Page 40 - Cultural Change and Ordinary Life

Changing ordinary life 31

These ideas are further explored in the rest of this book and at present I simply
want to emphasize how the habitus is not simply a given, but is produced
through modes of social and cultural interaction. The idea of the habitus has
already been influential in thinking through the ways in which our positions
in the world are structured and lived and I will seek to further develop such
arguments in what follows.
It has been important to introduce the way in which Bourdieu theorizes
the habitus, to contextualize his theory of capitals in structure, agency and
practice. Bourdieu has been critical in contemporary social science in develop-
ing the idea of capital and applying this idea in new ways. As Lin (2001) shows,
this has been a significant general movement in the social sciences, which has
elaborated some basic Marxist insights. As is well known, for Bourdieu, there
exists the economic capital that derives from money, income, economic
investments, and so on and also cultural, social and symbolic capital. In
general, in this idea ‘there is a class, capitalists that controls the means of
production – the process of pedagogic action or the education institutions (in
homes, in schools and so on. In addition, there is more attention to the more
micro social processes of capital deployment’ (Lin 2001: 16). Cultural capital is
made up of phenomena and practices such as knowledge, ways of life, ways of
understanding the world and prestige. There are three main forms of cultural
capital: embodied in ‘long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body’, objecti-
fied ‘in the form of cultural goods’ and institutionalized ‘resulting in such
things as educational qualifications’ (Skeggs 2001: 296). Social capital is based
on social networks, connections or relationships. Symbolic capital is ‘the form
the different types of capital take once they are perceived and legitimated as
legitimate. Legitimation is the key mechanism in the conversion to power’
(Skeggs 2001: 296). Capitals can be converted from one form to another, could
oppose each other or can be stored and therefore gain interest. For example,
those with high economic capital (who are wealthy), can purchase a high-
status education for their child, which could then provide them with forms
of cultural capital in educational qualifications and understanding of ‘high’
culture such as literature and art. Attending high-status (and costly) schools
may also provide a network of contacts (such as the often cited ‘old boy
network’) that might continue at university and in future life.
Another crucial idea that Bourdieu developed is that of field. A field is a
region of social life that has its own set of rules and expectations. Some forms
of capital may be very important in some fields, but less important in others.
However, it is possible to move between fields using the conversion of capitals.
Thus, economic capital may be of prime importance in the economic field, but
it can also be used to advantageous effect in the political field.
It is important therefore to recognize the contextual importance of
Bourdieu’s work to the idea of social capital, especially as this idea has been
significantly developed by Putnam (e.g. 2000) in recent years. Putnam’s basic
idea is deceptively simple. He argues that social capital has declined in the
USA, especially in the period since the Second World War and that while
there are a number of social factors that have contributed to this decline; the
most significant is the increased amount of time devoted to the viewing of
television. It is important to recognize how Putnam defines social capital: