When Pierre Bourdieu (together with Jean-Claude Passeron) coined the term “cultural capital” in 1977, he transformed the way we think of values and assets. In later essays and books, he developed the concept, stating that it was a form of capital similar to money. Cultural capital is a slightly different form of currency, and refers to an accumulated cultural knowledge that can confer social status and power. According to Bourdieu, cultural capital can be exchanged for economic capital, and vice versa.

Embodied cultural capital is acquired through socialization to culture. It is not easily transmissible but acquired over time, by reading books, visiting museums, and travelling. It can be expressed through a knowledge of art history, literature, and music, but also of historical facts or knowing how which fork to use with what dish. 

In Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts plays a young prostitute who suddenly finds herself in the corporate world. A lot of the scenes are based on the collisions between different worlds, or more specifically, the films is about her trying to navigate a world of culture without cultural (or economic) capital. The film was released in 1990, only five years after the publication of Bourdieu’s seminal essay “Forms of Capital”, in which he defines cultural capital as one of the most significant forms of capital (together with economic and social) that a person can acquire. 

The term quickly made its transition from academic seminars to mainstream media. Perhaps one of the reasons for its wide popularity was that people working in the cultural industries now felt appreciated and seen; Bourdieu had stated that their knowledge and expertise was just as important as money, and this in a decidedly capitalist society. Perhaps their life choices weren’t so bad, after all? Bourdieu proved them right – even if the salary was low, their large degree of cultural capital compensated for their lack of income. The concept has been a security blanket for freelance journalists and others in the creative precariat for decades, but today, knowledge of culture as a form of status has been replaced with skills in technology and social media.

In the last decade, teaching at different universities, I have regularly introduced the concept of cultural capital to students. A few years ago, I noticed a shift in how it was received. The students didn’t seem to understand what I meant by the concept. How could culture be a form of capital? Who cared if you could distinguish a work by Hilma af Klint from a piece by Kandinsky? Why would you decorate your home with inherited antiques when there is better-looking stuff to be found online? 

At first, I thought the students didn’t get it because they were lacking cultural capital, and that their ignorance was proof that cultural capital is still relevant. Lately, I have come to the realization that the students in fact reflect a larger cultural shift, currently ongoing. The original idea was that cultural capital was a currency that could be traded for money on specific markets. But these markets are disappearing, and in their place new markets are evolving. Today, there are other forms of knowledge, more attractive than knowing the different between the wine regions of Bourgogne and Bordeaux. 

 Bourdieu based his theory on a pre-digital world, where knowledge had to be acquired, instead of being easily googled. There were no tech billionaires and no influencers, creating international business empires based on their ability to contour. Contemporary culture is radically different to French 1970s society, and if Bourdieu were to write an essay on important forms of capital today, culture wouldn’t be one of them.