Bringing in Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Capital: Renewing Learning

Partnership Approaches to Social Inclusion

Paper presented at the ESAI Annual Conference, NUI Maynooth April 1-3, 2004

Authors: Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin Ó Fathaigh

Author Contacts:

· Stephen O’Brien is a researcher at the Centre for Adult Continuing Education

and a lecturer with the Education Department, UCC ([email protected])

· Mairtin Ó Fathaigh is Professor/Director of the Centre for Adult Continuing

Education UCC, and Chairman of the National Social Work Qualifications

Board ([email protected]) 2 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

BRINGING IN BOURDIEU’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:

RENEWING LEARNING PARTNERSHIPAPPROACHES TO

SOCIAL INCLUSION

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the HEA in

sponsoring a recent research project wherein this paper is situated

(see O’Brien, S and O Fathaigh, M: 2005)

Introduction

This paper begins by outlining the theory of social capital. Bourdieu’s perspective, in

particular, is presented as the most useful approach in informing (and renewing)

learning partnerships for social inclusion. Notwithstanding the fact that learning

partnerships often vary in size, membership, geographical location, cultural ethos,

mission, and learning activities (see O’Brien and Ó Fathaigh, 2005), they are likely to

exhibit a common main purpose. With specific attention to learning partnerships for

social inclusion, we see such a common purpose as:

The will to support the development of a learning community that serves as an

advocate for local learning needs (specifically the needs of disadvantaged

groups), while taking into account the possibilities and constraints of national

policy frameworks

Bourdieu’s theory proffers an invaluable conceptual lens through which social

inclusion in education may be investigated and advanced alongside this learning

partnership rationale. Despite this claim, an overview of contemporary literature

research reveals that this theory is grossly under-utilised. The paper concludes by

highlighting how Bourdieu’s insights can be viewed principally as a critique of

existing theoretical and methodological approaches to our understandings of ‘social3 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

capital’. Moreover, Bourdieu’s ideas are shown to inform more effective educational

measures for social inclusion.

The theory of social capital

‘Social capital’ theory can be sourced to the works of three main authors - James

Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. Coleman’s (1988, 1990, 1992)

interpretation of the concept is the most frequently cited in the educational literature.

For Coleman, social capital exists in the structure of relations between individuals

and is thus largely intangible. Its potency, however, is realised in its capacity (just

like physical and human capital) to facilitate productive activity. This is achieved

through the formation of social relationships built up over time which enables

individuals to achieve their interests over-and-above those that can only be attained

independently. Four important forms of social capital are identified: a) obligations

and expectations (e.g. doing favours for and receiving favours from other people), b)

informational potential (e.g. sharing useful information that may inform some future

action), c) norms and effective sanctions (e.g. the establishment of community values

and shared standards of behaviour) and d) authority relations (e.g. skilful leadership
that informs others’ actions). It is noted that social capital through these means can

benefit others who do not directly participate. Coleman (1990, p 313) gives the

example here of the work of parent-teacher associations who set disciplinary

standards for the benefit of all in the school community. Some form of investment in

social capital (e.g. concerted group involvement) is deemed necessary, however, for

any such rewards to be amassed. While social capital can be created, conversely it

can also be destroyed. Here, Coleman cites a lack of relations between parents, as4 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

well as a shared ideology (e.g. an ideology of self-sufficiency) as having potentially

negative social consequences (see Coleman: 1990, pp 318-321). Social capital theory,

as used by Coleman, has strong structural-functionalist roots. For this reason, his

work is often cited in support of a particular kind of community – “one characterised

by strict, traditional values, rigorous discipline, and hierarchical order and control”

(Dika and Singh: 2002, p 34). Further, the social capital concept is presented as a

necessary precondition for promoting (via family norms, for example) human capital

development and educational achievement.

Putnam’s (1993, 1995) theory of social capital has functionalist roots also (especially

its focus on social integration), but it is furthermore influenced by notions of

pluralism and communitarianism. His central thesis is that a well functioning regional

economy together with a high level of political integration are the result of that

region’s capacity to successfully amass social capital (Siisiainen, 2000). Social

capital here has three components: a) moral obligations and norms, b) social values

(particularly trust) and c) social networks (especially the membership of voluntary

associations). These forms of social capital are central to the promotion of civil

communities and civil society in general. According to Putnam, the productive

activity of social capital is manifest in its capacity to “facilitate coordination and

cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam: 1995, p 2). The threat to this productive

capacity comes from changing social trends which appear to indicate that such

‘coordination and cooperation’ is on the decline. To illustrate, Putnam cites

America’s falling participation numbers in union membership, net religious

involvement, parent-teacher organisations, and group associations. While there are

some counter trends

, the general conclusion is that social capital is being eroded. 5 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Deleterious effects are noted in a loosening of bonds within the family and a decline

in social trust and relationships within communities. Accordingly, Putnam makes a

direct link between levels of civic engagement and a community’s capacity to tackle

social and economic problems such as unemployment, poverty, educational nonparticipation, and
crime. Thus, much like Coleman, Putnam claims that:

…networks of organised reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being an

epiphenomenon of socio-economic modernisation [are] a precondition for it

(Putnam: 1995, p 2).

Taking Coleman’s and Putnam’s positions together, the general accord is that social

capital constitutes positive social control. It is the family’s and the community’s

responsibility to foster such characteristics as trust, shared information, and positive

norms of behaviour for everyone’s mutual benefit. A number of problems emerge

from this general perspective, however. In relation to Coleman’s approach, for

example, Dika and Singh (2002, p 44) talk about a blurring of the distinction of

resources from the ability to obtain them in the social structure

In addition, the .

stress on the family’s and the community’s role in mediating social capital serves to
likewise obscure the individual’s agency in accessing and utilising such resources.

Also, because resources are viewed as essential preconditions, those with insufficient

capital are in danger of being labelled powerless in their pursuit of the same desirable

outcomes enjoyed by their counterparts. Finally, it should be noted that the

connection between ownership of social capital and its activation remains unclear and

is largely untested in the research literature. Problems likewise emerge from

Putnam’s interpretation of social capital. Siisiainen (2000, p 4), for example, points

to an inadequate coverage of the concept of ‘distrust’ and its singular association with

pathological forms of collective action. This treatise obscures the role of conflict in 6 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

activating alternative forms of social action

In addition, Putnam’s emphasis on .

voluntary associations (which are usually of a specific type) precludes consideration

of those individuals who have conflicting interests or are simply disinterested in

engaging with such networks. Finally, it should be noted that ‘trust’ more typically

emerges from the struggle between competing interests

Given the above critical points, we turn to the work of Pierre Bourdieu to fill some

important methodological and conceptual gaps. Bourdieu’s (1977a, b, c; 1991;

1992a, b) main distinction is his belief that social capital operates as a tool of cultural

reproduction in explaining unequal educational achievement. This theory has strong

socio-cultural roots which locate the educational experiences of individuals

dialectically through their social and material history. Unlike the structuralist

approaches of Coleman and Putnam, this theory challenges deficit thinking about
underachievement and differentiates resources from their distribution within the social

structure. Further, unlike the other two ‘causal’ approaches, Bourdieu’s perspective

on social capital is designed to guide empirical work

Moreover, Bourdieu gives due .

regard to individuals and their mediated actions, as well as to the concept of conflict

as an expression of this subjectivity

These features, in our opinion, render the .

Bourdieuian perspective on social capital the most scrupulous and constructive

approach in the study of disadvantaged learners. Specifically, as a conceptual treatise,

Bourdieu’s theory proffers socio-cultural explanations for why under-represented

groups remain excluded from the educational process. It achieves this by expanding

upon an analysis of cultural barriers to participation and relating subsequent

investigations to actors’ own lived experiences. Such a subject-centred enquiry is

consistent with our own research approach (see O’Brien and O Fathaigh, 2005) and is 7 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

particularly useful in the search for effective learning partnership characteristics that

have a specific social inclusion focus.

Three key theoretical concepts need to be explained in relation to Bourdieu’s

perspective on social capital:

· Habitus

· Capitals

· Fields

Firstly, the concept of habitus is used to explain how objective structures and

subjective perceptions impact upon human action. The concept can be explained as a
set of regulatory schemes of thought and action, which are to some extent, a product

of prior experience. In Bourdieu’s (1977a, p 72) own words, habitus constitutes “a set

of durable, transposable dispositions” which regulates mental activity to the point

where individuals are often unconsciously aware of their influence. In essence, the

habitus concept is a way of explaining how social and cultural messages (both actual

and symbolic) shape individuals’ thoughts and actions. It is not a static concept since

it allows for individuals to mediate these messages, even to the point of resisting

embodied beliefs. The habitus is thus not wholly structured, though it still remains

strongly influenced by historical, social and cultural contexts. To illustrate the

importance of this concept, one might think of how certain social groups are more

capable of mobilising their own deeply held beliefs on the value of education. Often

such values are shaped by a general set of outlooks in their immediate environment

(e.g. parental/peer expectations, social position) that afford them some advantage in

utilising the formal education system. These values need not be arrived at8 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh,
M (2005)

consciously either, but instead may be deeply embodied within certain individuals’

cultural make-up. Social class factors are particularly strong in guiding mediated

thought and action (Bourdieu calls this ‘class habitus’). This is because social class

powerfully affects consumption and lifestyle patterns including, significantly, the

exercise of educational choice. It follows, then, that:

those in higher-class groupings are more likely to realise the value of

schooling both in the field of education and the occupational field, thus

increasing the likelihood of reproducing their position (Rudd: 2003, p 7).

The second important theme in illuminating Bourdieu’s theory is that of capitals.

This concept is subdivided into: economic, social, cultural, and symbolic categories.

Economic capital refers to income and other financial resources and assets. It is the
most liquid capital in that it may be more readily converted into other capitals (Rudd,

2003). Its potency in the educational field, for example, is manifest in the capacity of

some individuals to purchase different types of educational services (e.g. private

education, additional grinds/tuitions, distance learning courses) and associated

resources (e.g. childcare, transport, books, ICT equipment etc.). Economic capital on

its own, however, is not sufficient to buy ‘status’ or position – rather, it relies on the

interaction with other forms of capital. One other such form is social capital. This

exists as a set of lasting social relations, networks and contacts. Like Coleman and

Putnam the notion of reciprocity is important here, though Bourdieu emphasises

individual (and not necessarily communal) gain that may be sought. Investment in

social capital, then, acts as a kind of strategy which (unconsciously or otherwise)

further serves as a mechanism to exchange other capitals. In educational terms, one

may think of significant ‘others’ in one’s life that are in a position to enable material

(and/or symbolic) access to new areas of expertise, resources and support. Cultural 9 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

capital comes in three forms – objectified, embodied, and institutionalised (Grenfell

and James, 1998)

Each form serves as “instruments for the appropriation of .

symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed”

(Bourdieu, 1977c in Rudd: 2003, p 54). The objectified form is manifest in such

items as books, qualifications, computers; the embodied form is connected to the

educated character of individuals, such as accent and learning dispositions; and the

institutionalised form represents the places of learning one may attend (e.g. different

types of schools, colleges, universities, or technology institutions). The currency of

such capital forms has more to do with their symbolic appropriation than with their
possession. Symbolic capital then is used by Bourdieu to explain the ways in which

capitals are perceived in the social structure e.g. the status value attached to certain

books, values, and/or places of learning. In relation to capitals, it should be noted that

all forms (economic, social, cultural, and symbolic categories) are the key factors that

define positions and possibilities for individuals engaged in any field (in our case,

education). Moreover, a ‘multiplier effect’ frequently emerges in relation to any form

of capital accumulation i.e. one capital often exchanges for another.

The third and final theme dealt with here is that of fields. In Bourdieuian language

this concept relates to a structured space of forces and struggles, consisting of an

ordered system and an identifiable network of relationships that impact upon the

habitus of individuals. Education is thus regarded as a field since it sets its own rules

that regulate behaviour within. Indeed, the struggle for possession of capital therein

indicates the uneven distribution of available resources and belies the universal image

often associated with education. Bourdieu claims that as certain individuals enter the

field, they (consciously or otherwise) are more aware of the rules of the game and/or 10 O’Brien, S and
Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

have greater capacity to manipulate these rules through their established capital

appropriation. Those individuals with prior qualifications or strong occupational and

social status are among those who may be categorised in this manner. Strategies

(actual and/or symbolic in form) are thus employed by individuals to distinguish

themselves from other groups and place them in advantageous positions via the

effective utilisation and exploitation of capital (Rudd, 2003). Such strategies can only

become meaningful if they exhibit symbolic relevance i.e. if others, as well as the

actors themselves, consider such strategies to be of significant value. Symbolic power

is said to have its greatest expression in the general (albeit, erroneous) acceptance that

‘the rules of the game are fair’ (i.e. in educational terms, ‘the meritocratic system is
even-handed’). ‘Misrecognition’ (a Bourdieuian phrase taken from Marx’s idea of

‘false consciousness’) thus occurs when those in more disadvantaged contexts ‘play

the game without questioning the rules’

,This amounts to, what Bourdieu terms .

‘symbolic violence’.

References to social capital in the literature

We contend that any investigation of learning partnerships for social inclusion must

necessarily engage in a systematic socio-cultural analysis. An overview of

contemporary research reveals that while social capital is often referred to and

highlighted in empirical results, such a socio-cultural treatise is generally absent. The

final discussion here impresses the need to locate social capital (and related concepts

in an adequate theoretical framework. Particular regard is given to Bourdieu’s

perspective and this is defended on a number of grounds. In relation to learning

partnership arrangements, for example, Bourdieu enhances our understanding of11 O’Brien, S and Ó
Fathaigh, M (2005)

power dynamics and the struggle therein for the ascendancy of individual interests.

Educational participation too, from a Bourdieuian perspective, is thought of as an

extension of participation in society at large and is thus contingent on wider political,

economic, social, and cultural factors. Accordingly, non-participation is challenged

not on individual/cultural deficit terms but in relation to the perceived need to effect

societal change. An analysis of social capital cannot therefore be separated from a

treatise on social exclusion. Contributory factors such as: low socio-economic status,

illiteracy, minimal levels of prior educational achievement, deprived geographic

regions, and inter-generational poverty are all highlighted as salient contextual

features. Moreover, moving away from structuralist claims, Bourdieu illustrates how

individuals themselves can effect change through their subjective appraisal of

‘objective realities’. As highlighted earlier, this judgment is primarily based on

individuals’ capacity to mobilise capital(s). While the above points clearly illustrate

that Bourdieu is central to any debate on educational disadvantage, the critical fact

remains, however, that his theory is grossly under-utilised. Indeed, even when it is

‘referred to’ - as discussions here indicate - it is often thought of and applied in an all too incoherent
manner.

Social capital is a complex phenomenon. Unlike its common representation as a

linear model where ‘more social capital equals more [adult] learning’, Field (1999)

reminds that social capital can also inhibit participation in learning. Referring

specifically to Northern Ireland, he stresses that communality can actually appear

more supportive and rewarding than ‘going it alone’ in a formal institution (p 509).

The predominantly positive image attached to social capital and its particular

association with effective forms of voluntarism (Powell and Guerin, 1997)

10

should12 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

thus be questioned. Specifically, there is a need to question how social capital is both

conceived and utilised. References to social capital in the research literature are often

couched in positive terms and are the result of an intuitive understanding that

emergent ‘findings’ are thought or felt to be ‘true’. Often these references appear as

dependable, common sense assertions, indicating a natural connectedness between

social capital and educational attainment. From a US perspective, Dika and Singh’s

(2002, pp 36-40) research review of social capital illustrates this point well. They

note that from the period 1996-1998 the vast majority of studies consisted of research
designs in the Coleman tradition. Indicators of social capital (such as traditional

family structure, parent-child discussions, parent-school interactions etc.) were all

shown to be positively related to conventional measures of educational attainment. In

the period 1999-2001 Coleman’s theoretical framework continued to guide most of

social capital research, this time from a more qualitative perspective. Only a couple

of studies adopted Putnam’s approach throughout both periods, though outcomes

were similar to the Coleman tradition e.g. collective social capital was shown as an

important factor in promoting educational opportunity and health (Morrow, 2001).

Significantly, only a few studies incorporated Bourdieu’s interpretation of social

capital (e.g. Lareau, 2000; Valenzuela and Dornbusch, 1994)

11

To illustrate, with .

respect to school choice at entry to second-level schooling in Britain, Reay and Ball

(1998) referred to parents as either ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’ within the educational

field. Such status was dependent on their relative capital accumulation. Also, in an

exploratory attempt to extend Bourdieu’s concept of capital, Diane Reay (2000)

attempted to operationalise the concept of ‘emotional capital’ to investigative the

affective role of mothers’ emotional involvement in their children’s education. Whilst 13 O’Brien, S and
Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

recognising that cultural capital is primarily transmitted through the family, Reay

noted the particular role of women and their direct influence on educational

achievement. Women’s (‘emotional capital’) qualities such as love and affection,

expenditure of time, attention, care and concern were shown to directly influence

dependents’ schooling success (see also Allat, 1993). A caveat is given here – there is

no simple correlation between positive-type emotions (e.g. supportive advice) and

emotional capital outcomes. Working class women, for example, often lack the right
conditions for promoting either emotional or cultural capital (Reay: 2000, p 575).

In the vast majority of other (non-Bourdieuian influenced) research studies, the

correlation between social capital and educational attainment exhibits a (falsely)

assured rational appearance. Few would argue, certainly, that greater levels of parentteen or parent-
school interaction and additional teacher/peer group support networks

would not enhance educational opportunity. Indeed, given that such related factors

make sense ‘on the ground’ and are often backed up by research data (as indicated by

the majority of studies above), they may well be indisputable. A Bourdieuian critique

of social capital outcomes recognises the import of such research results, particularly

in light of their capacity to underscore significant features of educational

disadvantage. However, noteworthy methodological and theoretical objections

prevail. Not least there is the criticism against much research that Bourdieu’s theory

is only being used as a theoretical ‘add-on’ i.e. it serves as a type of post-commentary

on results. In addition, there is little regard for using Bourdieu’s theory as a means to

provide coherent causal explanations for manifestations of disadvantage. The main

strength of Bourdieu’s theory (as we see it) is that it proffers an important analytical

framework (a ‘tool’) for understanding how social capital outcomes are inter-related. 14 O’Brien, S and
Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

To illustrate, his concept of ‘class habitus’ is particularly useful in demonstrating that

social class is not simply a condition of being. Rather, it remains dependent upon

practice arising from dispositions and choices influenced by both subjective and

objective relationships within structures (Rudd, 2003). In other words, social class

and other terms such as gender and race are not attributes of individuals, but instead

represent ‘generative forces of action’ (Drudy and Lynch, 1993). Thus, taking socioeconomic position or
the financial capacity to engage in education alone cannot

capture disadvantaged status. Unlike many studies that narrowly focus on social class

in this way, Bourdieu points to the connectedness of other forms of capital, including:
the role of qualifications as positional goods; the accorded value of education and its

institutions within a particular cultural milieu; internalised discourses about the

possibilities and impossibilities for individual action; and differential power

relationships within diverse fields. Likewise, social capital outcomes alone can only

say so much about disadvantage. Fostering positive community-institution or peergroup links, for
example, may be theoretically beneficial but there are still concerns

(from a Bourdieuian perspective) about a) the nature and direction of such a

relationship and b) the relatedness of other forms of capital appropriated by different

groups.

Conclusion

The challenges for effective learning partnerships for social inclusion are thus set out.

We need to avoid a simple definition of social capital that is aimed at promoting certain characteristics
attributed to the ‘educated individual’ or ‘learning community’.

This is because social capital is not something that can be simply translated from one

group (usually those with appropriate capital levels) to another (usually those lacking 15 O’Brien, S and
Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

in resources). While an educational qualification is being increasingly presented as a

“universal paradigm for cultural development” (Kade: 1988, p 105), the danger

remains that the so-called ‘uneducated’ will also be labelled ‘culturally deficient’.

“The possession of successful competencies” (such as educational qualifications)

reflects a wider social and cultural struggle for ascendancy (Jansen and

Wildemeersch: 1996, p 33). From a Bourdieuian perspective, an educational

qualification is in itself a form of cultural capital that is used (consciously or

otherwise) as a means of vertical stratification. Thus, care should be exercised in

identifying and applying appropriate social capital outcomes from research. This

point often goes unheeded. There is still a general assumption, for example, that

lower-class parents should simply act more like white middle-class parents for the
benefit of their children. Alexander and Entwisle (1996, p 284) are critical of this

position since it

…belies the complexity of the factors that contribute to parenting children in

disadvantaged circumstances as well as differences in values and belief

systems that reflect different socialising systems.

Weak studies that focus on positive social control factors, and specifically on singular

dimensions to social capital outcomes, must likewise be challenged. Typically, such

research makes grand claims. A recent project, for example, concluded that ‘children

of interested parents do 25% better in examinations’

12

Besides serious .

methodological and theoretical concerns, we may well ask how such research can

proffer any great insight into the integrative causes of educational disadvantage. Is it

the case, for example, that working-class parents are less interested in their children’s

education? Such a belief, we claim, is both unreliable and dangerous (Anderson and

Niemi, 1970; Irish Times, 2003). 16 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Moving beyond a rights-based agenda (i.e. an equality agenda premised solely on

legislative frameworks), we contend that learning partnerships must strive to develop

the will to work with (not just for) disadvantaged groups. This proposal embraces a

strong ideological position on ‘disadvantage’ and ‘social exclusion’ (O’Brien and O

Fathaigh, 2005). Here, education is seen as more than the acquisition of qualifications

and social mobility. Instead, education is viewed as a significant vehicle for cultural

development aimed at developing legitimate democratic representation and critical

perspectives on the status quo. The challenge of such a vision cannot be

underestimated. The meritocratic ideology, so prevalent in Irish education, is fairly

well internalised in the minds of providers and learners/non-learners alike (Lynch,

1999). Any developments towards a more inclusive education system will thus

require significant changes in cultural values and attitudes.

Principally, then, education needs to be acknowledged as a field of social processes

that produces loss of power, status, and self esteem. Learning partnerships in turn

must be prepared to act in the interests of others characterised as socio-culturally

distant. Crucially, this means a rejection of corrective strategies to ‘problems’ and a

willingness to engage with new theoretical tools (e.g. Bourdieu) that help explain

existing relationships and tensions therein. Such insights remain central to any

ambition for effective social inclusion. 17 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Endnotes

For example, while group membership is declining (e.g. Boy Scouts figures are down by 26% since

1970 and Red Cross membership has declined by 61% in the same period), ‘associational membership’

figures are up in some cases (e.g. national environmental organisations like the Sierra Club and

feminist groups such as the National Organisation for Women). Furthermore, an increase in

associational membership is manifest in the non-profit organisations sector (e.g. Oxfam).

Coleman’s resources are measured (somewhat crudely) using High School and Beyond (HSB) data

which includes such information as: the presence of two parents in the home, lower number of siblings,

household size, church attendance, and higher parental expectations. The danger here is that such

information can actually obscure discussions on ‘who gets to access such resources?’ and ‘how is

access differentiated along race, class and gender dimensions?’

3
 Social action also engages those who critique the dominant political order of the day. Such an
antiestablishment stance need not be seen as pathological, however e.g. subgroups that are formed to
speak

out against (what they see as) others’ perpetuation of injustice.

This point is highlighted in the main study’s discussions on partnership formation in Ireland (see

O’Brien and O Fathaigh, 2005). Here, it is noted that partnerships do not just simply exist - they come

into being. Further, trust is something that is worked upon when common and discordant interests are

negotiated.

Bourdieu’s own professional background as an anthropologist no doubt informs this position.

The key term here is ‘mediated’. Rudd (2003) argues that Bourdieu’s theory moves beyond
structureagency debates to focus on the processes whereby individuals internalise the relationships
between

themselves and objective, external structures. Moreover, the theory also enables us to see how

individuals’ subjective perceptions then structure their externalised practice. See the concept of

‘habitus’ explained later in this section.

Although each category of cultural capital is distinct, it is possible that ownership of one form may

influence an individual’s relationship to, and possession of, another (Rudd, 2003).

Bourdieu states that, while disadvantaged groups often recognise their less favourable positions, they

are seldom aware of the processes through which such positions occur (Rudd, 2003).

Bourdieu (as highlighted) refers to other forms of capital – social capital being only one of four main

types. Strictly speaking, then, the ‘social capital’ title is too narrow - from a Bourdieuian perspective,
it means more than a broad construct of social relations. When we refer to Bourdieu’s theory of ‘social

capital’ we do so in relation to his integrated analysis of all capital forms.

10

This is not to take away from the fact that voluntary organisations have the unique capacity to engage

individuals in important social networks and facilitate the distribution (and redistribution) of important

capitals (Courtney, 1992).

11

See O’Brien and O Fathaigh (2004, Chapter 3) for a brief review of the research literature coverage

on social capital ‘outcomes’.

12

The research was conducted for the UK educational charity The Campaign for Learning (see

http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/projects/projectsindex.htm for more details).