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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 06, 2005
"You really are the only one who refuses to move on beyond the title."


On the contrary, I have dealt with your article a number of times. I think you are dwelling on my statements about the title because you don't want to address the fact that your own view in this case is grossly "culturally supremacist".

If your point is "It isn't always the poor's fault", I suggest you make a second attempt. Capitalism, and Conservatism, for that matter, esteem greatly the ability of the poor to advance themselves. "Rags to Riches" is the battle flag of Capitalism. You know that as well as anyone, but you would pretend that we somehow discount the poor as being unable to succeed.

By demeaning their skills as parents, denying that they even have the tools for the process, you actually lay more blame on them than even Capitalists do. You oppose the label of 'laziness' which is voluntary and something you can rise above, and instead make them lesser people. You are the one that imposes the idea that they are without the ability.

Oddly, I see your point as much more 'culturally supremacist' than calling someone lazy.

"No, BS, plenty of people understood my point, just not you or LW because you got stuck on the title."


By 'plenty', I assume you mean cactoblasta, since everyone else has addressed your use of the words 'racism' and 'capitalism'...


" 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."


Don't expect me to cease posting unless you amend the topic or blacklist me. As I said, you set the tone, and you set the topic.
on Aug 06, 2005
Full credit to BS, you got on-topic at last. And quite well might I add.

You may fly the flag of Rags to Riches, but it doesn't stop you from contradicting that rhetoric at other times or from ignoring that it is not as simple as Rags to Riches. Rags to Riches stories are lovely. But for those who do not have such stories, there is more to it than just their laziness. Certainly laziness may be an element in certain instances. I really don't get where you bring in the bit about parenting skills. I think these people were parented brilliantly. I may not value the same things in parenting as you do, I'm not sure if that's where it comes from.

Anyway to address the main thrust of your point. I'm not saying they don't have the tools for success. I'm saying that assuming that success in any system is an objective standard is simplistic. These people have many skills. The acquisition of some of these skills, like bilingualism, involve hard work, dedication and intelligence. But this has not got them anywhere financially (although it has gained them something much more important: purpose).

I'm saying that not all the tools they have are valued. They speak French, which is important to their culture. They work hard at the nickel mine, which is supposedly going to get them somewhere. But they work for nary a dime. That sort of hard work isn't valued all that highly. These people are not lazy. They are not stupid, yet they are poor. I have already written that I don't think that that is a huge problem, but it does highlight a flaw in the meritocracy rhetoric. It doesn't mean you have to change the system from capitalism to something else.
on Aug 07, 2005
" Full credit to BS, you got on-topic at last. And quite well might I add."


No, I addressed the exact same thing in my first post. You just fixated on the word "socialist" and ignored the point. You could have easily agreed with my first post, since I was saying what you CLAIM you were saying all along, that all systems are flawed. Personally I think the "topic" shifted sometime after my first post.

I refuse to see this as on-topic, anyway, since you so definitively set the topic as "Capitalism is Racist".


". I really don't get where you bring in the bit about parenting skills. I think these people were parented brilliantly. I may not value the same things in parenting as you do, I'm not sure if that's where it comes from."


Cultural capital begins at home, according to the "point" of the article, and the theory in question. Kids don't go to school bereft of culture. If they are culturally handicapped, they are so before they get to school, according the the definition of 'handicapped' we see here. The deficit you are alluding to is well cemented by the time kids get into school.

". But they work for nary a dime. That sort of hard work isn't valued all that highly. These people are not lazy. They are not stupid, yet they are poor."


I doubt there are many places in the world where mothers look at their kids and say "Go work in the nickel mines, work hard, and you'll be rich someday". It could happen, I suppose, but that relies more on luck.

I say 'rich' because that, or at least middle class, is your threshold of tolerance. I had family that worked in coal mines in the same way, and they didn't have much more than they needed, but they would have never called themselves poor. They were certainly not lacking in "cultural capital".

If you raise the standard of living up to a minimum middle class for everyone, you won't defeat poverty. You'll still have a 'bottom 10%', as evidenced by the sad definition of the word 'poor' in the united states. Then, we'll be sitting here bemoaning the plight of those who can't afford ivy league schools for their kids.

Laziness isn't the only reason for poverty, no, but it is almost always based upon the choices of the individual. People don't go work in nickel mines to get wealthy. People can look at other people who work in the same mine and see what it brings. If they choose to do so, I have to assume they are in the process of finding better, or they don't want better.

Too many people have found their way out of such situations to believe that such situations are inescapable...
3 Pages1 2 3