Cultural Capital Theory of Pierre Bourdieu

Cultural capital is a term from sociologist Pierre Bourdieu that refers to the non-financial assets that help people succeed in society – like education, language, style, or cultural knowledge.

These cultural resources help individuals gain status and succeed in society, often passing down through families, reinforcing social inequality.

It comes in three forms: what you know and can do, the things you own, and the qualifications you hold. These can influence your social mobility and how others perceive you.

What Are The 3 Types Of Cultural Capital?

Bourdieu thought that there were three forms of cultural capital that an individual could possess.

1. Embodied Cultural Capital: This refers to the dispositions of the mind and body. An example provided is a regional dialect, which is internalised and expressed through an individual’s speech patterns and way of being.
2. Objectified Cultural Capital: This includes material possessions that signify cultural capital. Examples given are works of art or musical instruments. These are physical objects that an individual owns and can use to demonstrate their cultural knowledge or taste.
3. Institutionalized Cultural Capital: This category encompasses academic credentials. Degrees and qualifications, for instance, are institutional recognitions of an individual’s cultural knowledge and competence.

Each form of cultural capital intertwines to shape an individual’s journey through education and into the workplace. Embodied capital affects how well individuals “fit” into institutional cultures, objectified capital provides resources that aid learning, and institutionalised capital directly opens doors to opportunities. Together, they form a powerful mechanism for the reproduction of social class and inequality across generations

1. Cultural Capital in an Embodied State

Embodied cultural capital refers to the internalised knowledge, skills, attitudes, and dispositions that shape how individuals think, speak, and behave.

These are acquired through everyday lif – especially in the family – and become so ingrained that they feel like part of a person’s identity.

This form of capital includes everything from the way you speak or hold yourself to your tastes in food, music, or fashion.

For example, knowing how to hold a wine glass properly at a networking event may subtly signal refinement or class to others, including potential employers.

Bourdieu argued that these embodied traits are largely picked up unconsciously, as individuals absorb the behaviours, values, and expectations of their social environment.

Over time, social advantages – such as knowing how to speak confidently, dress appropriately, or navigate elite institutions—become second nature.

Embodied cultural capital is closely tied to habitus, another key concept in Bourdieu’s theory.

Habitus refers to the deeply internalised “feel for the game”—a practical sense of what to do in different social situations, shaped by one’s upbringing and social class.

It guides behaviour without conscious thought and reinforces a sense of one’s place in the social world.

Although it seems far removed from money, embodied cultural capital is deeply linked to economic background.

The kinds of behaviours and values that a child absorbs are directly influenced by the economic and social conditions they grow up in.

For example, middle-class families often instil behaviours that match the expectations of schools and workplaces, giving their children a clear advantage.

In Education

• Linguistic skills: Middle-class children are often raised using an “elaborated code” of speech—grammatically correct and similar to formal or academic language. This matches the communication style used by teachers and in textbooks, giving these children a smoother transition into school life. Working-class children may speak in a more restricted code, which can put them at a disadvantage in systems that reward academic fluency.
• Attitudes and dispositions: Schools tend to promote middle-class values, such as punctuality, obedience, and a positive attitude toward learning. Children raised in homes that reflect these values are more likely to succeed. In contrast, working-class students whose home values do not align may feel alienated. Bourdieu calls this symbolic violence – when institutions devalue certain cultural backgrounds, leading to a sense of exclusion or failure.

In the Workplace

• Communication and demeanour: Many professional settings value particular ways of speaking, dressing, or interacting. Individuals whose embodied cultural capital aligns with these norms—such as using a “neutral” accent, demonstrating self-confidence, or knowing office etiquette—are more likely to be perceived as competent and “professional.”
• Occupational socialisation: Starting a new job often involves learning unspoken rules and cultural expectations—how to behave, dress, and interact. Those who already possess embodied cultural capital that aligns with these expectations often find it easier to adjust and succeed. Family upbringing, schooling, and even workplace peer groups (like the “canteen culture” in policing) can shape how well someone fits into these environments.

2. Cultural Capital in an Objectified State

Objectified cultural capital refers to physical, material objects that carry cultural value and reflect a person’s social standing.

These include works of art, books, musical instruments, historical artifacts, and other possessions that are associated with knowledge, sophistication, or good taste.

Such objects don’t just represent wealth – they symbolise the owner’s familiarity with culturally valued knowledge and practices.

For instance, owning a large collection of rare books or classical music records may project an image of intellect and refinement, especially in elite or academic circles.

However, Bourdieu emphasized that these objects only function as cultural capital if the person interacting with them also possesses the embodied cultural capital needed to use or appreciate them.

A violin, for example, is only valuable in this sense if someone knows how to play it – or understands and respects its cultural significance.

Similarly, a person may walk through an art museum, but without the right educational background or exposure, they may not fully interpret or appreciate what they see.

In his research, Bourdieu found that time spent in museums positively correlated with levels of education – suggesting that appreciation of cultural objects is not distributed equally, but shaped by class-based access to learning.

In Education

• Home learning environment: Access to educational materials like books, computers, and learning toys can significantly enhance a child’s intellectual development. Middle-class families often provide these resources, creating a home environment that reinforces the cultural values expected in school. This can lead to higher achievement and confidence in academic settings.
• Exposure to high culture: Activities such as museum visits, concerts, or literary readings introduce children to what is often referred to as “high culture”—the canon of respected art, literature, and music that forms the foundation of many school curricula. Children who grow up with regular exposure to these experiences are better prepared for educational environments that assume such cultural familiarity.

In the Workplace

While less directly influential than qualifications or embodied traits, objectified cultural capital can subtly shape perceptions of professionalism and social fit.

For example, owning particular types of clothing, accessories, or tasteful office décor might signal refinement or alignment with middle- or upper-class values.

In industries where image and presentation matter—such as law, media, or design—these visual cues can reinforce social advantage, even if they aren’t explicitly required for the role.

3. Cultural Capital in an Institutionalized State

Institutionalized cultural capital refers to official recognition of cultural competence in the form of academic qualifications, degrees, diplomas, or certifications.

Unlike embodied or objectified forms, this type of capital is validated by institutions such as schools, universities, and professional bodies.

A university degree, for example, doesn’t just reflect knowledge – it functions as a credential that signals intellectual ability and readiness for higher-level employment.

This credential can be converted into economic capital, as it often determines eligibility for better-paid jobs and access to prestigious social and professional networks.

Yet, as Bourdieu argued, access to these qualifications is shaped by broader inequalities—making institutionalised cultural capital both a ladder for mobility and a mechanism of social reproduction.

In Education

• Gateway to opportunity: Qualifications like GCSEs, A-levels, or university degrees are essential stepping stones in many educational systems. They are explicitly valued by employers and function as gateways to higher-status occupations, making them a central mechanism for social mobility.
• Meritocracy and its limitations: While education is often framed as a meritocratic system where achievement reflects ability, Bourdieu argued that this narrative overlooks deeper structural inequalities. Access to elite qualifications is often shaped by existing economic, cultural, and social capital, meaning that middle-class families can pass advantages to their children—such as better schools, tutoring, and educational support—making success appear “earned” when it’s also inherited.
• Credentialism: Modern societies increasingly emphasise credentials as proof of skill or ability. Even when real-world experience or talent exists, a lack of formal certification can block access to desirable jobs. This phenomenon—called credentialism—reinforces the importance of institutionalized cultural capital in determining life chances.

In the Workplace

• Job entry and progression: Institutionalized cultural capital plays a direct role in employment, particularly in professions that require specialised qualifications (e.g., medicine, law, engineering). Without the right credentials, individuals are often excluded from entire career paths, regardless of skill.
• Status and reward: Formal qualifications are linked not just to job access but to higher pay, prestige, and authority. This is partly explained by functionalist theories like the Davis-Moore thesis, which argue that society rewards jobs that require scarce skills and extensive training. However, conflict theorists—like Bourdieu—highlight that this reward system often reproduces existing inequalities, as the means to attain these qualifications are not equally available to all.

---

How Cultural Capital is Acquired

Cultural capital is not something people are born with—it is learned and accumulated over time through socialisation.

From early childhood to adulthood, individuals internalise the knowledge, skills, values, and behaviours that are rewarded in society.

Pierre Bourdieu argued that this learning process takes place in multiple settings, but the family, education system, and wider social context are especially influential.

1. Primary Socialisation in the Family/Home Environment:

The family is the primary site where cultural capital begins to form.

Bourdieu described this as a process of “imperceptible apprenticeship”, where children unconsciously absorb the behaviours, worldviews, and tastes of those around them.

• Early internalisation: Middle-class families tend to pass on values and behaviours that align with what schools and employers expect – such as respect for authority, discipline, and a strong work ethic.
• Language and communication: Middle-class parents are more likely to use an “elaborated code” of speech – detailed, grammatically correct language – which mirrors the communication style valued in schools. In contrast, working-class children may use a more “restricted code” that is less aligned with institutional expectations.
• Cultural exposure: Middle-class families are also more likely to take their children to museums, art galleries, or cultural events, subtly passing on a sense of familiarity with “high culture.”
• Parental involvement: Parents with higher cultural capital are often more involved in their children’s education—reading with them, helping with homework, or advocating for their needs at school.

Social class plays a key role in shaping what cultural knowledge is passed down.

A child raised in a wealthy household might casually learn about investment strategies or etiquette at formal events, while a child in a working-class family might gain practical knowledge suited to their local context.

Both forms are valid, but only certain types of cultural knowledge are rewarded by institutions, reinforcing class-based inequalities.

2. Secondary Socialisation through the Education System:

Bourdieu saw the education system as both a transmitter and gatekeeper of cultural capital.

While schools are designed to provide access to knowledge, they also reinforce the dominant culture of the middle class.

• Curriculum and hidden curriculum: Schools formally teach subjects like literature, history, and science, but also informally promote middle-class norms—punctuality, neat appearance, standard English, and respect for authority.
• Peer Culture: Peer groups are significant arenas where children and young people acquire cultural knowledge, creating their own “peer culture” that reflects both the adult world and their unique interpretations.
• Institutionalised capital: Academic qualifications, such as GCSEs, A-levels, or degrees, are forms of institutionalised cultural capital. These are valued by employers and serve as official indicators of ability and status.
• Unequal advantage: Students who already possess cultural capital at home—such as familiarity with “academic” vocabulary or high culture—are better positioned to succeed in school. For example, test questions referencing “regattas” or “oarsmen” may be easier for students from elite backgrounds who have encountered these terms socially, rather than through school.
• Credentialism: Increasingly, success in life depends on formal credentials. Even when individuals possess the necessary skills, lacking the right piece of paper can limit their opportunities – a phenomenon known as credential inflation or credentialism.

In short, education can distribute cultural capital, but also amplify pre-existing inequalities by rewarding those who are already aligned with its values.

3. Social Environment and Geographic Location:

Cultural capital also varies according to geographic location, cultural context, and social interactions.

• Regional variation: People growing up in different countries—or even different areas within a country—develop different forms of cultural capital. Local dialects, religious practices, customs, and expectations around education all shape what is valued and transmitted.
• Social learning: Much cultural learning takes place informally, through observational learning —watching others, mimicking behaviours, or absorbing cultural cues from media, peer groups, or community institutions.
• Peer culture: Children and teenagers develop their own peer-based cultures, which may reflect or resist adult values. These interactions also shape how cultural capital is expressed and understood in different social groups.

For example, someone growing up in a rural village in Morocco will likely possess different cultural reference points, languages, and social expectations than someone raised in urban Manila.

While both individuals acquire cultural capital, the type and social value of that capital are context-specific.

---

The Effects of Cultural Capital

The effects of cultural capital are far-reaching:

• It converts into economic rewards by improving access to well-paid, high-status roles.
• It enhances social mobility through improved access to influential networks and group memberships.
• It reinforces inequality by giving middle- and upper-class individuals structural advantages in education and professional life.

Bourdieu’s work reveals how success is often less about innate talent and more about being socialised into the “right” kind of knowledge, language, and behaviour.

Cultural capital may be invisible, but its effects are deeply visible in patterns of opportunity and exclusion.

1. Economic advantages

Cultural capital can translate directly into economic capital, especially when individuals possess the knowledge, language, and behaviours that signal competence and belonging in high-status settings.

• For example, embodied cultural capital—such as confidence, refined taste, and fluent communication—can help individuals access prestigious jobs, investment opportunities, or influential networks.
• In more extreme cases, like that of Anna Sorokin (aka Anna Delvey), cultural capital was strategically used to gain financial access to elite circles. By mimicking the behaviours, speech, and tastes of the wealthy, she was able to convince people she belonged—ultimately securing financial backing under false pretences.
• While this is a dramatic case, it illustrates a broader point: signaling cultural competence can unlock material resources, often without formal credentials. People who know how to “play the game” gain access to jobs, recommendations, partnerships, and other forms of economic opportunity.

Thus, cultural capital operates as a form of symbolic currency – one that, when recognised, can open doors to material wealth.

2. Social advantages

Cultural capital enhances access to social capital – that is, advantageous networks, relationships, and group memberships.

• According to Bourdieu, cultural capital helps individuals successfully navigate elite social environments, such as professional networks, alumni associations, or cultural institutions.
• People who speak and act in ways aligned with dominant norms are often seen as more credible, trustworthy, or “likeable”, which encourages others to form connections with them.
• Social capital, in turn, brings benefits such as insider knowledge, job referrals, mentorship, and increased prestige. Membership in groups like private clubs, selective schools, or professional organisations often requires (or assumes) a certain level of cultural capital.

In short, cultural fluency fosters social inclusion, and social inclusion provides ongoing opportunities for success.

3. Reproduction of social inequality

Perhaps the most significant effect of cultural capital is its role in reproducing social class inequality – especially through the education system.

• Alignment with the dominant culture: Schools are built on middle-class norms and expectations. Students from middle- or upper-class backgrounds typically arrive already equipped with the cultural knowledge that schools value—such as formal language use, familiarity with “high culture,” and appropriate behavioural norms.
• Symbolic violence: Working-class students often find their own cultural backgrounds devalued or ignored. Bourdieu called this symbolic violence—a subtle but powerful process by which institutions impose dominant values as the norm, making students from other backgrounds feel inferior or “out of place.”
• Negative outcomes for working-class students: Students with low cultural capital may struggle with academic language, be misunderstood by teachers, or lack the confidence to pursue elite educational or career paths. They may self-exclude from university or be overlooked during admissions due to perceived lack of “fit.”
• Assessment bias: Standardised tests may reflect culturally specific knowledge—privileging students who have been socialised into the dominant culture. This raises questions about whether educational success is truly based on ability or is a reflection of inherited cultural capital.

As a result, cultural capital becomes a mechanism through which existing class structures are legitimised and reproduced, often under the guise of meritocracy.

---

Critical Evaluation

1.   Lack of empirical evidence

While Bourdieu’s work has been massively influential in the world of sociological thought, critics still raise concerns about his ideas.

One of the most common critiques is that Bourdieu did not give an empirical grounding for much of his theoretical structure.

Indeed, the concern has even been raised that Bourdieu’s theories are by nature inconsistent with empirical evidence.

How could one possibly prove or disprove the existence of embodied cultural capital? And how could that be empirically linked to inequality?

This is something to consider when thinking about Bourdieu’s work.

2.   Oversimplification of social reality

In reading his work, it seems that Bourdieu sees the social landscape as a game in which everyone competes for resources.

However, in each of our daily lives, we could see ways in which social life is much more complex than competing for a piece of the economic pie.

Critics might say that social life is not all about trying to move up in the ranks, but rather that morals, ethics, and human connection are an important part of the dynamic as well.

Many factors that influence social life could be included in this discussion, but Bourdieu focuses primarily on acquisition and maintenance of resources.

3.   Neglect of agency and individualism

Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital has a lot of focus on how society influences individual behavior.

His theories don’t tend to understate the impact that societal conditioning has on the daily behavior of individuals and the ways that they interact with one another.

He thought that even individual preferences in music, food and art were a product of embodied cultural capital.

Critics may see this as dismissive of how individuals make choices in their daily lives about how to behave and interact. Where in Bourdieu’s theories is there room for personal agency?

Bourdieu was quite concerned with this question. He was very interested in the ways in which individuals exercised their autonomy within the social structures that they operate in.

He thought that even with the restrictions and regularities of social lives, individuals were able to exercise autonomy within that. While autonomy is bound, it still exists in Bourdieu’s conception.

4. Incomplete Consideration of Other Social Variables

Finally, some researchers argue that Bourdieu’s theory does not fully address the influence of gender, race, ethnicity, or disability on cultural capital acquisition and use.

Studies focusing only on social class may miss the ways in which cultural capital interacts with other forms of identity and oppression.

For example, a Black working-class student may experience school differently from a white working-class peer, even if they hold similar cultural or economic capital.

This critique encourages a more intersectional approach to understanding inequality, one that recognises how multiple forms of disadvantage interact and shape life chances.

FAQs

References:

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2018). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1973)

Huang, X. (2019). Understanding Bourdieu—Cultural capital and habitus. Review of European Studies, 11(3), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v11n3p45

Lebaron, F. (2014). Symbolic capital. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6496–6499). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2961

Riley, D. (2017). Bourdieu’s class theory. Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy, 1(2). https://catalyst-journal.com/vol1/no2/bourdieu-class-theory

Tittenbrun, J. (2018). Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of multiple capitals: A critique. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3092004