Capital
From Geography
JensLubben (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | The way Bourdieu thinks about capital is different from how this concept is explained by other social theories or the usage of the word by people in their everyday life. In other social theories or in everyday life capital is related to monetary or material value. However Bourdieu’s usage of the term capital is more focused on structural principles which take place in interactions between | + | The way [[Pierre Bourdieu]] thinks about capital is different from how this concept is explained by other social theories or the usage of the word by people in their everyday life. In other social theories or in everyday life capital is related to monetary or material value. However Bourdieu’s usage of the term capital is more focused on structural principles which take place in social interactions between actors in different fields of social space. In each field people unconsciously develop a certain habitus. A habitus is certain a mode or style of acting. This habitus becomes a structure that influences human actions within a certain field. The other way of looking at capital does not mean that the monetary or material value of capital is left out. Bordieu tries to come upo with a broader view on capital. Capital, according to [[Pierre Bourdieu]] is used to describe the actors' abilities deriving from the structural conditions of their situation, espacially the means of power at their disposal, that is, the power over products, persons and meanings (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009). Capital in this way can be seen as a form of power which can be used by social actors in interaction with other actors. These different kinds of capital gives power to an actor and enables the actor to control persons and their actions. Power also enables the actor to perform certain actions. |
| - | Bourdieu makes a distinction | + | To clarify the broader dimension Bordieu uses, he makes a distinction of four kinds of capital, named below: |
| - | 1. Cultural | + | 1. [[Cultural Capital]]. This dimension of capital is for example about knowledge, skills or education. |
| - | 2. Social | + | 2. [[Social Capital]]. This aspect contains relations and networks between people in social space. |
3. Economic capital. This last dimension of capital is related to money and property. | 3. Economic capital. This last dimension of capital is related to money and property. | ||
| - | (4).Symbolic | + | (4). [[Symbolic Capital]]. This dimension can be seen as a synonym for prestige, honor and recognition. It includes the sum of economic, cultural and social capital. Hence it cannot be put on a level with the other three dimensions. The more economic, cultural and social capital a person has, the higher his symbolic capital. Bourdieu sees symbolic capital as a crucial source of power. |
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Page enhanced by [[User:JensLubben|JensLubben]] 18:48, 17 December 2011 (CET) | Page enhanced by [[User:JensLubben|JensLubben]] 18:48, 17 December 2011 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Page edited by Stefan Ramaker --[[User:StefanRamaker|StefanRamaker]] 16:55, 23 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 24 October 2012
The way Pierre Bourdieu thinks about capital is different from how this concept is explained by other social theories or the usage of the word by people in their everyday life. In other social theories or in everyday life capital is related to monetary or material value. However Bourdieu’s usage of the term capital is more focused on structural principles which take place in social interactions between actors in different fields of social space. In each field people unconsciously develop a certain habitus. A habitus is certain a mode or style of acting. This habitus becomes a structure that influences human actions within a certain field. The other way of looking at capital does not mean that the monetary or material value of capital is left out. Bordieu tries to come upo with a broader view on capital. Capital, according to Pierre Bourdieu is used to describe the actors' abilities deriving from the structural conditions of their situation, espacially the means of power at their disposal, that is, the power over products, persons and meanings (Lippuner & Werlen, 2009). Capital in this way can be seen as a form of power which can be used by social actors in interaction with other actors. These different kinds of capital gives power to an actor and enables the actor to control persons and their actions. Power also enables the actor to perform certain actions. To clarify the broader dimension Bordieu uses, he makes a distinction of four kinds of capital, named below:
1. Cultural Capital. This dimension of capital is for example about knowledge, skills or education.
2. Social Capital. This aspect contains relations and networks between people in social space.
3. Economic capital. This last dimension of capital is related to money and property.
(4). Symbolic Capital. This dimension can be seen as a synonym for prestige, honor and recognition. It includes the sum of economic, cultural and social capital. Hence it cannot be put on a level with the other three dimensions. The more economic, cultural and social capital a person has, the higher his symbolic capital. Bourdieu sees symbolic capital as a crucial source of power.
References:
Lippuner, R. & Werlen, B. (2009). Structuration Theory. In: International Encyclopedia for Human Geography. Elsevier.
Published by Lotte Brouwer & Inge Schoenmakers
Page enhanced by JensLubben 18:48, 17 December 2011 (CET)
Page edited by Stefan Ramaker --StefanRamaker 16:55, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
