Does Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus leave genuine room for individual agency and social change, or does it describe social reproduction so deterministically that actors become little more than automata executing internalized dispositions?

Bourdieu developed habitus to bridge the sociological divide between structure and agency, treating it as a set of durable but not immutable dispositions a person draws on through intuition rather than conscious rule-following. Critics counter that the concept slides back into determinism: the secondary literature states plainly that habitus is criticised as a deterministic concept, comparing the social actor to an automaton in the sense of Leibniz's Monadology, where every apparent choice was in fact pre-established. Neither the determinism critique nor a name for the critic making it is given in the sources this wave read, so the dispute is recorded as live in the field rather than resolved either way.