Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments Author(s): Michele Lamont and Annette Lareau Source: Sociological Theory , Autumn, 1988, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 153-168 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/202113 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms American Sociological Association , Wiley and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory This content downloaded from 128.103.24.19 on Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms CULTURAL CAPITAL: ALLUSIONS, GAPS AND GLISSANDOS IN RECENT THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS* MICHtLE LAMONT ANNETTE LAREAU Princeton University Southern Illinois University at Carbondale The concept of cultural capital has been increasingly used in American sociology to study the impact of cultural reproduction on social reproduction. However, much confusion surrounds this concept. In this essay, we disentangle Bourdieu and Passeron's original work on cultural capital, specifying the theoretical roles cultural capital plays in their model, and the various types of high status signals they are concerned with. We expand on their work by proposing a new definition of cultural capital which focuses on cultural and social exclusion. We note a number of theoretical ambiguities and gaps in the original model, as well as specific methodological problems. In the second section, we shift our attention to the American literature on cultural capital. We discuss its assumptions and compare it with the original work. We also propose a research agenda which focuses on social and cultural selection and decouples cultural capital from the French context in which it was originally conceived to take into consideration the distinctive features of American culture. This agenda consists in 1) assessing the relevance of the concept of legitimate culture in the U.S.; 2) documenting the distinctive American repertoire of high status cultural signals; and 3) analyzing how cultural capital is turned into profits in America. INTRODUCTION 1982; Apple and Weis 1985; Caroy 1982; Cookson and Persell 1985a; Giroux 1983), Culture has recently become an "in" topic and the in influence of family background on both American and European sociology. school This experience, educational attainment, trend is not an intellectual fad, as anda large marital selection (DiMaggio 1982; DiMag- number of researchers are seriously engagedgio and Mohr 1985; Ganzeboom 1986; in dealing with the theoretically central Lareau issue 1987). of the interaction between culture and social As work dealing with cultural capital has structure. We are here concerned with grown, the concept has come to assume a scrutinizing a small segment of this growinglarge number of, at times, contradictory field, the recent work on cultural capital. meanings. This Cultural capital has been operation- concept-defined as high status cultural alized as knowledge of high culture (Di- signals used in cultural and social selection- Maggio and Useem 1978) and educational was first developed by Pierre Bourdieu attainment and (Robinson and Gamier 1985). Jean-Claude Passeron to analyze how Othersculture defined it as the curriculum of elite and education contribute to social reproduc- schools (Cookson and Persell 1985a), the tion. Born in France, the concept of culturalsymbolic mastery of "practices" (Martin and capital has been imported to the U.S. Szelenyi and 1987), the capacity to perform tasks used to account for phenomena ranging in fromculturally acceptable ways (Gouldner the political attitudes of the new middle 1979), class and participation in high culture events (Gouldner 1979; Lamont 1986; Martin and (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Still other Szelenyi 1987), to the structure of the researchers viewed cultural capital as "symbols stratification system (Collins 1979), the . in accord with specific class interests" reproduction of educational inequality (Apple (Dubin 1986) and "the stock of ideas and concepts acquired from previous encounters" * This is a revised version of a paper presented at the (Collins 1987). This proliferation of defini- annual meetings of the American Sociological Associa- tions, undoubtedly a sign of intellectual tion, New York, August 1986. A number of persons vitality-and possibly, of the fruitfulness of commented on an earlier version of this manuscript. We the concept-has created sheer confusion. We are particularly grateful to Randall Collins, Paul DiMaggio, Frank Dobbin, Samuel Kaplan, Walter are now reaching a point where the concept Wallace, and Marsha Witten for their comments and could become obsolete, as those using it criticisms. equate it with notions as different as human Sociological Theory, 1988, Vol. 6 (Fall:153-168) 153 This content downloaded from 128.103.24.19 on Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:39:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 154 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY capital, elite culture, and high culture. profits. An This contrasts with labor market attempt at theoretical clarification studies is long which assume a preexisting occupa- overdue. tional and organizational structure of "empty But clarifying the concept presumes that it places" (Hodson and Kaufmann 1982). can be put to good use. Why is cultural This paper pursues several interrelated capital important? Is it something other than a goals. First, it disentangles the original work faddish new term used to address the on cultural capital, specifying the theoretical perennial status issues which have fascinatedroles cultural capital plays in Bourdieu and researchers from the days of Weber Passeron's and model, and the various types of Veblen on? We will argue that if the high concept status signals the authors are concerned does not point to phenomena much with.different We expand on the original work by from those of concern to these traditional proposing a new definition of cultural capital sociologists, its underlying theory provides which a focuses on cultural and social exclu- considerably more complex and far-reaching sion. We note a number of theoretical conceptual framework to deal with the ambiguities and gaps in the original model, as phenomenon of cultural and social selection. well as specific methodological problems. In The concept of cultural capital is also the second section, we shift our attention to important because it has improved our the American literature on cultural capital. understanding of the process through which We discuss its assumptions and compare it social stratification systems are maintained. with the original work. We also propose a As noted by Bielby (1981), Cicourel and research agenda which decouples cultural Mehan (1984), and Knorr-Cetina and Cicou- capital from the French context in which it rel (1981), while the effect of social origin on was originally conceived to take into consid- eration the distinctive features of American educational and occupational outcomes is culture. among the most studied topics in the sociological literature, little progress has been made toward understanding how this relation- ship is reproduced. Bourdieu and Passeron's BOURDIEU AND PASSERON ON work (1979[1964]) received wide-spread at- CULTURAL CAPITAL tention at first because it proposed a novel view of the process by which social and 1. The seminal question cultural resources of family life shape aca- demic success in a subtle and pervasive The concept of cultural capital was developed fashion. These authors' earlier work showed by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron that apparently neutral academic standards are to analyze the impact of culture on the class laden with specific cultural class resources system and on the relationship between action and social structure.2 The authors were first acquired at home. Following Bernstein's (1964; 1977) observation that working class and middle class children are taught different In an analysis of marital strategies in a French language "codes" at home, Bourdieu and village, Bourdieu (1976[1972]) draws an analogy with players in a card game. Players are dealt different cards Passeron (1979[1964]) argued that other types (e.g. social and cultural capital), but the outcome is of preferences, attitudes and behaviors, such dependent on not only the cards (and the rules of the as familiarity with high culture, are valued ingame) but the skills with which individuals play their school settings, while being more typical of cards. Depending on their "investment patterns" individ- the culture transmitted in "dominant classes" uals can realize different amounts of social profits from relatively similar social and cultural resources. (i.e., upper-middle and middle class) fami- 2 The first work mentioning the concept of cultural lies. capital was an article titled "The School as a Conserva- Bourdieu and Passeron's work also im- tive Force" (Bourdieu 1974[1966], p. 32), where a quickly abandoned concept of "national cultural capital" proved upon existing studies of social is repro- proposed to describe