Forms of Capital Flashcards
Basic idea of the capital-approach
Actors differ in the kind of resources they control, i.e. skills (human capital), cultural knowledge (cultural capital), wealth/income (economic capital), relationships that can help u find a job (social capital) –> inequality of resources influence our decisions and life in general
So, very sociological approach, not so much about different personalities but rather which opportunity structures individuals have
Why capital?
There are a number of characteristics all forms of capital share:
1. Storage
2. Productive use (investment)
3. Accumulation (capital tends to accumulate, if u have lots of money, u can invest diversified, will accumulate in the long run)
4. Transmission (i.e. inheritance)
5. Conversion (to varying extent convertible, i.e. buying access to better education cultural and human capital)
Types of capital
Mayor types of capital:
- Economic capital
- Human capital (Gary Weber)
- Cultural capital, emboddied and institutionalised (Bourdieau) → embodied: mostly acquired in early childhood, (subconscious) taste in food, music, art whatsoever, how to flow in social settings → not to be confounded with human capital, not per se productive (i.e. the way you hold your cutlery does not produce revenue for a company) but can be productive if you get a job bc of that - difficult to draw a line between cultural and human capital
- Social capital (Coleman): ressources based on social network (i.e. borrow money or get knowledge from)
→ but LOTS of different capitals, “inflation” of capital-term: The concept of capital has proven extraordinarily fruitful across a wide range of research areas. Some might even say that the invention of new types of “capital” in the social sciences has gotten out of control…
How much can you get from your capital?
Depends
- Processes implied by these characteristics vary across contexts (e.g., context-specific vs. generalizable capital) –> Capital mostly context-specific, can be highly valuable in a certain context, but completely useless in others (i.e. languages) - but capital can also be generalizable capital
- Dividends depend on supply and demand –> if no need for a data scientist, no return for capital
Why is capital so important?
Relation to class theory:
* Volume & the sort of mix of capitals ultimately affect our opportunities and constraints and thereby our behaviors & lifestyle
* Bourdieu’s innovative idea: not only the classical “the more volume of capital u have, across all capitals, the higher up the hierarchy u are”, but 2nd very important dimension = mix of economic and cultural capital → 2-dimensional clash: not only clashing of ruling and beruled class, but also between economic and cultural elite
* Result: As capital quite important actors try to increase it or try to increase their returns from it (actors’ behavior can often be understood as an attempt to increase their resource endowments and the returns to these assets)
formalization of forms-of-capital
plus, strategy to increase capital
- Secure control + secure value of resources (i.e. education, stock market decision)
- But limited: maybe too late to become an engineer
- Occupational groups trying to increase the return of their asset = at the heart of class conflict
Class theory
forms of capital = provides the starting point for class theory:
- class as life conditions: individuals total wealth, as defined by control of assets, will determine life conditions and thus class location (in terms of class as life conditions)
- class as exploitation: part of total wealth may generate benefits obtained at the expense of so else who would be better of with different kind of distribution, “rent”-generation part defines class as exploitation –> Where does exploitation start?
Link to: Lindenberg’s theory of social production
- Now clear: no such thing as neutral society as benefits people whose resources are large and therefore productive (speaking the official language - advantage)
- Sometimes people not only try to maximize their production function but also try to change it in their favor - which kind of resources should be valued or not? Example: funding for quantitative or normative social research?
How do Nee & Sanders (2001) explain the great diversity in modes of incorporation of immigrants (i.e. self-employed, work in government, etc.)?
- largely a function of the social, financial, and human-cultural capital of immigrant families and how these resources are used by individuals within and apart from the existing structure of ethnic networks and institutions.”
- Volume and mixture of capital of a family = objective measure of their class position → not determined or exactly reproduced, but they do bring varying amounts of forms and volumes which covaries with entry point and influences subsequent trajectory of incorporation
- Examples
1) Political refugees: tend to come from higher class backgrounds (i.e. Irani refugees who fled from war positively selected on education)
2) Economic refugees: esp. geographically class more from lower strata (i.e. from guest worker programs - Spanish, Turkish etc.)
Does social capital affect mobility?
pays dividends to those who are well endowed in it. (…) the social capital of the family – both internal to the household and external to it (i.e. cousins), in the stock of social connections that embed the family within larger social structures – is likely to effect social mobility
Why do Nee & Sanders mean by human-cultural capital?
Especially in a multi-ethnic society, the concept of human capital, imported from economics, can be given richer sociological content by infusing it with a cultural dimension by incorporating both the dimensions of 1) skill and 2) filtering/signalling (State telling immigrants, which skill set is relevant, is productive) –> Highly discriminating but social production function always discriminatory
Results of Nee & Sanders study:
What is the contribution of the Nagin & Paternoster RC model?
Integration of 2 different control theories in a more coherent model:
(as the field was/is characterized by segmentation of different approaches, different theories that highlight different variables → problem: overlapping variables - could measure the same therefore could be highly correlated + we don’t know how different mechanisms interact, not only additive effects)
- Self-control theory: impulsivity crucial personality characteristic that affects how likely you are to break rules → Most antisocial persons were antisocial children, so criminal Ader due to inter-individual differences established early in life
- Social control theory: not about own ability but rather you’re being controlled by society i
→ Most antisocial children, do not become antisocial adults, bc if you have strong bonds to family, friends, colleges you are less likely to be criminal, even if as a child criminal, once i.e. married or regular job, often stop doing it
Rational choice model of offending:
the self-control model
Costs:
- Formal sanctions (i.e. prison, fine)
- Informal sanctions (i.e. society, neighbours, family, friends, social stigma)
- Moral regret, bad conscience
Self-control part:
- Hirschi would stress the upper part - if people have lower self-control, they lack to see future consequences, just see immediate gratification (present-orientation)
Social-control part:
- commitments: possession/devotion to conventional lines of action (i.e. education or occupation)
- attachments: stable and satisfying social relationships → not only intrinsic value, investment in such can creat outstanding obligations that can be drawn upon in the future in the furtherance of one’s goals
- Investment in attachment + commitment = Accumulated personal capital: the more u accumulate, the more u have to lose, costs of crime are simply higher
BUT model as is, is not enough –> Refuting self-control argument: “We don’t need accumulated personal capital as an independent factor because personal capital can only be accumulated if a person is high in self-control, so it is ultimately about personal characteristics.”
What sets the Nagin & Paternoster-Model apart from simple self-control model?
Size & existence of Green Arrow: random sources of good relationships & occupational success that have nothing to do with self-control, not reduce everything to personality → implications:
1) Direct effect should decline as personality traits stay the same, while personal capital gets more decisive as accumulates/grows incrementally → not testable hypothesis bc they would need vast datasets over the life course of individuals, so, they derived further implications:
2) The amount of nvestment in personal capital should be inversely but imperfectly related to the degree of present orientation & self-centeredness (the higher you are self-centered, the lower the stock of personal capital but not perfect association - should be relatively weak as the bonds created are in part change events!)
3) Persons who have accumulated more personal capital will take informal sanctions more into account whereas persons who are more self-centred didn’t invest much into personal capital and therefore have less to lose, informal sanctions therefore don’t matter as much
Logic of interaction effect
(RISK CAP X POSC):
- RISK CAP = perceived risk of damaged personal capital (i.e. problems with employer, family/friends will think worse of you)
- POSC = present-orientation & self-centeredness (psychological scale)
→ those variable should interact, bc if you are very high in POSC, you don’t care about potential damage, so, there should be hardly any relationship, but if you are low in POSC, you care about this damage and therefore the relationship should be negative aka deterrent effect on criminal intention
