Having previously discussed the relevance of class to identity formation, this subsection now considers the forms of capital available to young people. It examines Bourdieu et al’s (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990) concepts of social and cultural capital and their relevance to this study.
Although as discussed later in this subsection, his views on social reproduction have received criticism for being vague, lacking empirical support, contradictory and open to different interpretations (inter alia, Woolcock, 2001; Sullivan, 2002; Fine, 2003; Moore, 2008; Tzanakis, 2011), Bourdieu’s work continues to
provide useful insights into the workings of society.
His work is also helpful as an analytic tool (Tzanakis, 2011), in particular the concepts of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990 ) when used to investigate how societies reproduce themselves. For Bourdieu et al (ibid: 1986: 1990), these two concepts refer to the extent in which cultural activities of the family influence educational success, and how an
71
individual’s social capital contributes to social reproduction. Their inherent value lies in their ability to be converted into other forms of capital. This, Bourdieu (1986) concludes, explains how social inequality is reproduced through the concept of social reproduction in education and life.
For Bourdieu, the concept of capital concerns a range of resources to which, humans as social beings, have access. These include the more familiar
economic capital and also includes symbolic capital, of which the latter may be further divided into cultural, social, linguistic, scientific and literary capital
(Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu (1986; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990) suggests that these share some of the characteristics of economic capital, proposing that habits and dispositions form a resource that may be transmitted like wealth, through the generations.
It is argued that cultural capital is the embodiment of economic investment (Moore, 2004) and when realised as the values, tastes, beliefs, and behaviours of groups within society, it becomes distributed unequally through the power structures existing within that particular society. Consequently, the cultural capital of the dominant groups within society become valued above those of groups that have lesser influence. Hence it becomes the prevailing culture of a society, and contributes to the reproduction and legitimisation of class
inequalities within that society (Sullivan, 2002).
Cultural capital is unequally distributed across social class groups and this Bourdieu claims, manifests itself by providing exclusive advantages for some sections of society, notably in the criteria of assessment in schools (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). This he argues, favours those best equipped to cope with tests and examinations, such as students from higher-class families over those
72
from a lower-class background. Although some lower-class students will achieve educational success, it is contended that this merely strengthens the system by giving an impression of meritocracy (Sullivan, 2002). The concept of cultural capital also suggests that when societies institutionalise formal
education, the certificates produced have an embodied cultural capital which serves a similar function in society to that performed by money.
Correspondingly, an individual’s social capital describes the cumulative total of collectively owned resources to which they can access (Bourdieu, 1986), and this idea has achieved much recent public exposure due to the works of Putnam (1995; 2000). Originally a concept developed by Coleman (1988), social capital is not a single entity but a multiplicity which shares two common elements: ‘…they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors-whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure’ (ibid. 1988: S98). For Putnam (1995), social capital is recognised as existing in social configurations such as networks and norms, which build the social trust that allows communities to work together for their mutual benefit; a view embraced by policy makers who employ ‘bottom up’ strategies to address poverty in communities (Leonard, 2005).
However, Bourdieu (1986) views social capital as another way to understand class inequality through the inability to convert it to other forms of capital, particularly economic capital. His perspective holds a more negative
interpretation than Putnam’s (1995; 2000) in that the individual’s environment may inhibit social capital’s conversion, particularly if they possess low stocks of it, or occupy a relatively lower position to other members of society (Leonard, 2005).
73
Social capital’s resources may consist of material or symbolic exchanges between actors in social spheres, and so this concept is compatible with the symbolic interactionist perspective taken in this thesis, and outlined earlier in this chapter. Access to social capital is dependent on group membership, social ties and networks. Therefore, the amount of social capital available depends on the size of the individual’s social network, and of the amount of social capital each member individually owns: human capital (Becker, 1993) is embodied in the individual, whereas social capital exists through relationships. Therefore, the more connections one has, the wider range of social capital becomes
accessible (Bourdieu, 1986).
The connections possessed by an individual are social ties which consist of both strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). The former refers to family and close friends whereas the latter describes looser relationships such as with acquaintances, teachers or work colleagues (Tynkkynen, et al., 2010). Gittell and Vidal (1998: 15) take the social capital concept further when they describe ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital. ‘Bonding’ capital refers to the ‘…type that brings closer together people who already know each other’, whereas ‘bridging’ social capital is the ‘…type that brings together people or groups who previously did not know each other’. The former being that which is accessible from strong ties and the latter is that obtained through weak ties.
Therefore, it is suggested that key sources of social capital include the strong ties of the family, and in particular for adolescents, their parents (Tynkkynen, et
al, 2010). This ‘bonding’ social capital (Gittell & Vidal, 1998) is essential for the
enculturation of norms and attitudes of the family and social group. However, membership of a wide social network has a greater importance, as it provides access to a wider range of ‘bridging’ social capital (ibid., 1998).
74
Parental influence as a form of ‘bonding’ social capital (ibid., 1998) remains relevant to discussions of occupational choice in this thesis as recent
longitudinal research reveals (Tynkkynen, et al, 2010). Such research indicates that social ties provide resources such as knowledge and support for
adolescents during an important developmental phase, which includes joining new societal fields, and so ‘…constitute the social capital of adolescents’ (ibid 2010: 449). Therefore important others (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) such as parents, have both a direct and indirect influence on their children’s choice of career (Oren, Caduri, and Tziner, 2013), which in turn impacts on the creation of self-identity.
Haller and Woelful (1972: 595-5) use the term ‘significant other’, originally created by Sullivan (1997) to describe ‘…a person who influences the focal individual’s conception of himself in relation to educational or occupational roles’. Their importance is demonstrated by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action. This suggests that behavioural intention is predictable through the influence of subjective norms and attitudes. It is posited that subjective norm consists of two factors: normative beliefs that is, the way that important others would expect a person to behave, and the motivation to comply, or how important an individual thinks it is to comply with the
expectations of others. Consequently, our attitudes comprise an evaluation of our ability to carry out an action and the strength of that belief.
Additionally, Bourdieu (1977b) proposes that the interaction between structure and agency considered earlier in this chapter, creates dispositions, both in the individual and as a collective consciousness, which conditions people’s
behaviours and understandings of the world around them. Importantly, this constrains individual action, without controlling it. This structuring of practices
75
and perceptions Bourdieu (1977b; 1986) terms ‘habitus’ and he maintains is created through early socialisation into the world by family, culture and
education. Bourdieu linked habitus with the different types of capital that each individual possesses. Thus he argues, through the early inculcation of habitus, social inequality is reproduced through social reproduction.
Adkins (2003) suggests that habitus produces enduring orientations to action, which although not fixed, produce individual and collective practices. For the individual, these inclinations are mostly unconscious and taken for granted; a view echoed in Kahnemann’s (1982; 2011) work in the field of cognitive and social psychology discussed in the previous sub-section. Therefore, following on from this understanding of practice, Adkins (2003) further argues that the attainment of reflexive meanings are guided by symbolic exchange within communities, which determine the actions of the individual. In these
communities, it is the shared practices-the habitus that governs their reflexive practice. Drawing on Bourdieu, Lash (1994) argues that reflexivity has a collective element, which is based in shared habits, and is located within communal practice in which unconscious dispositions shape individual action. The extent to which individuals have total control over their actions is further discussed through the lens of bounded agency (inter alia, Evans and Heinz, 1991; 1993; Evans, 2007; Heinz, 2009) in the next section.
Importantly, as noted at the beginning of this subsection, Bourdieu’s analysis has received criticism for lacking supporting empirical evidence, particularly for his key concept of cultural capital’s role in social reproduction through
education. Tzakanakis (2011: 84) contends that ‘…large-scale quantitative research offers little or no empirical support for the argued significance of cultural capital’, arguing that participation in ‘…highbrow culture or middle-class
76
pursuits may be related to social class but the relationship could be spurious’ (ibid: 2011). He concedes nonetheless that cultural capital should be retained as a useful analytic concept.
Goldthorpe (2007: 25-26) however, has cast serious doubts on the veracity of Bourdieu’s reproduction theory and states that it ‘…must by now be adjudged to be quite unsound’. Although the concepts of social and cultural capital are difficult to explicitly distinguish as their boundaries are quite blurred, this thesis concentrates on the operation of the more established concept of social capital, particularly that of the two concepts of ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ social capital (Gittell and Vidal, 1998) to analyse the data, rather than the more contentious cultural capital.