Class mobility or class reproduction? Revisiting cultural capital theory with a critique on underclass cultural capital

Abstract

Recent scholarship has developed the notion of "underclass cultural capital" as a means to challenge and reduce stigma associated with socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in rural contexts. Nonetheless, this emergent concept appears predicated upon a fundamental misinterpretation of Bourdieu's seminal cultural capital framework. Prevailing exegeses of cultural capital have erroneously equated it with a set of cultural resources leveraged for social mobility. In stark contrast, Bourdieu's original articulation sought to elucidate the mechanisms underpinning the perpetuation of social class hierarchies and to unmask the obscured power dynamics within societal structures that facilitate this continuity. Bourdieu contends that cultural capital should not be construed as a collection of specific cultural attributes but rather as the capacity and agency to assimilate the dominant culture, a process optimally quantified through the prism of accumulated labor time. Additionally, the stratified distribution of cultural capital across social classes is a consequence of an imposed cultural echelon, itself a product of symbolic violence. The discourse surrounding "underclass cultural capital" inadvertently entrenches cultural essentialism tied to class identities, thereby reinforcing the entrenched disparities between urban and rural cultural landscapes. 近年来学者通过建构“底层文化资本”这一概念为弱势农民群体正名，但这一概念却建立在对布迪厄文化资本理论的误读之上。对于文化资本理论存在一种普遍的误读，即将文化资本窄化为文化资源，把文化资本作为阶层流动的工具。而布迪厄的原意，则是通过文化资本揭示阶层复制的机制，进而批判维持社会等级结构的权力关系。布迪厄认为，文化资本是代表获得优势文化的可能性，它以劳动时间的积累为衡量标准，而非占有某些具体文化实践或态度。文化资本在各阶级的不均衡分布源于等级社会秩序背后的象征性暴力。“底层文化资本”的论述陷入实体主义思维所产生的阶级文化本质论的泥沼，实际上承认并加强了城乡阶层文化的不平等结构。