Talk:Cultural capital

(untitled thread) POV
POV: The first sentence about criticism essentially insults the critics. RedHouse18 8/8/06
 * Removed it. JenLouise 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(WHO CARES) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.208.118 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This article hardly conforms to a neutral point of view. It is clearly written in support of Bourdieu's position and against his critics. Bourdieu the hero. It is not balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.213.200 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Doing a bit of re-work of this article and have just removed these section for now as I am not sure where it should go. They can go back in later.JenLouise 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(untitled thread) Splitting out Cultural reproduction
The article has hitherto not been published in French, but its section on cultural capital is largely based on Les Trois états du capital culturel in Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 30 (1979), see below). Here, cultural capital was described as follows:

In Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction, Bourdieu and Passeron introduced the idea of cultural reproduction (sometimes known as social reproduction), whereby existing disadvantages and inequalities are passed down from one generation to the next. This, according to Bourdieu, is partly due to the education system and other social institutions. Capitalist societies depend on a stratified social system, where the working class has an education suited for manual labour: levelling out such inequalities would break down the system. Thus, schools in capitalist societies will always be stratified too.

Have moved this second paragraph to a stub on cultural reproduction.JenLouise 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article
I propose to nominate this article as Good article. There are criteria of a good articleWhat is a good article?. Do you agree with me.--Communicator1 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) cultarl capital is nnon finacial social assests that peomote social mobility beyond economic means.

GA Failed
This article failed the GA noms due to lack of wikification and inline citations. Tarret 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify
but more in the sense of time, cultural, and traditions bestow elements of the embodied state to another usually by the family through socialisation.

This seems ungrammatical; the syntax is extremely confusing. This is my guess at its meaning: in the sense that temporal and cultural traditions, of embodied state, are transferred to others, usually by the family, through socialisation.

I only came across this subject, Cultural Capital, because a friend mentioned it. Rintrah 08:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following comment is completely unqualified: "Those researchers and theorists who explore or employ Bourdieu’s theory use it in a similar way as it was articulated by Bourdieu. They usually apply it uncritically, and depending on the measurable indicators of cultural capital and the fields within which they measure it, Bourdieu’s theory either works to support their argument totally, or in a qualified way. These works help to portray the usefulness of Bourdieu’s concept in analysing (mainly educational) inequality but they do not add anything to the theory." This is simply not true as there is a wide range of scholars who work critically with Bourdieu's theory. I would suggest this is revised accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenncsavage (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section unbalanced.
The "Criticism" section can be summarized as "people have made criticisms of Bourdieu, but they're all jerks who misread him on purpose, and here's why their arguments aren't valid and/or Bourdieu's theory is still useful." This feels like original research, and needs to change -- if Bourdieu or his school has a standard response to these arguments, hopefully in a citation-worthy source, this can be added, but otherwise the arguments should stand. NPOV and all that. (Disclaimer: I am not entirely sure I understood this section, but I discuss that below.) 38.113.0.254 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't signed in when I wrote that. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs copy-editing.
Or maybe more than that. I'm going to do what I can, but this article has an extremely turgid and difficult writing style. I'm left wondering whether there's really anything of note underneath... Also whether Proust was reincarnated as an anthropologist. 38.113.0.254 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding signature -- forgot to sign in. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is Guillory?
His book on the canon is essential to understanding this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.124.222 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This a a good Page
This page presents a lot of good information however is lacking more insight from other oppositions and supporting authors. I have contributed in the expansion section talking about author Alexander Inglis' 1918 book, principles of secondary Education. This is another stance on the way cultural Capitol in inbreed into the education system. Magdalenarobles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

Missing Reference
Missing reference which is cited several times and should be in the reference list.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.

Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.163.164 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempt to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit—with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: "it was the dirt down the drain." These three functions are directly related to cultural capital because through schooling children are discriminated by social class and cognitively placed into the destination that will make them fit to sustain that social role as they grow. They will be lead down the path into the class they will belong to and during the fifth function will be directly undesirable to the more privileged set of children and be even furthermore pushed down the ladder."

This doesn't seem wikipedia-appropriate, particularly the "little humiliations" bit. It's also totally unsourced.

"What allows a certain thing to exist, or not exist....that is the question."

Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.152.140 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Goldthorpe Critique (Oxford)
Hi guys,

Just read this piece on Bourdieu - Goldthorpe makes a splendid case against the whole paradigm. This should be included in the article, preferably in all caps and red colouring:

"Bourdieu’s view of the transmission of cultural capital as a key process in social reproduction is simply wrong. And the more detailed findings of the research, as noted above, could then have been taken as helping to explain just whyit is wrong. That is, because differing class conditions do not give rise to such distinctive and abiding forms of habitusas Bourdieu would suppose; be-cause even within more disadvantaged classes, with little access to high culture, values favouring education may still prevail and perhaps some relevant cultural resources exist; and because, therefore, schools and other educational institutions can function as important agencies of re-socialisation – that is, can not only underwrite but also in various respects complement, compensate for or indeed counterfamily influences in the creation and transmission of “cultural capital”, and not just in the case of Wun-derkinderbut in fact on a mass scale."

Source: www.sociologia.uniroma1.it/USERS/salmieri/sociologia della cultura e sociologia dei processi culturali 2011-2012/10_Pierre_Bourdieu_la_pratica_della_cultura/Cultural_Capital_Some_Critical_observations.pdf

Or it might be said Goldthorpe's critique is non-notable: "the bulk of Goldthorpe‘s exposition does not do a very good job of representing what Bourdieu‘s actual stands were in regards to the various issues that Goldthorpe raised." http://www3.nd.edu/~olizardo/papers/sociologica-goldthorpe-response.pdf In any event, the dismissive treatment of Goldthorpe's critique is actually justified in the literature--and not "original research".

The required factual reorganisation of the Cultural Capital.
Having read the correspondence herein, I shall clean up the article, based upon the sources.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural capital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227222552/http://www.sociologia.uniroma1.it/USERS/salmieri/sociologia%20della%20cultura%20e%20sociologia%20dei%20processi%20culturali%202011-2012/10_Pierre_Bourdieu_la_pratica_della_cultura/Cultural_Capital_Some_Critical_observations.pdf to http://www.sociologia.uniroma1.it/USERS/salmieri/sociologia%20della%20cultura%20e%20sociologia%20dei%20processi%20culturali%202011-2012/10_Pierre_Bourdieu_la_pratica_della_cultura/Cultural_Capital_Some_Critical_observations.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326142541/http://econ.tau.ac.il/papers/publicf/Zeltzer1.pdf to http://econ.tau.ac.il/papers/publicf/Zeltzer1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Separate section for Paul DiMaggio?
DiMaggio on cultural capital is barely mentioned -- we need to add the creative element, how "cultural capital" can be NEW stuff, new rituals, new institutions. Somehow this article comes across as static and rigidly reproductive, which most assuredly CC is not -- for ex., the history of the Boston Brahmans in DiMaggio, and the invention of public education in Randall Collins (1979/2019) are examples of how status groups (also not mentioned for some reason) can themselves be innovation hearths. Clearly, the triadic typology presented here is outdated -- too static! and needs to answer the question of social change -- where did all this (back then) new stuff come from? 50.4.132.185 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)