I’ve been struggling with Bourdieu’s Distinction for a little while now. My supervisor believes that my work will be improved if I have a working knowledge of the French sociologist’s ideas regarding social and cultural reproductions so, like the dutiful student that I am, I went straight to the source – the 700 odd pages of the English translation of Distinction. It’s a pretty tough text, but that’s not my real problem. My real problem lies in how on earth I can relate it to my own work.
Bourdieu basically argues that, in addition to economic and social capital, there is a form of currency called cultural capital, which is most often inherited (but not in the genetic sense) from one’s parents. This cultural capital is a mechanism for social mobility – or the prevention of said mobility. Essentially, the more cultural capital one has, the closer one is to the dominant elites. Furthermore, the dominant elites use taste, or aesthetic appreciation (and this is where Bourdieu gets his title from) as a tool to subjugate the lower classes. The aesthetic choices that one makes – or at least, you believe you make – determine a person’s social class. Thus ballet is for the elite, while football is for the working classes. Our aesthetic choices create neat little class fractions, which determine where in the pecking order we fit in.
This idea has been further developed in the context of education, with a number of other sociologists exploring whether cultural capital is effectively translated into academic capital through the schooling system. The results are mixed: some people argue that students who display ‘higher’ aesthetic tastes are more likely to receive higher academic marks than their peers who do not display such impressive tastes.
So what? How does this contribute to the development of justice-oriented citizens? Well, I think there is an interesting point here, but I’m struggling to tease it out. We know that students form ‘upper classes’ are more likely to be taught a kind of citizenship education that we could call ‘citizenship as leadership’. One of the previous academics exposed this, while those from lower classes are more likely to be taught ‘citizenship as survival.’ But that’s related to the formal aspect of education – what about my work, which was much less formal? Are students with a high degree of cultural capital – those from elite backgrounds – more likely to be active or justice oriented citizens? In other words, does class background have an effect on one’s preoccupation with social justice?
In addition to that, does having more cultural capital equip a young person with the skills necessary to be a justice-oriented citizens? And if so, does it increase the chances of success for their work as a justice oriented citizen? And a final question, what effect does the medium of their work (in my case, film) have upon their cultural capital? And how does this link to social capital…
Sigh.