Following on from the "bright child" thread is it cultural capital that is really needed to succeed & if so how??

[winemummy1]

I am following the bright child thread with interest as I'm resigned to the fact that due to income & where we are based our little dc will not be going private or to a well regarded state school, dh & I are determined to do all we can to help them succeed. I have read on here before about cultural capital & thats what gets one ahead as opposed to academic success. All the private school kids I know & grown up ones too have this buckets of this... Is it all foreign travel, private school extras, confident parents, money... & how do parents who can't afford to buy in the catchment of good state or afford private fees provide cultural capital.

The people with the low base, though, in today's society, tend to stay there. It is incredibly difficult to get families and young people to do anything remotely intellectual and stimulating if they do not see the value in it. The National Trust is rammed full of middle class visitors. Where are the children that should be there? It is most likely their parents who do not see the value of school trips. They probably go to schools where many of the parent body feel like this.

I took a relative of mine to Oxford recently. Her Dad asked her what she thought of it but before she could answer he said "it's not for the likes of us, is it?" THIS is what we have to fight against. Children can be brainwashed into being very dull and suppressed into thinking they cannot achieve at the highest levels. I think all the suggestions above lead to general knowledge. My young relative always prefaces what she says with "When we did that at school" or "At school we looked at". It is never "I saw that with Mummy and Daddy" or "We discussed that recently at home" because all that seems to be disuccsed is the football transfer market, American football and their prowess on games.

There is a pecking order where skiing is vital. In some areas knowledge of the arts is good. Being well read is good. Being well informed politically and economically is good. Knowing about all kinds of sport is usually good but can be a bit blokey. Just being well informed on how much footballers cost is not good. I am not sure how many people really look at bang for their buck. If they do, they may not be in with a chance anyway because it is a blatant decision to spend in a certain way and move up through the "ranks". Doomed to failure in some cases as it gets spotted! The Middletons got bang for their buck!

Cultural capital is also stuff like knowing how to play tennis and how to ski and being a member of the right club and going to the right resort the right week and being known at the right restaurant and bumping into the right people on the slopes etc...

I'd agree with tennis and ski-ing but after that you are wandering off into 'keeping up with the Jones' / Hyacinth Bouquet territory. What you describe is networking and has little to do with culture.

I still haven't worked out what your post of 13:34 meant eric and we are still waiting for examples of useless/outdated MC traits

One thing to think about, when your DC is 13ish, is one of the cadet forces. Many larger independent schools offer this as CCF, but you can do the same in most cities and many large towns. It's great for confidence, and gives the chance to do all sorts of activities cheaper than just about any other way of accessing them.

Define "succeed" in the question. Does it mean academically, economically, emotionally? What is it that would define success, what do you want your child to have achieved or have done?

I think if you work through what your personal definition of "success" for your children is you won't necessarily worry about wealth, cultural capital and achievement as much.

My definition must include the words "happy", "productive", "social" and "empathic". I think lots of people can get there without much by the way of resources and cultural capital. However, not many do and it might be that they equate success with money too much by mistake.

Some very good posts on here. I'm not overly cultured but even if my parents had forced me to go to museums etc I just wasn't very interested. I think you can encourage these things, but you can't force it. I always had my head in a book but usually nothing very worthy, lots of Enid Blyton and Malcolm Saville! No sport at all, I was useless at it.

I did sing in my school and county choirs and liked some museums, eg I remember a school history trip to the Corinium museum in Cirencester and the railway museum in York. But I am in my 40s and have yet to go to most of the main museums in London and only went to the British Museum last year when the Germany exhibition was on. If you don't live near London you can't do these things as easily although I suppose I have been to lots of museums in continental European cities which are broadly equivalent. I did go to local amateur dramatics productions so saw a few plays and once I got to university I liked going to classical music concerts.

But for all that I was good at general knowledge at school. Just not "cultured".

I think learning to cook well is a good skill to have and I would encourage anyone who has the money and time to do courses. It's a pity ski-ing is such a status symbol in the UK when it's a normal weekend hobby in many places. Being able to play tennis is maybe a good one, although I've managed to get through life without being any good at it at all. Golf maybe as well?

But ultimately a lot of people do things because they want to be seen doing them, not because they are genuinely interested in them. For example I wonder how many people went to the Olympics so they could say they were there rather than having a genuine interest in say rowing or hockey. I'd suggest that kids learn the "Bluffers" guides off by heart so they can engage in conversation, but be true to themselves and do what interests them.

I'd suggest that kids learn the "Bluffers" guides off by heart so they can engage in conversation, but be true to themselves and do what interests them

Totally agree. There's a fine line between exposing a child to something unfamiliar a number of times before they grow a real interest (or veggie analogy with very young kids taking up to 20/25 times) though the rare child loves something from day 1.

You could take me to the opera 100 times, I didn't get it, and still don't. Now going to see a ballet...that's another thing altogether

Makes me weep ... Where's the value in cultural capital if you lack the cultural capital to put it to good use?

OP I know a clever (but not staggeringly so) and charming child with a full bursary to a major public school. Every, single, possible opportunity is open to them - with money set aside for whatever is needed. All great, surely?

Except. His DPs don't want him to row "in case he drowns". They can't see the point of any activity that might not lead directly to a job. They don't want him travelling to "any of those funny countries". He has already turned down a half term language trip with his school to a European city because he would rather go home and stare at a screen for two weeks - his parents said nothing and it's too late for anyone to point out his mistake.

The parents are immensely proud of the fact he got in to the school - but they have no clue how to propel him forward. And completely resent any "interference" from friends or relatives who may have been through private education, Oxbridge and professional careers themselves.

Now, when the subject comes up, I can only see the poor child leaving in a few years with nothing but relatively average qualifications - and no response whatsoever to the question "what did you get out of being at that school?"

No Senua - it is not enough to know how to ski and play tennis. What matters is who you ski and play tennis with, and therefore talk to. Which is absolutely nothing to do with keeping up with the Jones'. It's about being part of the conversation.

Middle class signifiers like accent or shopping in Waitrose and John Lewis are pretty useless in terms of getting ahead. There isn't enough content or sharing involved for them to be meaningful.

Cultural capital is ultimately about gaining access to people who matter and influence the course of events. And that means that you need to be one of those people yourself. Movers and shakers don't like free riders.

As someone said upthread, it depends what the OP means by 'succeeding'. You can no doubt be successful in quite a lot of fields without necessarily having the 'cultural capital' the OP is referring to. Success doesn't necessarily equal great wealth and influence. I'm not sure I would wish great wealth or great influence on my children. I'd like them to be a bit more financially comfortable than we are and find any job except teaching a job they genuinely enjoy and are good at. If that job is one that's generally helpful to society, then so much the better. I don't think anything beyond that is particularly desirable. Most of all I would hate to think of them having a high-powered, stressful job which they would look back on and think "Why did I spend the best years of my life doing that?"
For me, the cultural capital stuff is for its own sake and for genuine enjoyment, not for meeting 'the right sort of people'.

I think some people can be Eliza Doolittled, but for most it starts early. I always trot out the example of when I was a school governor and I questioned the music on offer at the primary school - ie pop music played at assembly and dinner times. I suggested introducing them to other genres - even traditional folk songs. Cor, did the Head give me a flea in my ear, replying tartly that children "could not access" classical music and it was not enjoyable for them.

I think there is a difference between cultural capital that gets you to the perceived top - that's all the golf, tennis, the right people, the right address, blah de blah, and the cultural capital that enables one to be an interested and interesting person. I know a few of the former that have zero general knowledge and are obsessed with their own set, and plenty of people who are as poor as church mice yet are very stimulating company and darn good for a pub quiz team member!

Cultural capital isn't the same thing as general knowledge.

Your children will not have the same cultural capital. It will hold them back. It's a fact.

You will get alot of chat about art galleries, museums, Eliza Doolittle etc

But really to swim in the same cultural stream as upper middle class folk you need money.

It's sad but true.

I suppose it depends which career you have your eye on. Investment banking - maybe the skiing, sailing and my school fees are bigger than yours thing equals cultural capital. In many other jobs I think a more, er, cerebral cultural capital might be what wins friends and influences people.

The exact type of knowledge/skills required depends on which set you're in, or aspire to be in, and whether 'comfortable middle class' is enough for you or you want to be hobnobbing with rich people at Klosters.

For comfortable middle class it's probably useful to be familiar with some but not all of Radio 4/serious music/cooking/theatre/international politics/the arts/cricket/architecture/nicer bits of Western Europe. More generally though it's about confidence and attitude... being interested in things and people, and open to new ideas. Plus being competent while superficially self-deprecating.

Thanks for all the replies, dc are v young preschool but dh & I take them to the library all the time, we will ensure we always have money for extracurriculars, we do take them to galleries & museums & also to the theatre for any age appropriate shows that are on locally or in the nearest city. But... I am quite introverted & was always v intimidated by privately educated people I met growing up or in work. I think their attitude scared me eg nothing was ever too much trouble they could rise above any obstacle, whereas I was raised with extremely self limiting beliefs eg"not for the likes of us" "doctors daughter always gets the best time in play" never encouraged to do anything that might be too hard... My mum is amazing, worked so hard for us but she grew up with a major chip on her shoulder about "well to do people" & her attitude results in me being socially awkward as it's been drilled into me since I was a baby that these people are not like me... I would love my dc to have the positivity & problem solving skills that these privately educated colleagues had as it is a huge skill to have.. To answer the query about what I want for my dc it's simply go hold their own with any uber confident peers, never feel intimidated or not enough & if they choose to feel they are worthy of applying to a rg uni & have the belief that they deserve a place..

wine
I think the last few words of your post is key. I went to an ordinary comprehensive (bog standard to use a phrase) and was the first in my family to go to university. Because of my job and people I've met I go to receptions in Parliament, fancy banquets, met the PM etc. One thing I have had to do is remind myself that I have as much right to be there as anyone else. I suspect people who have had a more privileged upbringing don't have that internal dialogue, they expect to be doing these things.

I'm a bit confused by this thread.
Do you think without cultural capital you can't get specific jobs or that you can't break into an upper middle class world?
Are we talking careers or being able to associate with specific people?

I know lots of people who've done really well in their careers and a lot of them are from immigrant families who had no idea about most of this stuff as they were growing up.
I've got friends who are bankers, surgeons, finance directors and working for one of the royal charities and often meets a member if the royal family and goes to amazing events.
The thing they have in common is being educated and having the belief that they could achieve whatever they wanted.

I think cultural capital is a good thing for your own education and knowledge and yes, it can make you more interesting and able to enjoy a more interesting life but
I'm just trying to see what the aim is here in the context of this thread.

I agree, TheWoodenSpoon, I think we are discussing different things on here. There does appear to be Cultural Capital A (doing things, having things, knowing people) and Cultural Capital B (knowing stuff). They are not mutually exclusive, of course. I've just re-read the OP, and she says:

I have read on here before about cultural capital & thats what gets one ahead as opposed to academic success

So if that's the sort of world she wants for her dcs, ie CC type A, then I have to agree that it's difficult to achieve without money in the first place unless you are going to do some sort of Talented Mr Ripley thing. Otoh you can have all the money in the world (Lottery winner, footballer) and you still won't be hobnobbing with certain types. You may be able to achieve it for your dcs, though (eg Mrs Middleton).

I think posters are conflating culture with cultural capital.

We all have culture. It's the fabric of our lives. How we eat, how we dress, how we spend our free time, how we think...

Cultural capital is the way in which we turn aspects of that culture into real capital ( wealth, influence etc).

Cultural capital is a bogus concept invented by Pierre Bourdieu and very much attuned to the a French bourgeoisie of mid 20th c. Don't see it as much use. It is instrumentalising culture. It is pretty well interchangeable in the way it is being used here with 'breeding', access to a old Boy Network, hobbies as self-investment, etc. Being cultured, properly so, is something else, to do with passion,aptitude, need, which for the most part leads you into impoverishment, because it is not to do with competing on the market.

Pierre Bourdieu was very much following on from Veblen. Both Bourdieu and Veblen are musts IMVHO. Not remotely bogus - more like painful truth

fork I agree that the idea of what constitutes cultural capital feels outdated in many environments/industries.

But that does not mean that the idea itself is bogus. Just that many who cashed in their cultural capital in the past can no longer do so with ease (as it has less transferable value).

I suspect that cultural capital is overrated and that a lot of what makes the difference that causes those from famous private schools to succeed is straightforward academic excellence. A thing I frequently see on here is an unthinking assumption that if a child gets top grades in GCSE or A levels, they must have had as good an education as they'd have got anywhere. (Then, sometimes, they look at state schools that get as good grades as independent schools, see the independent school pupils still doing better in terms of Oxbridge places or whatever, and cry foul.) In reality, those grades are a good baseline but the best schools are helping their students to develop skills and understanding far above what is needed for them. Some of that can be replicated by things like reading around a subject - if you know to do it and can find out what to read. Access to that knowledge is part of what a good school provides, but it's also available in other ways, e.g. by asking right here on Mumsnet. If parents assume that a child heading for an A* must be doing fine, though, it may not happen. So that would be my advice to the OP: always be seeking out the best experts you can find in any subject your DC are interested in (or, come to think of it, a subject they're finding boring!) and ask what they can do to go beyond the syllabus.

I probably don't get cultural capital being a child of immigrant parents but most people won't be successful without a good education.
If you don't have a good education then you need an entrepreneurial streak or connections.
Part of a good education is, as mentioned before, experiences. So yes to museums, nature and travelling.
Also look at the growth mindset if you're worried that your children may feel limited. I think a lot of successful people I know, including myself, had the attitude that you can achieve whatever you set out to achieve.
It gives you resilience so if you come across barriers or hurdles, you work it out.
Globalisation has opened up career opportunities for anyone. Most work places have people from all around the world and the world really is your oyster. You don't have to mirror the upper middle classes to get ahead anymore.