Talk:Cultural capital

	Cultural capital was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV: The first sentence about criticism essentially insults the critics. RedHouse18 8/8/06

Removed it. JenLouise 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Please add the list of reference to this article. It's not sufficient to write the auther and year like this (King, 2005:223). --Communicator1 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry about that - I must have forgot to come back and add them in. JenLouise 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to nominate this article as

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wasn't signed in when I wrote that. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adding signature -- forgot to sign in. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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".

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]