While the ideas presented here may be overly dramatic, the implications of having or not having cultural capital seem pretty clear. In the first example, cultural knowledge in terms of art and film is tested in a social setting. This form of cultural capital is embodied and includes cultural knowledge and skills that determine how one is percieved when socializing with others. The man who rants about his film-knowledge so that everyone can hear him is challenged by the women who seems to know a lot more about art than him.
A person's ownership of cultural capital can lead to social ties that further benefit their life opportunities. Having cultural knowledge increases the liklihood that one will be respected which could allow them more work opportunities, more social ties, and greater social mobility in general. Furthermore, having social capital can help increase one's cultural capital simply by having social ties (friends, acquantainces, coworkers) that already have a great degree of cultural capital. More cultural capital in turn could increase one's social and economic capital and so on ad infinitum. In this way, the accumulation of Bourdieu's forms of capital can be self-perpetuating.
The second example in the video points out how we should not think of cultural capita. It is not an issue of knowing everything about all current events. For example, a CEO for a Bank is unlikely to have any knowledge about the underground music scene in Minneapolis, or what happened last night on "Archer." It is unrealistic for anyone to expect anyone else to read every legitimate (or illegitimate, as some of the examples were) piece of news, research, or knowledge that is ever published. Put simply, cultural knowledge should be thought of not in terms of how much you know but which topics you know a lot about.
No comments:
Post a Comment