When the word “capital” is thrown around, images of Wall Street and taxes may come to mind; but sociologists use capital in a specific sense, particularly when examining stratification, poverty, inequality, and the social system that reproduces this inequality. In this essay, I will explain that capital is multidimensional and use two documentaries, Poor Kids and Park Avenue, to illustrate how these forms of capital function in society.
Why is Mr. Obama’s phone number more valuable than, say, your mother’s or your best friend’s? Simply put: access. Those who have access to what C. Wright Mills calls the “power elite” have the ability to affect change to promote their own goals and interests and those of their friends, whereas most people—who do not have the president’s private digits—simply do not have this kind of access to power. This access is political capital, and it can be spent similarly to money. Perhaps a wealthy CEO gave thousands of dollars to Mr. Obama’s campaign and, in exchange, could get meeting with Mr. Obama whenever he pleased. Such is an exchange of capital: monetary for political capital. The reverse is also true: a politician may divert government funds to a building project in her own state to reward a construction company who supported her election campaign.
Those who are reading this essay likely exchanged money to gain this new educational credential: an associate’s degree. And if the promise of education is true, then paying for this degree, a short term loss, will yield a long term gain: more monetary income, access to better jobs—and these things may lead to living in a better community, a better house, and sending your children to better schools. Most individuals pay for educational capital, but some, who hold some promise to improve their college or university, get their education for free in exchange for their high performing academic record or their stellar athletic skills.
In the documentary Poor Kids, we see the cycle of poverty starting over again with children. Some of these families
Children in an active learning environment–a habitus typically associated with middle and upper classes.
were enrolled in some kind of public assistance (i.e., welfare). But this small amount of money is not enough to actually break the cycle of poverty; many of the parents were familiar with the welfare system as children themselves. Rather, it actually perpetuates poverty by keeping families—children—at a level of subsistence. This system is unlikely to change because those who live in poverty do not have the resources to advocate for change in the political system. Together with low amounts of economic capital, habitus helps us understand why children who live in poverty are likely to be live in poverty as adults—and raise their own children in poverty. Habitus is comparable to taste: we learn and become accustomed to certain ways of life. For example, if a person is raised in a working class home, the idea of attending a trade school, or of not attending any kind of education after high school is much more likely than that of a young person who comes from a white collar or middle class family. Habitus seems “natural” to us; children who were raised in middle class homes who do not attend college are much more likely to be viewed as a failure than someone from the working class who makes similar decisions. And for that reason, the middle class individual is more likely to go to college.
Educational capital greatly advantages children from middle and upper classes. And, to date, individuals who want to advocate to change this process have low amounts of political capital to effect change and break the cycle. Therefore, the poor kids in the PBS documentary will be transferred from public school to public school as their unstable housing situation unfolds. Graduating high school—or even making it to high school—is a feat for many who live in poverty. Thus, they, too, like their parents, will face a life of instability and insecurity. And here the cycle of poverty repeats itself, from generation to generation.
Your tweeting task this week is to help us understand the interaction of habitus and class. For your first tweet, go to your local supermarket and take two pictures, the first of food of the working class, and the second, the food of upper classes (put them into a collage on your phone if possible, otherwise, just post one of the photos). In your caption, explain why that
An inexpensive, filling staple, but not one that provides a great deal of key nutrients.
particular food is characteristic of a particular social class. In your second tweet, find another area outside of food that characterizes social class. Again, take two photos, splice them if possible, then caption the photo labeling the class distinction. Finally, in your reply tweets, explain how the object in the photo might have changed in regard to its habitus. I.e., has the product in the photo once been something that only one class consumed but that changed over time?
The Official Sociology Blog of Michael J. Staley 