Bourdieu's Theory of Cultural Capital Essay Example

First outlined in the seminal 1984 text, “Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement of Taste”, Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Cultural Capital presents a utilitarian theoretical framework for the study of the reproduction of social inequality and classism. Based upon empirical research conducted in the 1960s, Distinction explored how individuals of a certain social class distinguish themselves from members of others classes, revealing patterns in the cultural preferences of working-class, middle and upper classes. These preferences and who they belong to play a critical role in structuring the social world and also class positions of individuals within it. This essay seeks to explain how the reproduction of inequalities is made possible through the example of the field of education and the role of symbolic violence in shaping what is or is not valued, why and by whom. Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital and habitus are embedded fundamentally within power relations in societies and reveal how the ‘field’ of education devalues lower class dispositions, culture and life-styles systematically.

Through a Bourdieusian lens, to exist is to exist socially in relation to others. Individuals both perceive and make judgements about themselves and the world by distinguishing differences in observed phenomena which create a set of dispositions. The nature of social reality is built upon processes of differentiation into specialised semi-autonomous domains of action, these domains are termed “fields”. Defined by Bourdieu as a “field of forces within which the agents occupy positions… these position-takings being aimed either at conserving or transforming the structure of relations forces that is constitutive of the field.”, meaning individuals are positioned, which determines their dispositions to either desire to change the course of action that greater enables their own ability to accumulate capital within a field or will act to maintain its status-quo (Bourdieu, 1985). Fields are not intentionally created and follow inexplicit regularities that are unestablished. Within the field, there are certain profits or stakes which act to create competition. One's investment in competition, is termed illusio. Individuals oppose others within the field to the extent to which they value the stakes at play. By participating, individuals agree without a formal record that the potential stakes are worth vying for, forming the basis of their competition (Camic, Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1993). 

Across varying fields exists within it a hierarchy of forms of capital. The value of different forms of capital is relative to the field in which it is exchanged. Capital is the accumulation of labour which exists both in materialised forms and socialised embodied form. Capital presents itself in three forms: as economic capital, monetary resources, property or assets; as cultural capital, one's tastes, behaviours, forms of knowledge or qualifications that may be convertible in certain conditions into economic capital, or as social capital, which is one's social connections or network of influence. It is what provides the “game of society” structure and reasoning to the principles underlying its inherent regularities (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital in particular is of pivotal importance in the process of inequality reproduction, as disparity in cultural capital mirrors inequalities between social classes (Wilterdink, 2017). It expresses itself in three forms; embodied, the inverate dispositions of the mind and bodily practices, for example a distinctive accent from a particular locale; Objectified, material goods, and institutionalised capital, the credentials held by institutions or individuals of which the objective value is reliant upon its value within a field (Bourdieu, 1986).

Individuals of different class positions develop differing worldviews, habits, manners, social norms and tastes which inform their judgements of others behaviours. However, the authoritative legitimacy of one’s opinions and preferences is dependent upon the capital one has, or the power position they maintain (Wilterdink, 2017). Thus some dispositions hold greater power over the courses of action within fields. The types and amount of capital associated with a set of conditions specific to one's position are thus embodied by individuals, producing the habitus, one's disposition which shapes their actions (Bourdieu, 2018). Bourdieu suggests that the habitus is an enduring “set of transposable dispositions”, responses formed out of necessity that are internalised become almost second-nature, and in turn produce “meaningful practices and meaning-giving perceptions”. Habitus emcompasses reccurent patterns of class attitudes, including manners, beliefs, styles of dress, values, manner of speech, and behaviours imparted during early socialisation by the family unit, school and peers. A person’s habitus is characterised by their capacity to generate identifiable practices or works, such as the ability to inspire a fashion trend or create a work of art, and their capability to identify and appreciate certain practices or works, or an individual's sense of taste (Bourdieu and Nice, 2010).  For example, a highly educated white collar executive may hold a preference for luxuries, a taste for the opera and well-tailored Givenchy suits whereas a working-class retail assistant may be more inclined towards spending their quality time in a pub and the remainder of his pay on the week's rent. 

These differences between people of different classes are not neutral, rather cultural differences or habitus, and the types of capital individuals possess serve to highlight the distinct social advantages and disadvantages they encounter. Individuals of different class positions develop differing worldviews, habits, manners, social norms and preferences which in turn form their judgements of others behaviours (Wilterdink, 2017). The value of cultural capital is determined by symbolic struggle in society, elite groups typically have symbolic power, the ability to define what is valuable. Individuals distinguish themselves by the judgements they make, for example aesthetic opinions regarding what is tasteless and what is tasteful. These judgements either resonate with or do not reflect one's objective classification, as “taste classifies the classifier” (Bourdieu and Nice, 2010). Therefore, it can be argued that people of low income are not underprivileged predominantly because others cannot perceive the value of  or mis-recognise their habitus, or identity and cultural goods, or instead simply because their habitus is stigmatised though all of these factors only serve to further worsen their situation. Those of low income face disadvantage as they lack the capital to adhere to life-styles that themselves and others value.

Despite the perceived ability for open opportunity and access to forms of knowledge, the education system acts as an institution for the reproduction of class inequalities. The field of education is perceived as a fair opportunity for individuals to gain knowledge, enabling school leavers with the tools for upward social mobility. However, this illusion serves to legitimise policy making, pedagogies and practices as systems of symbolic violence by concealing the mechanisms of inequality reproduction. Institutions of education, in the forms of schools and tertiary education, act as places of competition, which is instilled within students by educators, pedagogies and often parents in hopes that it will equip individuals with the necessary tools for success. Dominant social institutions such as government, law & education contribute to the legitimation of class inequality, in addition to its reproduction. These institutions exercise what is termed by Bourdieu as ‘Symbolic Violence’ towards the underprivileged, meaning the ostensibly unconscious forms of social and cultural domination seen in within every day interactions that uphold & maintain particular power hierarchies. The field of education is perceived as a fair opportunity for individuals to gain knowledge, enabling school leavers with the tools for upward social mobility. However, this illusion serves to legitimise policy making, pedagogies and practices as systems of symbolic violence by concealing the mechanisms of inequality reproduction. Cultural capital plays an integral role in this process. The culture portrayed by schools and universities mirrors that of the dominant upper class, thus student achievement is judged according to their standards, allowing for upper class children to achieve high results and necessary credentials for proceeding into a prestigious and wealthy career.