In The Forms of Capital, Pierre Bourdieu develops concepts about economic, cultural, and social capital. From class notes, it is apparent that Bourdieu believes cultural and social capital can be converted into economic capital. These ideas along with Bourdieu thoughts on classes and classification help to show how some products can have more inherent value than similar counterparts. Products have cultural capital that can be seen in the objectified state because products can be transferred by legal ownership (p. 246). Cultural capital in the embodied state allows you have the knowledge to purchase products that have social value. This can be seen in products that seem to inherently convey a class status or a lifestyle. Certain products have social capital in the sense that even though a person might not actually belong to a group, if they use the same products that convey success or wealth they can feel like they belong to a group or represent themselves as belonging to a group (p. 250). When these concepts are considered along with Bourdieu’s notions that goods are converted into distinctive signs, which can be signs of distinction projected through practices and properties of social reality, it is evident why similar products can have different inherent value even if they accomplish the same purpose (p. 483). Regarding classes, Bourdieu states, “A class is defined as much by its being-perceived as by its being, by its consumption—which need not be conspicuous in order to be symbolic—as much as by its position in the relations of production” (p.483).
An example of how material goods symbolically represent the socio-economic condition can be seen by examining products produced for J.Crew. In the past several years, J.Crew has collaborated with other companies to produce products specifically for J.Crew. For instance, Converse, New Balance, Nike, Vans, Timex, and Dickies all produce products sold only at J.Crew. The shoe companies produce vintage shoe styles with colors specifically made for J.Crew while Timex produces special watches for J.Crew and Dickies collaborates with J.Crew to provide a variation of work wear pants. A quick comparison of the websites of these individual companies and J.Crew’s website shows drastic differences in prices. Regular shoes by Vans or Converse are about $15 dollars cheaper when not purchased through J.Crew. Similar Timex watches not made for J.Crew are approximately $100 less and Dickies work wear pants retail for about $60 less than the variants sold at J.Crew.
When reviewing the products, there is very little to distinguish products made for the original manufacturer or the products made for J.Crew. For instance, the shoes made for J.Crew only have slight variations on color that would distinguish them as uniquely J.Crew. These differences might be more noticeable than the subtle differences in Timex watches and Dickies pants. The Timex watches are almost indistinguishable unless closely examined and the Dickies pants made for J.Crew are slightly softer meaning they have a broken-in feel instead of feeling completely brand new. Bourdieu would argue that the products made for J.Crew have cultural and social capital that justifies the price differences. Although the products are practically identical and can be used to fulfill the same purpose, the products made for J.Crew have an inherent value that similar products sold at mass retail stores do not offer the consumer. Whether others can recognize that the products made for J.Crew are unique is irrelevant because the consumer values the differences in the products and that adds value of the product. Even if identical products were sold by the manufacturer, the fact that the consumer acknowledges that products sold by J.Crew increases the value. It is good when others can recognize the difference, but unnecessary because the distinction is made by the consumers’ tastes and preferences which can differentiate consumers by social class. The slightly different products made for J.Crew now have added capital which translates into more economic capital.
An example of how material goods symbolically represent the socio-economic condition can be seen by examining products produced for J.Crew. In the past several years, J.Crew has collaborated with other companies to produce products specifically for J.Crew. For instance, Converse, New Balance, Nike, Vans, Timex, and Dickies all produce products sold only at J.Crew. The shoe companies produce vintage shoe styles with colors specifically made for J.Crew while Timex produces special watches for J.Crew and Dickies collaborates with J.Crew to provide a variation of work wear pants. A quick comparison of the websites of these individual companies and J.Crew’s website shows drastic differences in prices. Regular shoes by Vans or Converse are about $15 dollars cheaper when not purchased through J.Crew. Similar Timex watches not made for J.Crew are approximately $100 less and Dickies work wear pants retail for about $60 less than the variants sold at J.Crew.
When reviewing the products, there is very little to distinguish products made for the original manufacturer or the products made for J.Crew. For instance, the shoes made for J.Crew only have slight variations on color that would distinguish them as uniquely J.Crew. These differences might be more noticeable than the subtle differences in Timex watches and Dickies pants. The Timex watches are almost indistinguishable unless closely examined and the Dickies pants made for J.Crew are slightly softer meaning they have a broken-in feel instead of feeling completely brand new. Bourdieu would argue that the products made for J.Crew have cultural and social capital that justifies the price differences. Although the products are practically identical and can be used to fulfill the same purpose, the products made for J.Crew have an inherent value that similar products sold at mass retail stores do not offer the consumer. Whether others can recognize that the products made for J.Crew are unique is irrelevant because the consumer values the differences in the products and that adds value of the product. Even if identical products were sold by the manufacturer, the fact that the consumer acknowledges that products sold by J.Crew increases the value. It is good when others can recognize the difference, but unnecessary because the distinction is made by the consumers’ tastes and preferences which can differentiate consumers by social class. The slightly different products made for J.Crew now have added capital which translates into more economic capital.