Image Source: Candace Smith Etiquette
One of the major themes in social science is “capital.” What, exactly, is a resource that can be used for economic gain? In 19th economics, capital usually meant things like tools, land, and technologies that firms use, as well as financial resources such as money and credit The 20th century saw a vast expansion of the idea of capital. Ted Schulz and Gary Becker promoted human capital (skills), while Pierre Bourdieu promoted cultural (knowledge indicating group membership) and symbolic capital (credentials and other intangibles that confer status and access to resources), and James Coleman pushed social capital (valuable social ties).
In my graduate social theory seminar, someone asked if there was a real difference between softer types of human capital, like negotiating skill or customer service, and cultural capital. It’s an interesting question and it helps to begin with principles. The basic idea of human capital is that you have some skill, or ability, that allows you to accomplish a specific thing. Originally, human capital theorists had very concrete examples in mind, such as doing surgery or teaching Spanish, but most human capital theorists also admit that softer things like “critical thinking” and “being nice to customers” should also count.
Here’s a typical definition of cultural capital, taken from the Oxford Reference entry:
He [Bourdieu] sees this cultural capital as a ‘habitus’, an embodied socialized tendency or disposition to act, think, or feel in a particular way. By analogy with economic capital, such resources can be invested and accumulated and can be converted into other forms. Thus, middle-class parents are able to endow their children with the linguistic and cultural competences that will give them a greater likelihood of success at school and at university.
For example, knowing how to talk the “right" way at school is a form of cultural capital, as well as indicating status through interactional rules (i.e., etiquette) and possessing specific bits of knowledge (e.g., talking about the right social theorists in my class).
So what’s the difference between the soft side of human capital and cultural capital? There’s a spectrum and it probably has to do with how close the capital is to the idea that you are indicating status and group membership. For example, a soft form of human capital that is not cultural capital might be something like recognizing the emotional state of a trading partner. It’s not really about status, but learning to read the emotions of another person, which is an incredible skill in many professions.
In contrast, being able to “talk the right” way in a business setting (e.g., knowing that you can drop sports talk in many male-dominated situations) might be an example of where soft skills and cultural capital merge. The idea is that the non-status signaling skill (running a business meeting) is improved by the use of cultural capital (chatting about sports).
To me, an interesting exercise is to think about this as a spectrum from soft skill to pure cultural capital and consider where various professions sit on that scale.
Bottom line: Sometimes walking the walk and talking the talk are kind of the same thing.
+++++
Buy these books!
Grad Skool Rulz - cheap ($5) advice manual for grad students
Obama and the antiwar movement