in the UK in 2013, take into account the different combinations between these three forms of capital.

The most recent studies on social stratification, such as the one conducted by Mike Savage et al. It is now recognised that a high level of cultural capital can coexist with low economic capital, as is often the case in the intellectual professions.

Later thinkers, including French sociologist and public intellectual Pierre Bourdieu, endeavoured to examine the relationship between economic, cultural, and social capital. Weber had already noticed that “class”, constructed on the basis of economic criteria alone, was not enough to explain the inequalities inherent in bureaucratic capitalism, which depend just as much on “status”.

“Cultural capital”, “social capital”, “symbolic capital”, and “human capital” are all formulas dating back to the 1960s, used in the social sciences to conceptualise or even quantify the intangible value accrued by individuals, as opposed to the pure economic value of capital in the strict sense of property and tangible assets.Īre we ready to recognise the perverse logic of the race for cultural capital? German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) foresaw how capitalism – as a bureaucratic social order aiming at maximum rationalisation – would depend increasingly heavily on its educational institutions and their capacity to issue credentials to individuals. Cultural capital is the intangible wealth of nations. Although difficult to calculate, the total value of this intangible capital – which in spite of its impalpable nature consumes huge quantities of natural resources – now greatly exceeds what is attributed to mere tangible goods. Wealth involves possessing not only a plethora of consumer products (media, art, fashion, etc.) that satisfy the social and psychological needs of a large middle class, but also the intangible assets that constitute value: trademarks, patents, networks, and even skills acquired by individuals, attested by their educational titles. In today’s capitalist societies, wealth is embodied in an immense accumulation of intellectual, cultural, and symbolic commodities.

This article is part of the series “Schools for Thought” – a collection of reflections on the contributions of four thinkers to our understanding of education today and its potential: Maria Montessori, Pierre Bourdieu, Simone Weil, and Benedict Anderson. Is it not time to think critically about the social function of education? Despite the immense resources poured into education and record rates of university attendance, the promise of social mobility through equal opportunities rings hollow. The writings of French thinker Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) anticipated many of the inequalities felt in today’s post-industrial societies.

Pierre bourdieu 1979