Cultural capital and cultural deprivation

[Pariswhenitdrizzles]

Disclaimer: I promise and solemnly swear that I'm not trying to be goady or trollish or anything like that. I'm just really interested.

this Wikipedia article on cultural capital and cultural deprivation says:

"Proponents of this theory argue that working class culture (regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or other factors) inherently differs from that of people in the middle class. This difference in culture means that while middle-class children can easily acquire cultural capital by observing their parents, working-class children cannot, and this deprivation is self-perpetuating."

Last week, I was talking to a school librarian who's based in London. Part of his job involves organising events such as free theatre trips for London schoolchildren. He's organised trips to places like the Royal Opera House, and said that some children and their families on one of the trips didn't actually end up going into the Royal Opera House because they felt like they shouldn't go in.

I really think that more should be done to help everyone feel that they're able to go anywhere that they'd like to and that they should never feel as if they don't belong somewhere or that they shouldn't go somewhere.

I know that a lot of work has already been done on social equality and cultural capital, but I really think that more needs to be done. What can we do? And AIBU?

For the record, I can't help but think that really well-funded public goods lessens inequality.

thecat I absolutely agree with this - with you 100%. I also read cory's post with interest, and feel that Scandinavian countries in particular have a particularly good overall economic and social infrastructure that we could (and probably should) learn from.

I really think you're on your own, Winebottle

The article you posted does not go into class. Of course, those with higher educational attainment, are more successful and go on to have better educated children. The same goes for wealthy people. Class is different. That is about social attitudes affecting life chances which I don't think is a problem anymore. People nowadays don't think that because my dad works in a factory, I deserve to be treated differently. That was not the case in times gone by. But, of course, people whose Dad's work in factories will earn less and have lower educational attainment than those whose who are doctors. That's inevitable. It's the same with the race issue. You cannot say because black people earn less that there is institutionalised racism. Race is a proxy for other variables*

While class is often evidenced through social attitudes, it is most strongly related to money.

About race, while a cause cannot be inferred from an effect, what explanation for back people earning less than whites would you put forward. Or women?

When you legitimise one type of culture by teaching it (same as history and literature) you create a hierarchy. So some pursuits are seen as more valuable (cricket over darts) A day trip to a museum is more 'valid' than a trip to Thorpe Park.
Middle class professionals, teach middle class culture - middle class parents are more akin to the teaching staff so speak the same language (literally) Working class kids (on the whole) have smaller vocabularies and are already playing catch up by the time they start school, that is what the early years funding was for. i have not read the article

What can we do about it? Well labour scrapped entry fees to lots of london museums to make them available to poor kids. We could fund the arts better. I think going into places like the royal albert hall can be intimidating for some people so bring the orchestra or dancers or whatever to somewhere more local, a more secure space. Equally we could be a bit more open minded to working class culture and put that in the royal albert hall.

The dominant culture in my school was anti intellectual. Listening to classical music or enjoying high culture would be scoffed at and would differentiate you. I was called "posh" and worse while at school. These attitudes must have come from the parents - free entry to a few museums wouldn't change anything.

at school perhaps, but at college and university and in work ? Less so.

Putting grime on in RAH would be full of class tourists- why is the RAH more 'valued' than say, an arts centre in Leytonstone? This stuff is structural - the national curriculum/ endless testing leaves little space for wriggle room.

Black history month is still a thing, we currently teach history from a white colonial male dominated perspective. It suits the white, male ruling elite for this to be the status quo.

red yes! Surely if you want working class people to feel at home in "highbrow" venues you remove the psychological barrier by no longer having exclusively highbrow venues. Host bands with a mainly working class following as regularly (not once a year as a patronising token nod) in the Royal Opera House as opera, and eventually it'll be a venue for everyone and the psychological "not for the likes of us" barrier erodes.

But in reality the middle and ruling classes don't actually want that. Obviously.

What people want is to let a few working class kids into the middle class occasionally to "prove" social mobility is possible, rather than a flatter structure where all culture is valued equally or where questioning the value judgements placed on Shakespeare over rap, theatre over cinema, one hairstyle or sport over another etc etc is an everyday, normal thing.

Kerala to be fair there is a degree of that at most schools which has more to do with teen pack mentality than anything. I went to a private school and nobody I met there admitted to liking classical music or highbrow culture either.

So what are we doing about it? As in, actually doing, to level the playing field? Or is this something we're hoping somebody else is going to sort out?

I decided to look up Cultural capital: A person's education (knowledge and intellectual skills) that provides advantage in achieving a higher social-status in society.

So it's not really focused on knowledge of the arts: it's much broader than that. The trouble is that if you view education primarily through this lens, you run the risk of ignoring the value of education in its own right, as something intrinsically worthwhile.

Someone wrote earlier that their cultural capital had nothing to do with their skills. But one role of education has always been about broadening the mind, providing insights into other people's and other culture's worldviews, realising that the narrow culture you grew up with isn't all there is, and that there are other ways of doing things, other ways of viewing the world. Scientific, mathematical, historical, other cultures, artistic, etc.

I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to say here, except that there's more to having 'cultural capital' in my view than it just being an indicator of social status.

user the honest answer is not much. Talking about the topic (in RL as well as online) is better than not talking about it but not likely to change much. I live abroad now so tackling the British class system seems a bit theoretical!

If you look at someone like the Rooneys (for example) they are both working class kids, done well, she's pretty bright etc.

They, through dint of their money can move in semi-rarified circles, they can buy access to it, their children are going to go to Manchester Grammar, where they will be taught how to be middle class. (I am not knocking the Rooneys here, just using them as an example.

Read some Diane Reay about the middle class parents :)

I wonder if living outside a large city can contribute?

not sure i follow?

@evelynismyspyname youre quite right

People can be inward or outward looking regardless of class/ income. Class and income will affect the availability of opportunities, but attitude will control which of those opportunities people take up. This still places people with low incomes at a disadvantage along with minority cultures that are undervalued in this context.

Maybe coming from a long line of working class background encourages a more pragmatic outlook in that people seek experience that has direct, obvious benefits because of constraints of time and money.

Having taught in various pit towns where until 30 or so years ago, your destiny lay at the coal face along with the rest of your community, these kinds of homogeneous communities where there had previously been little need of a sophisticated education, can be quite resistant to wider knowledge of the world including culture. Their world and the skills these young people need have changed, but the local culture has been slow to adapt. If you feel conscious that you'll never get chance to utilise this kind of cultural capital because of the restrictions of your life, that's likely to quash curiousity of such things. Also working class cultures such as folk art would have been eroded by industrialisation. They've probably become more middle class in a historical context rather than in their original form.

the working classes have always had a culture, just not the acceptable culture- taught in schools.

When did Eton last have a whit walk/ brass band / clog dance event?

We don't really fit into a class and it means that we spend our lives feeling uncomfortable in just about every social situation we get involved in

We do lots of middle class things because I have lots of middle class friends but I always feel like a fraud.

My daughter has picked up some of our unease and a bit like me hates the idea of being seen as posh. However she tends to be more relaxed in social situations than me.

I find it fascinating that some leisure activities are seen superior to others. Basically middle class people have decided that anything that a working class person does is vulgar and limiting.

I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to say here, except that there's more to having 'cultural capital' in my view than it just being an indicator of social status.

I completely agree kesstrel. I think that's very true.