Bringing in Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Capital: Renewing Learning

Partnership Approaches to Social Inclusion

Paper presented at the ESAI Annual Conference, NUI Maynooth April 1-3, 2004

Authors: Stephen O’Brien and Mairtin Ó Fathaigh

Author Contacts:

• Stephen O’Brien is a researcher at the Centre for Adult Continuing Education

and a lecturer with the Education Department, UCC (s.obrien@ucc.ie)

• Mairtin Ó Fathaigh is Professor/Director of the Centre for Adult

Continuing

Education UCC, and Chairman of the National Social Work

Qualifications

Board (m.ofathaigh@ucc.ie)
 1 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

BRINGING IN BOURDIEU’S THEORY OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:

RENEWING LEARNING PARTNERSHIPAPPROACHES TO
SOCIAL INCLUSION

Introduction

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the HEA in sponsoring a

recent research project wherein this paper is situated (see O’Brien, S and O
Fathaigh, M: 2005)

This paper begins by outlining the theory of social capital. Bourdieu’s perspective, in

particular, is presented as the most useful approach in informing (and

renewing) learning partnerships for social inclusion. Notwithstanding the fact

that learning partnerships often vary in size, membership, geographical location,

cultural ethos, mission, and learning activities (see O’Brien and Ó Fathaigh, 2005),

they are likely to exhibit a common main purpose. With specific attention to

learning partnerships for social inclusion, we see such a common purpose as:

The will to support the development of a learning community that serves as an

advocate for local learning needs (specifically the needs of
disadvantaged groups), while taking into account the possibilities and
constraints of national policy frameworks

Bourdieu’s theory proffers an invaluable conceptual lens through which social

inclusion in education may be investigated and advanced alongside this learning

partnership rationale. Despite this claim, an overview of contemporary

literature research reveals that this theory is grossly under-utilised. The paper

concludes by highlighting how Bourdieu’s insights can be viewed principally as

a critique of existing theoretical and methodological approaches to our

understandings of ‘social

2 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

capital’. Moreover, Bourdieu’s ideas are shown to inform more effective educational

measures for social inclusion.

The theory of social capital

‘Social capital’ theory can be sourced to the works of three main authors -

James Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. Coleman’s (1988, 1990,

1992) interpretation of the concept is the most frequently cited in the educational

literature. For Coleman, social capital exists in the structure of relations

between individuals and is thus largely intangible. Its potency, however, is

realised in its capacity (just like physical and human capital) to facilitate

productive activity. This is achieved through the formation of social

relationships built up over time which enables individuals to achieve their

interests over-and-above those that can only be attained independently. Four

important forms of social capital are identified: a) obligations and expectations

(e.g. doing favours for and receiving favours from other people), b) informational

potential (e.g. sharing useful information that may inform some future action), c)

norms and effective sanctions (e.g. the establishment of community values and

shared standards of behaviour) and d) authority relations (e.g. skilful leadership that

informs others’ actions). It is noted that social capital through these means can

benefit others who do not directly participate. Coleman (1990, p 313) gives

the example here of the work of parent-teacher associations who set

disciplinary standards for the benefit of all in the school community. Some form of
investment in social capital (e.g. concerted group involvement) is deemed

necessary, however, for any such rewards to be amassed. While social capital can

be created, conversely it can also be destroyed. Here, Coleman cites a lack of

relations between parents, as

3 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

well as a shared ideology (e.g. an ideology of self-sufficiency) as having potentially

negative social consequences (see Coleman: 1990, pp 318-321). Social capital theory,

as used by Coleman, has strong structural-functionalist roots. For this reason, his

work is often cited in support of a particular kind of community – “one characterised

by strict, traditional values, rigorous discipline, and hierarchical order and

control” (Dika and Singh: 2002, p 34). Further, the social capital concept is

presented as a necessary precondition for promoting (via family norms, for

example) human capital development and educational achievement.

Putnam’s (1993, 1995) theory of social capital has functionalist roots also (especially

its focus on social integration), but it is furthermore influenced by notions of

pluralism and communitarianism. His central thesis is that a well functioning regional

economy together with a high level of political integration are the result of

that region’s capacity to successfully amass social capital (Siisiainen, 2000).

Social capital here has three components: a) moral obligations and norms, b) social

values (particularly trust) and c) social networks (especially the membership of

voluntary associations). These forms of social capital are central to the

promotion of civil communities and civil society in general. According to

Putnam, the productive activity of social capital is manifest in its capacity to

“facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam: 1995, p 2).

The threat to this productive capacity comes from changing social trends which
appear to indicate that such

‘coordination and cooperation’ is on the decline. To illustrate, Putnam

cites America’s falling participation numbers in union membership, net

religious involvement, parent-teacher organisations, and group associations.

While there are

1
some counter trends , the general conclusion is that social capital is being eroded.

4 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Deleterious effects are noted in a loosening of bonds within the family and a decline

in social trust and relationships within communities. Accordingly, Putnam makes a

direct link between levels of civic engagement and a community’s capacity to tackle

social and economic problems such as unemployment, poverty, educational non-

participation, and crime. Thus, much like Coleman, Putnam claims that:

…networks of organised reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being

an epiphenomenon of socio-economic modernisation [are] a precondition
for it (Putnam: 1995, p 2).

Taking Coleman’s and Putnam’s positions together, the general accord is that social

capital constitutes positive social control. It is the family’s and the

community’s responsibility to foster such characteristics as trust, shared

information, and positive norms of behaviour for everyone’s mutual benefit. A

number of problems emerge from this general perspective, however. In relation

to Coleman’s approach, for example, Dika and Singh (2002, p 44) talk about a

blurring of the distinction of resources from the ability to obtain them in the
2
social structure . In addition, the stress on the family’s and the community’s role

in mediating social capital serves to likewise obscure the individual’s agency in

accessing and utilising such resources. Also, because resources are viewed as

essential preconditions, those with insufficient capital are in danger of being labelled
powerless in their pursuit of the same desirable outcomes enjoyed by their

counterparts. Finally, it should be noted that the connection between

ownership of social capital and its activation remains unclear and

is largely untested in the research literature. Problems likewise emerge from

Putnam’s interpretation of social capital. Siisiainen (2000, p 4), for example, points

to an inadequate coverage of the concept of ‘distrust’ and its singular association with

pathological forms of collective action. This treatise obscures the role of conflict in

5 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

3
activating alternative forms of social action . In addition, Putnam’s emphasis on

voluntary associations (which are usually of a specific type) precludes consideration

of those individuals who have conflicting interests or are simply disinterested

in engaging with such networks. Finally, it should be noted that ‘trust’ more

4
typically emerges from the struggle between competing interests .

Given the above critical points, we turn to the work of Pierre Bourdieu to fill some

important methodological and conceptual gaps. Bourdieu’s (1977a, b, c; 1991;

1992a, b) main distinction is his belief that social capital operates as a tool of cultural

reproduction in explaining unequal educational achievement. This theory has

strong socio-cultural roots which locate the educational experiences of

individuals dialectically through their social and material history. Unlike the

structuralist approaches of Coleman and Putnam, this theory challenges deficit

thinking about underachievement and differentiates resources from their distribution

within the social structure. Further, unlike the other two ‘causal’ approaches,

Bourdieu’s perspective
5
on social capital is designed to guide empirical work . Moreover, Bourdieu gives due

regard to individuals and their mediated actions, as well as to the concept of conflict
 6
as an expression of this subjectivity . These features, in our opinion, render

the Bourdieuian perspective on social capital the most scrupulous and

constructive approach in the study of disadvantaged learners. Specifically, as a

conceptual treatise, Bourdieu’s theory proffers socio-cultural explanations for

why under-represented groups remain excluded from the educational process. It

achieves this by expanding upon an analysis of cultural barriers to

participation and relating subsequent investigations to actors’ own lived

experiences. Such a subject-centred enquiry is consistent with our own research

approach (see O’Brien and O Fathaigh, 2005) and is

6 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

particularly useful in the search for effective learning partnership characteristics that

have a specific social inclusion focus.

Three key theoretical concepts need to be explained in relation to Bourdieu’s

perspective on social capital:

• Habitus

• Capitals

• Fields

Firstly, the concept of habitus is used to explain how objective structures and

subjective perceptions impact upon human action. The concept can be explained as a

set of regulatory schemes of thought and action, which are to some extent, a product

of prior experience. In Bourdieu’s (1977a, p 72) own words, habitus constitutes “a set

of durable, transposable dispositions” which regulates mental activity to the

point where individuals are often unconsciously aware of their influence. In

essence, the habitus concept is a way of explaining how social and cultural messages
(both actual and symbolic) shape individuals’ thoughts and actions. It is not a static

concept since

it allows for individuals to mediate these messages, even to the point of

resisting embodied beliefs. The habitus is thus not wholly structured, though it

still remains strongly influenced by historical, social and cultural contexts. To

illustrate the importance of this concept, one might think of how certain social

groups are more capable of mobilising their own deeply held beliefs on the value of

education. Often such values are shaped by a general set of outlooks in their

immediate environment (e.g. parental/peer expectations, social position) that afford

them some advantage in

utilising the formal education system. These values need not be arrived at

7 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

consciously either, but instead may be deeply embodied within certain

individuals’ cultural make-up. Social class factors are particularly strong in

guiding mediated thought and action (Bourdieu calls this ‘class habitus’). This is

because social class powerfully affects consumption and lifestyle patterns

including, significantly, the exercise of educational choice. It follows, then, that:

those in higher-class groupings are more likely to realise the value of

schooling both in the field of education and the occupational field, thus
increasing the likelihood of reproducing their position (Rudd: 2003, p 7).

The second important theme in illuminating Bourdieu’s theory is that of

capitals. This concept is subdivided into: economic, social, cultural, and symbolic

categories. Economic capital refers to income and other financial resources and

assets. It is the most liquid capital in that it may be more readily converted into

other capitals (Rudd,

2003). Its potency in the educational field, for example, is manifest in the capacity of
some individuals to purchase different types of educational services (e.g. private

education, additional grinds/tuitions, distance learning courses) and

associated resources (e.g. childcare, transport, books, ICT equipment etc.).

Economic capital on

its own, however, is not sufficient to buy ‘status’ or position – rather, it relies on the

interaction with other forms of capital. One other such form is social capital.

This exists as a set of lasting social relations, networks and contacts. Like

Coleman and Putnam the notion of reciprocity is important here, though

Bourdieu emphasises individual (and not necessarily communal) gain that may be

sought. Investment in social capital, then, acts as a kind of strategy which

(unconsciously or otherwise) further serves as a mechanism to exchange other

capitals. In educational terms, one may think of significant ‘others’ in one’s life

that are in a position to enable material

(and/or symbolic) access to new areas of expertise, resources and support. Cultural

8 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

capital comes in three forms – objectified, embodied, and institutionalised (Grenfell

7
and James, 1998) . Each form serves as “instruments for the appropriation of

symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed”

(Bourdieu, 1977c in Rudd: 2003, p 54). The objectified form is manifest in

such items as books, qualifications, computers; the embodied form is connected

to the educated character of individuals, such as accent and learning

dispositions; and the institutionalised form represents the places of learning one

may attend (e.g. different types of schools, colleges, universities, or technology

institutions). The currency of such capital forms has more to do with their

symbolic appropriation than with their

possession. Symbolic capital then is used by Bourdieu to explain the ways in

which capitals are perceived in the social structure e.g. the status value attached to
certain books, values, and/or places of learning. In relation to capitals, it should be

noted that

all forms (economic, social, cultural, and symbolic categories) are the key factors that

define positions and possibilities for individuals engaged in any field (in our

case, education). Moreover, a ‘multiplier effect’ frequently emerges in relation to any

form

of capital accumulation i.e. one capital often exchanges for another.

The third and final theme dealt with here is that of fields. In Bourdieuian

language this concept relates to a structured space of forces and struggles,

consisting of an ordered system and an identifiable network of relationships that

impact upon the habitus of individuals. Education is thus regarded as a field since it

sets its own rules that regulate behaviour within. Indeed, the struggle for

possession of capital therein indicates the uneven distribution of available resources

and belies the universal image often associated with education. Bourdieu claims that

as certain individuals enter the field, they (consciously or otherwise) are more aware

of the rules of the game and/or

9 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

have greater capacity to manipulate these rules through their established capital

appropriation. Those individuals with prior qualifications or strong occupational and

social status are among those who may be categorised in this manner.

Strategies (actual and/or symbolic in form) are thus employed by individuals to

distinguish themselves from other groups and place them in advantageous

positions via the effective utilisation and exploitation of capital (Rudd, 2003). Such

strategies can only become meaningful if they exhibit symbolic relevance i.e. if

others, as well as the actors themselves, consider such strategies to be of significant

value. Symbolic power

is said to have its greatest expression in the general (albeit, erroneous) acceptance that

‘the rules of the game are fair’ (i.e. in educational terms, ‘the meritocratic system is

even-handed’). ‘Misrecognition’ (a Bourdieuian phrase taken from Marx’s idea of

‘false consciousness’) thus occurs when those in more disadvantaged contexts ‘play
8
the game without questioning the rules’ . This amounts to, what Bourdieu terms,

‘symbolic violence’.

References to social capital in the literature

We contend that any investigation of learning partnerships for social inclusion must

necessarily engage in a systematic socio-cultural analysis. An overview

of contemporary research reveals that while social capital is often referred to

and highlighted in empirical results, such a socio-cultural treatise is generally absent.

The final discussion here impresses the need to locate social capital (and related

9
concepts )

in an adequate theoretical framework. Particular regard is given to Bourdieu’s

perspective and this is defended on a number of grounds. In relation to learning

partnership arrangements, for example, Bourdieu enhances our understanding of

10 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

power dynamics and the struggle therein for the ascendancy of individual

interests. Educational participation too, from a Bourdieuian perspective, is

thought of as an extension of participation in society at large and is thus contingent

on wider political, economic, social, and cultural factors. Accordingly, non-

participation is challenged not on individual/cultural deficit terms but in relation to

the perceived need to effect societal change. An analysis of social capital cannot
therefore be separated from a treatise on social exclusion. Contributory factors such

as: low socio-economic status, illiteracy, minimal levels of prior educational

achievement, deprived geographic regions, and inter-generational poverty are all

highlighted as salient contextual features. Moreover, moving away from

structuralist claims, Bourdieu illustrates how individuals themselves can effect

change through their subjective appraisal of

‘objective realities’. As highlighted earlier, this judgment is primarily based on

individuals’ capacity to mobilise capital(s). While the above points clearly

illustrate that Bourdieu is central to any debate on educational disadvantage, the

critical fact remains, however, that his theory is grossly under-utilised. Indeed,

even when it is

‘referred to’ - as discussions here indicate - it is often thought of and applied in an all-

too incoherent manner.

Social capital is a complex phenomenon. Unlike its common representation as

a linear model where ‘more social capital equals more [adult] learning’, Field

(1999) reminds that social capital can also inhibit participation in learning.

Referring specifically to Northern Ireland, he stresses that communality can

actually appear more supportive and rewarding than ‘going it alone’ in a formal

institution (p 509). The predominantly positive image attached to social

capital and its particular association with effective forms of voluntarism (Powell
10
and Guerin, 1997) should

11 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

thus be questioned. Specifically, there is a need to question how social capital is both

conceived and utilised. References to social capital in the research literature are often

couched in positive terms and are the result of an intuitive understanding that
 emergent ‘findings’ are thought or felt to be ‘true’. Often these references appear as

dependable, common sense assertions, indicating a natural connectedness between

social capital and educational attainment. From a US perspective, Dika and Singh’s

(2002, pp 36-40) research review of social capital illustrates this point well. They

note that from the period 1996-1998 the vast majority of studies consisted of research

designs in the Coleman tradition. Indicators of social capital (such as traditional

family structure, parent-child discussions, parent-school interactions etc.) were all

shown to be positively related to conventional measures of educational attainment. In

the period 1999-2001 Coleman’s theoretical framework continued to guide most of

social capital research, this time from a more qualitative perspective. Only a couple

of studies adopted Putnam’s approach throughout both periods, though

outcomes were similar to the Coleman tradition e.g. collective social capital was

shown as an important factor in promoting educational opportunity and health

(Morrow, 2001).

Significantly, only a few studies incorporated Bourdieu’s interpretation of social

11
capital (e.g. Lareau, 2000; Valenzuela and Dornbusch, 1994) . To illustrate,

with respect to school choice at entry to second-level schooling in Britain, Reay and

Ball (1998) referred to parents as either ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’ within the

educational field. Such status was dependent on their relative capital accumulation.

Also, in an exploratory attempt to extend Bourdieu’s concept of capital, Diane

Reay (2000) attempted to operationalise the concept of ‘emotional capital’ to

investigative the affective role of mothers’ emotional involvement in their children’s

education. Whilst

12 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

recognising that cultural capital is primarily transmitted through the family,
Reay noted the particular role of women and their direct influence on

educational achievement. Women’s (‘emotional capital’) qualities such as love

and affection, expenditure of time, attention, care and concern were shown to

directly influence dependents’ schooling success (see also Allat, 1993). A caveat is

given here – there is

no simple correlation between positive-type emotions (e.g. supportive advice)

and emotional capital outcomes. Working class women, for example, often lack the

right conditions for promoting either emotional or cultural capital (Reay: 2000, p

575).

In the vast majority of other (non-Bourdieuian influenced) research studies, the

correlation between social capital and educational attainment exhibits a (falsely)

assured rational appearance. Few would argue, certainly, that greater levels of parent-

teen or parent-school interaction and additional teacher/peer group support networks

would not enhance educational opportunity. Indeed, given that such related factors

make sense ‘on the ground’ and are often backed up by research data (as indicated by

the majority of studies above), they may well be indisputable. A Bourdieuian critique

of social capital outcomes recognises the import of such research results, particularly

in light of their capacity to underscore significant features of educational

disadvantage. However, noteworthy methodological and theoretical

objections prevail. Not least there is the criticism against much research that

Bourdieu’s theory

is only being used as a theoretical ‘add-on’ i.e. it serves as a type of post-commentary

on results. In addition, there is little regard for using Bourdieu’s theory as a means to

provide coherent causal explanations for manifestations of disadvantage. The main

strength of Bourdieu’s theory (as we see it) is that it proffers an important analytical

framework (a ‘tool’) for understanding how social capital outcomes are inter-related.
13 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)
To illustrate, his concept of ‘class habitus’ is particularly useful in demonstrating that

social class is not simply a condition of being. Rather, it remains dependent

upon practice arising from dispositions and choices influenced by both

subjective and objective relationships within structures (Rudd, 2003). In other

words, social class and other terms such as gender and race are not attributes of

individuals, but instead represent ‘generative forces of action’ (Drudy and Lynch,

1993). Thus, taking socio- economic position or the financial capacity to engage

in education alone cannot capture disadvantaged status. Unlike many studies that

narrowly focus on social class

in this way, Bourdieu points to the connectedness of other forms of capital, including:

the role of qualifications as positional goods; the accorded value of education and its

institutions within a particular cultural milieu; internalised discourses about the

possibilities and impossibilities for individual action; and differential power

relationships within diverse fields. Likewise, social capital outcomes alone can only

say so much about disadvantage. Fostering positive community-institution or peer-

group links, for example, may be theoretically beneficial but there are still concerns

(from a Bourdieuian perspective) about a) the nature and direction of such a

relationship and b) the relatedness of other forms of capital appropriated by different

groups.

Conclusion

The challenges for effective learning partnerships for social inclusion are thus set out.

We need to avoid a simple definition of social capital that is aimed at

promoting certain characteristics attributed to the ‘educated individual’ or ‘learning

community’. This is because social capital is not something that can be simply

translated from one group (usually those with appropriate capital levels) to another

(usually those lacking

14 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

in resources). While an educational qualification is being increasingly presented as a

“universal paradigm for cultural development” (Kade: 1988, p 105), the danger

remains that the so-called ‘uneducated’ will also be labelled ‘culturally

deficient’. “The possession of successful competencies” (such as educational

qualifications) reflects a wider social and cultural struggle for ascendancy

(Jansen and Wildemeersch: 1996, p 33). From a Bourdieuian perspective,

an educational qualification is in itself a form of cultural capital that is used

(consciously or otherwise) as a means of vertical stratification. Thus, care

should be exercised in identifying and applying appropriate social capital

outcomes from research. This point often goes unheeded. There is still a

general assumption, for example, that lower-class parents should simply act

more like white middle-class parents for the benefit of their children.

Alexander and Entwisle (1996, p 284) are critical of this position since it

…belies the complexity of the factors that contribute to parenting children in

disadvantaged circumstances as well as differences in values and belief
systems that reflect different socialising systems.

Weak studies that focus on positive social control factors, and specifically on singular

dimensions to social capital outcomes, must likewise be challenged. Typically,

such research makes grand claims. A recent project, for example, concluded that

‘children
12
of interested parents do 25% better in examinations’ . Besides serious

methodological and theoretical concerns, we may well ask how such research

can proffer any great insight into the integrative causes of educational disadvantage.
Is it the case, for example, that working-class parents are less interested in their

children’s education? Such a belief, we claim, is both unreliable and dangerous

(Anderson and Niemi, 1970; Irish Times, 2003).

15 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Moving beyond a rights-based agenda (i.e. an equality agenda premised solely

on legislative frameworks), we contend that learning partnerships must strive to

develop the will to work with (not just for) disadvantaged groups. This proposal

embraces a strong ideological position on ‘disadvantage’ and ‘social exclusion’

(O’Brien and O Fathaigh, 2005). Here, education is seen as more than the acquisition

of qualifications and social mobility. Instead, education is viewed as a significant

vehicle for cultural development aimed at developing legitimate democratic

representation and critical perspectives on the status quo. The challenge of

such a vision cannot be underestimated. The meritocratic ideology, so

prevalent in Irish education, is fairly well internalised in the minds of providers

and learners/non-learners alike (Lynch,

1999). Any developments towards a more inclusive education system will thus

require significant changes in cultural values and attitudes.

Principally, then, education needs to be acknowledged as a field of social processes

that produces loss of power, status, and self esteem. Learning partnerships in

turn must be prepared to act in the interests of others characterised as socio-

culturally distant. Crucially, this means a rejection of corrective strategies to

‘problems’ and a willingness to engage with new theoretical tools (e.g.

Bourdieu) that help explain existing relationships and tensions therein. Such

insights remain central to any ambition for effective social inclusion.

16 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Endnotes
1
For example, while group membership is declining (e.g. Boy Scouts figures are down by 26% since
1970 and Red Cross membership has declined by 61% in the same period), ‘associational membership’
figures are up in some cases (e.g. national environmental organisations like the Sierra Club and
feminist groups such as the National Organisation for Women). Furthermore, an increase in
associational membership is manifest in the non-profit organisations sector (e.g. Oxfam).
2
Coleman’s resources are measured (somewhat crudely) using High School and Beyond (HSB) data which
includes such information as: the presence of two parents in the home, lower number of siblings,
household size, church attendance, and higher parental expectations. The danger here is that such
information can actually obscure discussions on ‘who gets to access such resources?’ and ‘how is
access differentiated along race, class and gender dimensions?’
3
Social action also engages those who critique the dominant political order of the day. Such an anti-
establishment stance need not be seen as pathological, however e.g. subgroups that are formed to speak out
against (what they see as) others’ perpetuation of injustice.
4
This point is highlighted in the main study’s discussions on partnership formation in Ireland (see
O’Brien and O Fathaigh, 2005). Here, it is noted that partnerships do not just simply exist - they come
into being. Further, trust is something that is worked upon when common and discordant interests are
negotiated.
5
Bourdieu’s own professional background as an anthropologist no doubt informs this position.
6
The key term here is ‘mediated’. Rudd (2003) argues that Bourdieu’s theory moves beyond structure-
agency debates to focus on the processes whereby individuals internalise the relationships between
themselves and objective, external structures. Moreover, the theory also enables us to see how
individuals’ subjective perceptions then structure their externalised practice. See the concept of
‘habitus’ explained later in this section.
7
Although each category of cultural capital is distinct, it is possible that ownership of one form may
influence an individual’s relationship to, and possession of, another (Rudd, 2003).
8
Bourdieu states that, while disadvantaged groups often recognise their less favourable positions, they
are seldom aware of the processes through which such positions occur (Rudd, 2003).
9
Bourdieu (as highlighted) refers to other forms of capital – social capital being only one of four main
types. Strictly speaking, then, the ‘social capital’ title is too narrow - from a Bourdieuian perspective,
it means more than a broad construct of social relations. When we refer to Bourdieu’s theory of ‘social
capital’ we do so in relation to his integrated analysis of all capital forms.
10
This is not to take away from the fact that voluntary organisations have the unique capacity to engage
individuals in important social networks and facilitate the distribution (and redistribution) of important
capitals (Courtney, 1992).
11
See O’Brien and O Fathaigh (2004, Chapter 3) for a brief review of the research literature coverage
on social capital ‘outcomes’.
12
The research was conducted for the UK educational charity The Campaign for Learning (see
http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/projects/projectsindex.htm for more details).

REFERENCES
Alexander, K.L. and Entwisle, D.R. (1996) Schools and Children at Risk in Booth, A.,
and Dunn, J.F. (eds, 1996: Chapter 5) Family-School Links: How do they Affect
Educational Outcomes? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Allat, P. (1993) Becoming Privileged: The Role of Family Processes in Bates, I. And
Riseborough, G. (eds, 1993) Youth and Inequality Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Anderson, D. and Niemi, J. (1970) Adult Education and the Disadvantaged Adult
New York: ERIC Clearinghouse.

17 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Bourdieu, P. (1977a) Outline of a Theory of Practice Translated by Richard Nice:

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977b) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture
Sheffield: Sheffield Region Centre for Science and Technology.
Bourdieu, P. (1977c) Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction in Karabel, J.,
and Halsey, A. (ed, 1977) Power and Ideology in Education New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Coleman, J. (eds, 1991) Social Theory for a Changing Society
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992a) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1992b) Language and Symbolic Power Edited and introduced by J.B.
Thompson, translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital American
Journal of Sociology: Vol. 94, Issue Supplement, pp. 95-120.
Coleman, J.S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1992): Some Points on Choice in Education Sociology of Education:
Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 260-262.
Courtney, S. (1992) Why Adults Learn – Towards a Theory of Participation in Adult
Education London and New York: Routledge.
Dika, S.L. and Singh, K. (2002) Applications of Social Capital in Educational
Literature: A Critical Synthesis Review of Educational Research Spring
2002: Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 31-60.
Drudy, S. and Lynch, K. (1993) Schools and Society in Ireland Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan.
Irish Times (2003) Coping with Disadvantage Article with Brian Fleming, principal
of an inner city school in Dublin, talking to Kathryn Holmquist, Education
Correspondent: October 7, 2003.
Jansen, T. and Wildemeersch, D. (1996) Adult Education and Critical Identity
Development: from a deficiency orientation towards a competency
orientation International Journal of Lifelong Education: Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 325-
340.
Kade, J. (1988) Subjektwerdung und Gemeinschaftsbezuge –
die Qualifizierungsoffensive als Herausforderung fur
die Erwachsenenbildungstheoric (Zeitschrift fur Padagogik: Vol. 23, pp 99-
107). Cited in Jansen and Wildemeersch 1996, p. 330.
Lareau, A. (2000) Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in
Elementary Education US: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Lynch, K. (1999) Equality in Education Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Morrow, V. (2001): Using Qualitative Methods to Elicit Young People’s Perspectives
 on their Environments: Some Ideas for Community Health Initiatives
Health Education Research: Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 255-268. Cited in Dika,
S.L. and Singh, K. 2002, p. 39.
O’Brien, S. and O Fathaigh, M. (2005) Learning Partnerships for Social Inclusion
– exploring lifelong learning contexts, issues and approaches Forthcoming
book publication - contact s.obrien@ucc.ie
Powell, F. and Guerin, D. (1997) Civil Society and Social Policy – Voluntarism
in
Ireland Dublin: A &A Farmar.

18 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)

Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy US:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (1995) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital Journal of
Democracy: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Reay, D. and Ball, S (1998) Making their Minds Up: Family Dynamics of
School
Choice British Educational Research Journal: Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 431-448.
Reay, D. (2000) A Useful Extension of Bourdieu’s Conceptual
Framework?: Emotional Capital As a Way of Understanding Mothers’
Involvement in Their Children’s Education The Sociological Review 2000: pp
568-585.
Rudd, T. (2003) ICT and the Reproduction of Inequalities: A Bourdieuian Perspective
PhD thesis Graduate School of Education: University of Bristol.
Siisiainen, M. (2000) Two Concepts of Social Capital Paper presented at the
ISTR Fourth International Conference ‘The Third Sector: For What and for
Whom?’: Trinity College Dublin, July 5-8 2000.
Valenzuela, A. and Dornbusch, S.M. (1994) Familism and Social Capital in the
Academic Achievement of Mexican Origin and Anglo Adolescents
Social Science Quarterly: Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 18-36. Cited in Dika, S.L. and
Singh, K.
2002, p. 37.
19 O’Brien, S and Ó Fathaigh, M (2005)