Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
A2 Comms - Cultural Capital
Cultural capital is an important idea at A2 - but it also fits in with Socialisation, which you covered at AS. The following is the best explanation of it that I have found. It is taken from William Bowles' website (http://www.williambowles.info/mimo/refs/tece1ef.htm):
'Children, are not simply socialised into the "values of society as a whole". Rather, they are socialised into the culture that corresponds to their class and, in Bourdieu's terms, this set of cultural experiences, values beliefs and so forth represents a form of "Cultural Capital". That is, a set of values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, experiences and so forth that equip people for their life in society.
The term cultural capital is used because, like money, our cultural inheritance can be translated into social resources (things like wealth, power and status) and the cultural capital we accumulate from birth can be "spent" in the education system as we try to achieve things that are considered to be culturally important (mainly educational qualifications for the majority of children - but status can also be considered here when we think about the way the rich can educate their children privately at high status schools such as Eton and so forth).
Not all classes start with the same kind or level of cultural capital of course. Children socialised into the dominant culture will have a big advantage over children not socialised into this culture because schools attempt to reproduce a general set of dominant cultural values and ideas.
We can imagine this idea in terms of the education system being a shop where we spend our cultural capital on qualifications:
The Upper class child has a large amount of currency that is recognised by the shopkeeper as valid coinage - they can accordingly buy many things.
The working class child has a devalued currency (in the eyes of the shopkeeper). They can buy things, but not as much or of as high a quality.
Perhaps a better analogy might be if you think about culture in terms of language.
Imagine three people (one French, one German and one English) going into a shop in France (the "dominant culture", in this respect, would be French).
The French person can speak the language.
The German knows some French (enough to get by).
The English person knows no French.
Each of the above has a stock of cultural capital (in this analogy, their knowledge of languages) which they then proceed to spend by trying to buy things:
The French person does this quickly and efficiently - the shopkeeper (i.e. teachers in an educational system) understands this person perfectly.
The German takes longer to express him / herself and may not be able to buy everything they want. The shopkeeper has a problem understanding but with a bit of time and patience business is transacted amicably.
The English person - after much shouting, pointing and general gesticulation - succeeds in buying some basic things (or leaves the shop without being able to buy anything because the shopkeeper could not understand). For the shopkeeper, this customer is difficult to serve because they do not "speak the same language". It's not impossible for the shopkeeper to understand, but it takes a great deal of time, effort, co-operation and patience for this to happen.
In class terms, therefore:
The French person is equivalent to the Upper class child.
The German person is equivalent to the Middle class child.
The English person is equivalent to the Working class child.
In cultural terms, each of the above can speak a language, but some are more successful than others in making themselves understood. In educational terms, the ability to "speak the language" of the educational system, teachers and so forth produces big advantages.
Thus, children who have been socialised into dominant cultural values appear to the teacher to be "more gifted" - just as to a French shopkeeper the French person would appear to be "more gifted" or fluent than the English woman. In this sense, therefore, the education system itself may appear to be "neutral" or "meritocratic".
Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, just everyone has an equal opportunity to buy something. However, it is only meritocratic in relation to a pupil's ability to fit-in with the dominant cultural values perpetuated through the school system.'
'Children, are not simply socialised into the "values of society as a whole". Rather, they are socialised into the culture that corresponds to their class and, in Bourdieu's terms, this set of cultural experiences, values beliefs and so forth represents a form of "Cultural Capital". That is, a set of values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, experiences and so forth that equip people for their life in society.
The term cultural capital is used because, like money, our cultural inheritance can be translated into social resources (things like wealth, power and status) and the cultural capital we accumulate from birth can be "spent" in the education system as we try to achieve things that are considered to be culturally important (mainly educational qualifications for the majority of children - but status can also be considered here when we think about the way the rich can educate their children privately at high status schools such as Eton and so forth).
Not all classes start with the same kind or level of cultural capital of course. Children socialised into the dominant culture will have a big advantage over children not socialised into this culture because schools attempt to reproduce a general set of dominant cultural values and ideas.
We can imagine this idea in terms of the education system being a shop where we spend our cultural capital on qualifications:
The Upper class child has a large amount of currency that is recognised by the shopkeeper as valid coinage - they can accordingly buy many things.
The working class child has a devalued currency (in the eyes of the shopkeeper). They can buy things, but not as much or of as high a quality.
Perhaps a better analogy might be if you think about culture in terms of language.
Imagine three people (one French, one German and one English) going into a shop in France (the "dominant culture", in this respect, would be French).
The French person can speak the language.
The German knows some French (enough to get by).
The English person knows no French.
Each of the above has a stock of cultural capital (in this analogy, their knowledge of languages) which they then proceed to spend by trying to buy things:
The French person does this quickly and efficiently - the shopkeeper (i.e. teachers in an educational system) understands this person perfectly.
The German takes longer to express him / herself and may not be able to buy everything they want. The shopkeeper has a problem understanding but with a bit of time and patience business is transacted amicably.
The English person - after much shouting, pointing and general gesticulation - succeeds in buying some basic things (or leaves the shop without being able to buy anything because the shopkeeper could not understand). For the shopkeeper, this customer is difficult to serve because they do not "speak the same language". It's not impossible for the shopkeeper to understand, but it takes a great deal of time, effort, co-operation and patience for this to happen.
In class terms, therefore:
The French person is equivalent to the Upper class child.
The German person is equivalent to the Middle class child.
The English person is equivalent to the Working class child.
In cultural terms, each of the above can speak a language, but some are more successful than others in making themselves understood. In educational terms, the ability to "speak the language" of the educational system, teachers and so forth produces big advantages.
Thus, children who have been socialised into dominant cultural values appear to the teacher to be "more gifted" - just as to a French shopkeeper the French person would appear to be "more gifted" or fluent than the English woman. In this sense, therefore, the education system itself may appear to be "neutral" or "meritocratic".
Everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, just everyone has an equal opportunity to buy something. However, it is only meritocratic in relation to a pupil's ability to fit-in with the dominant cultural values perpetuated through the school system.'
A2 Comms - Killing Us Softly
Killing Us Softly 4 -
Part 1
Killing us Softly is essential viewing - bringing together Objects of Desire and Feminism perfectly. If you missed it in class, make sure that you watch it as part of your revision. The above should serve as a quick recap...
Monday, 22 April 2013
Friday, 19 April 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)