The Forms of Capital

@inbook{citeulike:1136572, author = {Bourdieu, Pierre }, booktitle = {Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education}, citeulike-article-id = {1136572}, comment = {Instead of semiologism, which "reduces social exchanges to phenomena of communication," Bourdieu advocates economism, which acknowledges the "brutal fact" of the economic basis of all exchange (252-3). To avoid analyzing the social world in terms of "agents who are treated as interchangeable particles," we must approach the social world as "accumulated history," i.e., "accumulated capital." Just as agents are not interchangeable particles (241) with equal access to capital (245), so events are not equally likely to transpire randomly, as in a social-world game of roulette; rather, they transpire as a result of accumulated capital. "Capital is accumulated labor (in its materialized form or its 'incorporated,' embodied form) which, when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor. It is a vis insita, a force inscribed in objective or subjective structures, but it is also a lex insita, the principle underlying the immanent regularities of the social world" (241). "[C]apital can present itself in three fundamental guises: as economic capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of educational qualifications; and as social capital, made up of social obligations ('connections'), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility" (243). The exchange of economic capital is immediate and transparent, but the exchange of social and cultural capital depends upon misrecognition, upon self-deception vis-\'{a}-vis the connections with economic capital (252). Economic capital masquerades as the only material form of capital. By such means do cultural capital and social capital—the products of bourgeoisie production—appear to operate in a disinterested mode. In this disguise are they concealed as the mechanisms for protecting dominant power (242). "Cultural capital can exist in three forms: in the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body; in the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.), which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, problematics, etc.; and in the institutionalized state, a form of objectification which must be set apart because, as will be seen in the case of educational qualifications, it confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee" (243). The embodied state of cultural capital is the fundamental state, the state in which capital is linked to the body (244), attributed to the qualities of the individual rather than to the acquisitive opportunities presented to the agent by virtue of unequal class distribution (243-5). In the embodied state, "i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body" (243), cultural capital can be acquired unconsciously, through inheritance, or consciously (244-5); but it is in all cases acquired gradually (245). Its acquisition amounts to "self-improvement" (244). The earliest stages of its acquisition are evident in pronunciation (245). Its acquisition is linked to economic capital in the realm of time: economic capital is necessary to provide the time requisite to the acquisition of cultural capital (253). Sometimes cultural capital masquerades as symbolic capital, which means that it is seen not as capital but as "legitimate competence" (245). When it translates into academic success, the commonsense view regards it as a "natural aptitude" (243), in terms of human capital, on the other hand, ability or talent is seen as "the product of an investment of time and cultural capital" (244). Aptitude should be examined in terms of its unequal distribution among classes (243). Because cultural capital is linked to the body, the person, the "holders of economic or political capital" are presented with a difficulty: how can they purchase cultural capital without seeming to purchase the agents to whom it is attached (245)? Cultural capital attains an objectified state when it becomes a materialized product: art works, etc. In this state it is transmissible; or, more accurately, legal ownership of it is transmissible (246). Both economic and cultural capital enter into the transmission of objectified cultural capital: one must have "access" to the "embodied cultural capital" capable of producing the objectified state; and one must have the means to purchase it. As for the sellers, those who are selling "services and products" of cultural capital are among the dominated, whereas those who are "draw their profits from the use of a particular form of capital" are among the dominant. Scarcity keeps the holders of cultural capital in a dominant role, unless the purchasers can put them in competition with each other. "Cultural capital in its objectified state presents itself with all the appearances of an autonomous, coherent universe which, although the product of historical action, has its own laws, transcending individual wills. . . ." But in the objectified state, cultural capital is useful only if it can be appropriated and used as a weapon in the struggle for defining culture (247). In the institutionalized state of cultural capital, "performative magic" is effected through the granting of academic degrees. The holders of cultural capital can then be compared and exchanged (248). The third type of capital, social capital, attaches to the group and multiplies the cultural capital of each group member. "The profits which accrue from membership in a group are the basis of the solidarity which makes them possible." Select clubs are organized for the purpose of concentrating social capital. The network of connections that constitutes the social group must be constantly maintained through institution rites (249). Endless exchange "transforms the things exchanged into signs of recognition" and also specifies the limits of the group (250). Social capital "is so totally governed by the logic of knowledge and acknowledgment that it always functions as symbolic capital" (257 n. 17). The group may elect a representative who has power all out of proportion to his or her cultural capital, and this person is invested, among other things, with the job of protecting the group from unworthy members who must be ejected. Sometimes, too, a subgroup (most notably the nobility) may represent the larger group (251). And sometimes a group accrues social capital only by virtue of those who represent it. "Everything combines to cause the signifier to take the place of the signified" (252). Power = capital (243). }, editor = {Richardson, J. G. }, keywords = {712, capital}, pages = {241--258}, posted-at = {2007-03-02 14:07:42}, priority = {0}, publisher = {Greenwood}, title = {The Forms of Capital}, year = {1987} }

TY - CHAP ID - citeulike:1136572 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1136572 TI - The Forms of Capital T2 - Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education SP - 241 EP - 258 PB - Greenwood KW - 712 KW - capital N1 - Instead of semiologism, which "reduces social exchanges to phenomena of communication," Bourdieu advocates economism, which acknowledges the "brutal fact" of the economic basis of all exchange (252-3). To avoid analyzing the social world in terms of "agents who are treated as interchangeable particles," we must approach the social world as "accumulated history," i.e., "accumulated capital." Just as agents are not interchangeable particles (241) with equal access to capital (245), so events are not equally likely to transpire randomly, as in a social-world game of roulette; rather, they transpire as a result of accumulated capital. "Capital is accumulated labor (in its materialized form or its 'incorporated,' embodied form) which, when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor. It is a vis insita, a force inscribed in objective or subjective structures, but it is also a lex insita, the principle underlying the immanent regularities of the social world" (241). "[C]apital can present itself in three fundamental guises: as economic capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of educational qualifications; and as social capital, made up of social obligations ('connections'), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility" (243). The exchange of economic capital is immediate and transparent, but the exchange of social and cultural capital depends upon misrecognition, upon self-deception vis-á-vis the connections with economic capital (252). Economic capital masquerades as the only material form of capital. By such means do cultural capital and social capital—the products of bourgeoisie production—appear to operate in a disinterested mode. In this disguise are they concealed as the mechanisms for protecting dominant power (242). "Cultural capital can exist in three forms: in the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body; in the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.), which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, problematics, etc.; and in the institutionalized state, a form of objectification which must be set apart because, as will be seen in the case of educational qualifications, it confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee" (243). The embodied state of cultural capital is the fundamental state, the state in which capital is linked to the body (244), attributed to the qualities of the individual rather than to the acquisitive opportunities presented to the agent by virtue of unequal class distribution (243-5). In the embodied state, "i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body" (243), cultural capital can be acquired unconsciously, through inheritance, or consciously (244-5); but it is in all cases acquired gradually (245). Its acquisition amounts to "self-improvement" (244). The earliest stages of its acquisition are evident in pronunciation (245). Its acquisition is linked to economic capital in the realm of time: economic capital is necessary to provide the time requisite to the acquisition of cultural capital (253). Sometimes cultural capital masquerades as symbolic capital, which means that it is seen not as capital but as "legitimate competence" (245). When it translates into academic success, the commonsense view regards it as a "natural aptitude" (243), in terms of human capital, on the other hand, ability or talent is seen as "the product of an investment of time and cultural capital" (244). Aptitude should be examined in terms of its unequal distribution among classes (243). Because cultural capital is linked to the body, the person, the "holders of economic or political capital" are presented with a difficulty: how can they purchase cultural capital without seeming to purchase the agents to whom it is attached (245)? Cultural capital attains an objectified state when it becomes a materialized product: art works, etc. In this state it is transmissible; or, more accurately, legal ownership of it is transmissible (246). Both economic and cultural capital enter into the transmission of objectified cultural capital: one must have "access" to the "embodied cultural capital" capable of producing the objectified state; and one must have the means to purchase it. As for the sellers, those who are selling "services and products" of cultural capital are among the dominated, whereas those who are "draw their profits from the use of a particular form of capital" are among the dominant. Scarcity keeps the holders of cultural capital in a dominant role, unless the purchasers can put them in competition with each other. "Cultural capital in its objectified state presents itself with all the appearances of an autonomous, coherent universe which, although the product of historical action, has its own laws, transcending individual wills. . . ." But in the objectified state, cultural capital is useful only if it can be appropriated and used as a weapon in the struggle for defining culture (247). In the institutionalized state of cultural capital, "performative magic" is effected through the granting of academic degrees. The holders of cultural capital can then be compared and exchanged (248). The third type of capital, social capital, attaches to the group and multiplies the cultural capital of each group member. "The profits which accrue from membership in a group are the basis of the solidarity which makes them possible." Select clubs are organized for the purpose of concentrating social capital. The network of connections that constitutes the social group must be constantly maintained through institution rites (249). Endless exchange "transforms the things exchanged into signs of recognition" and also specifies the limits of the group (250). Social capital "is so totally governed by the logic of knowledge and acknowledgment that it always functions as symbolic capital" (257 n. 17). The group may elect a representative who has power all out of proportion to his or her cultural capital, and this person is invested, among other things, with the job of protecting the group from unworthy members who must be ejected. Sometimes, too, a subgroup (most notably the nobility) may represent the larger group (251). And sometimes a group accrues social capital only by virtue of those who represent it. "Everything combines to cause the signifier to take the place of the signified" (252). Power = capital (243). AU - Bourdieu, Pierre A2 - Richardson, JG PY - 1987/// ER -