Cultural Capital Vs Social Class

It can always be nice to imagine that you can go from very poor to very rich but in America, that’s not the case. According to a recent study, 70% of those born in low income families remained in the lower income bracket. Out of the remaining 30%, only 24% reached middle-class or upper- class and 4% rose to become high income earners (Hargreaves). Now, it is very difficult for people born into the lower class to rise up to the middle or upper class. These people that do successfully rise up have to have certain characteristics. 53% were college graduates, 50% were two income families, 35% were white, and 34% did not experience unemployment (Hargreaves). Most people in low- income families cannot afford college and student loans. This makes them less likely to become part of the middle class. Poor people do not have the resources to strive and become part of the other social classes. Overall, it is becoming more and more difficult for low- income families to become part of the middle class.

As a first generation child whose parents immigrated from another country, I was fortunate enough to receive excellent education and opportunities that was not offered to them. During that era, those privileges may have been difficult to obtain due to racial segregation, poor living circumstances, and/or lack of time and commitment due to work. As of today, these issues are no longer a major problem. Although, education has never been better and opportunities have been even more achievable, David Brooks argues that the upper/middle classes are preventing the lower class from “joining their ranks” because of the egocentric methods that modern day families now utilize to their advantage. In his New York Times editorial “How We Are Ruining America,” Brooks explains how we (as the upper/middle class) have been ruining America by preventing the lower class from receiving the same privileges. Brooks then elaborates his argument by giving several examples like: improved parent supervision and planning, zoning restrictions, cultural codes, and even gives a personal experience. Even though Brooks provided a substantial amount of evidence, he mostly utilizes his powerful tone and writing skills to support his argument.

Everywhere you look at the United States you can find economic stratification. From the kind of vehicle you drive, to the kind of house you live in, to the kind of restaurants you eat at the most you will find economic stratification. Some might ask, does any of that truly matter today? Yes, unfortunately, it does. An important goal for most people is what’s referred to as The American Dream. Whether it is to attend a good college, get a respectable job, purchase the perfect house, and have a small family or maybe just to start your own business; that dream starts with wealth. People with more money will have an easier time with achieving the dream than a lower income person would. With wealth comes power and prestige as well. People with more money have better life chances because they can afford better healthcare, education, healthier food, and safer neighborhoods just to name a few things.

She also talks about how middle class parenting differs from the other social class. The middle class parents mostly dominate the lives of their children while the working class parents cannot concentrate that much on their kids. She also brought a name for this phenomena called “Concerted Cultivation”.

Lareau, in Unequal Childhoods, focuses on socioeconomic status and how that affects outcomes in the education system and the workplace. While examining middle-class, working-class and poor families, Lareau witnessed differing logics of parenting, which could greatly determine a child’s future success. Working-class and poor families allow their children an accomplishment of natural growth, whereas middle-class parents prepare their children through concerted cultivation. The latter provides children with a sense of entitlement, as parents encourage them to negotiate and challenge those in authority. Parents almost overwhelm their children with organized activities, as we witnessed in the life of Garrett Tallinger. Due to his parents and their economic and cultural capital, Garrett was not only able to learn in an educational setting, but through differing activities, equipping him with several skills to be successful in the world. Lareau suggests these extra skills allow children to “think of themselves as special and as entitled to receive certain kinds of services from adults” (39). Adults in the school system are in favor of these skills through concerted cultivation, and Bourdieu seems to suggest that schools can often misrecognize these skills as natural talent/abilities when it’s merely cultivated through capital. This then leads to inequalities in the education system and academic attainments.

In the study Lareau conducted, it can be see that working class and poor families differ slightly in that being poor means less resources and a means of a greater struggle for the child. The similarities found explain why being lower class has it benefits in some areas then if you were middle or upper class. Now Lareau is not telling people to raise their children one way or that being rich is better because even the rich have many disadvantages their children encounter. Lareau emphasizes, “Overall, daily life for working-class and poor children is slower paced, less pressured, and less structured than for their middle- and

Regardless of social class most parents wish for their children to be happy, healthy, and successful; however, parents disagree on the best way to raise their children to be all of those things, which is when social class determines the parents’ child rearing method. Whether a child comes from a working class or middle class family affects the child’s development and socialization; and consequently the child’s future.

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

Throughout time one of the most obvious class markers has been education and it still remains so. People who belong to the higher classes view education as a higher priority and have more access to the best school in the country. When stuck in lower classes people must attend schools where books, computers, and education are not found at the same level. An article in the Atantic Times mentions that “ Kids who belong to lower social classes fell behind children in the upper classes by about a year or so.” Today, that gap is close to four years.” For those in the upper class their kids are placed in an abundance of classes from an early age such as foreign language, art, and many sports. Children who are in lower classes have no way of getting a head start when compared to children in higher classes Sarah Garland also mentions how “ When children have plenty of time to build social skills and bigger vocabularies in short term reduce their chances of

All families want their children to be happy, healthy, and grow. Social classes make a difference in how parents go about meeting this goal. In Annette Lareau book, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, she promotes middle class parents as concerted cultivation. Middle class parents encourage their children’s talents, opinions, and skills. For example, engaging their children in organized activities and closely monitoring children’s experiences in school. According to Lareau, middle class children gain an emerging sense of entitlement through this pattern of converted cultivation. This causes a focus on children’s individual development. There are signs that the middle class children gain advantages from the experience of concerted cultivation. However, the working class and poor children do not gain this advantage.

Another defining factor for social class is education especially since education is seen as an achievement toward the American Dream. (Lareau, 235). Younger generations seem to place more emphasis on achieving higher education and the occupational opportunities provided for those who are well-educated (Cherlin, 113). The socioeconomic stratification corresponds to those with differing levels of education such as upper/middle class individuals have a college education while working/lower class have some college and/or minimal high school education (Cherlin, 118-119). These individuals and their given circumstances based on education and income have different values and trends about marriage, family and socialization/rearing of children. (Cherlin, 114-117). Family inequality is then based on direct obtainment for individuals who are head of these households such as employment of fathers and mothers (Cherlin, 111), which in turn affects the childhood/family experience of child within the socioeconomic status of their parents. (Lareau,

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,

A student’s cultural capital will have an impact on their education. It will either be positive or it can be negative for the child. In this essay I will explain the idea of cultural capital and then use it to analyse the impact it has had on education in different settings. The first educational setting I will discuss is a story called Butterflies, written by Patricia Grace (2002), and the second being the contrast in education between high and low decile schools in New Zealand. This essay will demonstrate the implications of the inequality in education because of cultural capital, and the effects it has on a student’s presence, participation and achievement.