Cultural Transformation

cultural capital, in order to examine which aspects of middle-class culture actually have
value in the education system.
It has been observed that Bourdieu's theory, and in particular his notion of habitus, is
entirely deterministic, leaving no place for individual agency or even individual
consciousness. Although Bourdieu claimed to have transcended the dichotomy of
structure and agency, this is not necessarily convincing. For example, the Oxford
academic John Goldthorpe has long argued that:
Bourdieu's view of the transmission of cultural capital as a key process in social
reproduction is simply wrong. And the more detailed findings of the research, as noted
above, could then have been taken as helping to explain just why it is wrong. That is,
because differing class conditions do not give rise to such distinctive and abiding forms
of habitus as Bourdieu would suppose; because even within more disadvantaged
classes, with little access to high culture, values favouring education may still prevail
and perhaps some relevant cultural resources exist; and because, therefore, schools
and other educational institutions can function as important agencies of re-socialisation
– that is, can not only underwrite but also in various respects complement, compensate
for or indeed counter family influences in the creation and transmission of "cultural
capital", and not just in the case of Wunderkinder but in fact on a mass scale.
Bourdieu has also been criticised for his lack of consideration of gender. Kanter (in
Robinson & Garnier, 1986) point out the lack of interest in gender inequalities in the
labour market in Bourdieu's work. However, Bourdieu addressed the topic of gender
head-on in his 2001 book Masculine Domination. Bourdieu stated on the first page of
the prelude in this book that he considered masculine domination to be a prime example
of symbolic violence.
Page 44 of 134