A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
or culturally supremacist anyway
Published on August 2, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Politics
There are a lot of harsh things said on JU about people with little money or no job. People often say it’s because they’re lazy or stupid or other such ideas. The poor are poor because they’re stupid and lazy, is the conservatives’ cry. There are probably some cases where this is the case, but as far as I can see it’s far more complicated than this. There are plenty of fat, rich bastards and lazy members of the middle class. And that is why I believe that Bourdieu’s theory about ‘cultural capital’ is a very valid and important theory. I’ve tried to explain this theory before but with little success, but I don’t give up easily. Here is a story that I think demonstrates the theory.

When I was in Noumea, I hung around a lot in the Salty River suburb, which is a very low socio-economic area. My mates were from the island of Wallis and their parents worked at the nickel mine, which is certainly not the work of lazy people. These mates of mine spoke far better French than I do of course. They live in a French-speaking country and speak French at school. Nothing surprising there. But because of their parents they also all spoke Wallisian. When speaking to each other, they swapped between the two languages easily and often. As Wallisian was the language spoken at home, it was effectively their mother tongue. What’s more, some of these people I hung out with were actually from another nearby island, I think called Foutunia. My Wallisian mates couldn’t really speak Foutunien, but the Foutuniens had worked out how to speak Wallisian just from hanging out with their mates. On top of this, they learned the words to a lot of English language songs off the radio.

Now there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about what I’ve told you, but consider this. In Australia, the fact that I am bilingual, that I speak French fairly well is considered very remarkable. There are not many Australians who achieve bilingualism. Here, a lot of people give me a lot of respect for it. What’s more, I’m often asked if I’m going to do anything with my French. What they mean is, am I going to do any work with French, am I going to use it to get any money? It’s a fair enough question. French gives me a lot of opportunities. It’s spoken in a lot of countries and you can do business with it, become a diplomat, French teacher, or even an English teacher in a French-speaking country.

There are many many opportunities for people who speak two languages. Really? No, not entirely true. You must speak the Languages of Power, the Languages of Money. If I spoke Wallisian, what opportunities would it bring me? None. Absolutely nothing, because Wallisian is not a Language with any Power. But it would have been equally difficult for me to learn Wallisian as it was for me to learn French, right?

It’s not that I am any more intelligent or talented for languages than my mates at the Salty River. But I learned a language that our monetary system has decided is important. With the languages of Indonesian tribes, with Wallisian, with Kanak languages, you can get nothing for speaking them. And that’s what cultural capital is. I have it. I have the capital that our culture gives value to. I know what you have to know to have success in our culture, whereas my mates down at the Salty River know more than I do (they speak their second language, French, far better than I do), but their mother tongue has no value in a capitalist system. So even though they know more things than I do, they don’t know the things you have to know to have success in a capitalist culture.

I’m not saying this to show that capitalism is evil, but just to show you how the system works, and even discriminates. All systems discriminate in some way, dependant on what cultural capital they value. Cultures give value to certain things, but they don’t give value to other things that are equally difficult to learn. And that’s why I argue it is far more complicated than to say that poor people are lazy and stupid.

In effect, you could even argue that the reason French has more value is because there are so many peoples who have put in the effort to learn French, whereas the French have been too lazy to learn Kanaky languages for example. Really, it’s us, English-speakers who are the laziest, because we put in virtually no effort to become bilingual, even when we arrive in a country to colonise it where there are always tribes that speak the land’s native tongues, like Australia. It’s us who are still too lazy to learn Aboriginal languages, which are the native tongues of Australia. Meanwhile, the majority of Aborigines have to become bilingual with English just to survive, forget about getting rich.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 04, 2005
Lots of intriguing questions here. I don't think anyone really believes that a meritocracy is strictly fair. After all, what about those people, who through no fault of their own, have no merit?

I have 'cultural capital' in spades. I am a native English speaker with a Master's degree living in South Korea earning good money (way over the Korean national average salary) for about 15 hours a week classroom teaching. I am a privileged white foreigner. I earn more than most of my Korean friends. I also know Africans, Bangladeshis and Filipinos (less privileged, non-white foreigners) here who work very long days, six - sometimes seven - days a week, for a fraction of my salary.

Do I feel lucky? Absolutely! Do I 'deserve' my higher salary and longer vacations? Well, the 'market' says, "yes", and I won't disagree . Because I have added to my initial 'cultural capital' by studying hard, working to support myself through college and then having the nerve to just jump on a plane and try a new life.

You could argue that those Africans, Bangladeshis and Filipinos have also shown the same initiative and dash and you would be right. Their 'reward' is to earn more than they could earn back home (otherwise they wouldn't be here), even if its less than what I earn.

Champas, you write that, "Every culture values certain skills and gives no value to certain other skills". True. And probably unfair. But if you really mean 'every culture' you can hardly attach any especial blame to capitalism. The street sweepers in Pyongyang probably don't eat as well as the politburo.

Anyway, I liked the article. Bourdieu sounds like an interesting thinker.

I agree. Your title was provocative and did provoke - and 'cultural capital' is an interesting notion. The problem is just that, in some parts of your article you suggest that 'capitalism' is the villain of the story, and yet elsewhere you acknowledge that it's all a bit more complicated than that...
on Aug 04, 2005
You say capitalism isn't a meritocracy simply because it always values certain skills above others. That makes NO sense. You can't have a 100% pure meritocracy, it is simply NOT possible. There are certain abilities that are inherently more valueble to a given society, that's just the way of it. Even in tribal culture this exists. The guy who can hunt really well is of more value to his tribe than a really good basket weaver. Both provide valuble services to the community but one of them provides a service that is more crucial to survival.

Also, a meritocracy is not solely based on what your natural abilities are. In the practical sense of the word, you are rewarded for how well you do in a role, a role that is needed by the surrounding culture. Reward also scales up with the value it provides to the community. Your natural talents may be that of a thief, you may be an OUTSTANDING thief, but that's NOT a skill needed by society generally. In a true meritocracy, like what you seem to advocate, the thief would be as well rewarded as the neurosurgeon if he was good enough at what he did, and that it would be fair and reasonable.

The world is not fair by a long shot, it was not designed to be fair, it was designed to reward some over others. The deer is excellent at surviving in the wild, so is the cougar, but nature places the cougar at the distinct advantage over the deer. Every system, natural or otherwise places some people at an advantage over others, it's the way of things. It's not racist or really discriminating, just a fact of life. I am where I am right now through a mixture of good fortune and hard work. Some are given a bad start and aren't able to climb out, some are able to climb out, we are all given a starting point to work from, it is then up to us to do what we can to improve (or worsen) our situation. If I move to Italy, is it a form of discrimination that I can't get a job because I don't speak Italian? No, because it's a minimum skill to enter that workforce, it's just a fact of life and it's not cutting people out unfairly.
on Aug 04, 2005
" cacto, exactly. The title is to get traffic. But as usual (as I intimated with my 100th article), the JU Right just wanna get upset about the title."


pfft. The next time I make an asinine point I can't back up, I guess I'll just fall back on the "That was just to get your attention" excuse. Not.

"I’m not saying this to show that capitalism is evil, but just to show you how the system works, and even discriminates."


The system doesn't discriminate; the people in question simply don't involve themselves in the system. If I put a want ad in the paper, I'm not discriminating because I don't publish it in Lithuanian. Non-English speaking Lithuanians are just choosing to limit themselves.

"No one understands my point" is the ejector seat of blogs, and it doesn't work. You don't make any point above that says Capitalism is any worse than Socialism or any other form of economy.
on Aug 05, 2005
The system doesn't discriminate; the people in question simply don't involve themselves in the system. If I put a want ad in the paper, I'm not discriminating because I don't publish it in Lithuanian. Non-English speaking Lithuanians are just choosing to limit themselves.


I love it! Bakerstreet, that was hilarious. When I see jokes like that I know you're not so indignant as you sometimes appear. Claiming that it's entirely their fault poor foreigners don't speak fluent English is one of the funniest things I've read all day. Thanks man!
on Aug 05, 2005
It's kind of like the old "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" thing.

"Capitalism is Racist" is neither about Capitalism, nor racism. I don't think there's a thing that can be said that would prove the above wouldn't have applied in the Soviet Union, or China, where languages are haphazardly brushed aside for "state" languages. I doubt it would have been different in, say, ancient Egypt, or ancient Greece.

So, since we aren't dealing with Capitalism, and we aren't dealing with racism, maybe we should accept the fact there really isn't a point. The point was just to piss people off and irrationally denounce capitalism for the umpteenth time...
on Aug 06, 2005
If it's not their fault, cacto, whose fault is it?


I don't think someone has to be at fault if a Lithuanian living in Lithuania can't speak fluent English. perhaps his/her English teacher, if there is one? If you're talking about the US, then I feel reasonably certain that Champas was not - in fact I believe the focus of his article was third-world, not first-world disadvantage.

Someone incapable of making use of English services in an English-speaking country is an entirely different thing to a Noumean who doesn't have any english services available at all. Surely you can see that?

Of course potentially Champas, an Australian recounting his experiences with disadvantage in a Pacific island nation, was speaking about US problems with immigration in a way far too cunning and obtuse for my simple mind. In that case I'm sure you're used to me appearing an idiot anyway, so I won't bother to beg your indulgence.

So following on with your undoubtably expert analysis of his article, I'll try to say something about US immigration.

But I still want to know whose fault it is that that poor Lithuanian immigrant cant read the local want ads. Certainly, he himself is blameless.


I can't imagine why he would be blameless. Perhaps some blame could be laid on the education system - for example I was at a local school here in Indonesia yesterday and there were 6th years who couldn't read - but there is certainly some blame to be laid on the dumb schmo for not trying harder in primary school.

As for lacking perfect English, or functional English, I do know that both of you are multilingual (littlewhip - German, right, and BakerStreet Spanish? I can't remember exactly), so I understand you have little trouble code-switching at will.

I still struggle though with Indonesian, and it's the region where I live and where, in the future, I intend to pursue a career. I imagine it's solely my pigheadedness and laziness that thwarts my attempts at a natural-seeming fluency. Unlike those poor lazy Lithuanians though, I had access to the finest Indonesian teachers in my home country.

They might have perhaps had access to some tapes, or maybe a friend of theirs spoke a few words. So when they arrive, without 8 years of language training, I have to say I am surprised at their fluency. After all, I'm learning one of the easiest languages in the world and I couldn't understand a word some people said when I arrived.

The Lithuanian arrives in an English-speaking country and starts looking for work. Sure, with a little more eagerness than actual fluency, but he gets out there and gives it a shot. I commend this hypothetical Lithuanian personally for his courage. But that's just me.
on Aug 06, 2005
Cactoblasta makes a rule, highlights it with 'duh', and we must all accept it.


Um, you can if you like. I just think there's more to being poor than being lazy. And I think that people aren't lacking in fluency just to spite you, although I suppose they could be.
on Aug 06, 2005
So, what's the point of this hack article again?


Champas can probably answer this better than me, but I think it was to illustrate an interesting theory on cultural capital put forth by Bourdieu. Is that enough of a point? It is political, after all, and I understand you disagree but I find the notion quite interesting. So it does deserve to be in the politics section. But sure, it's less overtly argumentative than the norm.
on Aug 06, 2005
Goodness, cacto, terrible isn't it: a less argumentative article that points out the flaws in capitalism while also acknowledging that these flaws are inherent to every system. No no, anyone who has a criticism of capitalism MUST be a lover of communism. However, cacto I'm afraid I disagree on one point. This article is in fact intended to apply worldwide, not just third-worldwide.

OK, so I'm deleting the irrelevant comments.

Chakgogka, an insightful to you. I certainly attribute no special blame to capitalism. As I said in the article, (though somehow BS and LW missed it):

"All systems discriminate in some way, dependant on what cultural capital they value. Cultures give value to certain things, but they don’t give value to other things that are equally difficult to learn."

I use capitalism as the example because I saw it at work in a capitalist society. But as Zoomba points out, the tribes of Kanaky also only value certain skills, and you need their cultural capital to succeed in their society.

"That makes NO sense. You can't have a 100% pure meritocracy, it is simply NOT possible. There are certain abilities that are inherently more valueble to a given society, that's just the way of it. "

Zoomba, I think this was my point actually. A lot of people on the Right carry on like capitalism is a pure meritocracy, as though the poor are the only ones to blame for their problems. That is a load of simplistic, childish hogwash. There is more to it, and I am simply saying that should be taken into account when we pass judgment on "the poor". I advocate no such system as you suggest. I do not advocate any system at all in this article. I am making an observation, as my blog's motto suggests: "reflects on Western culture".

As for your assertion that this is not discriminating, I must pull you up there. As cacto pointed out, I do not use the word racist at all in the article. This is quite deliberate. The definition of discrimate, as according to the OED:

"1. trans. To make or constitute a difference in or between; to distinguish, differentiate. "

You are then assuming an overly negative connotation to the word that I did not imply or intend.

No, BS, plenty of people understood my point, just not you or LW because you got stuck on the title. And with regards to that, LW is being extremely hypocritical to criticise me for using that tactic. Time and time again she has ended up in arguments where stupid Lefties have taken her to task for her title, and she's had to say "But I didn't say that...what's wrong with saying"..."
on Aug 06, 2005
BS, to clarify one last time the point for you...

In any culture or society (eg. capitalism) you need specific cultural capital to survive and succeed. The USA and Australia are not pure meritocracies as you would often have us believe. Nor is anywhere else. This should be taken into account when people make statements/judgments about people who are poor.

BTW, why do you insist on resorting to insults BS? Dr Guy is a perfect example of how it is possible to be Right wing and still stick to rational, informed, on-topic debate. Good work Doc.
on Aug 06, 2005
I see your point Champas, but I don't think this makes us racist, just lazy, or just looking at numbers, if a lot speak one tnogue and not a lot speak another in an ideal world we would learn both, but in reality that dosen't happen. Having said this I do agree that poor people are in the main "NOT" lazy or stupid, and many when given the chance go on to do well, however chances do tend to fall where the money is concentrated, more money better schools, better education. It's a sad fact of life that private schools generally produce higher grades, because the parents can afford to pay high school fees which coupled with their government funding affords them the opportunity to employ the cream of educators. Having said this I do not agree with the argument that these schools should get less or no funding, as amny argue, these people pay their taxs just like all of us do and are entitled to the same level of service. I do get annoyed when they get higher govt funding, funding should be based on bums on seats.
on Aug 06, 2005
I agree zergimmi.
on Aug 06, 2005
" BS, I will delete your comment because once again, you are off-topic."

Then your title is off topic, and several of the points you make in your article are off topic. Many would think if you wrote it in your article, it WAS the topic...

My reply wasn't off topic. You set the topic when you write the article. Don't change your mind later and pretend it means something else. I'm reposting my reply, and will continue to do so. Feel free to blacklist me and have it over with. If this is how you protect your points, you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. If you prevent me from answering your article and your insults to me here, I'll do so on my own blog.

"Like I said, this is one of those "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire" things. This isn't about racism, it isn't about Capitalism, and try as you might you don't really even shift any blame away from the poor.

In fact you use more elitist junk than your average Conservative. At the least we appreciate the potential of the poor, whereas you seem to believe they just don't have the 'tools' for child rearing.

Go on and delete this one, too, if you like. Between deletions and revising over and over again what your "point" is, I'm sure you'll eventually turn this into something you can stomach."
on Aug 06, 2005
Well, yes the title is off-topic I agree.

Your second par is relevant I admit. I apologise for the error of judgment. However, I am frustrated by your attempts to hijack my discussion for the usual Capitalism Vs Communism debate. This article is not saying "Capitalism is Worse than other systems". It is saying "Capitalism is Flawed, and so are all other systems".

on Aug 06, 2005
Dr Guy touched on the topic of the title, but for the most stuck to the topic of the article. LW's first comments do the same. I agree with her that it is not really racism, but it certainly is discrimination. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. Moderateman was brief but on-topic. JillUser was insightfully on-topic. She pointed out my title was inaccurate and then talked about the topic of the article. Lee also dealt with the topic of cultural capital and provided the best counter to the theory. Draginol got to the topic in his last line and I am grateful to him for featuring this article. Chakgogka, very much dealt with the topic and so did zergimmi. You really are the only one who refuses to move on beyond the title. I wouldn't expect any different from you as it is a repeat problem for you. Just don't expect me to indulge you by leaving your comments to hijack this discussion.
3 Pages1 2 3