Cultural Capital

 

I. Originated with Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron in the 1960s & 1970s

          A. Original def’n: “high status cultural signals used in cultural & social selection”

C. Key = social reproduction

II. Takes issue with “objectivity” of educational systems

A. “Neutral” academic standards loaded with class-specific cultural resources

So:

III. Proliferation of meanings over past three decades

A. Led to confusion

B. Michelle Lamont & Annette Lareau

1. Cultural capital = institutionalized, widely-shared, high status cultural signals used for social & cultural exclusion

2. Types and examples of these “signals”

          a. Attitudes

          b. Preferences

          c. Formal knowledge

          d. Behaviors

          e. Goods

          f. Credentials

3. Forms of exclusion

          a. Social = exclusion from jobs & resources

          b. Cultural = exclusion from high status groups

C. Back to Bourdieu (Distinction): Operationalizing the concepts (trying to make them measurable)

1. Lifestyles & preferences of stratified occupational groups (used survey data)

          a. Cultural consumption

          b. Vital consumption  

          c. Ways of entertaining

          d. Personal qualities valued

          e. Ethical preferences

2. B. – legitimate and dominated culture

a. Cultural legitimacy accorded to high culture practices, knowledge etc.

                   3. Cultural capital, B. says, is used by dominant groups to:

                             a. Mark cultural distance

                             b. Monopolize privileges

c. Exclude & recruit new occupants of high status positions

          D. Exclusion (via cultural capital) = Power (for Bourdieu)

                   1. Exclusion (as a form of power) engenders:

a. Dehumanization, frustration, humiliation, resentment, etc.

2. “Symbolic Violence” = the power to impose some meanings as legitimate . . . “(& others as illegitimate) “by concealing the power relations which are the basis of its force” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1997, p. 4)

a. Cultural capital’s power = legitimation of claim that some cultural norms & practices are superior

IV. Empirical support (or not) of cultural capital theory

          A. Cultural capital à higher grades for h.s. students (DiMaggio 1982)

B. C.C. à higher ed. Attendance & completion + marital selection (DiMaggio & Mohr 1985)

C. C.C. in the curriculum of elite schools (Cookson & Persell, various studies)

D. C. C. is affected by social class differences, which affect family-school relationships (Lareau 1987)

V. Criticisms of Cultural Capital Theory (citing Kingston, Paul. 2001. “The Unfulfilled Promise of Cultural Capital Theory.” Sociology of Education (74: extra issue): 88-99.)

A. Key premise: that there are exclusionary, class-rooted, cultural practices in the U.S.

1. These may exist in France, but there are no clear parallels in the U.S.

2. E.G. musical taste

                   3. Do people use culture to make social distinctions?

B. The “academic effect” (i.e. that c.c. à school achievement).

          1. Is c.c. related to achievement net of other determinants?

2. Is c.c. strongly related to both social privilege and achievement?

3. Other social resources that influence kids’ success in school

          a. Parenting styles

          b. Intellectual level of the home

          c. Supplementary drills in academic subjects

C. Teachers’ Impact

          1. Bourdieu: Teachers value & reward elite culture

          2. Teachers’ perceptions of students matter (& are related to student achievement)

                   a. But not for reasons of c.c.

D. Omitted variables

1. Factors affecting student success that are not cultural capital, as it is conceptualized  

VI. Two examples of the ways in which cultural capital is useful, if reconceptualized

(Lareau & Horvath, “Moments of Social Inclusion & Exclusion: Race, Class, & Cultural Capital in Family-School Relationships.” Sociology of Education 72 (1): 37-53; & Basil Bernstein’s Class, Codes, & Control (and other works).

          A. Lareau & Horvath: Moments of Inclusion & Exclusion

1. Three important factors to consider

a. Context

b. Skill

c. Institutional response  

                   2. L & H: ethnographic study of family-school relationships

a. Purposive “sample” – i.e. (not random) the participants were selected to represent a cross-section of racial and SES characteristics

b. Key: to determine variation in family-school relations as a function of both race & social class

3. Key questions:

a. What resources (c.c.) do parents bring with them to these interactions?

b. What characteristics are valued in the school (the institutional “field”)?

                   4. Larger context: history of racial tension

                   5. Different patterns in family-school relations as a result

6. There were variations within racial groups (both white & black: the focus of this study)

          B. Basil Bernstein

                   1. Emphasized class-based variations in communication codes

2. Code = “a regulative principle which underlies various message systems, especially curriculum and pedagogy”

Key premise: There are social class differences in the communication codes of working class (and poorer) and middle (and upper) class children, and the differences correspond with class and power relations in the larger society.

                   3. Two general types of codes

a. Restricted codes are context-dependent and particularistic

b. Elaborated codes are context-independent and universalistic

1bookanimBack to Main Page

Or

1bookanimTo Next Lecture