Cultural Capital

While he didnt consider himself a Marxist sociologist, the theories of Karl Marx heavily influenced
Bourdieus thinking. Marxs influence is perhaps most evident in Bourdieus theory of cultural capital. Like
Marx, Bourdieu argued that capital formed the foundation of social life and dictated ones position within
the social order. For Bourdieu and Marx both, the more capital one has, the more powerful a position one
occupies in social life. However, Bourdieu extended Marxs idea of capital beyond the economic and into
the more symbolic realm of culture.
Bourdieus concept of cultural capital refers to the collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes,
posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. that one acquires through being part
of a particular social class. Sharing similar forms of cultural capital with othersthe same taste in movies,
for example, or a degree from an Ivy League Schoolcreates a sense of collective identity and group
position (people like us). But Bourdieu also points out that cultural capital is a major source of social
inequality. Certain forms of cultural capital are valued over others, and can help or hinder ones social
mobility just as much as income or wealth.
According to Bourdieu, cultural capital comes in three formsembodied, objectified, and institutionalized.
Ones accent or dialect is an example of embodied cultural capital, while a luxury car or record collection
are examples of cultural capital in its objectified state. In its institutionalized form, cultural capital refers to
credentials and qualifications such as degrees or titles that symbolize cultural competence and authority.

Habitus
Habitus is one of Bourdieus most influential yet ambiguous concepts. It refers to the physical embodiment
of cultural capital, to the deeply ingrained habits, skills, and dispositions that we possess due to our life
experiences. Bourdieu often used sports metaphors when talking about the habitus, often referring to it as
a feel for the game. Just like a skilled baseball player just knows when to swing at a 95-miles-per-hour
fastball without consciously thinking about it, each of us has an embodied type of feel for the social
situations or games we regularly find ourselves in. In the right situations, our habitus allows us to
successfully navigate social environments. For example, if you grew up in a rough, crime ridden
neighborhood in Baltimore, you would likely have the type of street smarts needed to successfully survive
or steer clear of violent confrontations, hustle for jobs and money in a neighborhood with extremely low
employment, and avoid police surveillance or harassment. However, if you were one of the lucky few in
your neighborhood to make it to college, you would probably find that this same set of skills and
dispositions was not usefuland maybe even detrimentalto your success in your new social scenario.
Habitus also extends to our taste for cultural objects such as art, food, and clothing. In one of his major
works, Distinction, Bourdieu links French citizens tastes in art to their social class positions, forcefully
arguing that aesthetic sensibilities are shaped by the culturally ingrained habitus. Upper-class individuals,
for example, have a taste for fine art because they have been exposed to and trained to appreciate it since a
very early age, while working-class individuals have generally not had access to high art and thus havent
cultivated the habitus appropriate to the fine art game. The thing about the habitus, Bourdieu often
noted, was that it was so ingrained that people often mistook the feel for the game as natural instead of
culturally developed. This often leads to justifying social inequality, because it is (mistakenly) believed that
some people are naturally disposed to the finer things in life while others are not.

Field
Along with Bourdieus notion of a feel for the game came his theory of the game itself. Bourdieu
understood the social world as being divided up into a variety of distinct arenas or fields of practice like
art, education, religion, law, etc., each with their own unique set of rules, knowledges, and forms of capital.
While fields can certainly overlapeducation and religion, for example, overlap in many religiously-based
colleges and universities in the United StatesBourdieu sees each field as being relatively autonomous
from the others. Each field has its own set of positions and practices, as well as its struggles for position as
people mobilize their capital to stake claims within a particular social domain. In art, for example, Bourdieu
noticed that each generation of artists sought to overturn the established positions of those who came
before them, only to be critiqued by the next generation of avant-garde artists who sought their own
powerful positions within the field. Much like a baseball or football field, social fields are places where
people struggle for position and play to win.