Cultural capital in the elite sub field of Swedish higher education
MikaelBörjessona,*,Donald Broadyb,Brigitte LeRouxc,IdaLidegrana, MikaelPalmea
aDepartmentofEducation,Box2136,SE-75002Uppsala,Sweden
bDepartmentofSociology,Box624,SE-75126Uppsala,Sweden
cLaboratoireMAP5,UniversitéParisDescartes,45RuedesSaints-Pères,75006Paris,France
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received19June2013
Receivedinrevisedform18February2016 Accepted22February2016
Availableonline19March2016
Keywords:
Culturalcapital Lifestyles
Geometricdataanalysis Swedishhighereducation Eliteeducation
ABSTRACT
Theideaofastrongtiebetweencultureandeducation,advocatedbyBourdieuandhis colleaguesfromthe1960s,isinthisarticleexploredindetailbyinvestigatingcultural capital in bothitsembodied state, expressedin tastes and culturalpractices among studentsintheelitesubfieldofSwedishhighereducation,anditsinstitutionalisedstate, throughananalysisofthesamestudents’enrolmentpatterns.ByapplyingSpecificMCAto a questionnaire answered by 1152 students at 20 socially and scholarly selective programmes we identify three main dimensions in the space of lifestyles. The first dimension separates advanced and legitimate cultural practices and tastes from mainstream ones. In a second dimension, elaborate and often costly body-oriented practicesintrainingorclothingaredistinguishedfromamoreasceticlifestyle.Thethird dimensionopposesapoleofestablishmentfromapoleofnon-establishment.Thestudy programmesarewelldispersedinthespaceoflifestyles,whichsuggestsacloserelation betweenembodiedandinstitutionalisedstatesofculturalcapital.Wefinallyarguethatthe pursuitoffield-specificcapitalbestexplainsthisdispersion:thefuturetrajectoriesinto specificregionsofthefieldofpowertendtocorrespondtodistinctlifestylesofvarious categoriesofelitestudents.
ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.Introduction:cultureandeducation
AlreadyinthebookthatmadeBourdieufamous,Leshéritiers(Bourdieu&Passeron,1964),amajorthemewastheclose interrelationsbetweencultureandeducation.TheinsightthatinequalityinrelationtoSchoolisanaspectofinequalityin relationtoCulturepermeatesthisandothercontemporaneoustextsbyBourdieuandhiscollaborators.Inotherwords,the sociologyofeducationshouldbeamajorcomponentofthesociologyofculture.Theeducationalsystemserves,atleastina societysuchastheFrench,astheprimesiteforthegeneration,reproduction,transfer,distributionandlegitimisationof culturalcapital.Furthermore,theselectionofstudentstomoreorlesssuccessfuleducationaltrajectorieswas,accordingto theearlystudiesfromBourdieu’scentre,mainlydeterminedbytheirinheritedoracquiredpossessionofculturalcapital.
*Correspondingauthor.Fax:+46184712400.
E-mailaddresses:mikael.borjesson@edu.uu.se(M.Börjesson),donald.broady@soc.uu.se(D.Broady),brigitte.leroux@mi.parisdescartes.fr(B.LeRoux), ida.lidegran@edu.uu.se(I.Lidegran),mikael.palme@edu.uu.se(M.Palme).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.004
0304-422X/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Poetics
j o u r n al h o m e p a g e : w w w . el s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p o et i c
However,this very basic insight is absentin many of theflourishing studies drawing inspiration fromBourdieu’s sociologyofeducationandculture.Thereisanapparentdivisionoflabourwheresociologistsofculturetendtofocuson lifestylesandculturalconsumption,whereassociologistsofeducationgiveattentiontorecruitmentpatterns.Inthefirst tradition,analysesofculturalpracticesareoftenelaborate,whileeducationisreducedtoaggregated,oftenone-dimensional, measures,i.e.levelofeducation(e.g.Bennettetal.,2009;Roose,vanEijck,&Lievens,2012;Bonnet,Lebaron,&LeRoux,2015;
cf.Broady,2002).Thesecondtraditionentailsmoresophisticatedanalysesofeducation,buttendstousecrudemeasuresof culturalcapital(orresources),oftenconflatedwitheducationalcapitalintheformofthehighestlevelofeducationofthe parents(cf.Börjesson&Broady,2006;Thomsen,2008).Ouraimistobridgethesetraditionsinordertofocusmoreclearlyon therelationshipbetweeneducationandculture,applyingasufficientlydifferentiatedconceptionofboth.Wewilldothisby investigating two states of culturalcapital distinguishedby Bourdieu, firstly the embodied state,which we studyas expressedinculturalpracticesandtastesamongstudentsintheelitesubfieldofSwedishhighereducation,and,secondly, theinstitutionalisedstateasexpressedinsuchstudents’enrolmentindifferentstudyprogrammesatdifferentsitesof learning.Bydoingthis,weoptforamorepreciseunderstandingofboththeuseandimportanceofcultureinthehabitus formationtakingplaceatelitestudyprogrammesandinstitutions,andthepropensityofeliteprogrammesandinstitutions toproducecorpswithspecificculturalpracticesandtastes.Thus,bypointingouthighereducationinstitutionsascrucial seatsofproductionofculturalpracticesandtastesourstudycanbeseenasacontributiontothesociologyofeducationbut alsotothesociologyofculture.
ItisnotevidentthatthecloselinkbetweeneducationandculturerevealedbyBourdieuandhiscollaboratorsfiftyyears agoistobefoundinallsocietiesatalltimes.Forinstance,themassiveexpansionoftheeducationalsystemingeneraland highereducationinparticularhavechangedtherelativevalueofhighereducationdegrees(seeCollins,1979;Börjesson, Ahola,Helland,&Thomsen,2014;Melldahl,2015)andalteredtherelationbetweeneducationandculture(Coulangeon, 2011).However,thisargumentcanbeusedtosupportourstrategytoinvestigatetheelitesegment.Thedecreaseinthe relativevalueofhighereducationingeneralhasbeenaccompaniedbyanincreasingimportanceofitselitesector,atleastin theSwedishcase(Börjesson&Broady,2016).Thus,ifthereisoneareawherewestillcanexpectacloselinkbetween educationandcultureitiseliteprogrammesandinstitutions.Incomparisontoothernationalcontexts,Franceprobably representsanextremecasewheretheeducationalsystemplaysafundamentalroleinthesocialreproductionandwherethe linkbetweeneducationandcultureisextraordinarilystrong.Swedenwouldarguablyrepresenttheoppositeextremewith itslesssociallyhierarchisededucationalsystem(Börjesson&Broady,2016;Börjesson,Broady,Dalberg,&Lidegran,2016;
Erikson&Jonsson,1996)andweakerlinksbetweeneducationandculture.1InSwedenthecontentandformofcultural capitalisthusmoredisputedanditsrelativevaluemorecontested.Itisthereforeinterestingtoaskifandhowculturealsoin Swedenisrelevantforsocialdistinctions.AnumberofrecentstudiesinScandinaviancountriesontherelationbetween culturalconsumption andsocial positionshaveshown aclearhomology betweenthespaceof lifestylesand theclass structure(Prieur,Rosenlund,&Skjott-Larsen,2008;Hjellbrekke,Jarness,&Korsnes,2015).
InordertoanalysesignificantdifferencesasregardstheculturalpracticesandtastesofstudentsinSwedishhigher education,wehavecombinedtwodifferentveinsinthesociologicaloeuvreofPierreBourdieu.Ontheonehand,weusethe detailedandnuancedmethodologyforunderstandinglifestylespresentedin“L’anatomiedugoût”(Bourdieu&deSaint Martin,1976)andLadistinction(Bourdieu,1979a),wherethosearerelatedtoconsumptionoffood,holidays,cars,etcetera, variablesusedtoconstructaspaceoflifestyles.Ontheotherhand,wedrawonthenotionofeducationalfields(herea shorthandforspacesofeducationalinstitutions)asoutlinedin“Agrégationetségrégation.Lechampdesgrandesécolesetle champdupouvoir”(Bourdieu&deSaintMartin,1987)andinLanoblessed’État(Bourdieu,1989).
OneoftheconclusionsofourstudyisthateveninarelativelyegalitariancountrylikeSwedencultureplaysacrucialrole inlifestyleformationamongstudentsintheelitesubfieldofhighereducationandthatthereexistastronglinkbetween culturalcapitalinitsembodiedstateandinitsinstitutionalisedstate.Wewillputforththeargumentthatcultureisvery muchwhatisatstakewithinthisexclusivepartoftheeducationalsystem,andthatthedifferenteducationalmilieusarevital forproducingdifferentculturaltastesandpractices,that,inturn,reproducedifferencesbetweenthevarioussocialfieldsand thefieldofpowertowardswhichthestudentsaspire.
2.Theoreticalandmethodologicalpointsofdeparture
Atthecentreofourstudystandsthenotionofculturalcapitalanditsrelationtoeducation.Inthissectionwewillexpand onthedefinitionofculturalcapital(Section2.1).Furthermore,wewillrelatethecapitalconcepttothefieldandspace concepts(Section2.2).ThisparallelswithourchoiceofSpecificMultipleCorrespondenceAnalysisastheprincipalmethod (Section2.3).
1OneindicationofthisisthattheliterarycanontaughtinSwedishuppersecondaryschoolhaschangedprofoundlyduringthe20thcentury,whileithas remainedmorestableinFrancewithapersistingfocusonclassicalliterature(Englund,1997).Anotherpieceofevidenceistheevaporatinglinkbetween educationalcapitalandteachereducation:smallerproportionsofsonsanddaughtersandofstudentswithgoodcredentialschoosetoenterteaching programmes(Bertilsson,2014).AnalternativeresearchstrategyfortheSwedishcasewouldbetomoreclearlyseparateeducationalcapitalfromcultural capital(Lidegran,2009).
2.1.Culturalcapital—arelationalandmultidimensionalconcept
Bourdieunevergavealexicaldefinitionofculturalcapital(cf.Prieur&Savage,2011).Oneofhismoreprogrammatictexts,
“Lestroisétatsducapitalculturel”[Thethreestatesofculturalcapital](Bourdieu,1979b),describedhowhearrivedatthe ideainordertosolvearesearchproblem:
Thenotionofculturalcapitalinitiallypresenteditselftome,inthecourseofresearch,asatheoreticalhypothesiswhich madeitpossibletoexplaintheunequalscholasticachievementofchildrenoriginatingfromthedifferentsocialclassesby relatingacademicsuccess,i.e.,thespecificprofitswhichchildrenfromthedifferentclassesandclassfractionscanobtain intheacademicmarket,tothedistributionofculturalcapitalbetweentheclassesandclassfractions.(Translationin Bourdieu,2006[1986/1979]:106)
Here,atthisearlystageofBourdieu’sandhiscollaborators’endeavours,thecloselinkbetweeneducationandculturewas obvious;theamountofculturalcapitalwithinacertainsocialclassorclassfractionisusedtoexplaineducationalsuccessor failureoftheoffspringofthatgroup.Inthesametext,Bourdieuelaboratesonthenotionofculturalcapitalbydistinguishing itsthreemainstates,embodied(manners,tastes,etc.),objectified(books,piecesofart,records,adesignedhome,etc.),and institutionalised(inforexampletheeducationalinstitutions,whichplayacrucialroleinsanctioningembodiedcultural capitalandforgingitintoamoredurableandtransferableformbyauthorisingcredentialsanddegrees).Culturalcapitalis thusimportantbothasexplanationofacademicsuccessandasanoutcomeoftheeducationalsystem.Inotherwords,the educationalsystemplaysapivotalroleinreproducingculturalcapitaloverthegenerations.
WeagreewithSerreandWagner(2015)thatthestatesofculturalcapitalneedtobeanalysedinrelationtoeachother.The authorsarguethatthetremendousexpansionoftheeducationalsystem(culturalcapitalinitsinstitutionalisedstate)has hadimpactontheotherstatesofculturalcapitalandtherelationbetweenculturalcapitalandotherspeciesofcapital, especiallyeconomiccapital.Culturalcapitalcanbedefinedinoppositiontoeconomiccapital.Whileeconomiccapitalis closelytiedtotheprincipleofcalculated(self-)interest,culturalcapitalisprimarilyassociatedwithdisinterestoruniversal values(Bourdieu,2006[1986/1979]:105;Serre&Wagner,2015:436).
Inourstudy,wesetouttorelatethedifferentstatesofculturalcapitalbyexaminingitsembodiedstate(expressedin studentlifestyles)inrelationtoitsinstitutionalisedstate(indicatedbytheprogrammesattended).Here,differentiated measuresarevital.Forinstance,culturalcapitalinitsinstitutionalisedstatecannotbereducedtothelevelofeducation.The expansionofhighereducationanditsincreasedimportanceforeconomicfractions(Serre&Wagner,2015:439–442)makes itnecessaryto,onapreciselevel,distinguishbetweendifferenteliteprogrammesandinstitutions.Inordertoaccountforthe complexityofeducation,weneedtoputthenotionsofspaceandfieldintotheequation.
2.2.Socialspace,fieldsandfieldspecificcapital
Inthe1970sand1980s,Bourdieuandhiscollaboratorscontinuedtoexplorethelinksbetweencultureandeducation, effortsculminatinginthemostsyntheticandcomprehensivetreatiseLanoblessed’État(Bourdieu,1989).Bythen,Bourdieu haddevelopedtheconceptofsocialfieldand,moreover,hadaccesstomuchmorerefinedmethods,enablinghimtorelate educationnotonlytoculturalcapitalingeneralandtosocialgroupsataveryaggregatedlevel,butalsotodifferentspeciesof field-specificcapital–particularlyeconomic,political,juridical,bureaucratic,academicandartisticcapital–thattogether constitutethefieldofpower.Thus,Bourdieu,MoniquedeSaintMartinandtheircolleagueswereabletodiscernaclear homologybetweenthespaceofeliteeducationandthestructureofthefieldofpower.
However,amongsociologistsintheEnglishlanguagedomain,Bourdieu’shugepublicfamewascreatednotbyLeshéritiers (Bourdieu&Passeron, 1964)butbyLadistinction(Bourdieu, 1979a)inthewakeofitspartialtranslationintheearly1980sand intotoin1984(Sapiro,2015).Whiletherelationbetweencultureandeducationwasimportantinthisworkaswell,itwas viewedinmoreofabird’seye’sperspective.Ladistinctionwasakindofclosingofthebooks,asynthesisoftheearlystudies fromthe1960suntilthemid-1970s(deSaintMartin,2015),farfromthethoroughstudiesofspecificproductionfieldsthat followed,suchastheanalysesoftheacademicfield(Bourdieu,1984)andthefieldsofart(Bourdieu,1992,2013).
OuraiminthepresentstudyistodrawonthefullpotentialofBourdieu’ssociologyandcombinetheanalysisofthesocial spaceanddistributionofculturalcapital,especiallyinitsembodiedstate,withthefine-tunedstudiesofthespaceofles grandesécolesanditsrelationtothefieldofpower.Weattemptthisbyrelatingthespaceoflifestylesofelitestudentstothe studyprogrammesandinstitutionstheyattend.
2.3.Methodologicalframework:specificmultiplecorrespondenceanalysis
ThecloseaffinitybetweentheconceptualisationofspaceandfieldsinBourdieu’ssociologyandGeometricDataAnalysis (GDA)hasbeenpointedoutindifferentcontexts(Rouanet,Ackermann,&LeRoux,2000;Lebaron&LeRoux,2015).Inthis study we have applied Multiple CorrespondenceAnalysis (MCA),2 more precisely Specific MCA (LeRoux & Rouanet, 2004:203–210,369ff,2010:61–64),toconstructaspaceoftastesandlifestylesonthebasisofdatafromaquestionnaireto
2ThesoftwareusedisSPAD,version8.0,whichincludesamoduleforSpecificMCA.
universitystudentsenrolledineliteeducation.Theactive–i.e.usedtocreatethestructureofthespace–variablesinthe analysisconcernconsumptionpracticesandtastesrelatedtocinema,theatre,music,newspapers,radio,andtelevision,as wellasbody-orientedactivities(clothing,sports)andvacationtravels.
ThustheapproachissimilartothatofBourdieu’sanddeSaintMartin’s(1976)constructionoftheFrenchsocialspacein the1970s(Bourdieu,1979a).However,theychoseindicators onsocialpositions asthemain supplementaryelements whereas we instead use enrolment in study programmes. This enrolment is, in the vocabularyof today’s GDA,our
“structuring factor” (Le Roux & Rouanet, 2004:237). Another difference is that Bourdieu and his colleagues applied CorrespondenceAnalysisonabinarytableindividualsproperties,whileweuseMCA–amethodespeciallysuitedfor analysingrelationsbetweensetsofproperties–thatwassimplynotavailableatthetimewhenBourdieuanddeSaintMartin conductedtheirstudy(Rouanetetal.,2000:6).Furthermore,wehaveusedSpecificMCA,whichhandlesnotonlyno-answers butalsoso-called“junkcategories”(LeRoux&Rouanet,2004:203–213).
WhilemanystudieshaveusedLadistinctionasthesourceofinspirationtoanalysenationalsocialspacesonthebasisof lifestyles(e.g.Bennettetal.,2009;Bonnetetal.,2015;Hjellbrekkeetal.,2015)orthedistributionofcapital(e.g.Flemmen, 2012;Melldahl&Börjesson,2015;Prieuretal.,2008),therearefewexamplesofanalysesintheveinofLaNoblessed’État.
EvenrarerareattemptstoemploytheparadigmofLaDistinctiononstudiesofstudentsandeducationalfields.Amongthe fewexceptions,studentsinjournalismschoolareinfocusinLafargeandMarchetti(2011),whilestudentsataspecifichigher educationinstitution(SciencesPo,Paris) areexamined inMuxel,Catzaras,Chiche,Maurer andTiberj (2004). Another exampelisNylander’sandMelldahl’s(2015)studyofapplicantstoaprestigiousjazzschool.However,besidesGripsrud, HovdenandMoe(2011)whoexaminetwostudentpopulationsinBergenin1998and2008,representingalargevarietyof educationalprogrammes,wehavenotidentifiedanystudiesthattakesuchabroadgripandanalysestudents’lifestylesinthe contextofaneducationalspace.
3.TheSwedishfieldofhighereducation,itselitesubfieldandthesurveyedpopulation
Asin manyotheradvanced countries,highereducationinSwedenhasexpandedrapidlyover thelast decadesand accountstodayformorethan400,000registeredstudents.Wellover40%ofanagecohortentershighereducation.This impliesthathighereducation,intheterminologyofTrow(1974),hastransformedfromanelitetoamassandnowuniversal system.Aresultisthatthesystemhasbecomeincreasinglycomplexandfulfilsdifferentobjectivesandfunctions.Inthis article,weareparticularlyinterestedinitselitefunction.Ourargumentforinvestigatingthemostexclusivesegmentof highereducationisthatthismostdominantpartofthefieldsetstheagendaforthewholesystem.Itisherethatthebattleis foughtoverhowdifferentassetsaretobevalued.Eliteeducationistheprimarysitefortheunderstandingoftherelationship betweeneducationandculture.HowthentodefinetheelitesegmentofSwedishhighereducation?Itisfarfromobvious.
TheSwedishhighereducationalsystemhasstronginfluencesfromegalitariantraditionsincludinghighlevelsofpublic funding,nostudentfees,andafocusonbroadaccessandwideningparticipation.Itlackstheequivalentsoflesgrandesécoles of Franceor theUS IvyLeague-universities (Börjesson &Broady,2016). However,the system remains clearlysocially structured. Previous statistical analyses of the relations within Swedish higher education based on national official individualdataonallregisteredstudentscombinedwithinformationonstudents’genderandtheirparents’occupation detectedastructuredspacewhichmaindimensionshaveremainedstableovertime(Broady&Palme,1992;Börjesson&
Broady,2006,2016).Thefirstaxisopposesmenandwomenandseparateseducationintechnologyandnaturalsciencesfrom educationaimingatprofessionsinhealth,educationandcaring.Thesecondaxisdisplaysasocialhierarchicaldimension withsocialgroupswithlargeamountsofresources,especiallyeducationalcapital,atthetopofthespaceincontrastto groupswithsmallquantitiesofeconomic,socialandculturalassets,atthebottom,withthemiddleclassesinbetween.This latterdimensionalsodifferentiatesthetraditionaluniversities,suchastheuniversitiesinUppsalaandLund,alongwitha coupleofprestigiousprofessionalschools(forinstanceStockholmSchoolofEconomics,KarolinskaInstitutet,andtheRoyal InstituteofTechnology)atthepoleofstudentsfromwell-to-dohomesfromregionaluniversitycollegesandcollegesof healthscienceattheotherpole.Thelocationsofstudyprogrammesfollow thesamelogic.Longand sociallyselective programmesleadingtotraditionalprofessions,suchasdoctors,lawyersandengineers,aresituatedatthetoppositionsinthe space,inclearcontrasttotheshorterprogrammesinnursing,educationandtechnologyinthelowersector.
Fromtheseanalysesofthespaceofhighereducationwehaveobtainedafirstapproximatedefinitionofeliteeducationas predominantly constituted by the long and selective profession-oriented programmes at the large research-based universitiesoratspecialisedhighereducationschoolslocatedatthemostdominatingpositionsatthesummitofthespace.
Inordertosharpenthedefinition,wehavethenanalysedtherecruitmentprofileofallstudyprogrammesandcourseswith morethan100studentsenrolledintheautumnof2006.Outof759educationalunits(educationalprogrammesandcourses byhighereducationinstitutions)weareabletodiscern56(seeTable1inSupplement)thataccordingtoatleastoneelite criterion(overrepresentationofstudentswithhighgrades,highpointsatthenationalaptitudetestfortheentryintohigher education,asocialoriginintheuppermiddleclass,orhighlyeducatedparents)rankedamongthetop30.Ofthese,22are locatedintheStockholm–Uppsalaregion,and32atoldandlargeuniversities, 14atspecializeduniversities,9atsemi-oldand largeuniversities,and1atanewandmedium-sizeduniversity.Further,38arelongprofessionalprogrammesand22arein engineering,17insocialsciencesand9inmedicine.Certainoftheprofessionalprogrammescanbeidentifiedashavinga distincteliterecruitment:medicine,psychology,theengineeringprogrammes,especiallyinindustrialeconomics,physics, andarchitecture,and,finally,economics/businessstudies.
