Cultural Capital

Various sociologists have investigated the connections and the interdependence between social determinants—such as education, social class, and economic position—and the consumption of cultural products, the formation of tastes and attitudes, and the diverse lifestyle choices. An important source of inspiration for these studies has been Pierre Bourdieu’s broad empirical investigations and theoretical formulations on social practices, power structures, and value systems. In the core of Bourdieu’s theory is the identification of different forms of capital: the distinction between the economic and cultural capital forms the most powerful conceptual pair through which Bourdieu explains the formation and reproduction of social life.

The content of economic capital refers to concrete assets of people, while the concept of cultural capital is more complex. Cultivated behavior, sophisticated social manners, and familiarity with cultural phenomena, arts, and the intellectual world are embodied forms of cultural capital which are internalized in the socialization process. Embodied cultural capital is required in order to obtain objectified cultural capital, that is, transmittable goods, such as books or works of art. The bases of the cultural capital may be inherited through the upbringing in a family in which cultural values are cherished. It may also be accumulated through the education or involvement in cultural or artistic spheres. One fundamental, and institutionalized, form of cultural capital is the educational capital obtained through certificated knowledge in the educational system (Bourdieu, 1984; 1987). Institutionalized cultural capital provides academic qualifications which create a “certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to power” (Bourdieu, 1987, p. 248).

 Because the social conditions of the transmission and acquisition of cultural capital are less visible than those of economic capital, it is predisposed to function as symbolic capital; that is, to be unrecognized as capital and recognized as legitimate competence (Bourdieu, 1987). The concept of symbolic capital is discussed in Bourdieu’s works alongside other forms of capital. Rather than perceiving it as a specific form of capital, it should be understood as a legitimate and generally recognized form of other capitals (Bourdieu, 1987). Any form of capital can be transformed as legitimate assets. Thus, symbolic capital embraces the idea of power. Several researchers have applied the concept of cultural capital as an analytical tool in explaining the relations between educational background and diverse lifestyle choices, cultural consumption, and social trajectories (e.g., DiMaggio, 1987; DiMaggio & Mohr, 1985; Lareau, 1987; Cookson & Persell, 1985; de Graaf, 1986; Kalmijn & Kraaykamp, 1996).

The concept has been applied in various fields ranging from the studies of political attitudes (Lamont, 1987; DiMaggio, 1996) to investigations in religious commitments (Bradford, 2003). Cultural capital has also been noted as important for diverse identity projects, such as in the formation of intercultural or transnational identities (Trueba, 2009), or of a European identity (e.g., Farrell, 2010; Pöllmann, 2009). The broad interest in the concept during the past decades has resulted in diverse definitions and uses, and thus the concept has been given various and even contradictory meanings. Even in Bourdieu’s own works, the focus of the concept differs (Lamont & Lareau, 1988, pp. 155–156). Bourdieu’s investigations on cultural values and the reception of cultural phenomena have indicated how the appreciation of art is related to educational background and cultural capital (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991; Bourdieu, 1984). In an early study on museum visitors, Bourdieu and his colleagues Alain Darbel and Dominique Schnapper divided their informants to those who approached works of art through an artistic code, and to those who approached them through a code of everyday life (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991, pp. 39, 71). The users of the artistic code were able to discuss the works in relation to their style, form, genre, and artistic expression while the users of the code of everyday life categorized and perceived the works in relation to objects and phenomena in everyday life. The researchers related the codes to the social class structure: the users of the artistic code represented educated upper class while the users of the code of everyday life were part of the working class. In Distinction, Bourdieu developed the theory of reception codes further. He continued to explain the reception of art through the distinction between symbolic or poetic and reality-based understanding of the functions of art.

In Distinction emotions and knowledge were intertwined to explain different modes of reception. According to Bourdieu (1984, pp. 30–62), emotions and emotional interpretations are related to the use of the code of everyday life, while the use of artistic code requires aesthetic distance and knowledge of art. Would the same mechanism operate in the interpretation of representations of territorial cultural identities? In Bourdieu’s theory, social classes are based on an individual’s location in the social space and the relations and distances between these locations rather than on the individuals’ personal features.

According to Bourdieu, social classes are ‘only’ theoretical formulations (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 231–232) and their formation inevitably includes the problematic of classification and definition (Bourdieu, 1998, pp. 10–12). Due to this, Bourdieu’s theoretical views have faced a lot of criticism. Especially the emphasis on class has been considered old-fashioned in the contemporary, post-modern culture and the late-modern society in which individualization has often been said to weaken the class-based structures of lifestyle choices and social trajectories (see, e.g., Beck, 1992).

The hierarchical structure of tastes and value systems related to the distinction of ‘high’, ‘low’, and ‘popular’ culture has been considered as transformed and blurred in the postmodern culture and replaced by pluralist taste systems. Since the end of the 20th century, as the critics claim, the cultural differences have been increasingly difficult to explain with social class structure (Fornäs, 1995, p. 128; Hall J., 1992). Several scholars oriented in the postmodern thinking have emphasized how tastes and lifestyle choices are not tied to education, social class, or any type of symbolic capital, but are voluntary choices through which individuals produce their self-image and identity (e.g., Bauman, 1992).

The transformation and blurring of the borders of class-based cultural practices in contemporary culture does not, however, mean that all cultural hierarchies or cultural distinctions have vanished (Fornäs, 1995, p. 121). Several researchers (e.g., Bennett, Emmison & Frow, 1999; Bennett et al., 2008; Pieur, Rosenlund & Skjott-Larsen, 2008; Rosenlund, 2009; Purhonen, Gronow, & Rahkonen, 2011; Purhonen & Wright, 2013) have tested Bourdieu’s theoretical apparatus in more recent societal conditions and noted how the societies, cultures, lifestyles, and tastes are still structured through a complex matrix of different types of symbolic capital, even though the cultural changes and increased global flows have in some cases complicated and transformed certain cultural and social practices. The concepts of culture and identity are closely related—identities are represented in and through cultural products and phenomena. Thus, one could predict that cultural competence and cultural capital in general have an impact on how representations of cultural identities are recognized, perceived, and interpreted.

Some studies (e.g., Robertson, Smyth & McIntosh, 2008; Antonsich & Holland, 2012) have indicated how the social class structure and education are intertwined with the production and understanding of territorial attachments or territorial identities. For example, the statistical analysis by Marco Antonsich and Edward Holland (2012) on the Eurobarometer Survey results from the Western-European countries indicated that the attachment to local, regional, and national scales decreased as the education of the respondents increased. In their investigation, the opposite was true for the European attachment, but without statistical significance. In addition, in wealthy regions the respondents were more likely to feel attachment to Europe, while in the poorer regions the respondents were more attached on the local and regional scales.

Bourdieu’s investigations neither focus on the concept of identity nor discuss its bases as a social, cultural, or subjective practice. He does, however, discuss the social positions of subjects and the logic behind their diverse life choices. The importance of class status and its relation to a tapestry of diverse capitals is manifested in one of Bourdieu’s core concepts—‘habitus’. It can be understood as socialized subjectivity—even though the agents in the social fields make subjective choices, their choices are, however, socially determined (Bourdieu, 1984, pp. 170–172). Various practices of living among a certain class or group are harmonized and homologized in accordance with its specific living conditions, but are not, however, mechanically determined to fulfil a certain social function or an individual ‘need’ (Sulkunen, 1982, p. 108.)

Even though various scholars have criticized the concept of habitus for being overly-deterministic and unable to account for individual change, others have emphasized how it nevertheless recognizes the potential for change. This change is realized through movement across the social space which Bourdieu calls the ‘field’. (Davey, 2009, p. 276) Habitus is probably the most contested of Bourdieu’s concepts, as Diane Reay (2004) notes. Its foundations contradict with the constructivist and post-modernist notions on identity.

Nevertheless, Bourdieu’s emphasis on the socialized subjectivity of habitus has also been used in discussions on identity in order to indicate the limits to reflexivity (Bottero, 2010). This aspect in the concept of habitus is taken as the point of departure (but not as a conceptual tool) (cf. Davey, 2009) in the analysis presented in this article: Identities are not expected to be only ‘free’ or ‘voluntary’ constructions, but the perceptions of them and the interpretations of their manifestations may be dependent on the social structure and some social determinants of the interpreters.

In Bourdieu’s theory, language and language use are intertwined with the social structure, mechanisms of distinction, and battle for profits and capital in the ‘linguistic market’ (Bourdieu, 1984, pp. 226–227; 1993, pp. 79–81). Education and cultural competence influence the ability to interpret and describe representations in art (Bourdieu & Darbel, 1991). Thus, it can be assumed that the ability to describe the representations of territorial cultural identities would also relate to those social determinants that increase the cultural capital. In Bourdieu’s work, language use is an integral part of habitus. Linguistic habitus refers not only to the habit of using the ‘correct’ language in a certain social situation, but also to the language use which is adapted to a certain linguistic market. Market directs the linguistic choices as people aim to speak in a way which is known to be legitimate in a certain field (Bourdieu, 1993). The impact of the linguistic market may, thus, have influenced the responses of the ECOC audience in the questionnaire study.