Bourdieu and The Forms of Capital
Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930-2002) theory of practice is known as structuralism, where he blended the influences of Durkheim, Marx and Weber (O’Byrne, 2011). Bourdieu’s work on social class and capitalist reproduction show clear signs of being influenced by Marx, although he is no conventional Marxist (O’Byrne, 2011). But can arguable be seen as a post-Marxist as he refers to the middle class as having natural capital. In his theory according to O’Byrne (2011), he showed how our class upbringings are affect our choices in taste and disposition and describes them as the forms of capital; social, economic, cultural and symbolic capital.
Starting with economic capital, Bourdieu goes on to explain how economic capital can impact on the position in which people are placed in society, according to their financial income. Discussing meritocracy as a discourse, it is almost seen as a myth according to Bourdieu (Lauder et al, 2006). Although were given an even chance at things, and if we work hard we will get rewards, in most cases this is not true. For example, the ability to move from working class to middle class. Bourdieu uses the example of Roulette, "Roulette, which in a short space of time, and therefore of changing one's social status quasi-instantaneously ..." (Lauder et al, 2006, p.106), in other words, he uses this example to show how the chances we are given in life, can impact on our positioning in society depending on a financial income.
To reflect on Bourdieu’s economic capital in relation to education, parents at a more economic advantage can therefore provide better schooling opportunities for their child. He later went on to explain how there’s a relationship between academic investment and academic ability (Lauder et al, 2006). For example, the chance to have private schooling and tuition, as well as being able to afford more educational resources such as books, computers, etc. According to Haralambos et al (1986), they compare low income parents with middle class parents by asserting that “middles class parents place a greater emphasis on high achievement” (p.226). This may suggest that their attitudes to learning are higher as they invest more into education. Reflecting reason to why they have high educational achievement, supporting the reason to why working class children have low educational achievement. This is evident with the case study of the borough of Haringey, where statistics on educational achievement at the age of 16 (KS3) show significant differences in GSCE achievement. To distinctively show the differences in social classes, they use pupils who are eligible for FSM and pupil who are non-FSM. “The Haringey figures are 51% of eligible FSM pupils and 64% of not eligible pupils obtained 5+ A* - C GCSE grades. 28% of eligible pupils and 49% of not eligible pupils obtained 5+ A*-C (inc English and maths)” (Enjoy and Achieve, http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sqbak/needs_assessment_pages_121-172.pdf, p.143).
Functionalists would argue that hard work will allow you to gain achieved status, whereby you gain a social position on the basis of merit (Linton, 1936). However, although they may have economically gained a middle class status and lifestyle, they still may not uphold middle class values, therefore they would lack in cultural capital. Using the example of footballers, they are an illustration of how talent and hard work can help you achieve social mobility but these footballers may still orientate their lives around working class values even though they have the accounts of the "bourgeois man" (Lauder et al, 2006, p.106).
Following on to cultural capital, according to Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital is influenced by social class background, whereby classes develop different forms of knowledge according to their setting (Lauder et al, 2006). This helps us to remember that money isn’t the only form of capital. However, within the education system, middles class values are expected to be shown. “… Children in urban primary schools need to understand and have access to cultural capital of dominant, more powerful groups in society” (Bourdieu, 1986, p157). Suggesting that these values need to be taught, but arguably, this could propose a very Marxist perspective. Examples of cultural capital dominance may involve extra curriculum activities e.g. sports, music, books, museum trips, etc. to provide better opportunities for pupils. Paul Willis’s ‘Learning to Labour’ (1977) studies a group known as the ‘Lads’. In his research he finds that they have no interest in the factors of cultural capital and their attitudes towards education deny the importance in schools to get excellent educational achievement.
Putnam (1995) describes social capital as having, three categories; bonding, linking and bridging. These three concepts provide networking, which could provide an advantage over others. Within education, parents (bonding) who know people with power with the education system can network (linking and bridging), to give their child the opportunity to get into good schools and provide work experience. This can interfere with educational attainment as parents who are not at more of an advantage may not be able to provide their children with these opportunities.
Starting with economic capital, Bourdieu goes on to explain how economic capital can impact on the position in which people are placed in society, according to their financial income. Discussing meritocracy as a discourse, it is almost seen as a myth according to Bourdieu (Lauder et al, 2006). Although were given an even chance at things, and if we work hard we will get rewards, in most cases this is not true. For example, the ability to move from working class to middle class. Bourdieu uses the example of Roulette, "Roulette, which in a short space of time, and therefore of changing one's social status quasi-instantaneously ..." (Lauder et al, 2006, p.106), in other words, he uses this example to show how the chances we are given in life, can impact on our positioning in society depending on a financial income.
To reflect on Bourdieu’s economic capital in relation to education, parents at a more economic advantage can therefore provide better schooling opportunities for their child. He later went on to explain how there’s a relationship between academic investment and academic ability (Lauder et al, 2006). For example, the chance to have private schooling and tuition, as well as being able to afford more educational resources such as books, computers, etc. According to Haralambos et al (1986), they compare low income parents with middle class parents by asserting that “middles class parents place a greater emphasis on high achievement” (p.226). This may suggest that their attitudes to learning are higher as they invest more into education. Reflecting reason to why they have high educational achievement, supporting the reason to why working class children have low educational achievement. This is evident with the case study of the borough of Haringey, where statistics on educational achievement at the age of 16 (KS3) show significant differences in GSCE achievement. To distinctively show the differences in social classes, they use pupils who are eligible for FSM and pupil who are non-FSM. “The Haringey figures are 51% of eligible FSM pupils and 64% of not eligible pupils obtained 5+ A* - C GCSE grades. 28% of eligible pupils and 49% of not eligible pupils obtained 5+ A*-C (inc English and maths)” (Enjoy and Achieve, http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sqbak/needs_assessment_pages_121-172.pdf, p.143).
Functionalists would argue that hard work will allow you to gain achieved status, whereby you gain a social position on the basis of merit (Linton, 1936). However, although they may have economically gained a middle class status and lifestyle, they still may not uphold middle class values, therefore they would lack in cultural capital. Using the example of footballers, they are an illustration of how talent and hard work can help you achieve social mobility but these footballers may still orientate their lives around working class values even though they have the accounts of the "bourgeois man" (Lauder et al, 2006, p.106).
Following on to cultural capital, according to Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital is influenced by social class background, whereby classes develop different forms of knowledge according to their setting (Lauder et al, 2006). This helps us to remember that money isn’t the only form of capital. However, within the education system, middles class values are expected to be shown. “… Children in urban primary schools need to understand and have access to cultural capital of dominant, more powerful groups in society” (Bourdieu, 1986, p157). Suggesting that these values need to be taught, but arguably, this could propose a very Marxist perspective. Examples of cultural capital dominance may involve extra curriculum activities e.g. sports, music, books, museum trips, etc. to provide better opportunities for pupils. Paul Willis’s ‘Learning to Labour’ (1977) studies a group known as the ‘Lads’. In his research he finds that they have no interest in the factors of cultural capital and their attitudes towards education deny the importance in schools to get excellent educational achievement.
Putnam (1995) describes social capital as having, three categories; bonding, linking and bridging. These three concepts provide networking, which could provide an advantage over others. Within education, parents (bonding) who know people with power with the education system can network (linking and bridging), to give their child the opportunity to get into good schools and provide work experience. This can interfere with educational attainment as parents who are not at more of an advantage may not be able to provide their children with these opportunities.