Bourdieu's concepts of cultural capital and linguistic markets

Bourdieu -- Cultural Capital and Linguistic Markets

Introduction to the Concept of Cultural Capital

Bourdieu originally outlined three forms of capital: economic, social, and cultural capital; subsequently, he added symbolic capital to the list (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002). Briefly, economic capital relates to economic resources; social capital denotes the "aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" (King, 2005); cultural capital is a function of acquired knowledge, education, and learned skills; and symbolic capital describes resources derived from notoriety, prestige, and public recognition (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002).

Bourdieu further distinguishes three subtypes of cultural capital: embodied, objectified, and institutionalized capital (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002). Embodied cultural capital includes those forms of attitudinal capital that the individual acquires passively and over time, generally through socialization (especially) from the family. Objectified capital relates primarily to ownership of physical resources with tangible value in society; Institutionalized capital consists of formal credentials and recognized qualifications such as educational degrees and professional expertise (Emirbayer & Williams, 2005).

Linguistic Capital and its Influence over Interpersonal Communications

Bourdieu's embodied capital includes another subtype: linguistic capital (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002). Linguistic capital is that part of embodied capital that specifically relates to the use of language as an expression of the embodied capital that is generally acquired by virtue of social class, community and family economic status, and education. The individual elements of linguistic capital include sentence structure, grammar, idiomatic expression, vocabulary, and choice of substantive references (King, 2005). In some respects, the expression of linguistic capital is automatic and unconscious; in other respects, the expression of linguistic capital can also be manipulated deliberately in connection with the conscious desire to influence the perception of the audience (King, 2005).

For example, while conversing with a fellow college student, one might speak very naturally without giving much conscious thought to the manner of expression, grammatical correctness, profanity, sentence structure or complexity, and vocabulary. The conversation reflects the most natural style of communication and spontaneous speech; the speaker may give no conscious thought at all to specific elements of communication or to the inferences that the audience may draw from the manner in which the speaker expresses himself.

Conversely, when conversing with a professor or a boss at work, the same college student might speak much more carefully, giving very conscious thought to correct grammar, politeness, sentence complexity, and choice of vocabulary. To a certain extent, the increased attention to the impression about the speaker that the quality of the communication may make on the audience is natural; it also occurs anytime a student is involved in conversation with elders. However, students may be especially aware of the disparity of linguistic capital between themselves and their professors or their bosses. In both cases, they have a desire to make the best possible impression, partly because they are more concerned about the impressions that their communications make on their professors and bosses.