Essay On Cultural Capital

In the opening to Paul Fussell’s essay “A Touchy Subject”, he observes that no one really quite understands how class works, and each class theorizes the deciding factors between them, through the colored lenses of station. Of interest though, is the description he gives of the Upper Class, who “perceive that taste, values, ideas, style, and behavior are indispensable criteria of class, regardless of money or occupation or education” (McQuade) If that criteria is taken and applied to society, other social classes are revealed that lie hidden within the umbrella of Low, Middle and Upper. There is a group of people that embodies their own values, who celebrate their ideas, flaunt their style and act with a certain behaviors, and they have formed a class of their own; Geekdom.

Jay Macleod’s ethnography, Ain’t No Makin It, sheds light on the institute of education in America and how the country’s capital economy both mirrors and produces inequality by creating hierarchies that make social mobility obsolete. He does this through the use of two groups of predominantly Caucasian and predominantly African American youth who reside in the same low income neighborhood and attend the same school. He soon learned that in contrast to the Hallway Hangers, the predominantly white group who for the majority believed that there was no escape from their socioeconomic background, the Brothers, the predominantly African American group do aspire to hold middle class jobs in the future that provided stable incomes and commit to long term relationships with significant others. However, in his pursuit to conclude his research on the two groups MacLeod found that with the exception of one or two, members from neither of the groups were able to climb up the social ladder and bring about change to their status. Although the two groups did share a common upbringing, they differed in race, beliefs, ideas, and attitudes and therefore their failure to achieve success cannot be seen as mutual.

This paper will focus on the many elements and dimensions of France and the affect it has on the business that takes place locally and internationally. There will be constant comparisons and contrasts between France and the United States of America taking place throughout this entire research article. I will focus on how the elements and dimensions of the culture separately are adapted by the locals and integrated into everyday life and business. I will also give insight on how to conduct business in France for other countries, mainly the United States, by talking about the countries imports and exports and

The article Whose Culture has Capital? Acritical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth, talks community cultural wealth as the critical race theory. Critical race theory changes the way we look as communities of color, instead of thinking of places full of cultural poverty disadvantages, it focusses on and learns from the range of cultural knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed by socially disregarded groups that often go unrecognized and unacknowledged. There are various forms capital, including aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial and resistant, these forms of capital focuses on what Students of Color bring with them from their homes and communities into the classroom.

No individual can arrive at the threshold of his potentialities without a culture in which he participates. Conversely, no civilization has in it any element that the last analysis is not the contribution of an individual. Where else could any trait come from except from the behaviour of a man or a woman or a child? (253)

In her book "Where We Stand: Class Matters", Bell Hooks address the issues of classism interlocking with racism, white supremacist ideology and sexism in contemporary American culture. Her arguments in this book are greatly tied to her personal experience that she moved up from working class to the upper class as she succeeds in academic life and writing many books.

1. Ben Franklin, pointing to the sun carved on the back of the presiding officer's chair, remarked; "Throughout the days we have been laboring here, I have observed that sun, and wondered whether it was a rising sun or a setting sun. Now I know it was a rising sun."1 Throughout our lives we have been told of how our country was formed. I am here to tell you about the things the history books and teachers don’t tell you about the freemasons and there shaping of the United States of America. We will start with freemasons an agency that has been shaping history since the building of King Solomon’s temple.

Ultimately, the two groups end up with jobs that are not too different from one another, exemplifying the faults in the achievement ideology. Throughout their whole lives, the Brothers’ consistently feel that their limited success is a reflection of their own shortcomings and has nothing to do with the flawed class or racial systems. They recognize the systems put in place to help lower class people of color excel, including free public education and affirmative action, but do not realize that this is not enough to overcome their limited cultural capital and unstable economic foundations. This also contributes to the Brothers’ intersectionality, or their analysis of how factors such as race, gender, and class interact to shape their life chances. The intersectionality of the Hallway Hangers, on the other hand, is restricted to the core idea that no matter what they do, they can ever escape the social binds of the lower class. This intersectionality also falls into place with the idea of habitus, studied by Pierre Bourdieu. Habitus describes how one sees themselves and where they fit in life. The Hallway Hangers permanently see themselves in the lower class, while the Brothers aim for higher aspirations. While the Brothers’ exhibit a higher quality of life and ultimately have less regrets and legal repercussions, they end with careers that are not much

In the cynical article, In the Name of Love, featured in Jacobin magazine, the author, possessing a PhD in art history from the distinguished Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, Miya Tokumitsu opens up the age-old discussion of social and economic class distinctions. Tokumitsu manipulates the revered “do what you love, love what you do” mantra which many Americans live by today to argue her point that elitists are controlling the working class through this inspirational ideology. Primarily, by targeting today’s generation of collegiate youth hoping to one day enter the work force, Tokumitsu, once in the hopeful and optimistic position of her audience, hopes to convince readers, future proletariat members,

Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital has been extremely influential, and has garnered a great deal of literature, both theoretical and empirical. Like Marx, Bourdieu posited that capital was the foundation of social life and dictated people’s position within the social hierarchy (Bourdieu 1986). According to Bourdieu, the more capital one possesses, the more prestigious a position one occupies in social life (Bourdieu 1986). In addition to that, Bourdieu extended Marx’s idea of capital beyond the economic and into cultural symbolism (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital that refers to the collection of symbolic elements (e.g. skills, tastes, clothing) one acquires through being part of a particular social niche and his concept of habitus that refers to the physical manifestation of cultural capital owned by individuals due to life experiences are his major influential concepts that are very useful in deconstructing power in development and social change processes. However it must be recognized that these concepts also propagate social inequalities at the same time. This essay will closely examine his concepts of capital that comes in three forms - embodied, objectified, and institutionalised, and habitus in the fields of education and stratification have made of it. Bourdieu’s work will be analysed in the context both of the debate on class inequalities in educational attainment and of class reproduction in advanced capitalist societies.

Pierre Bourdieu developed the concept of cultural capital in order to attempt to explain the differences in educational outcomes in France during the 1960’s. Cultural capital is theorised as the forms of knowledge, skill, education; any advantages a person has which, give them a higher status in society, including high expectations (Nick Stevenson, 1995.pp.46-48). This differentiates economic and social status from the class agenda which, is rigidly sustained through an exclusive cycle. Cultural capital itself can be used in analysis of the class system, and how the dominant aesthetic and ideology is sustained from generation to generation.

Many scholars and journalists (e.g., Bergin & Bergin, 2015; Boaler & Staples, 2008; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Lareau, 2002; Lewin, 2005) insisted that culture initiated and possessed by different groups of people influences schooling and learning of children in distinctive ways. This paper aims to investigate students? cultural capital from home influencing schooling and learning. Regarding Bourdieu?s (1986) culture capital, group of people has been creating and living within their own habitus embedding believe, culture, cultural materials and activities, norm, and so on. Framed by Bourdieu?s cultural capital states, this paper demonstrates three aspects of cultural capital including the embodied, the objectified, and the institutionalized states. Generated within our habitus, these three aspects create us differently regarding our beliefs, thoughts, behaviors, and interaction. I interviewed several colleagues and fellows and selected five interviewees whose data is synthesized and presented in the following sections. In addition, the interviewees? personal and educational background will briefly be presented. In a conclusion section, I specifically suggest parents to support their children? cultural capital. However,

According to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, a habitus is referring to a person’s way of thinking, acting, and behaving. A habitus is a structure that helps a person comprehend and deal with society. It can be simply seen as a merger of society and the individual. (Wysocka, Paulina, 2013). Habitus is both a “structured structure”—the effect of the actions of, and our interactions with, others—and a “structuring structure”—it suggests and constrains our future actions (Bourdieu, 1992). In other words, habitus is both the “embodiment of our social location” (i.e., class, ethnicity, race, sexuality, gender, generation, and nationality) (Noble & Watkins, 2003) and “the structure of social relations that generate and give significance

Society is constructed in such a way that some people become inferior to other people because of how society treats certain individuals. Fashion has become a catalyst that leaves a gap between the lower class and the upper class; this brings out the aspect of social structure as it ranks categories of people in a hierarchy,( Macious & Plummer, 2008).Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus, social capital and cultural capital gives an illustration of the elite and the lower class in terms of their fashion taste. This essay consists of three parts; the first part will look at the London Fashion Week applying Bourdieu’s concepts, the second part will describe the difference sorts of capital required for elite women to join the ‘secret club’ of

Pierre Bourdieu is a French Theorist. Bourdieu’s theory is to emphasize constructivist structuralism and he was influenced by Karl Marx by cultural capital. Bourdieu presents the question of class. Bourdieu claimed that capital forms the foundation of social life. Bourdieu thinks the more capital a person have, the more powerful they will be, and Marx had the same view as well. Bourdieu went on to claim that it had something to do with the symbolic realm of culture. When Bourdieu brings culture into it he means the peoples attribute to the world, structured by inequality and culture structures of inequality, also states that is a big part of social inequality. Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is skills, tastes, posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. You usually receive them through a social class. Bourdieu divides capital into three forms embodied, objectified, and institutionalized. He gives an example of embodied cultural capital, while a luxury car is an example of cultural capital in its objectified state. In its institutionalized state cultural capital would be credentials and qualifications (degrees or titles that shows cultural authority and acceptance.