Privilege is a disposition (Bourdieu, 2002: 27) that has shaped my personal experiences in education and beyond, until 2013 when I retrained as a teacher and decisively pursued a career in an inner city state primary. Prior to this my habitus (Bourdieu, 2002: 27) was not dissimilar to that of the middle class students Bathmaker, Ingram and Waller (2013) identify in their study. The authors show that students who are in possession of economic, social and cultural capital are more likely to be successful at both ‘having a feel for the game’ and ‘playing the game’ (Bathmaker et al, 2013). I can draw parallels to these statements, whether it be when I interned at a leading newspaper because my elder cousin was employed there or when I got a coveted opportunity to gain work experience at Citibank, which later translated into a job, because my father knew someone who worked there. I suppose I have always been alert to the fact that some opportunities were created simply because I belonged to a particular ‘class’ of people. However, I would like to think I am mindful of this privilege and that I have not used it to advance my own education or career at the expense of others’ opportunities.
Bourdieu defines social capital as ‘…the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.’ (Bourdieu, 1992: 51) This theory supports an understanding that social position (or class) is determined by ‘what you have and who you know.’ This leads me to conclude that social capital cannot be acquired independent to economic capital and cultural capital.
The latter cultural capital, is of particular importance to this debate because Bourdieu uses it to explain the inequalities the lower class experience in the education system, by identifying the advantages the middle class possess. Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory identifies ‘knowledge, attitudes, values, language, taste and abilities’ passed on by parents to children, as influencing pupils success within the education system and in their careers. (Ref) Those individuals who can be grouped together on the basis of these similar ‘cultural competences’ (Jason D. Edgerton and Lance W. Roberts, 2014: 195) can be recognised as having a ‘collective identity’ (Social Theory Rewired), otherwise referred to as ‘people like us.’ (Ref) Depending on which class you come from cultural capital can either assist or prevent social mobility as shown by Bathmaker, Ingram and Waller (2013) in their comparative research study of how class backgrounds reproduce social inequalities. Bathmaker et al’s (2013) study identified that the middle class students who possessed especially social and cultural capital were able to ‘play the game’ successfully. (Ref) These pupils, were not only more likely to participate in Extra Curricular Activities (ECAs) but were also able to differentiate between activities of value versus those with little value to their future careers. For some this was instinctive (not to be mistaken for habitus) and for others a well planned trajectory, a result of inherited knowledge of how to manipulate social and cultural capital.
This study reaffirms Bordieu’s premise that ‘social connections and cultural competences,’ (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014: 194-195) i.e. networks are advantageous to middle class pupils because ‘people like them’ are in positions to offer them internships, that potentially led to jobs, as it did in my own personal experience. This means that those students who come from working class families, or as Bourdieu refers to them as the ‘dominated,’ do not have these advantages of the ‘dominant.’ (Bathmaker et al, 2013: 732). Thus, struggling to compete, even when they academically outperform their peers and often many choose not to compete. By taking themselves out of the game there is absolutely no chance of success. Thereby resulting in the cultural reproduction of a perpetuating cycle of social inequalities.
Allison Sullivan sheds further understanding on Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory stating that it requires pupils to have ‘familiarity with the dominant culture in a society,…’ and be able ‘to understand and use ‘educated' language.’ (Sullivan, 2002: 145). She goes on to say that ‘…the education system assumes the possession of cultural capital.’ This is a clear indication that inequalities exist in the education system for lower-class pupils prior to them even participating in it. Sullivan goes on to quote Bourdieu who states that cultural capital is responsible for maintaining an unequal status quo.
"… it [education] is in fact one of the most effective means of perpetuating the existing social pattern, as it both provides an apparent justification for social inequalities and gives recognition to the cultural heritage, that is, to a social gift treated as a natural one." (Bourdieu, 1974: 32) (quote taken from Sullivan, 2002: 145)
The cultural capital theory opposes decades of government policy (Labour or Tory) since World War II, which even today advocates that education creates a meritocratic playing field, which promotes social mobility. We see confirmation of this in Ms Morris, Secretary of State for Education and Skills foreword written in a 2001 White Paper which states ‘education…gives us the qualifications for employment, …and…the skills and values to meet the demands of a fast-changing world’ (quoted in Education Policy in Britain: 9-10). While the government can confidently tout an increased statistic for pupils gaining university qualifications, there is little research to show whether these pupils futures are being transformed as promised. (Chowdry et al: 2010). Instead it reaffirms Bourdieu’s belief that ‘…the formal education system is a primary mechanism in the perpetuation of socioeconomic inequality, as it serves to legitimate the existing social hierarchy by trans- forming it into an apparent hierarchy of gifts or merit (Bourdieu, 1997, 2006; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) (quoted from Edgerton and Roberts: 2014: 193).
Bathmaker et al (2013: 740) make reference to Bourdieu’s habitus in an effort to explain how sometimes middle class students unconsciously participate in ECAs without actively strategising, this I can personally relate to. They explain that these behaviours can almost be seen as instinctive but in actuality they are ‘learned through prolonged, managed and planned socialisation.’ (Bathmaker, et al, 2013: 741). According to Bourdieu these systematic behaviours ‘share an affinity of style.’ (Bourdieu, 2002: 28) and while they tend to be reproductive they are not ‘eternal,’ and though change is difficult it is still possible ‘by historical action oriented by intention and consciousness and using pedagogic devices.’ (Bourdieu, 2002: 29) I myself changed my own habitus in recent years through different educational and career experiences. So, transformation on a personal level is possible as I have experienced it. However, social structures continue to be reproductive ‘…, despite the expansion of secondary schooling for all after the Second World War… massive social inequality’ has ‘persisted…’ (Waller, 2011:) highlighting a failed education system.
Having established that educational social structures are not vehicles by which mass transformation takes place, we can acknowledge that education as we know it is in fact responsible for perpetuating the very inequalities it was to eradicate in the post-war era. In other words education as a social structure continues to be reproductive, further entrenching existing inequalities because the focus is on developing skills and qualifications without acknowledging that you need to correct for a priori inequalities of social and cultural capital. Thereby, reinforcing the status quo, in favour of those whose privileges are threatened by the very idea of transformation.