Are there Different forms of Capital?

Bourdieu talks in-depth about the importance of cultural and economic capital in shaping one's identity and thus their categorization into society, however is there any other important aspects of identity you can think of that Bourdieu might have missed? *Just like how Bourdieu argues against Marx that there is not just one defining class factor (economic production)*

Since Bourdieu focuses heavily on cultural and economic capital (both material and objectified) it seems as though he gives agency to those factors to create classes of their own. Marx depicts an extreme image of this with having a defined class system with economic means. Bourdieu doesn't talk about the equity and doesn't acknowledge the idea that not all individuals in society have the same opportunity but measures economic prosperity solely based on the accumulation of capital. Individuals in society can be wealthy but lack cultural economic capital. Econcomic capital can also include access to private healthcare- like in the case of the United States.

Hi Namra,

The way I perceived Bourdieu is that he does acknowledge that all individuals in society do not have the same opportunities. For him, this lack of equality is based on the different cultural and economic capital individuals obtain. He splits up cultural capital and economic capital as two different and distinct forms of capital, however still underlining that they are interdependent. The forms of cultural capital that he alludes to are education and habitus. Both education and habitus provide the individual with unconscious orientations that guide individuals to their positions in line with their class backgrounds. These "orientations" are aspirations and expectations that individuals begin to acquire based on their status and what they see going on around them. This then gives way to accumulation of the respective economic capital, which individuals "aspire" for or are "expected" to have based on their standing in society. The interdependence between cultural capital and economic capital comes in with the concept of consumption, in which individuals use their economic capital to acquire more objectified and institutionalized states of cultural capital, such as (artwork-- objectified; and PhDs -- institutionalized). Therefore, I do believe that Bourdieu's whole argument is based on the unequal opportunities individuals have to endure based on their "capital" which includes economic and cultural capital, but definitely is not limited to it.

Hi Marielle,

It's not really clear if Bourdieu distinguishes between the two, but apart from economic capital we should consider human capital and social capital as distinct nonetheless. Human capital refers to one's life skills, health, knowledge, and motivation. Of course, it could be argued that knowledge is positively related (and possibly attributable to?) economic capital, while motivation in Bourdieu's analysis would be seen as a result of capital, rather than a part of it. Social capital is interactions and accessibility to institutions that shape society such as government, school, etc. but it can be argued that this is in fact dependent once again on human and economic capital.

Therefore, I would argue that there are in fact different forms of capital, but in elaborating them we can see how they already fit into the existing framework that Bourdieu has laid out.

Hi Marielle,

My suggestion is not necessarily what Bourdieu had missed, but another important aspect to his concept of cultural/economic capital shaping identity. Within the social spaces, there is room for individuals to live as long as they follow the written and unwritten rules (the term he uses to describe this is doxa). Within these spaces, he argues individuals have the ability to fight for power. Thus, since individuals fight for power within these social spaces, one could argue there is opportunity to create identity. Although I would argue not individual identity, but a group identity. Those who are able to achieve power within social spaces can form different classes with different contexts. For example, if a group of people within a social space achieve economic power, an upper class can form.

Your mention about how individuals can create identity makes me think of the argument for structure verses agency in the context of Bordieu's theory. I always think of cultural capital in terms of the occupation one has. Occupation is often related to one's cultural capital. For example, buisnessmen sometimes go golfing and this taste in sport is reflective of their high status in society. So if we can choose our profession, for example, by choosing what we study in university, is this a way that individuals can have the agency to create their own identity? And also obtain a certain level of cultural capital? Any thoughts of whether this works in real life?

Nicole, I think you have brought up very interesting questions, particularly in the application to the contemporary life as you suggest. Though the resources that give agency, especially in achieving a profession through university studies, are available to all, it is arguable how equally and readily the availability is. It is challenging with the barriers of entry into university for the lower class youths. Universities continue to become more expensive and exclusive, particularly in North America. These standards exclude many from further acquiring both cultural capital and economic capital. Consequences of exercising this form of agency is often being left with large student loans and debt, which delays life milestones. Students financially supported by their families do not have these loans, which gives them an advantage even though the education process of a degree is the same to all students. To a certain extent this is the unequal opportunities offered to higher status students that have a parent or such paying for tuition and expenses, as Nayantara had suggested earlier.

I agree that education, in contemporary societies, could offer agency for one to creat his own identity, it is arguable about how equally though. I think cultural capital is not only affected by one's education attainment, but also his/her social relations. We have all filled out the question "Do you have family members attend UBC before?" when we applied for universities, and it is quite true that if one has parents/siblings at same university, they would be more likely to be admitted. Even after one enters universities, his social network also plays an important role in his study and work - whether he/she knows some big people, if one is popular he/she might have more news on all kinds of opportunities etc. Gradually, people who are able to achieve power within the social spaces form their own classes with different contexts, and excludes others to attain the cultural capital and economic capital.

Although individuals can created their new identity, the identities that they already have largely force them to perform in certain ways. People with similar identities often have shared aspects, and they tend to live together and do similar routine activities. For example, if people with weak social and economic capitals are living in the same area, the residential segregation could concentrate poverty and give rise to neighbourhoods of low quality. There would be no resources and opportunities for them to move up the ladder.

Hi Marielle, I agree, Bourdieu essentially broke my understanding of Marx for me. I understood that Marx was overly idealistic. (Even when we were talking about DuBois) However, it was another thing to break down the layers of complexities in the way that Bourdieu does with Marx. We all observe that each invididual experience is unique and represent their own differences but it's a completely new experience to see it being described in the way that Bourdieu does.