Bourdieu’s Concepts of Capital and Habitus and Contemporary Class Differences
Introduction
Since 1986 when Bourdieu published his book with the concepts of cultural capital and habitus, many social changes have happened, primarily driven by changes in technology and new ways of interactions. For instance, compared to thirty years ago, it is now easier to break the glass ceiling of social stratification because there is a bigger social spread. Many rich people interact with people from humble backgrounds on the internet, and, since the class is not the first thing that comes up when these relations start, people from higher classes discover that they are interacting with people from the other side a little bit too late after connections have been made. Nevertheless, Bourdieu's concepts are still relevant, and, in this essay, the focus will be streamed on the conviction that Bourdieu's concepts of cultural capital and habitus can be used to illuminate the temporary class differences despite the social changes that have occurred since 1986. Paired against some post-modern theories, Bourdieu's concepts come out with buoyancy, particularly for the reason that they provide a tapestry from where other theories can be developed, to clarify Bourdieu's concepts, rather than to block them.
Bourdieu concepts
The society is stratified in a way that gives the higher levels of the social pyramid something Bourdieu calls cultural capital. Cultural capital refers to the possession of certain characteristics that are desired by people of the upper class. In the theory, he uses the education system to demonstrate that it demands of the pupils what it does not offer; cultural capital. Hence, cultural capital can be earned or inherited. On habitus, he argues that people acquire attributes and behaviors, subconsciously, that help them to conform to society expectation. Thus, people are expected to behave in a certain way, dress in a particular manner and speak in predetermined ways. The habitus theory is a reflection of the informal knowledge transfer of the society that affects how people think and act (Wacquant, 2011, pp. 137–138). In context, poor children learn the culture of the upper class in school, because the upper class designs education systems. The approaches to issues like manners and behaviors are different in upper class from the lower class. A poor child does not grow up eating dinner every day, so such things like table etiquette are secondary. In school, all the children are taught manners and the attributes they need to pick, so as to succeed in their careers and corporate world. Etiquette, table manners, and other behavior come naturally to them while the poor children have to learn them. This delinking between what the kids learn in school and what they experience at home put the poor children at a disadvantage because they are operating in an unfamiliar environment. In the long run, there is a poor kid who is learning two cultures, one in school and the other at home, and there is a kid from upper class who is learning the same thing at home and in school.
Consider Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and compare with reflexity. The standard understanding was that people were conditioned by routine and habits, in a Catholic way (think about how Catholics repeat prayers). Reflexity emerged as an offshoot of dynamics in the modern society, and the new demands of capitalism at the end of the 20th century (Archer, 2010b). Reflexity replaced habitus because most people realized that habits did not provide a guideline for making decisions in a society that was changing very fast. In the reflexity, Archer argues that people living in constant reinvention, flushing familiarity in pursuit of similarity, thereby forming conventional ideologies, cyclically. On the other hand, realism has it that people combine habitus and reflexity, and the carving is not a mosaic, but an intersection at the center. The fact that sociologists have stuck with habitus and reflexity shows the importance of these two concepts as the agents of social mediation; on one hand, you have globalization that creates new problems, and conservative people who value their habits and cultures. Reflexity is the antidote for habitus, but it does not make habitus irrelevant, rather, it offers a different perspective on attributes and traits of people, and how those traits develop. The hybriding of habitus with reflexity takes into consideration the critical role played by habits without ignoring the transformative nature of reflexity, or detraditionalization (Adams, 2006). Therefore, instead of being deterministic about the choice between habitus and reflexity, sociologists should consider the effect of opportunities on the two concepts. The idea is that, in one society, there can be complete reflexity and complete habitus.
Zygmunt Bauman has a completely different view on the impact on imparting knowledge in the modern society. The departure from teaching to learning has vested the powers of attaining knowledge to the individual, creating a wave of de-institutionalization of education. In that regard, then, the system is losing its grip on the people and predetermined dynamic demand for knowledge is replacing teaching modules. The threat of technology by the availability of software that has all learning content is threatening the traditional education establishments, at a faster rate than earlier expected (Bauman, 2005). In the above argument, Bauman deconstructs the premise of Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital, as he used the education system as the railway through which the cultural infringement (for the low class) and cultural capital precipitation (for the upper class) was disseminated. However, this does not complete debunk Bourdieu's concept of social capital, as there is still an unfair accumulation of resources at the upper class. Bauman is not helped by his intellectual journey because it has been full of contradictions, from his ideas in the early nineties about a solid modernity to the current concepts of liquid modernity. He has held points as a post-modernist, before turning to a modernist, whose works, 57 books in total, create more confusion than sense in the readers, thus making him a subject of inconsistence (Atkinson 2008). Also, comparing the ideas of Bauman and Bourdieu with those of Archer in his theory of new social forms, it is clear that cultural capital forms the precedence, and by that fact, the other theories can be viewed as extensions of Bourdieu.
Ulrich Beck argues that modernity has pushed social class to the death bed, and given rise to individualization, where social systems are re-established in singular characterizations (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2001). Beck makes his case by saying that individualization is a making of education and personal development, where the modern professional lives above social ties and cultural yokes. However, the poor people and low class are caught up in systems of stratification, as they have not been exposed to that level of enlightenment that makes people overcome the requirements of the class. Beck's case is deconstructed by Will Atkinson, arguing that the theory is full of contradiction and lack of clarity on what constitutes individualization (Atkinson, 2007). First, Beck argues that the individualization process goes through a breakdown before re-embedding, where people group themselves into new social forms. While Beck's idea is unclear, it cannot be ignored in the study of modern sociology, as it gives a complete re-imagination on social class and forms. When held against the concepts of Bourdieu, the theory of individualization becomes a complete opposite of the cultural capital. Despite the clear differences, one can note that Beck uses the idea of individual success in cultural capital to create an entirely new sociological theory. She is removing the education system from the cultural capital theory, and then giving success to the individuals, who, upon achieving it, refuse to enter the upper class. Instead, they regroup with other people who have defeated stratification to form the new being, the individual.
Margaret Archer’s theory of Morphogenesis argues that societies are getting transformed to new units with different characteristics and form. In this new form lies a difference form of structure and agents. Essentially, Archer is saying that, in the study of social changes, researchers and sociologists should have the relationships between the structures and agents. These relationships include dependency, human relations and political constructions (Archer, 2010). Further advancements on the Archer theory have unveiled the changes in political decisions and class interactions. For example, governments keep relaxing investment rules and other regulations, with a view to enhancing relations between different groups (Porpora, 1989). The new form of societies has led to a reduction of strata, as more people have the opportunity to break off from the chains of poverty and deprivation to a life of abundance. The postulations of Archer's theory have posed serious questions on the relevance of Bourdieu's cultural capital and habitus concepts. The individual in the morphogenesis has changed in stature and power, to become a partner in the whole social construction, as opposed to being a subject. To maximize mutual benefits, different agents interact with the structure with an idea of mutual benefits, something that has made governments drop the firm grips on power.
Arguably, the most convincing contemporary theory about social changes and contemporary societies is the social change and cultural mobility theory (Emmison, 2003). The theory departs from the normal hierarchical classification of people to a society set up that allows agents to move to niches of their choice. Instead of focusing on the traditional approaches of the upper class and lower class, the theory creates a concept of coexistence, articulating the ability of people to claim positions that cannot be entirely classified into class or stratification. The theory uses the univorous principle to poke holes into the omnivorous principle that rested on the premise of predetermined choices. In the univorous setup, one is allowed to choose whatever he wants, and there are no class limitations. In the contemporary world, it is harder than ever to classify people into the strata of high, middle and low class. For instance, someone faced with a choice to make more money or spend his time travelling around the world can choose to be a traveler, meaning that, despite having fewer resources compared to the people in upper class, he is living his choice of life that cannot be entirely fitted in any of the classes.
For its acceptance and popularity, the cultural capital concept still passes without answering some questions. The definition of terms and contexts of application vary with different researchers. Moreover, the theory has not received sufficient empirical backing in the last thirty years to offer credence to its popularity (Kingston, 2001). In a journal article in the Sage, an America’s Sociological Association Journal, Paul Kingston sets out to debunk some basic perceptions about the concept of cultural capital. He agrees that what parents teach their children at home constitutes of culture, but the interaction between children and their parents is not entirely based on cultural exchange. Furthermore, different homesteads, even among the upper class, have different practices, that affect the lives of the children. For instance, a poor kid living with his parents who buy him books on classic literature might pan out as better cultured that a kid from the upper class whose parents do not pay attention to his reading and education. Elsewhere, it is not an issue of black and white when it comes to the role played by the parents at home on the development of kids. While it is true that the upper-class children do better in academics, and they have better chances of success in life, it does not mean that cultural capital is the main contributing factor. The quality of parentage, generational family norms and the presence of mentors might be the main contributing factors to the kid's motivation and determination to go through school successfully. By narrowing down to the idea of social classes, Bourdieu overlooks key potential explanations for the difference between children from poor backgrounds and those from the upper class. It can also be that the parents of poor kids are so engaged in day to day hustle that they do not have time for their children. Then, the issue will become a subject of parentage rather than a concept of cultural capital.
Conclusion
Sociology theories of change differ in approaches and design but intersect at the point of conclusion. For instance, despite the fundamental approaches of Archer and Bourdieu theories, they end up at a point of intersection. Archer used the individual approach, assessing how the individual has an influence on his character and manners while Bourdieu set out to investigate the role of the society in conditioning the individual (Elder-Vass, 2007, pp. 325–327). A similar example can be drawn from practically all the theories discussed, from Bauman to Beck. Thence, the interconnectedness of the theories in their destinations raises concerns on the need to depart from the norms while doing sociological research. Maybe it is true that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Over time, the education system will be defeated by the education individual, at that point where education will become a process of learning rather than a process of teaching. In that case, the advantage of cultural capital will be eroded, in favor of individualization. The emergence will be a new way to classify the social classes, or what Beck calls a re-embedding, a process where people seek their counterparts in the form of similarities. That runs hand in hand with what Bauman refers to looking for fellow educators, or culprits of the system. Everything will then be traced back to the idea of cultural capital and habitus, not in the backdrop of their existence, but their diffusion, and disappearance.
References
Adams, M. (2006) ‘Hybridizing Habitus and Reflexivity: Towards an understanding of contemporary identity?’, Sociology, 40(3), pp. 511–528. doi: 10.1177/003803850663672.
Archer, M.S. (2010a) ‘Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action1’, The British Journal of Sociology, 61, pp. 225–252. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01245.x.
Archer, M.S. (2010b) ‘Routine, Reflexivity, and Realism*’, Sociological Theory, 28(3), pp. 272–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01375.x.
Atkinson, W. (2007) ‘Beck, individualization and the death of class: A critique’, The British Journal of Sociology, 58(3), pp. 349–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2007.00155.x.
Atkinson, W. (2008) ‘Not all that was solid has melted into air (or liquid): A critique of Bauman on individualization and class in liquid modernity’, The Sociological Review, 56(1), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00774.x.
Bauman, Z. (2005) ‘Education in liquid modernity’, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27(4), pp. 303–317. doi: 10.1080/10714410500338873.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and political consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Elder-Vass, D. (2007) ‘Reconciling Archer and Bourdieu in an Emergentist theory of action’, Sociological Theory, 25(4), pp. 325–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00312.x.
Emmison, M. (2003) ‘Social class and cultural mobility: Reconfiguring the cultural Omnivore thesis’, Journal of Sociology, 39(3), pp. 211–230. doi: 10.1177/00048690030393001.
Kingston, P.W. (2001) ‘The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory’, Sociology of Education, 74, p. 88. doi: 10.2307/2673255.
Porpora, D.V. (1989) ‘Four concepts of social structure DOUGLAS V. PORPORA’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(2), pp. 195–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00144.x.
Wacquant, L. (2011) ‘Habitus as topic and tool: Reflections on becoming a Prizefighter’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(1), pp. 81–92. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2010.544176.
