Pierre Bourdieu came up with the concept of three different categories of capital–economic, cultural, and social–that rule society and place people in a social hierarchy. The first type of capital mentioned is economic capital. Economic capital is the simplest of the three; it is essentially a measure of how much money a person or family has. In a sense, it is an enabler. As a person’s economic capital goes up, their list of opportunities also opens up because they can afford more options. The second type of capital is cultural capital. It is composed of social assets like education, physical appearance, automaticity, and competence. Cultural capital builds off of economic capital, as money can buy a head start on developing certain skills
…show more content…
A working, middle, and upper class exists inside each category, making it difficult for people in the working class to climb the hierarchy. An individual is born into a certain class and as a result, must grow up practicing their class customs. These forms of capital all work together in defining class inequalities by directly influencing each other. For example, a person with low economic capital means that they do not have a lot of money to spend. As a result, they are forced to live in a low-income area. The chances of a low-income area housing an institution that features state of the art education is highly unlikely. Their books and technology get outdated, and they fall behind the average educational curve of students around the world. The economic capital almost serves as a backbone to cultural and social capital. If an individual gets poor education, their overall cultural capital decreases. With low cultural capital, it is difficult to acquire social capital because networking caters to individuals with higher cultural capital and social status. The cycle comes full circle as social capital directly affects economic capital, especially when trying to find a high-paying job. Those with weak social capital will find it hard to find jobs. Theoretically, when looking at the capital system, it becomes obvious that the phrase, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” is true. The system favors …show more content…
It analyzes the statistics further, by comparing it to students living in affluent neighborhoods. To summarize the numbers, black children that grew up in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and unemployment had a 76% graduation rate as opposed to their affluent counterparts at 96%. The article also assesses white children, with a 87% chance of graduation for those growing up in low-income neighborhoods, and 95% chance as their affluent counterparts. Just looking at the raw numbers, there is an obvious effect on cultural capital from economic capital. Those in the lower income homes do not have enough money to set their students up for success. This affects their social capital as well because it becomes tricky for people to try to network and find connections without receiving a high school diploma. Most employers would consider a high school diploma (some a college diploma) as a baseline requirement in order to find a job. Children that grow up in low-income neighborhoods are statistically already at a disadvantage. A low-income neighborhood could have an effect on the schools in the area as well. With the emergence of technology guiding education, these schools are not able to afford
A working, middle, and upper class exists inside each category, making it difficult for people in the working class to climb the hierarchy. An individual is born into a certain class and as a result, must grow up practicing their class customs. These forms of capital all work together in defining class inequalities by directly influencing each other. For example, a person with low economic capital means that they do not have a lot of money to spend. As a result, they are forced to live in a low-income area. The chances of a low-income area housing an institution that features state of the art education is highly unlikely. Their books and technology get outdated, and they fall behind the average educational curve of students around the world. The economic capital almost serves as a backbone to cultural and social capital. If an individual gets poor education, their overall cultural capital decreases. With low cultural capital, it is difficult to acquire social capital because networking caters to individuals with higher cultural capital and social status. The cycle comes full circle as social capital directly affects economic capital, especially when trying to find a high-paying job. Those with weak social capital will find it hard to find jobs. Theoretically, when looking at the capital system, it becomes obvious that the phrase, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” is true. The system favors …show more content…
It analyzes the statistics further, by comparing it to students living in affluent neighborhoods. To summarize the numbers, black children that grew up in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty and unemployment had a 76% graduation rate as opposed to their affluent counterparts at 96%. The article also assesses white children, with a 87% chance of graduation for those growing up in low-income neighborhoods, and 95% chance as their affluent counterparts. Just looking at the raw numbers, there is an obvious effect on cultural capital from economic capital. Those in the lower income homes do not have enough money to set their students up for success. This affects their social capital as well because it becomes tricky for people to try to network and find connections without receiving a high school diploma. Most employers would consider a high school diploma (some a college diploma) as a baseline requirement in order to find a job. Children that grow up in low-income neighborhoods are statistically already at a disadvantage. A low-income neighborhood could have an effect on the schools in the area as well. With the emergence of technology guiding education, these schools are not able to afford