Cultural Capital and Class

Class is a concept supported by economic, social, and cultural constructs which aid in shaping societal structure and individual identity. In many ways, people are fascinated by their own and others’ capacity to rise to the next class. Social reproduction, the transfer of class from parents to children, and social mobility, the movement of a person from their original class to a different class, both encompass much of the fascination regarding class and class mobility and can also indicate the level of inequality within a society. There are many arguments and explanations behind social mobility or the lack thereof, one being Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital and educational attainment. Bourdieu argues that culture is a marker of class which reinforces class divides, specifically when it comes to education. John Goldthorpe, alternatively, asserts that Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital and social reproduction does not hold up against evidence of educational participation. Cultural capital is an elusive aspect of class, especially as modernization reshapes the idea of culture and class for many. Overall, cultural capital and its many definitions and analysis provide a greater and more nuanced understanding of social reproduction and social mobility.

The possession of cultural capital, defined as ‘culturally specific ‘competence’… in a particular social setting’ by Elliot B. Weininger in Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s class analysis (within the book Approaches to Class Analysis), is a major factor in Bourdieu’s explanation of class reproduction, specifically within educational attainment (Weininger, 2005, p. 87). Education, as well as family, is identified as the primary source of cultural capital. Education, Bourdieu argues, allows for the continued transmission of class status from one generation to the next through cultural capital; cultural competence leads to the ability to navigate academic settings and correlating economic capital translates into the accumulation of more cultural capital through investment in elite education (Bourdieu, 1986). In this way, cultural capital is the essential and often unrecognized aspect of class, dividing people by their identity and sense of self cultivated by their class background. Cultural capital combines inherited and acquired qualities to create an individual identity which is visible through one’s cultural knowledge, social competence, and authority of perspective (Bourdieu, 1986). It is the invisible nature of cultural capital that makes it so effective as a gatekeeping method within social class; education, at least in Bourdieu’s days, catered directly to the kind of cultural competence that children from upper-class backgrounds have accumulated at home. It is in many ways the manifestation of economic capital or traditional class in one’s identity as a qualitative representation of socio-economic status.

Some scholars argue that the concept of cultural capital is no longer relevant in modern society. However, cultural capital as a modern indicator of social reproduction is supported by Annette Lareau’s research into parenting styles across classes. According to Lareau in Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, parenting styles differ between working- and middle-class parents according to values, capabilities, and social situations. Lareau observed something she calls ‘concerted cultivation’ characterized by activities and opportunities organized by middle-class parents, which tends to instill a sense of entitlement in their children (Lareau, 2011, p. 2). There are significantly more economic constraints on working-class parents, and therefore basic child-care is essential while concerted cultivation is not prioritized. Differing parenting styles create different dynamics between children and adults, which translates to people’s relationships with authority figures and their own identity. Specifically, middle-class parents transfer a sense of entitlement and comfort within institutional settings while working-class children learn a sense of constraint and discomfort with authority (Lareau, 2011). These differences in social outlook are parallel to Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital in that the skills of social interaction and entitlement translate into real differences in opportunities. Lareau’s research supports the relevance of Bourdieu’s ideology in modern society; embodied cultural capital transferred within the home is a prevalent factor in social mobility and educational attainment — as Bourdieu says, the ‘domestic transmission of cultural capital’, the exact thing Lareau studied, is integral to social achievement and educational attainment (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 83).

A prominent critique of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital and social reproduction comes from John Goldthorpe. According to Goldthorpe, Bourdieu asserts that social reproduction is almost guaranteed through education because of the role of cultural capital in informing education and the similarity in culture from home to academia for upper-class children (Goldthorpe, 2007, pp. 4–7). However, Goldthorpe finds that the theory of social reproduction lacks empirical evidence, and, in fact, a study done by Halsey, Heath, and Ridge found that there was concrete evidence for upward social mobility between generations specifically through educational opportunity (Halsey, Heath, and Ridge, 1980 in Goldthorpe, 2007 p. 8). This directly contradicts Bourdieu’s argument that schools confirmed the cycle of cultural capital for the upper-class and shows that schools made cultural capital accessible and upward social mobility possible for children of working-class backgrounds (Goldthorpe, 2007). However, while not aligned with Bourdieu’s pure theory of cultural capital, Goldthorpe’s argument could still support the importance of cultural capital in social mobility because education, in the study done by Halsey et al., is seen as creating and providing cultural capital for social mobility to students of all backgrounds.

Goldthorpe also argues that the multiple interpretations of Bourdieu’s ideas leads to confusion and potential misapplication of the original concept of cultural capital. In one understanding of cultural capital, it is separated from Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction and understood as relative; used to find the relative impact of cultural capital compared to other factors on children’s educational attainment (Goldthorpe, 2007). By controlling for skill or ability in an experiment measuring the impact of cultural capital, a researcher contradicts Bourdieu’s definition of cultural capital as an innate class identity which encompasses skill and ability (Goldthorpe, 2007). However, studying Bourdieu’s full theory of cultural capital as a self-fulfilling prophecy through education and social reproduction is ‘quite a different problem’ as Bourdieu’s theory has lost credibility, primarily because of the findings of Halsey et al. (Goldthorpe, 2007, p. 15). Overall, Goldthorpe’s critique of Bourdieu lies in his overarching theory of social reproduction. Potentially cultural capital, in Goldthorpe’s eyes, may still have some weight to it when considered outside Bourdieu’s paradigm. Rather than a cycle of upper-class cultural capital within education and the home, cultural capital could come to represent both a marker of class but also a potential skill for class mobility. Taking cultural capital as a unique form of capital emphasizes its importance in social mobility because, like social and economic capital, it has many facets and potential impacts for an individual’s class and society’s class structure.

Society has changed rapidly and drastically since Bourdieu conceptualized his ideas of cultural capital and social reproduction, and what constitutes cultural capital has changed as well. Michael Savage’s study of emerging compared to highbrow culture emphasizes the changing applicability of cultural capital in modern society. Savage defines cultural capital as primarily the legitimacy of one’s cultural tastes, with some types of culture leading to social advantage (Savage, 2015). Through Savage’s interviews, he found that a sense of self-assuredness comes with legitimate or highbrow cultural tastes likely because these tastes are reinforced by society’s values, legitimizing Bourdieu’s cultural capital as a societal hierarchy in modern society (Savage, 2015). However, the changing nature of society also makes it clear that Bourdieu is not all that applicable today; there are now museums dedicated to nearly any form of activity or interest, not simply high-brow culture. Additionally, there is an increase in access and amount of cultural content through technology and globalization. Because of this, many modern ‘emerging’ interests are not considered traditionally highbrow but still carry legitimacy and lead to self-assuredness; music tastes, fashion, and fame within fast-paced technology have all reconstructed culture into something more nuanced than Bourdieu described (Savage, 2015, p. 113). These changes transform the measure of capital from type to amount; rather than identifying those interested in opera or classic literature, it is more effective to measure cultural capital by how much people engage with society (Savage, 2015). Engagement as an indication of cultural capital still aligns with class divides; middle-class families have more time and money to participate in activities and consume culture compared to working-class families (Savage, 2015). Additionally, modern cultural capital is more about individual choice amongst the variety of tastes available; the confidence and depth behind one’s interests and the potential to contribute intellectually to social conversations about a variety of cultural phenomena (Savage, 2015). This affirms a cultural hierarchy within modern society with engagement (ideally thoughtful or intellectual engagement) in culture being prioritized and leading to self-assuredness and some degree of cultural snobbery.

Savage’s analysis of modern cultural capital offers insight into how culture is navigated and valued within today’s society. However, Savage’s interpretation of cultural capital is very removed from Bourdieu’s original concept, lacking any mention of social reproduction or transmissibility, and instead focusing on cultural tastes (Goldthorpe, 2007). Despite this limitation, the interviews that Savage dissected showed how social class is still connected to cultural capital through individual tastes and bearings. Savage’s observation of self-assuredness from middle-class participants with more engaged and intellectual cultural tastes aligned with Lareau’s study of class differences in parenting style. Lareau and Savage both show, in different ways, how class or culture can confer a certain confidence in how an individual navigates conversations and society. This self-assuredness is a more modern understanding of how an individual can succeed in life through cultural capital; the ability to converse with authority figures, navigate social situations, and engage in new opportunities all aid in creating chances for a person to get ahead in life. Therefore, rather than understand cultural tastes as the only facet for cultural capital, it’s essential to recognize the ingrained family values and disposition that an individual inherits as their cultural capital. An individual’s disposition and identity are what Bourdieu, Savage, and Lareau all see as a fundamental and authentic indicator of cultural capital. In this way, cultural capital as a more abstract term (outside of Bourdieu’s original education and social reproduction focused viewpoint) genuinely does play a part in one’s social class, and, when considering Lareau’s family-focused research, social reproduction as well. While Savage’s study is not sufficient to create a relationship between cultural capital and social mobility, perhaps further research might find that the changing nature of cultural capital will lead to an increase in upward social mobility as cultural consumption (while still influenced by class) moves out of the home and becomes more globalized and accessible through technology.

Cultural capital cannot be as easily defined as economic or even social capital when it comes to class and society. However, cultural capital remains an important aspect to social mobility and reproduction. The research that exists on cultural capital and its influence over social mobility and educational attainment offer insight into how an individual’s identity interacts with societal structures. Additionally, cultural capital has multiple facets; Lareau’s study and Bourdieu’s original theory emphasized the family as a source of cultural capital, while Goldthorpe used Harley et al.’s study to assert that education created and distributed cultural capital, and Savage emphasized the modernizing and globalizing access to cultural capital through technology, family, and society as a whole. When considering social mobility or reproduction, cultural capital is the most elusive factor, especially considering the changing nature of culture and society from Bourdieu’s time to the modern day. However, the multitude of definitions and approaches to studying cultural capital benefit the overall sociological understanding of social reproduction and mobility by providing more dimension to class beyond economic and social hierarchy.

Works Cited

Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: T. K. Imre Szeman, ed. Cultural Theory: An Anthology. s.l.:Blackwell Publishing, pp. 81–94.

Goldthorpe, J., 2007. “Cultural Capital”: Some Critical Observations. Sociologica, Issue 2.

Lareau, A., 2011. Unequal Childhoods : Class, Race, and Family Life. s.l.:University of California Press .

Savage, M., 2015. Highbrow and Emerging Cultural Capital. In: Social class in the 21st century. s.l.:Pelican, an imprint of Penguin Books , pp. 93–126.

Weininger, E. B., 2005. Foundations of Pierre Bourdieu’s class analysis. In: E. O. Wright, ed. Approaches to Class Analysis. s.l.:Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–118.