In “The Forms of Capital” Bourdieu attempts to dissect the traditional ideologies of capital in the world. He views it from a more abstract and interpersonal viewpoint rather than a system of labor and profit. He identifies capital in three different forms respectively: the embodied, cultural, and institutional state. The embodied state is a long-lasting list of dispositions of the mind and body that cannot be transferred simultaneously. The objectified state takes shape in the forms of cultural goods such as pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments and machines. Additionally, the objectified state serves as a trace of realization of theories or critiques of these economic theories and economic principles and can be acquired symbolically. Lastly, the institutionalized state confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee. In conclusion, Bourdieu believes that understanding these different forms as one entity may change how capital works in the social world.
He does so by going into detail on capital as two different entities: social and economic. It is to my belief that he thinks capital cannot function properly if the two do not coexist. For instance, Bordieu states that, “[social capital is] is a continuous series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly affirmed and reaffirmed. Implies expenditure of time and energy and so, directly or indirectly … not profitable.” I found that interesting in the every day life of things. I interpreted it as; people who help one another should expect a turn of profit for themselves as a separate income, aside from their wage. I just thought that was interesting — because I was basing my thoughts off the ideology just being a good person and helping one another for the well-being of everyone. Bordieu interpreted it as an accumulation of labor therefor you should be gaining some sort of external capital for your relationship. I understand that ideology in the work force, but at an inter-relational level with your peers and family members you shouldn’t expect to be turning a profit.
Bourdieu reinforces the idea that the means of capital as two different entities do not justify the ends. He believes that the little man or unspoken person is going unnoticed. For example he talks about the patriarchy and “the eldest, most senior member of the family” speaking on behalf of their ‘institution’ and how majority of the time ends in corruption. He was using the metaphor as the family to symbolize how businesses work. That much like the little sibling of the family, employees get bossed around by their ignorant big brother. This just shows the skepticism Bourdieu has of the relationship of capital amongst its three forms.
Bourdieu can identify and conclude that all these forms of capital derive from basic economic principles, but he isn’t completely persuaded that they function best as social and economic principles. The separate forms cannot be entirely reduced to just an economic form. Social and economic capital will continue to clash as separate forms, whether it is good or not.
Christian's English Blog 