Summary Of Invisible Inequality By Pierre Bourdieu
Over the period of this course, a majority of the sociologist talked about believed we lived in a modern society. However, sociologist Pierre Bourdieu believes we currently are living in a postmodern society that is governed by concepts which are hidden by the government. These concepts he proclaims can be found within cultural capital. Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is the concept in which knowledge is the currency which serves purpose in altering experiences and given opportunities that are available. In the reading Invisible inequality by Annette Lareau, the concept of cultural capital is presented in the everyday life of each child that Lareau interviews. These interviews are an embodiment of the societal struggle that takes part
…show more content…
in the world today on an everyday basis.
The basics of Bourdieu’s cultural capital can be more than just material things.
Different social experiences and aspects such as taste, manners, skills, and credentials are also included. These features when combined, add up to the total amount of capital one person contains. Although one person may have the same amount of capital as another, or possibly more, not one capital is more dominant than the other. Bourdieu also divides the concept of cultural capital into three sub-categories which include institutionalized, objectified, and embodied. Each of these subcategories are what defines different sorts of capital within the reading. When compared to the children in Lareau’s study, each child can be placed in different categories based upon their acquired capital. For one child, by the name of Alexander Williams, his capital was considerably high because of his family's social class and the neighborhood he lived in. Harold McAllister was another child in the study whose capital was on the low end of the spectrum due to his living arrangement and his family’s low income status. These two kids are both of the same age, but have had a considerably different up bringing, which is normal in today’s world. Yet although it may be normal in society, the question is still is it equal or not based on the concept of capital. In terms of what was acquired in the study, is one child’s like more valuable than the others based on their
means?
Based on Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, society is not arranged so that the opportunity for high level capital is equally obtainable for all people. A person who starts off on the high level of the wall will stay there and a person who starts off on the low level of the wall in most cases won't reach the high levels. In the reading, Lareau talks about this inequality between the two children she observers. She explains the reason McAllister may have a harder time getting to the level of Williams is because McAllister doesn’t know the ways of those who are at Williams level of society. This inequality according to Bourdieu is based on cultural capital in the institutionalized category. I can related to the societal inequality based on my own struggle trying to get on the high level of the wall from the bottom. It is difficult to start knowing there is disadvantage, mainly to the others who already have a large advantage over you. Not only does one have to compensate for what the lack initially, but they also have to work to close the gap of advantage between them and others in order to even catch up and be on the same level as them.This is why it might be hard for McAllister who does not have the opportunity to learn the way in which people talk or dress in order to “fit it” with those of the high cultural capital.
Bourdieu’s concept and Lareau’s study both go hand in hand in breaking down how a person’s non-materialistic capital can determine their level of wealth in society. According to the two, society creates inequality between people because they’re not given the same resources and opportunities to succeed. The study showed that McAlister had less capital, making it so he had to work to get to the higher level as opposed to Williams who was born into his wealth of capital.
in the world today on an everyday basis.
The basics of Bourdieu’s cultural capital can be more than just material things.
Different social experiences and aspects such as taste, manners, skills, and credentials are also included. These features when combined, add up to the total amount of capital one person contains. Although one person may have the same amount of capital as another, or possibly more, not one capital is more dominant than the other. Bourdieu also divides the concept of cultural capital into three sub-categories which include institutionalized, objectified, and embodied. Each of these subcategories are what defines different sorts of capital within the reading. When compared to the children in Lareau’s study, each child can be placed in different categories based upon their acquired capital. For one child, by the name of Alexander Williams, his capital was considerably high because of his family's social class and the neighborhood he lived in. Harold McAllister was another child in the study whose capital was on the low end of the spectrum due to his living arrangement and his family’s low income status. These two kids are both of the same age, but have had a considerably different up bringing, which is normal in today’s world. Yet although it may be normal in society, the question is still is it equal or not based on the concept of capital. In terms of what was acquired in the study, is one child’s like more valuable than the others based on their
means?
Based on Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, society is not arranged so that the opportunity for high level capital is equally obtainable for all people. A person who starts off on the high level of the wall will stay there and a person who starts off on the low level of the wall in most cases won't reach the high levels. In the reading, Lareau talks about this inequality between the two children she observers. She explains the reason McAllister may have a harder time getting to the level of Williams is because McAllister doesn’t know the ways of those who are at Williams level of society. This inequality according to Bourdieu is based on cultural capital in the institutionalized category. I can related to the societal inequality based on my own struggle trying to get on the high level of the wall from the bottom. It is difficult to start knowing there is disadvantage, mainly to the others who already have a large advantage over you. Not only does one have to compensate for what the lack initially, but they also have to work to close the gap of advantage between them and others in order to even catch up and be on the same level as them.This is why it might be hard for McAllister who does not have the opportunity to learn the way in which people talk or dress in order to “fit it” with those of the high cultural capital.
Bourdieu’s concept and Lareau’s study both go hand in hand in breaking down how a person’s non-materialistic capital can determine their level of wealth in society. According to the two, society creates inequality between people because they’re not given the same resources and opportunities to succeed. The study showed that McAlister had less capital, making it so he had to work to get to the higher level as opposed to Williams who was born into his wealth of capital.