Pierre Bourdieu's Conceptual Analysis

Bourdieu (1986) believes that the more economic-capital an individual Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930-2002) proposition of ‘reflective sociology’ and comprehension of sociology as an exposition and critique of the underlying structures of social life has had a large impact on social thought (see Navarro 2006, pp.15-17 for more detail). Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘habitus’ (first outlined in The Logic of Practice, 1980) and ‘cultural capital’ (described in The Forms of Capital, 1986) have been particularly influential for theories surrounding identity and community.

Echoing Karl Marx, Bourdieu (1986) posits that economic-capital has formed the foundation of social life and dictates people’s position within the social order (p.46-47). has the more powerful

position they will occupy; he extends Marx’s economic theory of capital towards the symbolic realm of culture (p.49). Bourdieu (1986) describes cultural capital as the collection of symbolic elements that are transmitted within the family and acquired through being a member of a particular social class (p.48-54). He delineates that cultural capital comes in three forms—‘embodied, objectified, and institutionalized’ (1896, p.47). Languages and accents are examples of cultural capital in its embodied state, material possessions such as cars are of objectified cultural capital and institutionalized cultural capital refers to qualifications and credentials that symbolize cultural competence and authority (ibid, p.48-51).
Bourdieu (1986) explains how certain forms of capital have greater value than others, which can hinder individuals social mobility just as much, if not more so than economic capital (p.?).

Bourdieu (1986) implies that shared cultural capital can create a sense of collective identity, at least symbolically (1986, p53). Furthermore, ‘endless’ affirmation and reaffirmation of recognition places groups in dominant positions (ibid). Bourdieu (1986) posits that social capital (groups, memberships, social networks etc.) possessed by these relations of proximity, (which can be ‘geographical’, ‘social’ or ‘economic ‘), ‘provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital … which entitles them to credit ‘– it provides access to resources (p.51). Bourdieu (1986) theory of cultural capital demonstrates the way collective identities can control access to resources, such as education, which in turn affects social positioning, or memberships to

communities.
Sullivan (2001) reaffirmed using empirical research that ‘cultural capital is transmitted within the home and does have a significant effect on performance’ in GCSE examinations (p.893).

However, she explains that the transmission of cultural capital in the family or, ‘cultural reproduction' can only provide ‘a partial explanation of social class differences in educational attainment’ (ibid). Robinson and Garnier (1985) criticised Bourdieu for failing to clarify on the gender inequality in the labour market (p.266). In contrast, Skeggs (1997) which will be discussed in more detail below utilised Bourdieu’s cultural capital approach to reclaim social class within feminist theory

(p.?).
Bourdieu (1984, 2010) discusses how habitus is a social rather than an individual process (p.?) He defines habitus as, ‘a structuring structure, which organises practices and the perception of practices’ (opcit, p.166). It structures an agents actions and their perception of the social world. Bourdieu (2010) explains how habitus is also, ‘a structure of structures, the principle of division into logical classes’, it is ‘a system of difference’ furthermore ‘social identity is defined and asserted through difference’ (p.167). Habitus are tendencies that guide ones behaviour; they are our tastes, to our lifestyles, to our dispositions - which are the result of social structures such as class (p.168). Habitus becomes a ‘sign system’ which are ‘socially qualified’ to make judgements or ‘classifications ‘based on an individual’s membership (2010, p.168).