no, without a job to go to. And then I kind of just put it out there that I was looking for something. 'Cause you kind of build up links with people. And I had somebody rang me up and said, 'The Head of here was leaving, would I be interested in doing that?' So I've been here since September.
I attribute a lot of my career path to a teacher in that first job who said, 'your job is to civilise them' . I thought, 'who the hell do you think you are?' You know, were people saying that about me? You know, when I was at school? Because you had the whole lot. And people kind of mixed and did all those things that comprehensive education was about. So I think those two things linked, I kind of felt that I was on a mission, really. And I still do, with these kids. Because all of my children have a statement and a disability, you know, where the brain is not connected in the right way and they'll do some terrible things, but they're absolutely lovely children. And you know, my belief about society is, you know, I judge a society by how you treat people at the margins of it. And we don't treat them very well. I've always felt like the system's kind of, certainly back then, I think was, kind of stacked against those kids. I don't ever want to work in an academy. The idea that the local authority can't say, 'there's some need for some education, let's put a school there' to me is just bonkers. They have a role to monitor the quality of education but actually can't do anything about it, well, that's just, just doesn't make sense to me. The local authority's got these schools in this federation through a very, very difficult time. They've been extremely supportive financially and every other way. And it just would have been a nightmare for the kids. So much of what happens in academies is based around the sponsor's view of education. Well, what right have they got? So they have a particular view that does not coincide with mine. Fine. If mine doesn't coincide with the local authority, but the local authority has, you know, OK, they're not all elected members, but the elected members are in control of, and they're elected by the people. So they kind of set the tone of what they want. Academy sponsors are not accountable to anybody! Paul's story I went to the local bog-standard comprehensive school. It was a big school. Split site, with all the associated problems of a mixed community. When it came to A Levels, the Head of Sixth Form said 'Well, Paul would probably do well getting a couple of A Levels, but afterwards, he should get himself a local job, and that's probably his limit' . My parents, being ordinary middle-class people, accepted the teachers' judgement of my capacity. Ahm, I didn't. We had a huge showdown at home and I refused to go back to that school and went to the local FE [further education -post-compulsory] college. And that probably marks my turning point. Because I found myself sitting in A-Level classes with a single mum, who felt like education left her behind and wanted to start again. And I had a builder who wanted to do better as well. Sitting in that class made me realise that education wasn't a given, and I think I did better because of that. When my tutor suggested that I think about university, I naively said, 'well, if I'm going, I want to go where they do physics the best' . And he said, 'then it's Imperial College for you' . They offered me the next-best thing to an unconditional offer, so I went. Had a fantastic time. But when it was over, I suppose I fell into teaching. Thought that, you know, it was a profession, I respected teachers, my parents were from a background where you respected professionals, and teachers were professionals. So, yeah, did my PGCE in London. I loved teaching, I loved the classroom. I' d found what I wanted to do, which was brilliant. Got my first job. It wasn't inner-city London, but it's certainly right on the edges; we had gang culture outside the school gates. It was a Catholic school, so we had kids doing Ouija boards in the sacred school hall, and the local priest doing his nut cause he then had to re-sanctify the hall. I got slightly restless, so I moved from there, heavily ambitious. I thought right, if I can do this, I can do anything! So I applied for Head of Science in my second year of teaching at a prep school. Because at that point I was getting a bit fed up with stroppy 13-16 year olds. So I thought, why not teach that younger end? 'Cause it's quite cute teaching the Year 7s and 8s; that's nice! Got the job. Interesting school that, it was a for-profit school. So it had shareholders, and it was a different style of education because of that. The Head was very much constrained by the fact that if you spent money that would reduce the profit. So I quickly got out of that, and actually went back to being an ordinary science teacher, but this time in a boarding school, so I went for that job because it came with a house! Yeah? Free rent! Sounds good to me! Boarding school's an interesting one. So, that's inner-city comprehensive, a really weird prep school, then boarding school. Had a fantastic time there. Few years there. Then I wasn't looking, but I saw a job come up that I had to apply for. It was a physics teacher at [well-known independent] School. I looked at it and I thought, OK, we know about these posh schools, yeah, why not? Who wouldn't? Applied, and was absolutely gob-smacked when they offered me the job. So I then spent six years teaching there. At which point I realised what a boarding school really was. Because at a place like that, where the boarding kids are not allowed to see their parents for the first three weeks of term to get used to boarding, you realise what a 24-7 boarding school is. It worked because it didn't give the boys a single minute to get bored. The toll it had on staff is huge. So that went fine at first, but I then started to feel slightly constrained, 'cause it was that all-encompassing thing. I had a child, who I wasn't seeing growing up. So I looked to move. So I applied for a Head of Science post at a state boarding school -my first experience of middle leadership. And of course being Head of Science, you're in the more senior echelons of middle leadership 'cause you tend to have a big team, a big department and a big budget. So that was good. Church school, so it was a voluntary-aided school. So it had its own budget, it was very much an independent, autonomous being, which is good, rather than local authority-controlled schools. Fantastic time there. Got asked by the local authority to be a leading science teacher for the authority. That gave me a taste for having a bigger impact, and I then started to get frustrated as Head of Science, that I could make changes to my department, but couldn't make changes to how kids were taught in other schools. In other departments, in other subjects. Then, the Head retired, and the replacement was the Deputy. And he and I didn't get on. So I looked to move. I also looked to promote, because at the time, it may be arrogance, but at the time I looked at the guy who got the job of Head and I thought, 'I know I'm better than him. Hmm' . So I was invited for interview for the post of Deputy Head at an independent school and was appointed. I spent six years there. The Head gave me responsibility for turning around the school's curriculum, basically, and gave me free reign. And that was a great opportunity because you had some incredibly intelligent members of staff who would challenge you, particularly if you're asking them to change successful practice. So I basically funded myself through a master's degree to learn how to answer those challenges. Leading there was fascinating and frustrating at the same time because it was like trying to turn an oil-tanker. I then realised that a lot of my frustrations were because the Head was rightly saying it was my remit to change things, but she then still was acting as a bit of a brake on that. So at that point I thought, right, I'm ready for headship. I saw this job come up, and I thought actually, if you were to say to me, what would be my ideal job? I would say, 'give me a school without a history. Give me a school to start from scratch' . I never thought there would be an opportunity. Before free schools, there has not been a brandnew school opened up in this country for at least 20 years, so it's always been like, no, no-one starts a school up. And then the Coalition comes along and says actually, yes you can! So, I applied, and it has just been an absolutely astounding experience.
I do believe that our education system is letting down hundreds of thousands of kids every year. And I think somebody needs to say something about that. And I want the opportunity to start to have that sort of a voice. I want to be the one at the front, going, 'there's something wrong here and we need to do something about it, and this is what I'm doing' . We need to shake up the system. And the free-school model is a way you can do that. And there's a lot of people out there particularly in education that are scared to look at free schools and see what we do, because they're scared it will challenge their hegemony. This idea of choice in education is something that's only for the better.

Privileging the corporate, and deprivileging the welfarist habitus
What the data in these accounts reveal is the way in which ways of being a leader and doing leadership, as well as the values associated with this, are hierarchised through the rules of the schooling game. These accounts speak to the concept of hysteresis in revealing habitus that is conceptually and discursively distinguishable. Les's account is one of struggle, where his route to executive headship is littered with structural impediments. His success in those schools whose pupils do not fit within a performative educational culture which rewards predictable and normal student progress is not only unrecognised; it is constructed as failure by Ofsted and the state as failing to reach notional 'floor' targets, and the schools closed. Les embodies a leadership that draws on welfarist notions of public service and where a commitment to comprehensive schooling is evinced. Gewirtz (2002) identifies these and a number of further characteristics of welfarist leaders (as an idealised category). These include their undergirding values of social justice and equity; a foregrounding of collective employee relations through unions; and a consultative style predicated on cooperation rather than competition. Importantly, she argues that such leaders have been socialised 'within field and [demonstrate] values of specific welfare sector, e.g., education …' (2002,32). Some of these elements are clearly identifiable in Les's narrative, and what is strongest is his focus on equity and social justice for pupils, and on democratically accountable local authorities as the structural means to achieve those goals. This means that he is out of sync with the dominant field conditions; these are reproduced through specific vocabularies in policy texts and in Paul's narrative.
Paul, too, was educated initially in a comprehensive school, but is quick to disavow it through criticising it for 'bog-standard' quality and for its significance within a system where the public good of 'choice' is denied to that public. The 'mixed community' in the comprehensive school lauded by Les as a sign of strength is associated by Paul with inevitable 'problems' . What this foregrounds methodologically is the importance of narrative context in understanding habitus, where the mere fact of comprehensive schooling per se for both Les and Paul reveals little. For Paul, the transition to the independent sector is easy and rapid, after only a year in teaching. However, in order to legitimate his current advantaged position as a leader in the quasi-independent state sector, that first year takes on increased significance even within his narrative. So in his initial description, the school 'wasn't inner-city London' and the worst behaviour he chose to relate involved 'Ouija boards in the sacred school hall' , but a few minutes later in a re-cap it had become an 'inner-city comprehensive' . Significantly, all his other experience bar one school was in the independent sector, and that one was a state boarding school; these exist in a liminal space between the two sectors owing to their unique (in the state sector) qualifying criterion of selection by ability to pay (for boarding) (Courtney 2015b). Paul, then, locates his dispositions within a framework informed by independent-school values to the extent of highlighting the autonomy of the voluntary-aided state school where he worked. This allows him to position himself in a way that reproduces dominant corporatising discourses whilst attacking the straw man of the more visible, for-profit form. For instance, and in the way typologised by Gewirtz (2002) as the new managerialist leader, he draws from the discursively approved lexis to espouse sanctioned positions (e.g. concerning 'autonomy' and 'choice'), dislikes trade unions and is committed to contractual forms of accountability where the contracts favour employer over employee rights: Within our performance management structures, staff have three performance management meetings with my Deputy, where targets are agreed, monitored, assessed and then evaluated over the year. That then influences a discussion with governors about pay, but also their position within the school as a whole… Staff who in their first year have shown that they are not engaged with the school and they are not working with us and are not taking advice and guidance on how to improve, will be asked to, ahm, as I say, not return in September. (Paul) Paul constructs democratic accountability as hegemonic and bureaucratic, antithetical to the competition that for him is the driver of improved outcomes. He also accepts the discursively allocated role of himself as leader, delivering improvements through vision work he alone is qualified or entitled to have (Courtney and Gunter 2015). By way of contrast, where Les mentions 'vision' not once in the first interview, Paul refers to it, and in relation to himself, 12 times. Where Les has succeeded despite the welfarist orientation of his habitus, Paul finds that the main features of his are highly valorised in a policy landscape where the independent state school, often with corporate sponsorship (Adonis 2012) or with corporatised leadership (Courtney 2015a), is constructed as modern, innovative and necessary in fragmented 'systems' internationally (Chapman and Salokangas 2012;Gunter and McGinity 2014;Keddie 2015). This model may be promulgated by education ministers of any political party claiming to occupy the centre ground, where neoliberalism is understood as normal and commonsensical. This normalisation of corporatisation, and its corollary, the stigmatisation of the public, is exemplified in a speech by the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove: Look at the academy schools set up by one of the most admirable men I know -Phil Harris -Lord Harris of Peckham … Every single one of the schools he takes over gets at least an additional twenty per cent or more young people to pass five good GCSEs compared to the record when the local authority ran it. Some get 40 per cent more … Phil is able to support state education so generously because of his success in business. (Gove 2011, n.p.) These data show that the habitus of these leaders are discursively distinguishable and that Paul's, formed in and by the independent sector, aligns with contemporary field conditions through language and avowed practices in a way that Les's no longer does. The field has been structured predominantly since the Education Reform Act 1988 to produce these conditions in England (Whitty 2008) and so, in the way predicted by Bourdieu (1996) and demonstrated by Coldron et al. (2014), it may be argued that leaders such as Paul, possessing sufficient capital and in the right form, have had the right sort of habitus to enable them to occupy privileged positions in the field as it is further corporatised by policy interventions. In other words, such leaders have been able to 'decipher homologies' (Kerr and Robinson 2009, 830) between their habitus and those required for success in a field where new, independent schools require leadership.
However, Bourdieu's (1996) conceptualisation of hysteresis and its consequences on agents over-privileges the agency of better positioned actors who rush to profit from changed field conditions, and does so in a general rather than sufficiently specific way. I contend that this understanding of hysteresis takes insufficient account of the state's intentions in privileging those bearers of approved habitus through its manipulation of specific fields via policy. The education field has not been altered such that any bearers of high amounts of capital may overcome the hysteresis effect to succeed there; it has been altered specifically to suit those endowed with certain types of habitus involving certain forms of symbolic capital where independence, innovation and entrepreneurialism are foregrounded. This is more than mere opportunism by Paul, permitted by capital he has accrued through doing school leadership per se; it is a form of symbolic violence enacted by the state on those leaders professing a public-ethos, welfarist habitus to create further discursively and materially meaningful distinctions in the field. Here, I am bringing an explicit theorisation to what is made clear in a range of sources, where Gunter and McGinity (2014, 304), for instance, note that 'politicians have sought to denounce those who are working to retain their schools within LA [local authority] control' . Policy documents reveal this symbolic violence too; the Department for Education's (2016, 48) white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere contains an 'illustrative example of future progression to leadership' which passes through 'School Leaders' to 'MAT [multi-academy trust] Leaders' . This hierarchised leadership structure therefore precludes leaders from reaching its apex whilst remaining attached to local authorities, whose system leadership is in opposition to and replaced by these new forms. That MATs are normatively corporatised can be seen in the proposal (2016, 83) that MAT leadership will be enhanced through engagement with university business schools. A further body of evidence for state intervention to deprivilege welfarism is found in the literature on leaders and school inspection, where research shows how the ontological stakes differ for leaders according to the socio-economic context of their school in a performative and marketised culture (Courtney 2016). Whilst it is important to avoid carelessly conflating the school's socio-economic status with its leader's disposition, nonetheless I argue here that welfarism is more likely to persist in schools with a necessary focus on care and nurture over attainment, and where pupils' lived realities impede their construction as relentlessly progressing.
This interpretation of the state is supported through a reading of Bourdieu's other writings: The state is the culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital … It is this concentration as such which constitutes the state as the holder of the a sort of metacapital granting power over other species of capital and over their holders. (Bourdieu 1998, 41) An important theoretical contribution of this article is to link this insight to hysteresis, thereby repositioning this concept as more than a neutral effect, but as the state's desired outcome of subordination on those it seeks to deprivilege. Through this, the state may reproduce unequal power structures and reinforce ideologies. Here, this is achieved through creating in the state sector structural homologies with the independent sector that suit those already leading there or who have independent schools as a contributor to their habitus in some other way. The fact that this latter group comprises for the most part those from privileged backgrounds means that this arguably exemplifies the state's transferral of capital to the capitalised. This capital takes multiple forms, including new school buildings for free school and academy leaders. This brings a brand advantage, which may mean more pupils on roll along with the funding that accompanies them. Facilitating the structural and economic success of these schools in this way strengthens the position of their leaders, whose habitus disposes them as believers to enact neoliberal policies concerning, for example, unions, contracts and performance management, as well as embodying the visionary leader conjured by the academisation policy. This is not to argue that all heads, to be successful, have to possess this habitus -my claim is that these embody the requirements for success most easily and thereby model to aspirant field leaders the necessary practices and dispositions.
Merely creating a policy may therefore conjure its protagonists in the field, gifting them a limited sort of agency whereby they enact the state's definition of what counts as valid knowledge and practice there. As this group is strengthened, another -the welfarist -is weakened; here, I contest Bourdieu's assertion that it is only as a result of their finding their habitus misaligned with the field that their practices 'incur negative sanctions' Passeron 1977 as quoted in Hardy 2008, 139); rather, the logic may sometimes be reversed such that the field is changed in order to apply negative sanctions to a targeted group. This constitutes, in effect, a mechanism by which the 'discourses of derision' identified by Ball (1995, 260) may be operationalised.
These data develop rather than simply exemplify hysteresis, since they contradict Bourdieu's implicit assertion that, following a lag in the appropriate habitus, only three possible outcomes exist for the deprivileged. First is that they attempt to force field conditions to return to those which suited their habitus -Bourdieu (1990a) described an example of this in Homo Academicus, where university lecturers protested against changes resulting from the 1968 'events' . Second, they might engage in strategies and social interactions whereby their out-of-sync habitus is re-aligned with what is newly necessary. 1 Third is that they remain discursively and materially deprivileged through their reduced capacity to play the game according to these new rules, and the field is moved on. The fact that Les has managed to obtain, keep and succeed in multiple leadership roles, despite structural obstacles and discursive derision, as well as his refusal to conform to the new ways, means that the concept of hysteresis must be expanded to incorporate what is happening. That Les draws strength from his identification in abjection of the privileged form shows that hysteresis is not a temporary effect in place only whilst these out-of-sync habitus 'catch up': it may be a more or less permanent manifestation of school leaders' strategic resistance to the dominant discourse. In this sense, it is not unwelcome or even indicative of a failure to thrive: it may be an agentic marker of dissent and a dissenting identity, of a position taken and not a failed position-taking. It differs from the protest described by Bourdieu (1990a); there, lecturers sought to regain their capital, whereas Les, whose job is secure, is fighting for a principle.

Conclusion
The professional practice of those who are located in school principal roles has faced major interventions through reforms of training, identity and work. The contribution of the research reported here is empirical and theoretical, showing how increasingly valorised corporate values and practices misalign with and subordinate those of the welfarist leader who is left behind. Those habitus formed in working-class spaces where there is a refusal to stigmatise comprehensive schooling are marginalised. Integral to this contribution is my argument that the relationship between the histories of these school leaders and the alignment or otherwise of their habitus with current field conditions is not coincidental, and that capital in this new world is being accorded to those who are accustomed to having it; that field conditions purposively represent their preferred and habitual practices and dispositions which privilege autonomy and privatisation. The reform agenda is therefore reproducing power relations that are currently strong in England and elsewhere internationally. The second contribution centres on my development of the concept of hysteresis, where it is no longer simply an effect of field change but may be an intended outcome of state intervention into field conditions targeted at those to be deprivileged. The concept is also expanded here to include notions of active resistance to a normative, dominant discourse.
What this means is that hysteresis may be invoked by theorists not simply to explain, post hoc and ethnographically, an effect of changed field conditions, but to understand the way in which the state intervenes in fields to effect change at the level of the individual, not just as a by-product but as a purposive re-shaping of identities and practice through facilitating a preferred habitus. What is foregrounded in this socially critical analysis is the role and effect of power relations and capital in considerations of field positions, where agents may indeed draw strength from a dissenting habitus, but where in fact that is the only option available.
The arguments presented here constitute both a heuristic for questioning field conditions in education and education leadership and a challenge to scholars to develop it further. Where, for instance, might the limits of purposive state manipulation of the sanctioned habitus lie and on what might that depend? Importantly, to what extent is the adoption of a dissenting position produced through hysteresis merely the misrecognition of the consequences of symbolic violence? Note 1. Here, whilst mindful of King's (2000) critique of habitus as, contrary to Bourdieu's protestations, conceptually inflexible to such strategising, I am following Bourdieu in the spirit of what he intended habitus to achieve regarding agency and the possibility of change, albeit through the incorporation of what King (2000, 417) identifies as a separate strand of his writing -his 'practical theory' where spontaneous social interactions between virtuoso players of the game are integral.