Write a 4-5 page, double-spaced paper, with 1-inch margins, in response to the following prompt. This is an essay which means you should NOT number your responses. A bibliography is not necessary. But make sure it’s clear which sources you are using in your paper. Do not use material or sources outside of class.Discuss the Functionalists’ arguments for: 1) explaining why there is economic inequality in society, and 2) the function of education in society.Then, critique the Functionalists’ arguments using Conflict Theory. Include: 1) the ways in which Conflict Theorists’ explanations for economic inequality differ from the Functionalists, and 2) the ways in which the Conflict Theorists’ arguments about the role of education in society differ from the Functionalists.Be sure to use examples to help you explain both theories. Your paper must have a total of four sources that you’re using as examples (see below). The Parsons, Turner, and Bowles & Gintis readings do not count as sources. You can use them but they don’t count as part of the four sources.You must use the Wilcox article and Lareau book as two sources for examples. Be specific in your discussion of the research by Wilcox and Lareau, which means both summarizing their work and using direct quotes. For all direct quotes, you must explain the meaning in your own words (do not assume we know how you’re using the quotes). Proper citation rules apply for direct quotes – for example, in parentheses (author’s last name, year published, page number).You must also use examples from two additional sources. You can draw from examples given in lecture, your investigative assignment, videos shown in class, other class readings, and your own personal experiences.An “A” paper is one that accurately discusses all the main points by the Functionalists and Conflict Theorists in response to the above prompt, uses appropriate examples from four sources to support the discussion of both theories, and is clear and coherent.EDS/SOC 126
Week 4, Monday
Reminders
Investigative Assignment due this Wednesday on Canvas by
4:00pm. Bring a copy to class (electronic or hard copy)
Lareau book groups for Week 5:
Group A, chs. 8, 10, 12 – Last Name – A to M
Group B, chs. 9, 11, 12 – Last Name – N to Z
Monday’s Quiz – main points about Functionalism and Conflict
Theory re: inequality in society and function of education for
society (multiple choice, true/false questions)
Review: Functionalist Theory
Functionalist theory on the role of education in
society.
Also called:
Technical theory
Structural-functional theory
Technical-meritocratic theory
Functionalists’ Theoretical Claims
Societies with class systems have dominant cultural norms
about accepted modes of upward mobility
Primary function of schools is to perpetuate these dominant
cultural norms and prepare children for adult work roles in an
economically stratified society
U.S.
dominant cultural norm? Contest mobility – an open contest
in which people compete for a few prizes (dominant status
symbols – money, fame, material objects, credentials)
The
contest is fair in that personal motivation and effort are
the keys to winning and not favoritism or special treatment
Functionalists’ Theoretical Claims
Societal norms shape education; education is framed as an
opportunity equally available to all
Yet, success depends on students’ motivation and effort (goes
back to function of schools)
Schools sort students according to differences in school
performance
Differences in ability/intelligence are correlated with economic
background, which explains differences in student achievement.
Intelligence is inherited and generationally passed down
Functionalists’ Theoretical Claims
How do schools sort students through their performance? Socialization in
classrooms: 1) teaches children to commit to the values of society and 2)
motivates children to aspire to certain positions in society.
Children are socialized through a system of rewards and punishments for their
academic performance and behavior (e.g., grades, praise, special treatment,
taking away privileges, public criticism or humiliation).
Components of achievement: 1) cognitive – skills, information, knowledge, 2)
moral – character, citizenship, deportment, demeanor, behavior, work habits.
Teachers’ reward systems can blur the boundaries between cognitive and
moral aspects of achievement, e.g., a “good” or “smart” student is also seen
as well-behaved.
Functionalists’ Logic on Inequality in Society
Natural born talent/ability or intellect is always unevenly
distributed across society
Because economic success is correlated with intellect,
economic inequality is natural in society
Society needs structures or institutions that can
accommodate all levels of ability
Functionalists’ Logic on Inequality in Society
The structure of education must prepare all individuals for a
position in society that fits their intellect
Sorting students into different kinds of education (academic vs
vocational) is providing equal opportunity
Given the above, it’s not surprising that low-income students tend
to perform below middle/upper class students
Carol Dweck, “Fixed Mindsets vs. Growth Mindsets”
Professor
of Psychology at Stanford University
She
has studied why students succeed in school and
how to foster their success by focusing on the
mindsets of students
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X0mgOOSpLU
Conflict Theorists on the Role of Education
in Society: Bowles & Gintis reading
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are economists in the Marxist
tradition; groundbreaking work in the sociology of education
Dominant cultural norms about individual ability and success
unfairly influence education to protect the interests of the elite or
dominant groups
The primary function of education is to legitimize economic
inequality among groups (“normalize” inequality)
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of
Functionalists’ Claims (Bowles & Gintis)
Economic inequality is not necessary or natural; it does not serve
the greater good of society
Inequality maintains relations of power for a subgroup of society;
inequality preserves status, privilege, wealth of dominant groups
The “egalitarian objectives” of education are in conflict with its
integrative function in society (preparing children to take on
adult roles)
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of
Functionalists’ Claims (Bowles & Gintis)
Schools do socialize children and achievement is a key part of
socialization as the functionalists claim
Schools prepare children for an unequal workforce by mirroring the
power relationships in the work place
“Correspondence principle” – the idea that relationships in schools
and classrooms directly correspond or mirror relationships in the
work place (boss/worker = teacher/student)
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Claims
Socialization in classrooms uses the meritocratic ideology to justify
differences in achievement
Ideology as values, attitudes, beliefs used to justify the current state of
things, to make the current state of affairs seem natural, common sense
Meritocratic ideology says that individuals regardless of ability have an
equal chance to compete for rewards in school and in life. Results of
competition due to innate talent and motivation.
Façade of merit – rewards in school, such as grades, teacher praise or
special treatment are not solely based on intelligence or cognitive skills
and internal motivation that functionalists talk about as the main
indicators of educational success and economic success
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Rewards in schools are largely based on beliefs about students’ economic
futures.
Wilcox research showed the connection between teachers’ values and
behaviors and the expectations of employers in different work settings.
For example:
Huntington Elementary (upper-middle class) emphasized student
reasoning, negotiation, self-reflection, self-management, problemsolving, and independence.
Smith Elementary (lower-middle class) emphasized student obedience to
authority, acceptance of directives, compliance to commands, relying on
others for decision-making.
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Bowles & Gintis are not dismissing the cognitive aspects of
preparing youth for the work world. Yes, schools are responsible
for teaching knowledge, skills and information.
The problem is that Functionalists minimize the importance of the
“moral components” of achievement. Functionalist views on
innate talent hide the fact that economic success is not solely
determined by individual ability and motivation.
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
They discuss studies (in great detail):
showing little to no significant relationship between
intelligence (IQ) and economic success
showing the benefits of education for everyone across IQ in
terms of increasing knowledge and skills
They conclude = education is a better predictor of economic
success and not IQ
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Economic success is also determined by “non-cognitive”
characteristics – personality traits and general attitudes such as
motivation, orientation toward authority, discipline, work ethic.
Schools have a social function for society and the economy –
producing youth with certain “non-cognitive” characteristics that fit
what employers look for in job applicants.
Socialization in schools and classrooms produces a generalized class
consciousness for each generation of working class and poor
students; this consciousness prevents any critique or resistance to
society in order to transform existing conditions.
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Schools:
socialize students with certain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors
to smoothly integrate into the workforce
use the façade of a meritocratic reward system to socialize
students to believe that they are solely responsible for their
successes and failures
Bowles and Gintis write, “The predatory, competitive, and
personally destructive way in which intellectual achievement is
rewarded in U.S. schools and colleges is a monument not to
creative rationality, but to the need of a privileged class to justify
an irrational, exploitive, and undemocratic system,” (pg. 108)
EDS/SOC 126
Week 4, Wednesday
Reminders
Monday’s in-class Quiz on main points of
Functionalism and Conflict Theory
multiple choice, true/false questions, 1-2 short
answer questions
Conflict Theorists on the Role of Education
in Society: Bowles & Gintis reading
Dominant cultural norms about individual ability and success
unfairly influence education to protect the interests of the elite or
dominant groups
The primary function of education is to legitimize economic
inequality among groups (“normalize” inequality)
Economic inequality is not necessary or natural; it does not serve
the greater good of society; inequality preserves the power, status,
privilege, wealth of dominant groups
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of
Functionalists’ Claims (Bowles & Gintis)
Schools do socialize children and achievement is a key part of
socialization as the functionalists claim
Schools prepare children for an unequal workforce by mirroring the
power relationships in the work-place
“Correspondence principle” – the idea that relationships in schools
and classrooms directly correspond or mirror relationships in the
work-place (boss/worker = teacher/student)
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Claims
Socialization in classrooms uses the meritocratic ideology to justify
differences in achievement
Ideology as values, attitudes, beliefs used to justify the current state of
things, to make the current state of affairs seem natural, common sense
Meritocratic ideology says that individuals regardless of ability have an
equal chance to compete for rewards in school and in life. Results of
competition due to innate talent and motivation.
Façade of merit – rewards in school, such as grades, teacher praise or
special treatment are not solely based on intelligence or cognitive skills
and internal motivation that functionalists talk about as the main
indicators of educational success and economic success
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Rewards in schools are largely based on beliefs about students’ economic
futures.
Wilcox research showed the connection between teachers’ values and
behaviors and the expectations of employers in different work settings.
For example:
Huntington Elementary (upper-middle class) emphasized student
reasoning, negotiation, self-reflection, self-management, problemsolving, and independence.
Smith Elementary (lower-middle class) emphasized student obedience to
authority, acceptance of directives, compliance to commands, relying on
others for decision-making.
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Bowles & Gintis are not dismissing the cognitive aspects of
preparing youth for the work world. Yes, schools are responsible
for teaching knowledge, skills and information.
The problem is that Functionalists minimize the importance of the
“moral components” of achievement. Functionalist views on
innate talent hide the fact that economic success is not solely
determined by individual ability and motivation.
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
They discuss studies (in great detail):
showing little to no significant relationship between
intelligence (IQ) and economic success
showing the benefits of education for everyone across IQ in
terms of increasing knowledge and skills
They conclude = education is a better predictor of economic
success and not IQ
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Economic success is also determined by “non-cognitive”
characteristics – personality traits and general attitudes such as
motivation, orientation toward authority, discipline, work ethic.
Schools have a social function for society and the economy –
producing youth with certain “non-cognitive” characteristics that fit
what employers look for in job applicants.
Socialization in schools and classrooms produces a generalized class
consciousness for each generation of working class and poor
students; this consciousness prevents any critique or resistance to
society in order to transform existing conditions.
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Schools:
socialize students with certain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors
to smoothly integrate into the workforce
use the façade of a meritocratic reward system to socialize
students to believe that they are solely responsible for their
successes and failures
Bowles and Gintis write, “The predatory, competitive, and
personally destructive way in which intellectual achievement is
rewarded in U.S. schools and colleges is a monument not to
creative rationality, but to the need of a privileged class to justify
an irrational, exploitive, and undemocratic system,” (pg. 108)
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the
Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Wilcox, like Lareau, is a researcher who acknowledges inequality
exists in society and that education plays an important role
Detailed research on what classroom socialization looks like using
two elementary school classrooms – upper-middle class and lowermiddle class neighborhoods
Challenges the idea of teacher neutrality in the functionalists’
arguments – that teachers objectively and fairly assess students’
capabilities and learning; teachers are “cultural beings” shaped by
their social context (their upbringing, education, and the school,
school district, state contexts)
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom:
Implications for Equal Opportunity
Tests out some of Bowles and Gintis’s ideas that schools socialize
children from different class groups to be prepared to take jobs similar
to their parents.
Focuses on classroom socialization in terms of the cognitive skills
students are exposed to and skills in self-presentation (verbal skills).
Classroom observations looked at: 1) the discipline and values taught in
the way the teacher controlled the classroom (external vs. internal
motivation), 2) the role of the student in the classroom in terms of
participation and self-presentation, and 3) how the teacher presented
academic material.
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom:
Implications for Equal Opportunity
Smith Elementary (lower-middle class) and Huntington Elementary
(upper-middle class)
Smith: the classroom was largely “freeform” – children moving all over
the room, doing different activities both fun and academic. There was
a high level of noise. Class time varied between group work and
individual work at tables. Children had lots of free time to play in class
Huntington: the classroom was quiet and orderly with traditional rows
of individual desks. Students mostly worked individually on academic
work. Student-to-student interaction was rare. The teacher stated
interaction prevents students from producing high-quality work.
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the
Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Smith Elementary: external mode of control was most dominant. The
teacher is the sole authority. Students follow rules on what to do and how to
behave set by the teacher.
One common teacher strategy was using commands: “I want that done now”
or “You have an assignment; sit down and get busy.”
Second common strategy was using statements of praise or blame: “That’s
good” or “No, that’s not right.”
The teacher only used internal control to encourage students to work out
conflicts among peers: “You two will have to decide that by yourselves.”
Huntington: internal mode of control was most dominant. The teacher
emphasizes students’ responsibility for their academic work and learning.
One common teacher strategy was to point out the academic implications
of behavior. The teacher offered reasons for why their behavior was
inappropriate or appropriate leading children to reflect on what they
were doing:
“If you’re talking to your neighbor, you’re probably not looking at
the clues and remembering what the answers are.”
Other internal control commands: “use your time wisely,” “use good
judgment”
Rules for external control were academically oriented (e.g., think for
yourself, listen to directions) and the teacher gave reasons why the rules
were important to their education
Wilcox reading
Self-presentation skills through the “show and tell” activity
Smith: Teacher decided when to have the activity. She saw the
activity as fun for the kids, not academic. She rarely made comments
or gave instructions on how to present. The activity did not help
develop students’ verbal skills.
Huntington: Every day began with the activity. The teacher saw the
activity as purely academic and an opportunity to review academic
material in the follow up questions she asked students. She also
provided feedback about how to give a presentation.
Future vs. present orientation –
Smith: Children were socialized to focus on the present. The teacher had a
“let kids be kids” attitude and focused on letting them be first graders.
References to second grade were negative: “We’re not getting ready for
second grade. This was homework.” “In second grade they don’t teach you
printing. That’s why you have to know it now.”
Huntington: Children were socialized to look to the future in positive and
hopeful ways.: “You’re thinking like a mathematician. You’ll be a good
scientist.” “By Friday you’ll get it without looking.” “Say to yourself, ‘I’m a
good reader, because this is a second-grade book.’” The teacher often
made references to what will be expected of them the following year in
second grade. Students learned to think about future consequences of
present actions, and they learned to think of themselves as professional
adults.
Economic Approach to Explain Inequality
Functionalist Theorists
Necessary for society to fill economic
positions with qualified individuals.
Conflict Theorists
Serves the interests of those who benefit the
most (those w/ status and power)
Serves the “greater good;” natural part Reward system in schools is justified by the
of the world. Contest mobility provides
façade of the meritocratic ideology
equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
Non-cognitive aspects of achievement/rewards
Schools socialize students to aspire to
are often more important than the cognitive.
unequal positions through a selective
reward system (moral & cognitive
Intelligence/knowledge alone don’t determine
achievement).
teachers’ rewards; it’s beliefs about students’
futures based on their economic background.
Unequal reward system justified
because ability is innate, schools must
gear children toward economic
Schools socialize students by mirroring
positions that “fit” their ability.
hierarchical workplace relationships.
Schools reproduce economic and class
inequality across generations.
Schools reproduce inequality across
generations.
Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments
Author(s): Michele Lamont and Annette Lareau
Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 153-168
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/202113 .
Accessed: 23/12/2013 13:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURAL CAPITAL:
ALLUSIONS, GAPS AND GLISSANDOS
IN RECENT THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS*
MICHtLE LAMONT
PrincetonUniversity
ANNETTELAREAU
IllinoisUniversity
Southern
at Carbondale
The concept of cultural capital has been increasingly used in Americansociology to study
the impact of cultural reproduction on social reproduction. However, much confusion
surroundsthis concept. In this essay, we disentangleBourdieuand Passeron’s original work
on culturalcapital, specifyingthe theoreticalroles culturalcapitalplays in their model, and
the various types of high status signals they are concernedwith. Weexpandon their workby
proposing a new definition of cultural capital which focuses on cultural and social
exclusion. We note a numberof theoreticalambiguitiesand gaps in the original model, as
well as specific methodologicalproblems. In the second section, we shift our attentionto the
Americanliteratureon culturalcapital. We discuss its assumptionsand compare it with the
original work. We also propose a research agenda which focuses on social and cultural
selection and decouples cultural capitalfrom the French context in which it was originally
conceived to take into consideration the distinctive features of American culture. This
agenda consists in 1) assessing the relevanceof the conceptof legitimateculturein the U.S.;
2) documentingthe distinctive American repertoireof high status cultural signals; and 3)
analyzing how cultural capital is turned into profits in America.
INTRODUCTION
Culturehas recently become an “in” topic in
both Americanand Europeansociology. This
trend is not an intellectual fad, as a large
number of researchersare seriously engaged
in dealing with the theoreticallycentral issue
of the interactionbetween culture and social
structure. We are here concerned with
scrutinizinga small segment of this growing
field, the recent work on culturalcapital. This
concept-defined as high status cultural
signals used in culturaland social selectionwas first developed by Pierre Bourdieu and
Jean-ClaudePasseron to analyze how culture
and education contribute to social reproduction. Born in France, the concept of cultural
capital has been imported to the U.S. and
used to account for phenomenaranging from
the political attitudesof the new middle class
(Gouldner 1979; Lamont 1986; Martin and
Szelenyi 1987), to the structure of the
stratification system (Collins 1979), the
reproductionof educationalinequality(Apple
* This is a revised version of a paper presentedat the
annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, New York, August 1986. A number of persons
commentedon an earlier version of this manuscript.We
are particularly grateful to Randall Collins, Paul
DiMaggio, Frank Dobbin, Samuel Kaplan, Walter
Wallace, and Marsha Witten for their comments and
criticisms.
1982; Apple and Weis 1985; Caroy 1982;
Cookson and Persell 1985a; Giroux 1983),
and the influence of family background on
school experience, educational attainment,
and marital selection (DiMaggio 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr 1985; Ganzeboom 1986;
Lareau 1987).
As work dealing with cultural capital has
grown, the concept has come to assume a
large number of, at times, contradictory
meanings. Cultural capital has been operationalized as knowledge of high culture (DiMaggio and Useem 1978) and educational
attainment (Robinson and Gamier 1985).
Others defined it as the curriculum of elite
schools (Cookson and Persell 1985a), the
symbolic mastery of “practices” (Martin and
Szelenyi 1987), the capacity to perform tasks
in culturally acceptable ways (Gouldner
1979), and participation in high culture events
(DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Still other
researchers viewed cultural capital as “symbols
. . in accord with specific class interests”
(Dubin 1986) and “the stock of ideas and
concepts acquired from previous encounters”
(Collins 1987). This proliferation of definitions, undoubtedly a sign of intellectual
vitality-and possibly, of the fruitfulness of
the concept-has created sheer confusion. We
are now reaching a point where the concept
could become obsolete, as those using it
equate it with notions as different as human
Sociological Theory, 1988, Vol. 6 (Fall:153-168)
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
153
154
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
capital, elite culture, and high culture. An
attempt at theoretical clarification is long
overdue.
But clarifying the concept presumes that it
can be put to good use. Why is cultural
capital important?Is it somethingother than a
faddish new term used to address the
perennial status issues which have fascinated
researchers from the days of Weber and
Veblen on? We will argue that if the concept
does not point to phenomena much different
from those of concern to these traditional
sociologists, its underlyingtheory provides a
considerably more complex and far-reaching
conceptual framework to deal with the
phenomenonof culturaland social selection.
The concept of cultural capital is also
important because it has improved our
understandingof the process through which
social stratification systems are maintained.
As noted by Bielby (1981), Cicourel and
Mehan (1984), and Knorr-Cetinaand Cicourel (1981), while the effect of social origin on
educational and occupational outcomes is
among the most studied topics in the
sociological literature,little progresshas been
made towardunderstandinghow this relationship is reproduced.Bourdieu and Passeron’s
work (1979[1964]) received wide-spread attention at first because it proposed a novel
view of the process by which social and
cultural resources of family life shape academic success in a subtle and pervasive
fashion. These authors’ earlier work showed
that apparentlyneutralacademicstandardsare
laden with specific cultural class resources
acquired at home. Following Bernstein’s
(1964; 1977) observation that working class
and middle class children are taughtdifferent
language “codes” at home, Bourdieu and
Passeron(1979[1964]) arguedthat othertypes
of preferences, attitudesand behaviors, such
as familiaritywith high culture, are valued in
school settings, while being more typical of
the culturetransmittedin “dominantclasses”
(i.e., upper-middleand middle class) families.
Bourdieu and Passeron’s work also improved upon existing studies of social reproduction and mobility because their theory was
structural,yet it left room for human agency.
Indeed, they argued that individuals’ social
position and family backgroundprovide them
with social and culturalresourceswhich need
to be actively “invested” to yield social
profits. This contrasts with labor market
studies which assume a preexisting occupational and organizationalstructureof “empty
places” (Hodson and Kaufmann 1982).
This paper pursues several interrelated
goals. First, it disentanglesthe original work
on culturalcapital, specifying the theoretical
roles cultural capital plays in Bourdieu and
Passeron’s model, and the various types of
high status signals the authorsare concerned
with. We expand on the original work by
proposing a new definition of culturalcapital
which focuses on cultural and social exclusion. We note a number of theoretical
ambiguitiesand gaps in the original model, as
well as specific methodologicalproblems. In
the second section, we shift our attention to
the American literature on cultural capital.
We discuss its assumptions and compare it
with the original work. We also propose a
research agenda which decouples cultural
capital from the French context in which it
was originally conceived to take into consideration the distinctive features of American
culture.
BOURDIEU AND PASSERON ON
CULTURALCAPITAL
1. The seminal question
The concept of culturalcapital was developed
by PierreBourdieuand Jean-ClaudePasseron
to analyze the impact of culture on the class
system and on the relationshipbetween action
and social structure.2The authors were first
In an analysis of marital strategies in a French
village, Bourdieu (1976[1972]) draws an analogy with
players in a card game. Players are dealt different cards
(e.g. social and cultural capital), but the outcome is
dependent on not only the cards (and the rules of the
game) but the skills with which individuals play their
cards. Dependingon their “investmentpatterns”individuals can realize different amounts of social profits from
similar social and culturalresources.
relatively
2
The first work mentioning the concept of cultural
capital was an article titled “The School as a Conservative Force” (Bourdieu 1974[1966], p. 32), where a
quickly abandonedconcept of “nationalculturalcapital”
is proposedto describenationalculturalsupplies (see also
Bourdieu and Schnapper 1966). The theoretical framework in which the concept of culturalcapital is used had
been developed in collaboration with Jean-Claude
Passeron(Inheritors(1979[1964]); Les etudiantset leurs
etudes [1964]), Reproduction(1977[1970] and Monique
de St-Martin(Rapport Pddagogique et Communication
1965). Bourdieu and Passeron parted after 1970.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
concernedwith “the contributionmade by the
educationalsystem [and family socialization]
to the reproductionof the structureof power
relationships and symbolic relationships between classes, by contributingto the reproduction of the structureof distributionof cultural
capital among these classes” (Bourdieu
1977a[1971], p. 487). The well-known argument goes as follows: schools are not socially
neutralinstitutionsbut reflect the experiences
of the “dominantclass.” Children from this
class enter school with key social and cultural
cues, while working class and lower class
students must acquire the knowledge and
skills to negotiatetheireducationalexperience
after they enter school. Although they can
acquire the social, linguistic, and cultural
competencies which characterize the uppermiddle and middle class, they can never
achieve the naturalfamiliarityof those bornto
these classes and are academically penalized
on this basis. Because differences in academic achievementare normallyexplainedby
differences in ability rather than by cultural
resources transmittedby the family, social
transmissionof privileges is itself legitimized,
for academic standards are not seen as
handicappinglower class children.
Bourdieu and Passeron’s argument on
social reproductionis in some respects similar
to the arguments made by researcherswho
studiedthe discriminatorycharacterof schools
by looking at language interaction patterns
(Heath 1982; 1983), counseling and placement (Cicourel and Kitsuse 1969), ability
groupings( Rist 1970), the implementationof
the curriculum(Anyon 1981), and authority
relations in the classroom (Wilcox 1982).
These studies have all pointed to the subtle
and not so subtle ways that formally meritocratic institutionshelp to recreate systems of
social stratification. However, rather than
interpretingthese patternsas examples of an
individual’sor school’s discriminatorybehavior, Bourdieu and Passeron saw these behaviors as institutionalized. Their analysis was
more structural, and as such provided a
sociologically more powerful frameworkfor
explaining the “taken-for-grantedroutines”
of daily life.
Bourdieu has continued to develop his general theory,
while Passeron has worked on a number of theoretical
problems, including cultural reproduction (Passeron
1986).
155
2. Disentangling the concept
A close reading of Bourdieu and Passeron’s
work on cultural capital suggests that the
authors group under this concept a large
numberof types of cultural attitudes, preferences, behaviors, and goods, and that the
concept performs different roles in their
various writings. In Inheritors(Bourdieuand
Passeron 1979[1964]), cultural capital consists of informal academic standards which
are also a class attributes of the dominant
class. These standards and attributes are:
informal knowledge about the school, traditional humanistculture, linguistic competence
and specific attitudes,or personal style (e.g.,
ease, naturalness, aloofness, creativity, distinction and “brilliance”). In Reproduction
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1977[1970]), the
concept retains its original definition as
academic standards. However, the constitutive items are narrowed,and some are defined
in more detail. Culturalcapital is describedas
including only linguistic aptitude (grammar,
accent, tone), previous academic culture,
formal knowledge and general culture, as
well as diplomas. Attitudes toward school,
mannersand personalstyle, and taste for high
culture are now conceived of as class ethos
rather than cultural capital. In Distinction
(Bourdieu 1984[1979]), culturalcapital plays
a radically different theoretical role: it is an
indicator and a basis of class position;
cultural attitudes, preferences and behaviors
are conceptualized as “tastes” which are
being mobilized for social selection. Bourdieu shows that tastes vary with culturaland
economic capital (i.e., with occupational
differencesin level of educationand income).
In other words, disaggregateddimensions of
culturalcapital (credentialson the one hand,
and preferences and behaviors on the other)
are the dependent and the independent
variables (1984[1979], p. 81).3 Finally, in
“Les strategies de reconversion” (Bourdieu,
Boltanski, and St-Martin 1973, p. 93),
cultural capital is a power resource (technical, scientific, economic or political expertise) facilitating access to organizational
3 Elsewhere, Bourdieu
(1974[1966], p. 327) argues
that ideally, culturalcapital should be measuredwith an
index combining items such as the level of formal
education of one’s parentsand grandparents,the size of
one’s place of origin and residence-which influence
access to cultural events-and the frequency of one’s
culturalactivities.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
156
positions (for a similar perspective, cf. the
new class theoristsBazelon 1963; Bell 1973),
and simultaneously an indicator for class
positions.
Therefore, in Bourdieu’s global theoretical
framework,culturalcapital is alternativelyan
informalacademic standard,a class attribute,
a basis for social selection, and a resourcefor
power which is salient as an indicator/basisof
class position. Subtle shifts across these
analytical levels are found throughout the
work. This polysemy makes for the richness
of Bourdieu’s writings, and is a standardof
excellence in French academia (Lamont
1987a). However, the absence of explicit
statementsmakes systematic comparisonand
assessment of the work extremely difficult.
Unfortunately,the forms of culturalcapital
enumeratedby Bourdieu, which range from
attitudesto preferences,behaviorsand goods,
cannot all perform the five aforementioned
theoretical functions: for instance, while
“previousacademicculture”can be salient as
an informal academic standard, it cannot
constitute an indicator of class position,
because it is not an essential class characteristic. Neither can it constitute a power
resource (in the sense used by new class
theorists), because it does not give access to
positions in organizations. Also, level of
education cannot be a signal of dominant
class culture, because it is a continuous
variable that applies to members of all
classes.
Because of these incompatibilitiesbetween
functions and forms of cultural capital, and
because of the confusion with the original
model, we need to simplify the latter and use
the term cultural capital to refer to the
performanceof a narrowerset of functions.
The idea of culturalcapitalused as a basis for
exclusion from jobs, resources, and high
statusgroups is one of the most importantand
original dimensions of Bourdieu and Passeron’s theory (cf., p. 158). For this reason, we
propose to define cultural capital as institutionalized, i.e., widely shared, high status
cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge,behaviors, goods and credentials) used for social and cultural exclusion,
the former referring to exclusion from jobs
and resources, and the latter, to exclusion
from high status groups. This definition is
encompassing as it also includes signals
operating as informal academic standards,
and those that are dominant class attributes,
for both types performexclusivist functions.
New terms need to be coined for the
remaining functions of cultural capital with
which we are not concernedhere.4
Examples of culturalcapital as high status
cultural signals would be 1) thinking that
knowing what a good wine is is important
[attitude];2) knowing how to consume and
evaluate wine [formal knowledge]; 3) liking
not only “certified” good wines, but “oses”
ones as well (i.e., having enough confidence
in one’s taste to define signals that are not
wide-spread as legitimate and to be able to
manipulate the code) [preference and attitude]; 4) having a sense of how conspicuous
wine consumption should be to be tastefully
done [behaviorand attitude];5) having a wine
cellar [possession of a good]. For those who
don’t share such signals, other more general
examples might apply:owning a luxurycar or
a large house [possession of a good], being
thin and healthy [preference and behavior],
being at ease with abstractthinking [attitude],
knowing how to send signals of one’s
competence [behavior], being a good citizen
[attitude], knowing the appropriaterange of
topics of conversation in specific settings
[behavior], having upper-middleclass speech
patterns [behavior], and having scientific
expertise, and a well-roundedculture [formal
knowledge].
For any of these signals to be considered a
form of culturalcapital, it needs to be defined
as a high status culturalsignal by a relatively
large group of people: the institutionalizedor
shared quality of these signals make them
salient as status markers. Contraryto Coleman and Rainwater (1978), Bourdieu is not
concerned with how individuals gain status,
but with the institutionalized structure of
4
Bourdieu (1987[1979]) distinguishes three types of
cultural capital: embodied (or incorporated) cultural
capital(i.e., the legitimateculturalattitudes,preferences,
and behaviors [which he calls practices] that are
internalizedduring the socialization process), objectified
cultural capital (i.e., the transmittablegoods-books,
computers, particle accelerators, paintings-that require
embodied cultural capital to be appropriated), and
institutionalizedcultural capital (i.e., the degrees and
diplomas which certify the value of embodied cultural
capital items). Therefore “institutionalizedculturalcapital” could be used to refer to culturalcapital performing
the functions of power resource and indicator to class
position: because it is certified, widely diffused across
classes and quantifiable,it can be used as an indicatorof
class position. It can also refer to culturalcapital used as
a power resource, because credentialsfacilitate access to
organizationalpositions.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
157
high status cultural signals). The researcher
wantingto evaluate a person’s culturalcapital
would have to reconstructthe code prevailing
in this person’s environmentin its entirety-a
most difficult task-before estimating the
individual performance.Second, information
on the weight or value of each signal in the
code (e.g., wine vs sports “connoisseurship”)
is necessary-an issue not mentioned by
Bourdieu. Third, one has to identify the
cut-off point between signals that are too
commonly used to be effective in exclusion,
or not used enough for people to recognize
them as status signals. These problemsare all
related to the methodologicalissue of identifying what is culturalcapital.
In Distinction, Bourdieu deals with this
issue by using survey data to identify the
lifestyles and preferencesof stratifiedoccupational groups-he is concerned with signals
pertaining to cultural consumption (books,
music, art, movies), vital consumption
(clothes, food, furniture),ways of entertaining, personal qualities valued, and ethical
preferences. After showing a correspondence
a la Mannheimbetween class, and lifestyles
and preferences-providing no information
on the statistical significance of the relationship-Bourdieu suggests that a legitimateand
a “dominated”cultureexist because the value
3. Methodological issue
of culturalpreferencesand behaviors are deThe original theory presents problems of fined relationallyaroundstructuringbinaryopoperationalization.First, each signal provides positions such as high/low, pure/impure,disan indication of one’s global cultural capital tinguished/vulgar,and aesthetic/useful(1984
(i.e., familiaritywith the overall repertoireof [1979], p. 245). Culturallegitimacy is attributed to specific practices in contrastto other
5 In
Reproduction(1977[1970], p. 46), culturalcapital practices;the value of each element of a sysis defined as cultural goods and values that are tem being defined in relationto the other eletransmitted through class differentiated families and ments of this same
system. The culturalprefwhose value as cultural capital varies with its cultural
and
erences
attitudes
of the dominant class
distance (dissimilarity?) from the dominant cultural
culture promotedby dominantagencies of socialization. make up the legitimate culture, while the culclass” make
This suggests that various types of culturalcapital could turalpreferencesof the “dominated
have different values, and that some are even “illegit- up the dominatedculture.7
unequally valued signals itself; therefore,
again, he adopts a more structuraland less
individualisticapproachto status attribution.
The authorsoften use the term “legitimate
culture”interchangeablywith culturalcapital.5
Yet, they don’t specify if by legitimate
culture they mean signals which are largely
believed to be “most valued” (i.e., prestigious) or if they refer to those that are
“respectable”(i.e., good but not prestigious)
(Bourdieu 1984[1979], p. 228). This is a
significant distinction because prestigious
signals would be salient for controllingaccess
to high status positions, while “respectable”
signals would act to exclude lower class
membersfrom middle class circle.6
It is importantto note in this context that
we believe that lower class high status
cultural signals (e.g., being streetwise) perform within the lower class the same
exclusivist function that the legitimateculture
performsin the middle and the upper-middle
class. However, for the purposeof clarity, the
term cultural capital is not applied to these
signals because they cannot be equated with
the legitimate culture. A new concept needs
to be coined for these signals; “marginalhigh
status signal” is a potentialcandidate.
imate,” or of low value. However, most of Bourdieu’s
writings suggest that culturalcapital refers only to highly
valued signals.
6 Bourdieu is not concerned with describing the
mechanisms through which arbitrary practices and
preferences become legitimate. Cultural producers are
seen as central in this process (Bourdieu 1985b), but we
don’t know how the legitimate culture makes its way
from the cultural producersto the public-the work of
Featherstone(1988) on the historical constitutionof the
cultural sphere provides interesting pointers. Goffman
(1951, p. 31) called for empiricalstudies that would trace
out the social career of particularstatus symbols. The
“production-of-culture”
approachprovidesleads concerning how to study groups of cultural producers (Becker
1982; Peterson 1979).
7 Bourdieu(1984[1979], p. 316) defines classes by the
volume and the proportion of economic and cultural
capital that socio-professional groups have; the more
capitalgroupshave, the higherthey are positionedon the
vertical dimension of the stratificationsystem, for they
have more resources at their disposal to influence their
environment. The proportionof economic and cultural
capital individualshave differentiatesthem by determining their interestsin favoringculturalor economic capital
as standardsof social positioning;for instance, intellectuals and professorsattachmore importanceto cultureas
a standard in contrast to businessmen. The dominant
class would be composedof engineers, seniorexecutives,
and industrial and commercial employers, on the one
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
158
This solution does not seem to be satisfying: in a large and highly differentiated
society, the defining process is not a zero-sum
one, as culturalpracticesare not all compared
continuously and equally to one another, the
situation posited by Bourdieu being as
unlikely as ideal market conditions.8 Consequently, the relational answer is empirically
insufficient-although analyticallyappealing,
as suggested by the success of structuralism.
This conclusion is supportedby evidence
showing that dominated groups have their
own standardsand sets of normswhich can be
relatively autonomous from the dominant
ones (Grignon and Passeron 1985, Hebdige
1979, Horowitz 1983, Willis 1977); this
research suggests that the value of cultural
practices is not defined relationally. Bourdieu’s theoretical framework implicitly presumes that lower class standards are not
autonomous,and that dominatedgroups have
been eliminated from the competition for the
definition of the legitimate culture.
4. Exclusion and power
Implicitly building on Weber’s and Goffman’s theories of status, Bourdieuarguesthat
culturalcapital is used by dominantgroups to
markculturaldistance and proximity, monopolize privileges, and exclude and recruitnew
occupantsof high statuspositions(1984[1979],
p. 31). Whereas Weber (1946; 1968) is more
concernedwith prestige and inter-groupstatus
boundaries (e.g., castes, ethnic groups),
Bourdieu,like Douglas and Isherwood(1979),
adopts a more Durkheimian approach, and
focuses on the necessary classificatory (or
marking)effects of culturalpractices. To use
Goffman’s terminology, cultural capital is
seen as an “interpersonalidentifier of social
ranking,” which is only recognized as such
by those who possess the legitimateculture;it
is a basis for status boundariesas it signals
hand, and of artists, intellectualsand culturalspecialists,
and occupational groups which have cultural authority
(e.g., psychologists, professors, interior decorators,
critics) on the other (Bourdieu 1984[1979], p. 232).
8 Here we see how Bourdieu’s model could have been
influenced by its context of elaboration, i.e., the small
and relatively culturally unified Parisian scene, where
positions are more likely to be defined relationallythan it
is the case in a larger, highly regionally diversified
society with no single cultural center, such as the U.S.
(see Lemert 1981 on the conditions of intellectual
productionin Paris for instance).
participation in high status groups and
distance from culturalpractices, preferences,
and groups that are ” ‘common’, ‘easy’,
‘natural’, and ‘undemanding'” (Bourdieu
1984[1979], p. 31). It is used to exclude and
unify people, not only lower status groups,
but equals as well. Exclusion is not seen as
typical of special “status”groups, such as the
Chinese literati, but exists to various degrees
throughoutthe social fabric.
It is worth noting that in contrastto Veblen
who dealt with conspicuous consumption
(i.e., “showing-off” which would normally
be a conscious act), Bourdieu (1977b[1972];
1988, p. 3) thinks that most signals are sent
unconsciouslybecausethey are learnedthrough
family socialization, and incorporated as
dispositions, or habitus, or are the unintended
classificatory results of cultural codes. Also,
culturalexclusion is conceived of as intrinsic
to moder society, ratherthan as a phenomenon likely to disappearwith the diffusion of
capitalismand the decline of status groups.
We suggest that Bourdieu and Passeron
build on Weber in an important way by
introducinga more complex conception of the
process of exclusion. They are concerned
with four major forms of exclusion: selfelimination, overselection, relegation, and
direct selection. In the case of selfelimination, individuals adjust their aspirations to their perceived chances of success
(Bourdieu 1974[1966], p. 35). They also
exclude themselves because they do not feel
at ease in specific social settings where they
are not familiar with specific cultural norms.
In the case of overselection, individualswith
less-valued culturalresourcesare subjectedto
the same type of selection as those who are
culturally privileged and have to perform
equally well despite their cultural handicap,
which in fact means that they are asked to
perform more than others (Bourdieu and
Passeron 1979[1964], p. 14). In the case of
relegation, individuals with less-valued cultural resources end up in less desirable
positions and get less out of their educational
investment. Their cultural disadvantage is
manifestedunder the forms of “relay mechanisms such as early, often ill-informed
decisions, forced choice, and lost time”
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1979[1964], p. 14).
These three forms can be distinguishedfrom
direct exclusion resulting from “elective
affinities” based on similaritiesin taste (with
which Weber was mostly concerned). Be-
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
cause this more sophisticated approach to
indirect exclusion is one of the most original
aspects of Bourdieuand Passeron’s work, we
decided to retain exclusion as the central
dimension of the concept of culturalcapital.
Bourdieu does not explicitly state the
theory of power underlying his work.9
However, it is clear that he conceives
exclusion to be one of the most pervasive
forms of power. It produces “dehumanization, frustration, disruption, anguish, revolt, humiliation, resentment, disgust, despair, alienation, apathy, fatalist resignation,
dependency, and aggressiveness” (1961
[1958], p. 161); cf., also Sennett and Cobb
1973). The power exercised throughcultural
capital is not a power of influence over
specific decisions (Dahl 1968), or over the
setting of the political agenda (Bachrachand
Baratz 1962). Rather,it is first and foremosta
power to shape other peoples’ lives through
exclusion and symbolic imposition (Bourdieu
and Passeron 1977[1970], p. 18). In particular, it is a power of legitimatingthe claim that
specific cultural norms and practices are
superior,and of institutionalizingthese claims
to regulate behavior and access to resources.
The capacity of a class to make its particular
preferences and practices seem natural and
authoritativeis the key to its control. These
become standard through society while
shrouded in a cloak of neutrality, and the
educational system adopts them to evaluate
students (Bourdieu 1974[1966], p. 349).
Thereby, the “dominant class” exercises
symbolic violence, i.e., “the power . . . to
impose meanings . . . as legitimate by
concealing the power relations which are the
basis of its force” (Bourdieu and Passeron
1977[1970], p. 4; also Thompson 1984).
Anotherimplicit theory of power presentin
Bourdieu’s general theoretical apparatus is
one which, similarly to the exchange theory
of power, focuses on the dependency and
maximalization of resources-however, in
Bourdieu’s work, individuals adjust their
investments to their probability of success,
9 Elsewhere, Bourdieu implicitly addresses the problem of power. In Algeria 60 (1979[1977], p. 51), he
writes: “The degree of freedom conferred on each
worker, the freedom to choose his job and his employer,
the freedom to demand respect in work relationships,
varies considerably according to socio-occupational
category, income, and especially the degree of skill and
level of education. Similarly, the field of possible [sic]
tends to expand as one rises in the social hierarchy.”
159
which explains why they do not all behave
like homines economici.’0 Culturalcapital is
seen as one of several resources (along with
social, economic and symbolic capital) in
which individuals invest, and which can be
convertedinto one anotherto maximize one’s
upwardmobility (1985a, p. 724). It is mostly
converted into symbolic capital, i.e., legitimacy and prestige, a point that conceptually
differentiates cultural capital from human
capital.”1The market metaphor seems to us
justified because the various types of capitals
are rare and highly desirable resources, and
are used as generalizedmedium of exchange;
however, we believe that this metaphoris less
suitable in societies where the cultural
consensus is weak, and where the definition
of high status cultural signals, and their
yields, varies across groups.
We have argued that Bourdieu and Passeron provide a more structuralapproach to
discrimination in school settings, cultural
selection and statusattributionby focusing on
institutionalizedsignals. They also provide a
more sophisticatedconceptionof social exclusion than Weber does, as they point out
variousforms of indirectexclusion. Yet, even
if Bourdieu’s work is extremely rich and
10One of several differencesbetween Bourdieu’swork
and the exchange theory of power is that the latter pays
much attentionto how dependencearises from individuals’ emotional (or subjective) investment in resources
(e.g., Emerson 1962). Bourdieuseems to assume thatthe
control of resources alone triggers dependency;at least,
he does not discuss how variationsin need, availability,
and emotional investment affects dependency relations
and power.
1 Bourdieu considers both the
symbolic and the
economic profits bestowed by cultural capital, while
human capital theorists ignore symbolic profits. Also,
human capital theorists neglect the structureof possible
profits, which varies by social class and which, according
to Bourdieu, explains differences in investment in
cultural capital: “Economists might seem to deserve
credit for explicitly raising the question of the relationship between the ratesof profiton educationalinvestment
and on economic investment(and its evolution). But their
measurement of the yield from scholastic investment
takes accountonly of monetaryinvestmentsand profitsor
those directlyconvertibleinto money, such as the cost of
schooling and the case equivalent of time devoted to
study;they are unable to explain the differentproportions
of their resources which different agents or different
social class allocate to economic investmentand cultural
investmentbecause they fail to take systematicaccountof
the structureof the differential chances of profit which
the various markets offer these agents or classes as a
function of the volume and the composition of their
assets.” (1987[1979], pp. 243-44; see also Bourdieu,
Boltanski and St-Martin1973).
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
fruitful, many aspects of the framework
remain undertheorized, and the framework
presentsmethodologicalflaws and conceptual
gaps. We have attemptedto isolate some of
the gaps pertainingto power for instance. We
have also built on the original theory by
disentanglingthe concept of cultural capital,
and proposing a less encompassing definition
which focuses on cultural and social exclusion. We now look at changes that the
concept has undergone in being imported to
the U.S.
1987b) has explained variations in political
attitudes within the new middle class by
variations in the degree of dependence on
profit-makingand the utility for profit-making
of workers’ culturalcapital.
Not all researchershave found empirical
support for Bourdieu’s model of cultural
reproduction:Robinson and Garnier (1985)
reportedthat Bourdieu greatly overstates the
influence of education on class reproduction
in France. They also noted that the influence
is mediated in important ways by gender.
Similarly, Blau (1986a; 1986b) found support
for the independence of economic capital
RECENT AMERICANWORKS ON
from culturaland academic capital in patterns
CULTURAL CAPITAL
of culturaltastes. Otheranalyzing patternsof
The concept of cultural capital has spurred cultural choices found that variables other
considerable theoretical interest in America, than class were better predictors of preferences in cultural consumption in the U.S.,
resulting in several empirical studies. Work
has focused almost exclusively on educational notablyeducation, age and gender(Greenberg
and Frank 1983).
institutions, the schooling of elites, and the
relation between home and school.l2 A few
examples provide a glimpse of the recent 1. Wherehas power gone?
developments: in a 1982 study using survey In
general, American researchers have abdata, DiMaggio (1982) found that levels of
cultural capital influenced grades for high stracted the concept of cultural capital from
school students. In a later study, DiMaggio the micro-politicalframeworkin which it was
and Mohr (1985) found that cultural capital originally embedded. From a tool for studyalso influenced higher education attendance ing the process of class reproduction, the
and completion as well as marital selection concept became a tool for examining the
of status attainment. For instance,
patterns. Studies of boarding schools exam- process and
DiMaggio
colleagues in their important
in
ined the role of cultural capital
the
work
have
examined
the effect of cultural
curriculum (Cookson and Persell 1985a;
in
students’
capital
determining
grades, and in
1985b; Persell and Cookson 1985). Lareau
educational
attainment
and mariinfluencing
(1987; forthcoming)arguedthatdifferencesin tal
selection (DiMaggio 1982; DiMaggio and
life
linked
to
social
class
social
family
(e.g.,
Mohr 1985). The definitionof culturalcapital
networks, role segregation)become a form of
cultural capital, structuring family-school used in this research was narrower than
Bourdieu’s as it was not concerned with
relationships for first grade children. Dubin
domination or with cultural exclu(1986) suggested that representations of symbolic
in
sion
micro-settings.
blacks in popular culture are a form of
OtherAmericanresearchershave addressed
cultural capital used in the imposition of
the
issue of symbolic domination: Gouldner
symbolic violence. Among the studies not
and Martinand Szelenyi (1987) have
(1979)
concernedwith educationalor social reproducdone
so
at length. They defined symbolic
tion, Collins has drawn on the concept of
cultural capital in his discussion of the domination within a Marxist perspective,
modem stratification structure (1979), his focusing on the place of domination within
the relations of production. Martin and
theory of interaction ritual chains (1981a;
Szelenyi understoodcultural capital as theoand
his
of
in
1985),
analysis
creativity
retical
knowledge, symbolic masteryor intelintellectual careers (1987). Lamont (1986;
lectual work. They focused on the relationsof
dominationbetween theoreticalmastery/prac12
This section ignores an importantliteratureon social tical
mastery and intellectual/manualwork.
and culturalreproduction(e.g., Anyon 1981; Arnot and
Gouldner
(1979), on the other hand, defined
Bullivant
Bowers
1982:
Connell
et
1980;
Whitty 1982;
cultural
al. 1982; Mickelson 1987; Oakes 1985; Taylor 1984;
capital as education producing ecoWatkins 1984; and Willis 1981).
nomic profit. He studied whetherthe associa-
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
tion between higher income and education is
due to the higherproductivityof the educated,
or to their acculturationinto the middle class.
The American narrowingof the concept of
cultural capital is not problematic if the
distinctive features of this concept are preserved. As shown in the last section, the
micro-political focus is one of the crucial
dimensions of cultural capital, as illustrated
by Bourdieu’s complex analysis of cultural
and social exclusion, a form of micro-politics
“parexcellence”. It also constitutesone of the
main differences between Bourdieu’s contribution and Veblen’s work on conspicuous
consumption. Whereas Veblen also talks
about status symbols and their “invidious”
(i.e., relational) nature, the cultivation of
aesthetic distance, the role of the family in
transmittingculture, and the importance of
time in “cultural accumulation,” Bourdieu
(1985a) significantly builds on Veblen’s
contribution-without acknowledging itwhen he analyzes symbolic conflicts for the
definition of standardsof evaluation (cf., his
analysis of fields in 1985a; 1985b). We
believe that the micro-political dimension
should be preservedin the Americanstudy of
cultural capital by examining more closely
cultural and social exclusion; the latter is a
crucial topic for understandingcross-national
differences in how stratificationstructuresare
reproducedand changed.
The relative absence of interest in the
micro-politicalfacet of culturalcapital in the
U.S. literatureparallels the traditionalresistance of American sociologists to deal with
exclusion as a form of power relations; they
tend to conceive it as an unintendedconsequences of action, and to understandpower as
involving coercion (Wrong 1979; for the
opposite and, we believe, still marginalview,
cf. Lukes 1974). This trait of the literatureis
likely to be relatedto the fact that Americans
do have a less encompassing conception of
power relationsthan the Frenchdo (on power
relationsin Frenchsociety, cf., Crozier 1964;
Shonfeld 1976).
Now that DiMaggio and others have been
overall very successful in showing the effects
of family backgroundand culturalcapital on
marital,status and educationalattainment,we
need to step back and reflect on the categories
of analysis used in this research. The goal
here is to make the concept of culturalcapital
less bound to the French context in which it
was developed, and more adequate for
161
analyzing American society. This requires
considering a number of theoretical and
empiricalissues, and more specifically 1) the
relevance of the concept of legitimate culture
in the U.S.; 2) the distinctive American
repertoire of high status culturalsignals; and
3) how culturalcapital is turnedinto profits in
America.
2. Is there cultural capital in the U.S.?
Importantfeatures of American society, such
as high social and geographical mobility,
strong culturalregionalism, ethnic and racial
diversity, political decentralizationand relatively weak high culture traditions suggest
that culture is not as highly classdifferentiatedin the U.S. as it is in France.
Indeed, Americanresearchsuggests that class
cultureare weakly defined in the U.S. (Davis
1982); that ethnic and racial minorities
reinterpretmainstreamculture into their own
original culture (Horowitz 1983; Liebow
1967); that high culture is being debased by
commercialization(Horowitz 1987); that the
highly educated consume mass culture, but
also have a wider range of cultural preferences which distinguishes them from other
groups (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985; DiMaggio
1987; Hughes and Peterson 1983, Robinson
and Garnier 1985). Does this mean that
America has an undifferentiatedmass culture
where cultural exclusion is infrequent, and
that high status signals are purely individually
defined and not institutionalized?It is unlikely, especially given the importantcultural
influence of the mass media.
However, a consensus of high status
culturalsignals could very well be less stable
in the U.S. than it is in France, for the public
for various types of cultural goods changes
rapidly, e.g., countrymusic went from being
rural music to working class music after
WWII (Peterson and DiMaggio 1975; for an
empirical assessment of the level of consensus in the U.S. cf. DiMaggio and Ostrower
1987; no comparativedata is available at this
point). Frequentcultural innovation, as well
as transgressionsbetween culturalgenres and
styles (e.g., Californian cuisine, winecoolers, the Boston Pops) probablyconstantly
redefine hierarchiesof signals. Race, and to a
lesser extent, ethnicity, would also have a
negative effect on the cultural consensus.
Consequently, symbolic boundariesbetween
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
“legitimate” and “illegitimate” cultures are
likely to be weaker.
The permeabilityof symbolic boundariesor the existence of a legitimate culture-can
be identifiedby documentingstrugglesaround
these boundaries between members of lifestyle clusters, which is a most urgenttask for
evaluating the usefulness of the notion of
cultural capital for studying American society. Boundaries exist only if they are
“repeatedlytested by persons on the fringes
of the group and repeatedly defended by
persons chosen to representthe group’s inner
morality.” (Erikson 1966, p. 23). Therefore,
cultural laissez-faire, or infrequent direct
cultural exclusion based on a random land
variableset of criteria, would be indicatorsof
an ill-defined and weakly differentiatedlegitimate culture.
We believe that the “class racism” (or
cultural intolerance) described in Distinction
is more frequentin France than, let’s say, in
the American Midwest, which would reflect
1) the existence of a less strongly differentiated legitimate culture; and 2) a greater
autonomy of lower class high status cultural
signals from middle class ones. But this issue
needs to be empirically explored.’3 The
problem of stability of cultural boundaries
goes unmentionedin Bourdieu’s work. This
is one area in which researcherscould expand
on the French work in a theoreticallyfruitful
way.
3. DocumentingAmericanforms
of cultural capital
We have seen that, as research on cultural
capital has spread, definitions of the concept
have multiplied. On the whole, however,
studies have followed Bourdieu and paid
special attentionto “high culture”in pointing
out the items that make up the legitimate
culture. Most notably, DiMaggio and colleagues operationalized cultural capital as
knowledge of classical music and participation in the fine arts (DiMaggio 1982;
DiMaggio and Useem 1978; 1982-cf., also
13
One of the few researchersworking on the problem
of cross-nationaldifferences in the influence of cultural
selection on the stratificationsystem is Richard Munch
(1988). Also, Ganzeboom (1986) found that cultural
socialization affects status attainmentin a similar way in
the U.S., the Netherlandsand Hungary, which suggests
that cultural and social selection functions similarly in
these three national settings.
Cookson and Persell 1985a; 1985b). Although this choice has often been a wise
choice given the data available’4, no one has
yet empirically tested if participationin high
culture events is an adequate indicator of
cultural capital in the U.S. Firsthandexperience with American culture-especially outside the East Coast-could cast doubt on the
centrality of high culture participationas a
basis for social and culturalselection.
Documenting the socially and historically
specific forms of American culturalcapital is
now an urgent empirical task. At this point,
much of our knowledge concerning high
status culturalsignals is located in “how to”
books which spell out in detail the proper
symbols and behaviors that assist occupational success, including clothing, jewelry,
conversation styles, gift giving, alcohol
consumption, dinner party etiquette, leisure
time activities, and communityservice. Biographiesof upwardlymobile individualswhich
reveal how they changed their dress, speech,
household furnishings,and dietarypatternsto
fit in their new milieux also provide valuable
informationscatteredin bits and pieces.
In order to systematically document the
American forms of cultural capital in America, one could identify clusters of people who
share similar repertoires of institutionalized
signals by interviewingmanagers,professionals and entrepreneurson their preferencesand
lifestyles-the latter being seen as ideal by
Americans(Colemanand Rainwater(1978).15
The respective weight of various items in the
legitimate culture-a topic unexplored by
American and French researchers alike14
DiMaggio (1982, p. 191) states: “While it would be
preferableto groundthese measuresin observed cultures
of dominant status groups, in the absence of such a
rigorous data base, high cultural measures representthe
best alternativefor several reasons.” He also proposes
(p. 199) that “An ideal data set for our purposes would
contain measuresof culturalcapital groundedin research
on adult elites in a single community;objective measures
of grades, standardizedby school; data on teachers’
evaluations of students’ characters and aptitudes; and
observationallygrounded measures of students’ interaction style, both linguistic and nonverbal.”
15 This culture has been almost completely neglected
by studentsof Americanculturewho have focused on the
upper class culture (Baltzell 1964; Domhoff 1974), the
middle class at large (Bellah et al. 1985; Kanter 1977;
Mills 1953; Varennes 1977), and the working class and
the underclass cultures (Garson 1977; Liebow 1967;
Rubin 1976; Sennett and Cobb 1973). It should be noted
that Wuthnow (1987, chap. 3) offers interestinginsights
on how to study symbolic boundaries.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
should be analyzed while documenting how
people evaluate status. This can be done by
comparingthe importanceattachedto various
types of cultural preferences-e.g., knowledge of high culture in contrast with other
types of signals, such as familiarity with
sports, owning guns and horses, belonging to
health clubs, churches, and country clubs,
havingenvironmentalconcerns, sendingone’s
children to private schools, and belonging to
ethnic or historic associations. This would
allow identifying clusters of individuals who
share specific tastes, and discovering which
clusters are predominant (e.g., “pointyheaded high brow liberals on bicycle” vs
“God-fearing materialist entrepreneurs”)in
various types of occupations and regions.
The weight of items of legitimate culture
can also be analyzed by looking at the
importanceattachedto purchasable signals in
contrastto culturallyacquiredones. Firsthand
cross-culturalexperience suggests that in the
U.S., in contrast to France, access to goods
(e.g., having a wine cellar, or buying
expensive biking or skiing equipment) is
more importantthan modalities of consumption (i.e., the wine consumption examples
cited below, manners, dressing code), or
connoisseurship, which are likely to be less
nuanced and elaborate;fewer valued signals
are likely to be inexpensive (e.g., reading
Sartrein contrastto buying “yuppy”paraphernalia). This trait might be becoming more
pronounced, as exemplified by the recent
rapid diffusion of the expensive yuppy
culture, and the simultaneous decline of
culturalliteracy.
Based on studies of French images of
American life, we can predict that American
legitimatecultureis less relatedto knowledge
of the Western humanist culture, is more
technically oriented (with an emphasis on
scientific or computerinformation),and more
materialistic than the French legitimate culture depicted in Distinction (Wylie and
Henriquez 1982; on consumptionin the U.S.
cf., also Sobel 1983, Zablocki and Kanter
1976). Valued attitudes and personal styles
are also likely to be different:ratherthan the
aloofness, originality, non-profit orientation,
brilliance, and off-handedness valued in the
French context-according to Bourdieu
(1984[1979])-some evidence suggests that
aggressiveness, competence, entrepreneurship, self-reliance,
self-directiveness,
“problem-solvingactivism,” and adaptability
163
are desirablepersonal styles in the American
context (Katchadourianand Boli 1985; cf.
also Bellah et al. 1985; Kerckhoff 1972;
Kohn and Schooler 1983; Varennes 1977).
While Bellah et al. (1985) were concerned
with some of these values, they did not
systematicallydocumentthe Americanrepertoire of high status culturalsignals, and were
more interestedin how people make sense of
their lives and their self.
4. Turningcapital into profits
As noted earlier, one of the strengthsof the
concept of cultural capital is that it leaves
room for individualbiographiesby takinginto
consideration variations in how individuals
use their cultural capital. The day-to-day
processes and micro-level interactions in
which individualsactivate their culturalcapital to gain access to social settings or attain
desired social results-i.e., the study of
culturalreproductionin action-is an interesting topic still neglected by American and
French researchers alike (besides Heath
1982).16 These processes and interactions
could be studied in employment and school
settings:
1) Studies in stratification and social
mobility are often quite vague about the
culturalskills workersdemonstratein employment settings and their influence on their
occupational prospects. In her study of
managers, Kanter (1977) touches on related
issues: she argues that the indeterminacyof
managers’ work fosters an organizationemphasis on social homogeneity, that management relies on indicatorsof social conformity,
and that the behavior of managersoutside of
the office, in evening get-togethers and
weekend outings, contributes to managers’
chances for occupational success. Some of
these events requiremanagersto demonstrate
cultural competencies (e.g., playing golf,
giving dinner parties) and signs of cultural
membership. Other studies (Deal and Ken16
This programwould also produce a more sophisticated understandingof the link between macro structure
and interaction. For discussions of the importance of
linking the micro and micro levels of analysis see
Alexander (1987); Collins (1981b; 1981c); Giddens
(1984); and Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel (1981). For
examples of studies of micro-level social interaction,
particularly in schools, see Cazden et al. (1972);
Ericksonand Shultz (1982); Ericksonand Mohatt(1982);
Heath (1982; 1983); and Mehan et al. (1986).
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
164
nedy 1982; Packard 1962) also provide
indications that workers’ proficiency in cultural rituals can influence their occupational
futures, but they don’t provide a conceptual
frameworkthat would addressthese issues in
a theoreticallysatisfying way. The concept of
culturalcapital could provide a sound theoretical frameworkto study this topic.
2) This line of researchcan also provide a
conceptual framework for the increasing
number of school ethnographieswhich show
importantclass differences in school interaction. These ethnographies have produced
impressive documentationof the routines of
classroom interaction, but do not make
linkages between these patternsand the larger
social structure(Deyhle 1986; Erickson and
Mohatt 1982; Erickson and Shultz 1982;
Heath 1982; 1983; Wilcox 1982). Along with
studies of language interaction,they can also
offer a fruitful avenue for exploring the
day-to-dayprocesses and micro-level interactions in which individuals activate their
cultural capital to gain access to social
settings or attain desired social results. These
are likely to differ considerably crossnationally,especially given Frenchand American differences in organizational and academic culture (for instance Clark 1978;
Crozier 1964; Lammers and Hickson 1979;
Laurent 1983; Rose 1985).
CONCLUSION
This paper pursuedseveral interrelatedgoals.
It systematizedBourdieuand Passeron’swork
by specifying the theoretical roles cultural
capital plays in their model, and the various
types of high status signals the authors are
concerned with. In the second section, we
looked at the American literatureon cultural
capital to compare it with the original work,
and again point out theoretical gaps and
untested theoretical assumptions. We also
described a research agenda to decouple the
concept from the French context in which it
has been developed.
Confusion, some of it creative, has dominated discussions of culturalcapital. To solve
this problem, we proposed to define cultural
capital as widely shared, legitimate culture
made up of high status cultural signals
(attitudes,preferences,behaviors, and goods)
used in direct or indirect social and cultural
exclusion.
We differentiated Bourdieu’s work from
others concerned with status attribution.We
suggested that Bourdieu differs from Weber
most importantlyin that he provides a more
sophisticatedconception of exclusion in part,
because he is concerned with indirect forms
of exclusion as well. Bourdieu’s theory
differs from Veblen’s in that he thinks that
status signals are mostly sent unconsciously,
via the habitus, or unintentionally,because of
the classificatoryeffects of culturalcodes.
Bourdieuand Passeron’s work improveson
others by providing a more structuraltheory
of discrimination in school settings, and a
more dynamic approach to social reproduction which leaves room for agency. It also
takes a more structural view at status
attribution as it looks at institutionalized
signals. Simultaneously,the relationalmethod
of identification of cultural capital presents
importantoperationalizationproblems, which
result in contestedconclusions concerningthe
subordinate nature of lower class culture.
Furthermore,many aspects of the framework
remain undertheorized,particularlyconcerning the theory of power underlyingthe work.
In orderto build on the importantavailable
American work, and to make cultural capital
less bound to the French context in which it
was developed, we proposedto step back and
1) assess the relevance of cultural capital in
the U.S.; 2) document the American repertoire of high status cultural signals; and 3)
analyze how capital is turned into profits in
American organizations and schools. This
could be done by analyzing 1) conflicts
aroundsymbolic boundaries;2) the weight of
various items in the legitimate culture (e.g.,
high culturevs sportconnoisseurship,purchasable vs non-purchasablesignals); and 3) the
day-to-day process and micro-level interactions where individuals activate their cultural
capital to gain access to social settings or
attaindesired social results.
While Weber was mostly concerned with
status groups, and Bourdieu, with differentiated class culturesand theirrelationshipto the
legitimate culture or cultural capital, we are
reaching the conclusion that more attention
should be given to the institutionalized
repertoire of high status cultural signals and
to conflicts aroundsymbolic boundaries.Our
program would avoid the pitfalls of the
original framework, particularly the confusion concerningmultiple functions of cultural
capital, and the unsupported assumptions
relative to the relationalnatureof the cultural
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CULTURALCAPITAL
system and the lack of autonomy of dominated culture. It would also preserve some of
the advantagesof the original framework,by
retaining Bourdieu and Passeron’s sophisticated analysis of direct and indirect exclusion, which largely accounts for the original
success of their theory.
Culturalcapitalcan improveourunderstanding of the way in which social origin provides
advantages in social selection. In particular,
by focusing on the “investment”practices, it
stands to yield a more active and dynamic
model of social reality. Further work on
cultural capital, which unravels cultural
reproduction while highlighting individual
strategies, stands to make an important
contributionto research on culture, power,
and social stratification.
165
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. “On Interest and the Relative
Autonomy of Symbolic Power.” Chicago: Working
papersand proceedingsof the Centerfor Psychosocial
Studies.
. 1987[1979]. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp.
241-58 in Handbookof Theory and Researchfor the
Sociology of Education,edited by JohnG. Richardson.
New York: GreenwoodPress.
. 1985a. “The Social Space and the Genesis of
Groups.” Theoryand Society. 14:723-744.
. 1985b. “The Market of Symbolic Goods.”
Poetics. 14:13-44.
. 1984[1979]. Distinction: A Social Critique of
the Judgmentof Taste. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
. 1979b[1977]. Algeria 60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.1977a[1971]. “CulturalReproductionand Social
Reproduction.”Pp. 487-511 in Power and Ideology in
Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A.H.
Halsey. New York: Oxford.
. 1977b[1972]. Outline of a Theory of Practice.
London:CambridgeUniversity Press.
. 1976[1972]. “MarriageStrategies as Strategies
REFERENCES
of Social Reproduction.”Pp. 117-144 in Family and
Society, edited by R. Forster and 0. Ranum.
Alexander, Jeffrey. ed. 1987. The Micro-Macro Link.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
. 1974a[1966]. “The School as a Conservative
Anyon, Jean. 1981. “Social Class and School KnowlForce: Scholastic Achievement and CulturalInequaliedge.” CurriculumInquiry. 11:1-42.
ties.” Pp. 32-46 in ContemporaryResearch in the
. 1980. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum
of Work.” Journal of Education. 162:67-92.
Sociology of Education, edited by J. Eggleston.
London:Methuen.
Apple, Michael. ed. 1982. Cultural and Economic
.1961[1958]. The Algerians. Boston, MA:
Reproductionin Education:Essays on Class, Ideology
and the State. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Beacon Press.
Apple, Michael W. and Lois Weis. 1985. “Ideology and Bourdieu, Pierre, Darbel Alain and Dominique SchnapSchooling: the Relationship Between Class and
per. 1966. L’amourde I’Art:les musees Europeins et
Culture.” Educationand Society. 3:45-63.
leur Public. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Arnot, Madeline and Geoff Whitty. 1982. “From Bourdieu, P., Luc Boltanski and Monique de St-Martin.
1973. “Les strategies de reconversion.” Information
Reproductionto Transformation:Recent Radical Persur les sciences sociales 12:61-113.
spectives on the Curriculumfrom the USA.” British
Journal of Sociology of Education. 3:93-103.
Bourdieu, Pierreand Jean-ClaudePasseron. 1979[1964].
Bachrach P. and M. Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of
The Inheritors, French Studentsand their Relation to
Power.” American Political Science Review.
Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56:445-483.
. 1977[1970]. Reproductionin Education,Society
and Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Baltzell, E. Digby. 1964. The ProtestantEstablishment.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-ClaudePasseron, with Michel
Eliard. 1964. Les etudiants et leurs etudes. Paris:
Bazelon, David T. 1963. Power in America: the Politics
Mouton.
of the New Class. New York: New AmericanLibrary.
Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-ClaudePasseronand Monique de
St-Martin.1965. Rapportpedagogique et communicaUniversity of CaliforniaPress.
tion. Paris:Mouton.
Bellah, Robert, RichardMadsen, William W. Sullivan,
Ann Swidler and Steven Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Bowers, C.A. 1980. “Curriculumas CulturalReproducHeart. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
tion: an Examination of Metaphor as a Carrier of
Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming Crisis of Post-Industrial
Ideology.” Teachers College Record. 82:267-289.
Bullivant, Brian M. 1982. “Power and Control in the
Society. New York: Basic.
Multi-EthnicSchool: Towards a ConceptualModel.”
Bernstein, Basil. 1977. Class, Codes and Control. Vol.
3. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ethnic and Racial Studies. 5:53-70.
. 1964. “Elaboratedand Restricted Codes: their Camoy, Martin. 1982. “Education, Economy and the
Social Origin and Consequences.” American AnthroState.” Pp. 79-126 in Cultural and Economic
pologist. 66 (part 2):55-62.
Reproductionin Education, edited by Michael Apple.
London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bielby, William T. 1981. “Models of Status Attainment.” Research in Social Stratificationand Mobility. Cazden, Courtney,John Vera, and Del Hymes. ed. 1972.
1:3-26.
Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York:
TeachersCollege.
Blau, Judith. 1986a. “The Elite Arts, More or Less de
Rigueur: a Comparative Analysis of Metropolitan Cicourel, Aaron and Hugh Mehan. 1984. “Universal
Culture.” Social Forces. 64:875-905.
Development, StratifyingPractices, and Status Attain. 1986b. “High Culture as Mass Culture.”
ment.” Research in Social Stratificationand Mobility.
4:3-27.
Society. 23:65-69.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Cicourel Aaron V. and John I. Kitsuse. 1969. The DiMaggio, Paul and Francie Ostrower. 1987. “ParticiEducationalDecision-Makers.Indianapolis,IN: Bobbspation in the Arts of Black and White Americans.”
Merrill.
Unpublished paper. Departmentof Sociology, Yale
Clark, Burton R. 1978. “Academic Differentiation in
University.
National System of Higher Education.” Comparative DiMaggio, Paul and Michael Useem. 1982. “The Arts in
CulturalReproduction.”Pp. 181-201 in Culturaland
and InternationalEducationSociety. June:242-258.
Economic Reproductionin Education, edited by M.
Coleman, R.P. and L. Rainwaterwith K.A. McClelland.
1978. Social Standing in America:New Dimensions of
Apple. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
. 1978. “Cultural Democracy in a Period of
Class. New York: Basic Books.
Cultural Expansion: the Social Composition of Arts
Collins, Randall. 1987. “A Micro-Macro Theory of
Audiences in the United States.” Social Problems.
IntellectualCreativity:The Case of GermanIdealistic
26:180-197.
Philosophy.” Sociological Theory. 5:47-69.
. 1985. ThreeSociological Traditions.New York: Domhoff, G. Williams. 1974. The Bohemian Grove and
other Retreats. New York: Harper.
Oxford.
. 1981a. “The Microfoundationsof Macrosociol- Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood. 1979. The World
of Goods: Toward an Anthropologyof Consumption.
ogy.” AmericanJournal of Sociology. 84:984-1014.
New York: W.W. Norton.
. 1981b. “Micro-Translation as a TheoryBuilding Strategy.” Pp. 81-108 in Advances in Social Dubin, Steven C. 1986. “Symbolic Slavery: Black
Representationsin PopularCulture.” Paper presented
Theory and Methodology, edited by Karin Knorrat the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological
Cetina and Aaron V. Cicourel. London: Routledge &
Association, New York.
Kegan Paul.
Eder, Donna. 1981. “Ability Grouping as a Self. 198 c. “CulturalCapitalismand Symbolic ViFulfilling Prophecy.” Sociology of Education.
olence.” Pp. 173-182 in Sociology Since Midcentury:
54:151-161.
in
York:
Academic
Cumulation.
New
Theory
Essays
Emerson, Richard. 1962. “Power-Dependence RelaPress.
tions.” AmericanSociological Review. 27:31-41.
. 1979. The Credential Society. New York:
Erickson, Frederickand GeraldMohatt. 1982. “Cultural
Academic Press.
Organizationof ParticipationStructuresin two ClassConnell, R.W., D.J. Ashenden, S. Kessler, and G.W.
rooms of Indian Students.” Pp. 132-174 in Doing the
Dowsett. 1982. Making the Difference: Schools,
Ethnographyof Schooling, edited by G. Spindler.New
Families and Social Division. Boston, MA: Allen &
York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Unwin.
Frederick and Jeffrey J. Shultz. 1982. The
Erickson,
W.
and
Jr.
Caroline
Persell.
1985a.
Peter
Cookson,
Counseloras Gatekeeper.New York:Academic Press.
Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding
Erikson, Kai T. 1966. WaywardPuritans: a Study in the
Schools. New York: Basic.
Sociology of Deviance. New York: Wiley.
. 1985b. “English and American Residential
Michael. 1988. “Cultural Production,
Featherstone,
of
a
the
Comparative Study
Secondary Schools:
Consumption and the Development of the Cultural
Reproductionof Social Elites.” ComparativeEducaSphere.” Paper presented at the Third Germantion Review. 29:283-298.
American Theory conference. “Culture- Effects and
Phenomenon.
1964.
The
Bureaucratic
Michel.
Crozier,
Consequences.” Bremen, West Germany.
Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
Gans, HerbertJ. 1986. “America Popular Culture and
Dahl, Robert. 1968. “Power.” Pp. 205-214 in InternaHigh Culture in a Changing World.” Prospect.
tional Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 12.
10:17-38.
Press.
New York: Free
.1973. Popular Cultureand High Culture. New
Davis, James A. 1982. “Achievement Variables and
York: Free Press.
Class Cultures:Family, Schooling, Job and Forty-Nine
Ganzeboom, Harry B.G. 1986. “CulturalSocialization
Dependent Variables in the Cumulative G.S.S.”
and Social Reproduction: a Cross-National Test of
AmericanSociological Review, 47:569-86.
Bourdieu’s Theory of Stratification.”Paper presented
Deal, Terrence, E. and A.A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate
at the InternationalSociological Association World
Culture: the Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life.
Congress, New Delhi, India.
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Readings,
Garson, Barbara.1977. All the LivelongDay. New York:
Deyhle, Donna. 1986. “Break Dancing and Breaking
Penguin.
Out: Anglos, Utes, and Navajos in a Border Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society:
ReservationHigh School.” Anthropologyand EducaOutline of a Theory of Structuration.Berkeley, CA:
tion. 17:110-127.
University of CaliforniaPress.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. “Classification in the Arts.” Giroux, Henry A. 1983. Theory and Resistance in
AmericanSociological Review. 52:440-55.
Education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Harvey.
. 1982. “CulturalCapitaland School Success: the Goffman, Erving. 1951. “Symbols of Class Status.”
British Journal of Sociology. 2:294-304.
Impactof StatusCultureParticipationof the Gradesof
U.S. High School Students.” American Sociological Gouldner,Alvin. 1979. TheFutureof Intellectualsor the
Review. 47:189-201.
Rise of the New Class. New York: Seabury.
1977. “Social Class and Art Consumption: Greenberg, M. G. and R. E. Frank. 1983. “Leisure
Origins and Consequences of Class Differences in
Lifestyles: Segmentationby Interests, Needs, DemoExposureto the Arts in America.” Theoryand Society.
graphics and Television Viewing.” American Behavioral Scientist. 26:439-58.
5:109-132.
DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr. 1985. “CulturalCapital, Grignon, Claude and Jean-ClaudePasseron. 1985. “A
Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection.”
propos des cultures populaires.” Marseilles: Cahiers
du Cercom.
AmericanJournal of Sociology. 90:1231-1261.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
167
CULTURAL CAPITAL
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words. London:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
. 1982. “Questioning at Home and at School: a
Comparative Study.” Pp. 102-131 in Doing the
Ethnographyof Schooling, editedby G. Spindler.New
York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture:the Meaning of Style.
London:Methuen.
Hodson, Randy and Robert L. Kaufman. 1982. “Economic Dualism: a CriticalReview.” American Sociological Review. 47:727-39.
Horowitz, Joseph. 1987. UnderstandingToscanini:How
He Became an American Culture-God and Helped
Create a New Audiencefor Old Music. Minneapolis:
University of MinneapolisPress.
Horowitz, Ruth. 1983. Honor and the AmericanDream:
Culture and Identity in a Chicano Community.New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hughes, M. and R.A. Peterson. 1983. “IsolatingCulture
Choice Patterns in the U.S. Population.” American
Behavioral Scientist. 26:459-78.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Womenof the
Corporation.New York: Basic.
Katchadourian, Herant. A. and John. Boli. 1985.
Careerism and Intellectualism among College Students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kerckhoff,Alan C. 1972. Socializationand Social Class.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Aaron V. Cicourel. 1981.
Advances in Social Theoryand Methodology:Toward
an Integration of the Micro- and Macro-sociologies.
London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler with Joanne
Miller, Karen A. Miller, Carrie Schoenbach, and
Ronald Schoenberg. 1983. Workand Personality: an
Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification.
Norwood, N.J.: Tablex Publ. Co.
Lamont, Michele. Forthcoming. “The Power-Culture
Link in a ComparativePerspective.” in Comparative
Social Research, vol. 11, edited by Craig Calhoun.
Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
. 1987a. “Cultural Capital and the Political
Behavior of Professionals and Managers:a Comment
on Brint.”AmericanJournalof Sociology. 96:1501-05.
. 1987b. “How to Become a Dominant French
Philosopher:the Case of Jacques Derrida.” American
Journal of Sociology. 93:584-622.
. 1986. “CulturalCapital, Nationalism and the
New Class in Quebec 1965-1980.” Paperpresentedat
the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological
Association, New York.
Lammers, Cornelis J. and David J. Hickson. 1979. “A
Cross-National and Cross-InstitutionalTypology of
Organizations.” Pp. 420-34 in Organizations Alike
and Unlike:Internationaland InterinstitutionalStudies
in the Sociology of Organizations,edited by Cornelius
J. Lammersand David J. Hickson. London:Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Lareau, Annette. 1987. “Social Class Differences in
Family-School Relationships:the Importanceof CulturalCapital.” Sociology of Education. 60:73-85.
. Forthcoming. Home Advantages: Social Class
and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education.
London:FalmerPress.
Laurent, Andre. 1983. “The Culture Diversity of
Western Conceptions of Management.” International
Studies of Management and Organization. 13
(1-2):75-96.
Lemert, Charles. 1981. French Sociology: Ruptureand
Renewal since 1968. New York: ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Liebow, Elliot. 1967. Tally’s Corner.Boston, MA: Little
Brown.
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. New
York: Macmillan.
Martin,Bill and Ivan Szelenyi. 1987. “Beyond Cultural
Capital:Toward a Theory of Symbolic Domination”.
Pp. 16-49 in Intellectuals, Universitiesand the State,
edited by R. Eyerman and T. Soderquist. Berkeley,
CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
Mehan, Hugh, Alma Hertweck, and Jay H. Meihls.
1986. Handicappingthe Handicapped. Stanford,CA:
StanfordUniversity Press.
Merelman, Richard. M. 1984. Making Something of
Ourselves: On Culture and Politics in the United
States. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin. 1987. “The Case of the
Missing Bracket:Teachers and Social Reproduction.”
Journal of Education. 169:78-88.
Mills, C. Wright. 1953. White Collar. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, A. 1985. The Nine American Lifestyles. New
York: MacMillan.
Munch, R. 1988. “The Productionand Reproductionof
Inequality: A Theoretical and Comparative Cultural
Analysis.” Paper presented at the Third GermanAmerican theory conference. “Culture- Effects and
Consequences”.Bremen, West Germany.
Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools
StructureInequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Packard, Vance. 1962. The Pyramid Climbers. New
York: Crest.
Passeron, Jean-Claude. 1986. “La signification des
theories de la reproductionsocio-culturelle.” International Social Science Journal. 38(3):619-29.
Persell, Caroline Hodges and Peter W. Cookson, Jr.
1987. “Microcomputersand Elite Boarding Schools:
Educational Innovation and Social Reproduction.”
Sociology of Education. 60:123-134.
.1985. “Charteringand Bartering:Elite Education and Social Reproduction.” Social Problems.
33:115-129.
Peterson, Richard A. Forthcoming. “La sociologie de
l’art et de la culture aux Etats-Unis.” in Annee
Sociologique.
.1979. “Revitalizing the Culture Concept.”
AnnualReview of Sociology. 5:137-166.
Peterson, RichardA. and Paul DiMaggio. 1975. “From
Region to Class, the Changing Locus of Country
Music: a Test of the MassificationHypothesis.” Social
Forces. 53:497-506.
Rist, Ray. 1970. “Student Social Class and Teacher
Expectations: the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto
Education.”HarvardEducationalReview.40:411-450.
Robins, J. 1985. Public Participation in the Arts. A
Project Summary. College Park, MD: University of
MarylandSurvey Center.
Robinson, Robert V. and Maurice A. Garnier. 1985.
“Class Reproduction among Men and Women in
France: ReproductionTheory on its Home Ground.”
AmericanJournal of Sociology. 91:250-280.
Rose, Michael. 1985. “Universalism, Culturalismand
the Aix Group:Promise and Problems of the Societal
Approachto Economic Institution.” European Sociological Review. 1:65-83.
This content downloaded from 137.110.32.43 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:05:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
From Max Weber:Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans
Rubin, Lillian Breslow. 1976. Worlds of Pain. New
Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford
York: Harperand Row.
Schonfeld, W.R. 1976. Obedience and Revolt: French
University Press.
Behavior TowardAuthority.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wilcox, KathleenA. 1982. “DifferentialSocialization in
Sennett, Richardand JonathanCobb. 1973. The Hidden
the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity.”
Injuries of Class. New York: RandomHouse.
Pp. 269-309 in Doing the Ethnographyof Schooling,
Sobel, Michael E. 1983. “Lifestyle Differentiationand
edited by G. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehartand
Stratification in Contemporary U.S. Society.” ReWinston.
search in Social Stratificationand Mobility.2:115-144.
Wilensky, Harold L. 1964. “Mass Society and Mass
Taylor, Sandra. 1984. “Reproductionand Contradiction
Culture:Interdependenceor Independence.”American
in Schooling: the Case of Commercial Studies.”
Sociological Review 29:173-196.
British Journal of Sociology of Education. 5:3-18.
Paul. 1981. “Cultural Production is Different
Willis,
Thompson, John. 1984. “Symbolic Violence: Language
from Social Reproductionis Different from Reproducand Power in the Writings of Pierre Bourdieu.” Pp.
tion.” Interchange 12:48-67.
42-70 in Studies in the Theory of Ideology. London:
. 1977. Learning to Labor. How WorkingClass
Polity Press.
Kids get WorkingClass Jobs. New York: Columbia
Varennes, Herv6. 1977. AmericansTogether:Structured
University Press.
Diversity in a MidwesternTown. New York: Teachers
Dennis H. 1979. Power: its Forms, Bases and
Wrong,
Press.
College
Oxford: Blackwell
Uses.
Class:
the
Leisure
The
Veblen, Theodor. 1912.
Theoryof
Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order.
An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: B.W.
Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley, CA:
Huebsch.
University of CaliforniaPress.
Watkins, Peter E. 1984. “Culture, CulturalResources,
and the LabourMarket:a Study of ChristianBrothers Wylie, Laurence and R. Henriquez. 1982. “Images of
Americansin FrenchTextbooks.” TocquevilleReview.
College.” The Australian Journal of Education.
29:173-96….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.