Cultural Capital and the
Need to Feel Relevant
Bourdieu meets Whitehead
"The symbolic marketplace is like the commercial marketplace; it’s a billion small bids for distinction, prestige, attention and superiority."
— David Brooks, New York Times, “Getting Radical About Inequality,” July 18, 2017
Most people I know—including myself—want to be relevant. We want to be recognized: by our peers, our children, our communities, by society at large, and—perhaps by something deeper and more mysterious—by God. While some may seek recognition through financial success, for many the deeper longing is tied to what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls social and cultural capital: the relationships we enjoy and the symbolic markers that signal value and distinction within a given field. This is certainly true in a small world I inhabit: philosophical theology. Our community is small indeed—almost invisible to the broader public—but even here, we have our own social currencies.
Judging from posts on social media, it seems that many philosophical theologians seek recognition for the number of books and articles they’ve published (cultural capital) and for who they know or are connected with (social capital). Of course, there are other markers that are more broadly shared—vacations, lifestyle aesthetics, hobbies, personal skills—but the underlying impulse remains strikingly similar: to be seen, to be valued, to be recognized.
In many instances, it can seem as if the quest for recognition—and the sense of relevance it promises through publications and connections—is insatiable. You can never have enough. As a Christian, I worry about this—both in myself and in others. I recognize that the desire to be seen is part of the human condition. Even Jesus wanted to be recognized. But when that desire becomes compulsive and self-focused, it turns inward in a way that feels off-putting—and, to my mind, counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is especially troubling when the very social markers being pursued are publications about God and Love. Even theological beliefs can become symbolic markers of distinction, dividing people into “in groups” who believe the right things and “out groups” who do not. What begins as sincere conviction easily becomes social performance.
Wanting to better understand all this—the drive for recognition and belonging—I turned to ChatGPT, and asked for some observations. With countless prompts from me, here is what I received:
- Jay McDaniel
Judging from posts on social media, it seems that many philosophical theologians seek recognition for the number of books and articles they’ve published (cultural capital) and for who they know or are connected with (social capital). Of course, there are other markers that are more broadly shared—vacations, lifestyle aesthetics, hobbies, personal skills—but the underlying impulse remains strikingly similar: to be seen, to be valued, to be recognized.
In many instances, it can seem as if the quest for recognition—and the sense of relevance it promises through publications and connections—is insatiable. You can never have enough. As a Christian, I worry about this—both in myself and in others. I recognize that the desire to be seen is part of the human condition. Even Jesus wanted to be recognized. But when that desire becomes compulsive and self-focused, it turns inward in a way that feels off-putting—and, to my mind, counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is especially troubling when the very social markers being pursued are publications about God and Love. Even theological beliefs can become symbolic markers of distinction, dividing people into “in groups” who believe the right things and “out groups” who do not. What begins as sincere conviction easily becomes social performance.
Wanting to better understand all this—the drive for recognition and belonging—I turned to ChatGPT, and asked for some observations. With countless prompts from me, here is what I received:
- Jay McDaniel
Bourdieu and Whitehead
Chat GPT with Guidance from Jay McDaniel
Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) speaks of three kinds of capital operative in society: economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital.
All three are considered “capital” because they function as resources that can be accumulated, exchanged, and leveraged to gain position, recognition, or power. Here is a good summary of the third kind of capital: social capital.
- Economic capital refers to financial resources and material assets—money, property, and wealth—that can be directly converted into goods and privileges.
- Social capital refers to the network of relationships, connections, and affiliations a person can draw upon for support, access, and influence.
- Cultural capital includes non-financial assets such as education, taste, language, manners, credentials, and symbolic knowledge—things that signal distinction and confer social advantage within a given field.
All three are considered “capital” because they function as resources that can be accumulated, exchanged, and leveraged to gain position, recognition, or power. Here is a good summary of the third kind of capital: social capital.
"Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital refers to the collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes, posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. that one acquires through being part of a particular social class. Sharing similar forms of cultural capital with others—the same taste in movies, for example, or a degree from an Ivy League School—creates a sense of collective identity and group position (“people like us”). But Bourdieu also points out that cultural capital is a major source of social inequality. Certain forms of cultural capital are valued over others, and can help or hinder one’s social mobility just as much as income or wealth." (from Social Theory Re-Wired, retrieved 4/7/2018)
While Bourdieu helps us analyze how cultural capital operates socially—as a tool of distinction, status, and symbolic power--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) helps us explore how it works experientially: how symbols shape what we feel, what we value, and who we are becoming in our social groups.
More specifically, Whitehead’s concept of symbolic reference explains how the cultural markers we encounter—whether a diploma, a turn of phrase, a fashion style, or a dietary choice—are not just external signs. They function as inwardly felt propositions: emotionally charged "lures" for potential meaning that evoke memory, emotion, and aspiration. These symbols invite us to feel, to judge, to aspire, and to become. Cultural capital, then, is not only a social asset—it is an inner lure, shaping our subjective aims and guiding how we integrate social influences into our very being.
Cultural Capital as Symbolic Reference
Chat GPT with Guidance from Jay McDaniel
1. What Is Symbolic Reference in Whitehead’s Philosophy?
In Process and Reality, Whitehead describes symbolic reference as the process by which our presentational immediacy (what we sense visually or audibly) connects with causal efficacy (what we inherit from the past, including emotion and memory). Through symbolic reference, what we see or hear evokes deeper feeling—it symbolizes more than it immediately shows. It conveys meaning through association, often charged with emotional tone.
For example:
This process of reference is not passive. It is felt, interpreted, and integrated into subjective experience. We are always symbolically referencing the world--feeling our way through meaning.
In Process and Reality, Whitehead describes symbolic reference as the process by which our presentational immediacy (what we sense visually or audibly) connects with causal efficacy (what we inherit from the past, including emotion and memory). Through symbolic reference, what we see or hear evokes deeper feeling—it symbolizes more than it immediately shows. It conveys meaning through association, often charged with emotional tone.
For example:
- Seeing a tattered flag may not just present red, white, and blue—it may evoke sacrifice, nationhood, pride, or protest, depending on context.
- Wearing a tailored suit doesn’t just signify professionalism—it might evoke confidence, discipline, success, or status.
This process of reference is not passive. It is felt, interpreted, and integrated into subjective experience. We are always symbolically referencing the world--feeling our way through meaning.
2. Cultural Capital as Symbolic Reference
Cultural capital, in Bourdieu’s terms, refers to symbolic resources—tastes, behaviors, knowledge, credentials—that offer social advantage. But these resources function not just as objective markers, but as symbols that carry emotional and social meaning, shaping how we feel about ourselves and how others feel about us.
Whitehead helps us see that:
So, symbolic reference is the inner mechanism by which cultural capital “works.” It’s how a brand, a gesture, a mode of speech becomes socially powerful—by evoking deep associative meanings that connect personal experience to broader symbolic worlds.
Cultural capital, in Bourdieu’s terms, refers to symbolic resources—tastes, behaviors, knowledge, credentials—that offer social advantage. But these resources function not just as objective markers, but as symbols that carry emotional and social meaning, shaping how we feel about ourselves and how others feel about us.
Whitehead helps us see that:
- A designer handbag or a Ph.D. diploma is not merely a thing or credential—it’s a symbolic object that participates in symbolic reference.
- These markers call forth emotions (pride, shame, envy, admiration) and help define the felt reality of our social location.
- We don’t just wear, say, or display cultural capital—we feel it, reference it, and are guided by it through subjective aims.
So, symbolic reference is the inner mechanism by which cultural capital “works.” It’s how a brand, a gesture, a mode of speech becomes socially powerful—by evoking deep associative meanings that connect personal experience to broader symbolic worlds.
3. Social Belonging and Aspiration as Symbolic Reference
Cultural capital is often about more than what we already are—it’s about what we aspire to become. Whitehead's symbolic reference helps explain:
Cultural capital is often about more than what we already are—it’s about what we aspire to become. Whitehead's symbolic reference helps explain:
- How a certain way of dressing or speaking becomes a lure for becoming, tied to a specific identity or group.
- How we feel pulled toward or repelled by symbolic fields, not just intellectually, but aesthetically and emotionally.
- How social inclusion and exclusion operate not just materially, but symbolically—through symbols that feel like invitations or barriers.
4. Implications: Cultural Capital as Embodied Symbolism
Whitehead allows us to see cultural capital as a field of symbolic reference that:
Whitehead allows us to see cultural capital as a field of symbolic reference that:
- Is deeply embodied and emotionally charged.
- Shapes our subjectivity and not just our status.
- Offers both constraint (social pressure) and creative possibility (novel symbolic reinterpretation).
Summary
Chat GPT with Guidance from Jay McDaniel
| Bourdieu | Whitehead |
|---|---|
| Cultural capital is a symbolic resource for social distinction. | Symbolic reference explains how those resources acquire emotional power and guide subjective experience. |
| Cultural capital is inherited, performed, and socially valued. | Symbolic reference is how we interpret, respond to, and internalize those performances. |
| Emphasis on social reproduction. | Emphasis on subjective feeling, creativity, and novelty in interpretation. |
Varieties of Cultural Capital
Chat GPT with Guidance from Jay McDaniel
| Domain | Type of Cultural Capital | Examples / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic | Clothing and Personal Style | Fashion choices that signal refinement, modesty, rebellion, or subcultural affiliation. |
| Artistic Tastes | Preferences for specific art styles or movements (e.g., abstract, realist, folk, religious). | |
| Musical Tastes | Genres admired in particular circles (e.g., jazz, gospel, punk, classical, country). | |
| Home Décor and Aesthetic Environment | Design style, curated objects, minimalist vs. maximalist preferences, symbolic motifs. | |
| Intellectual | Modes of Speech and Vocabulary | Accent, dialect, rhetorical polish, use of specialized or philosophical language. |
| Literary Tastes | Knowledge of classic or contemporary texts, genre preferences, interpretive fluency. | |
| Educational Background and Intellectual Literacy | Degrees, institutions, familiarity with key ideas, theories, or disciplines. | |
| Achievements | Books published, awards received, fellowships, leadership roles, recognitions. | |
| Social | Gestures and Bodily Comportment | Posture, eye contact, physical grace, mannerisms, formality or informality in movement. |
| Leisure Activities and Hobbies | Hiking, hunting, yoga, theatergoing, gardening, chess, or other culturally weighted pastimes. | |
| Social and Digital Presence | Online identity, platform style, tone, aesthetic, affiliations, and public visibility. | |
| Ethical / Political | Moral and Civic Alignments | Public expression of values: justice, liberty, tradition, equality, order, care, etc. |
| Participation in Civic or Community Life | Volunteering, voting, activism, religious participation, or local governance roles. | |
| Symbolic Affiliation and Signaling | Flags, pins, bumper stickers, hashtags, attire, slogans, public declarations of belief or cause. | |
| Ethical Consumption and Lifestyle | Boycotts, brand choices, eco-conscious habits, product use as symbolic expression of values. | |
| Material | Culinary Taste and Food Practices | Dietary choices (e.g., vegan, paleo), sourcing (local, organic), cooking methods, plating aesthetics. |
| Housing and Domestic Space | Type and style of home, location, visible lifestyle (e.g., curated minimalism, rural homestead). | |
| Transport Choices | Electric vehicles, bicycles, pickup trucks, car brands, or public transportation usage. | |
| Technology Ownership and Use | Device choice (e.g., Apple, Linux), smart tech, analog tools, visible tech skepticism. | |
| Consumer Goods and Brand Affiliation | Brand names in clothing, gear, kitchen appliances, or symbolic products with aesthetic alignment. | |
| Craftsmanship and Manual Skills | Woodworking, mending, gardening, DIY repairs, artisanal skills that carry symbolic meaning. | |
| Symbolic Objects and Heirlooms | Religious artifacts, family heirlooms, handmade gifts, repurposed objects with sentimental value. |
Becoming what others Admire
Bourdieu, Whitehead,
and the Quest for
Cultural Capital
Pierre Bourdieu
A special programme on Pierre Bourdieu: Laurie Taylor explores the ideas and legacy of the French sociologist, best known for establishing the concepts of cultural, social, and symbolic forms of capital (as opposed to traditional economic forms of capital). His book 'Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste' was judged the sixth most important sociological work of the twentieth century by the International Sociological Association. His work is credited with enhancing the understanding of the ways in which the social order and power are transferred across generations. Laurie is joined by Diane Reay, Professor of Education at Cambridge University, Derron Wallace, Post Doctoral Fellow at Brandeis University and Kirsty Morrin, Phd Student at the University of Manchester and co-convenor for the Bourdieu Study Group.
Producer: Jayne Egerton
Producer: Jayne Egerton
An Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu
on Social and Cultural Capital
Introductory Videos on Bourdieu
|
|
|
David Brooks (NY Times Columnist) on Bourdieu
The Struggle for Cultural and Social PowerHis great subject was the struggle for power in society, especially cultural and social power. We all possess, he argued, certain forms of social capital. A person might have academic capital (the right degrees from the right schools), linguistic capital (a facility with words), cultural capital (knowledge of cuisine or music or some such) or symbolic capital (awards or markers of prestige). These are all forms of wealth you bring to the social marketplace. The Symbolic Warfare of TrumpBourdieu helps you understand what Donald Trump is all about. Trump is not much of a policy maven, but he’s a genius at the symbolic warfare Bourdieu described. He’s a genius at upending the social rules and hierarchies that the establishment classes (of both right and left) have used to maintain dominance. |
Competing with Others in the Symbolic MarketplaceEvery day, Bourdieu argued, we take our stores of social capital and our habitus and we compete in the symbolic marketplace. We vie as individuals and as members of our class for prestige, distinction and, above all, the power of consecration — the power to define for society what is right, what is “natural,” what is “best.” |
Three Key Ideas in Bourdieu
Excerpts from Article on Bourdieu in Social Theory Re-Wired
Cultural Capital
"Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital refers to the collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes, posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc. that one acquires through being part of a particular social class. Sharing similar forms of cultural capital with others—the same taste in movies, for example, or a degree from an Ivy League School—creates a sense of collective identity and group position (“people like us”). But Bourdieu also points out that cultural capital is a major source of social inequality. Certain forms of cultural capital are valued over others, and can help or hinder one’s social mobility just as much as income or wealth." (from Social Theory Re-Wired, retrieved 4/7/2018)
Habitus: Habits, Skills, Dispositions, and Tastes
"Habitus is one of Bourdieu’s most influential yet ambiguous concepts. It refers to the physical embodiment of cultural capital, to the deeply ingrained habits, skills, and dispositions that we possess due to our life experiences.
Habitus also extends to our “taste” for cultural objects such as art, food, and clothing. In one of his major works, Distinction, Bourdieu links French citizens’ tastes in art to their social class positions, forcefully arguing that aesthetic sensibilities are shaped by the culturally ingrained habitus... Upper-class individuals, for example, have a taste for fine art because they have been exposed to and trained to appreciate it since a very early age, while working-class individuals have generally not had access to “high art” and thus haven’t cultivated the habitus appropriate to the fine art “game.” The thing about the habitus, Bourdieu often noted, was that it was so ingrained that people often mistook the feel for the game as natural instead of culturally developed. This often leads to justifying social inequality, because it is (mistakenly) believed that some people are naturally disposed to the finer things in life while others are not." (from Social Theory Re-Wired, retrieved 4/7/2018)
Fields
"Bourdieu understood the social world as being divided up into a variety of distinct arenas or “fields” of practice like art, education, religion, law, etc., each with their own unique set of rules, knowledges, and forms of capital. While fields can certainly overlap—education and religion, for example, overlap in many religiously-based colleges and universities in the United States—Bourdieu sees each field as being relatively autonomous from the others. Each field has its own set of positions and practices, as well as its struggles for position as people mobilize their capital to stake claims within a particular social domain." (from Social Theory Re-Wired, retrieved 4/7/2018)
Cultural Capital Conveys "Prestige"
A Theological Addendum
Jay McDaniel
Open Horizon (process) thinking recognizes that we live in a world filled with radical contingency. What happens in life is not the result of a cosmic script written in advance by a divine playwright, but rather the result of chance decisions (conscious and unconscious) made by human beings and the happenings of the natural world. Much but not all is a competition for power of a negative kind: one-sided power-over. Additionally, we Open Horizon thinkers believe that our own embodied minds are shaped, not by abstract ideas alone, but more deeply by images and symbols that we present to one another and relationships we have with each other: that is, by social and cultural capital. Images and symbols function as tools for power, as symbolic currency. On these matters we are in full accord with Pierre Bourdieu, and are grateful for the seminal insights he presents to us and others.
We likewise believe that there dwells within the universe a lure toward justice, toward respect for all people and the natural world, which is violated by the social inequalities that plague our society. And we believe that the kind of power into which we are invited is persuasive not coercive, cooperative not competitive. Some of us see this lure as the very presence of the embodied mind of the universe, namely God. God is not all-powerful and God aims for the world require our cooperation for their fulfillment. We are, as it were, theistic Bourdieusians.
Bourdieu on Theology
However, and importantly, we seek social currency for these ideas, and we can well be criticized for being involved in the same kinds of power plays as others. And we best recognize that our own convictions, and the practices they entail, unfold within what Bordieu would call a field that is all too often insufficiently critical of its own assumptions and power plays. Our ideas and practices are themselves socially situated, and Bourdieu can help us appreciate that. Bordieu has a relatively negative understanding of this field. As T. Howland Sanks, SJ, explains in Homo Theologicus: A Reflexive Theology (with the help of Pierre Bourdieu) *
Jay McDaniel
Open Horizon (process) thinking recognizes that we live in a world filled with radical contingency. What happens in life is not the result of a cosmic script written in advance by a divine playwright, but rather the result of chance decisions (conscious and unconscious) made by human beings and the happenings of the natural world. Much but not all is a competition for power of a negative kind: one-sided power-over. Additionally, we Open Horizon thinkers believe that our own embodied minds are shaped, not by abstract ideas alone, but more deeply by images and symbols that we present to one another and relationships we have with each other: that is, by social and cultural capital. Images and symbols function as tools for power, as symbolic currency. On these matters we are in full accord with Pierre Bourdieu, and are grateful for the seminal insights he presents to us and others.
We likewise believe that there dwells within the universe a lure toward justice, toward respect for all people and the natural world, which is violated by the social inequalities that plague our society. And we believe that the kind of power into which we are invited is persuasive not coercive, cooperative not competitive. Some of us see this lure as the very presence of the embodied mind of the universe, namely God. God is not all-powerful and God aims for the world require our cooperation for their fulfillment. We are, as it were, theistic Bourdieusians.
Bourdieu on Theology
However, and importantly, we seek social currency for these ideas, and we can well be criticized for being involved in the same kinds of power plays as others. And we best recognize that our own convictions, and the practices they entail, unfold within what Bordieu would call a field that is all too often insufficiently critical of its own assumptions and power plays. Our ideas and practices are themselves socially situated, and Bourdieu can help us appreciate that. Bordieu has a relatively negative understanding of this field. As T. Howland Sanks, SJ, explains in Homo Theologicus: A Reflexive Theology (with the help of Pierre Bourdieu) *
“Influenced by Marx and Weber, Bourdieu considers the religious field as a “system of religious beliefs and practices as the more or less transfigured expression of the strategies of different categories of specialists competing for monopoly over the administration of the goods of salvation and of the different classes interested in their services.”33 Or, in Swartz’s formulation, a religious field is a situation in which “a group of religious specialists is able to monopolize the administration of religious goods and services. Religious capital is a power resource, since it implies a form of ‘objective dispossession’ by the constitution of a ‘laity’ who by definition are those without, yet in need of the valued resources controlled by specialists.”34 For Bourdieu, religion provides symbolic legitimation for the otherwise arbitrary structure of social and economic relations of a society. It adds symbolic reinforcement to the material conditions of existence by masking or disguising them as of ultimate or divine origin. Religion is “misrecognition” par excellence. The religious field is also a competition of specialists and laypersons as well as competition between opposing specialists within it. This competition provides the dynamic of the field, enabling the transformation of religious ideology. Following Weber, Bourdieu argues that, in addition to the laity, the major players in the field are priests and prophets. The priests maintain the practices and ideology of the religious institutions (his prime analogue was the medieval Catholic Church), and the prophets challenge the status quo. Thus, there are rivalries for spiritual authority within the religious field, and they establish a relatively autonomous subfield of scholars, the theologians. Bourdieu calls these subfields “clerical schisms,” wherein scholars seek intellectual distinction in the domain of doctrine and dogma.”
Truth be told, we do not see the religious field as a competition of specialists and laypersons, but as something more like sociology: a practice inwardly inspired by a desire for social justice and willing to critique anything (including ourselves) that inhibits its realization. However, the point of the page above is not to argue with Bourdieu. It is to introduce in a very simple way a few of the ideas of Bourdieu that an indeed bring clarity, and also humble confusion, to a very troubled, uneven world that so often falls short of the better ideals of the world we seek: beloved community with ecology added.
- Jay McDaniel
Truth be told, we do not see the religious field as a competition of specialists and laypersons, but as something more like sociology: a practice inwardly inspired by a desire for social justice and willing to critique anything (including ourselves) that inhibits its realization. However, the point of the page above is not to argue with Bourdieu. It is to introduce in a very simple way a few of the ideas of Bourdieu that an indeed bring clarity, and also humble confusion, to a very troubled, uneven world that so often falls short of the better ideals of the world we seek: beloved community with ecology added.
- Jay McDaniel