Privilege is a disposition (Bourdieu, 2002: 27) that has shaped my personal experiences until I retrained as a teacher and began working in London’s inner-city schools. Prior to this, my habitus (Bourdieu, 2002: 27) was similar to that of the middle-class students Bathmaker et al (2013) identify in their study. The authors show that students who are in possession of economic, social and cultural and other capitals are more likely to be successful at both ‘having a feel for the game’ and ‘playing the game’ (Bourdieu, 1990) (Bathmaker et al, 2013: 730). I can draw parallels to these statements, whether it be when my cousin hired me to intern at her newspaper, or when I gained work experience at Citibank through my father’s connections, which later translated into a job offer. Both examples of leveraging social capital.
Social capital is ‘…the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue … by virtue of possessing a durable network of … relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.’ (Bourdieu, 1992: 51) This theory supports an understanding that social position is determined by ‘who you know and how much you have.’ Similarly, Bourdieu points out ‘the size of the network of connections’… that one ‘…can effectively mobilise and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed in his own right by each of those to who he is connected’ (Bourdieu, 1992:51) is what defines the value of social capital a person is perceived as having. Which leads me to conclude that social capital cannot be developed independent to economic capital, the same applies to cultural capital. Bourdieu himself explains the interdependency of the capitals when he identifies economic capital ‘at the root of all the other types of capital…’ (Bourdieu, 1992:54).
Cultural capital is of particular importance to this debate because Bourdieu uses it to explain the inequalities the lower-class face in the education system. He departs from the ‘commonly accepted presuppositions inherent in the common sense view, which see academic success or failure as an effect of natural aptitudes…’ (Bourdieu, 1992:47) Instead, 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. (Lee: 5-6) Those individuals who can be grouped together on the basis of these similar ‘cultural competences’ (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014: 195) can be recognised as having a ‘collective identity’ (Social Theory Rewired), otherwise referred to as ‘people like us.’ (Bathmaker, et al, 2013) and depending on which class you come from cultural capital can either assist or prevent social mobility as shown by Bathmaker et al (2013) in their comparative study of how class backgrounds reproduce social inequalities. Their study identified that the middle class students who possessed especially social and cultural capital were able to ‘play the game’ successfully. (Bathmaker et al, 2013) 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 and for others a well planned trajectory, a result of inherited knowledge of how to harness social and cultural capital.
This study reaffirms Bordieu’s premise that ‘social connections and cultural competences,’ (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014: 194-195) are advantageous to middle-class pupils. 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 or often many choose not to compete. (Bathmaker et al, 2013:734) By taking themselves out of the game they have no chance of success, resulting in the reproduction of a perpetuating cycle of social inequalities. I see this in my workplace where families of gifted children are reluctant to consider bursaries and scholarships at high-achieving independent schools because they fear that they will not fit into a ‘posh’ school.
This attitude that the system is slanted towards those who have capital is supported by Sullivan’s review of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory which suggests to succeed pupils must have ‘familiarity with the dominant culture in a society…’ and ‘…understand and use ‘educated' language.’ (Sullivan, 2002: 145). She also says ‘…the education system assumes the possession of cultural capital.’ Indicating that lower-class students face inequalities in the education system, prior to entering it. Sullivan goes on to quote Bourdieu who states that cultural capital reproduces 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 rebuts decades of government policy (Labour or Tory), which advocates that education creates a meritocratic playing field, promoting social mobility by reducing social inequalities. We see confirmation of this 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). In other words, education will give those who are not already equipped with the necessary skills the means by which to close the unequal gap that exists between classes. Though the government can tout an increased number of pupils gaining university qualifications, there is no evidence to show transformation. (Chowdry et al: 2010). I agree with Bourdieu 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 transforming it into an apparent hierarchy of gifts or merit.’ (Bourdieu, 1997, 2006; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) (quoted from Edgerton and Roberts: 2014: 193). The education system is unashamedly reproductive.
Having established that educational social structures are not vehicles by which mass transformation occurs, we can acknowledge that education as we know it is in fact responsible for perpetuating inequalities it was to eradicate in the post-war era. In other words education as a social structure continues to be reproductive, entrenching existing inequalities because the focus is on developing skills and qualifications without acknowledging that one needs to correct for a priori inequalities of capitals. Thereby, reinforcing the status quo, in favour of those whose privileges are threatened by the very idea of transformation.