(Preface: I don't really understand how the sociological idea of 'cultural capital' relates to the Marxian idea of 'capital', so this is a bit of a thought experiment to see what happens when you try and apply the logic of the latter to the former. I reckon it works quite well and explains a lot of stuff. I might be talking absolute shite though).
I get what ‘Cultural Capital’ is, but not why it’s called ‘capital’ in the Marxian sense. How do the dynamics of capital accumulation work?
Some of it’s obvious - the tastes and dispositions learned by our upbringing are a form of capital accumulation by inheritance
However, where does this capital originate from?
Economic capital, in Marxian terms, is the extraction of surplus value from labour.
Does this dynamic apply to Cultural capital too?
Thinking about it, I reckon it does.
Look at how Western art music (and I suspect art in general but I’m no expert) pre-modernism (or possibly pre-romance actually) was essentially works produced for hire for those who already possessed economic capital
The western ‘canon’ is essentially made up of these - works that were produced and gained acceptance in the canon by the extraction of surplus value from the work of composers and musicians
In this case, cultural capital is economic capital in some sense - the cultural capital in knowledge and appreciation of the canon arises from the very same relations between Labour and Capital as economic capital.
Does this pattern continue in the 20th century? It’s perhaps a bit less obvious. There’s no longer an identifiable ‘art music’ canon as such, but the history of recorded music (as a commercial industry) is also the history of the extraction of surplus value created by musicians by recording and music publishing companies, since this is pretty much their reason to exist.
However I think here it becomes obvious that there’s not just surplus labour power being extracted, but a cultural surplus too - the co-option of black folk styles of music by a predominantly white record industry is clearly the extraction of some commonly held store of value that goes beyond the surplus labour value in an individual composition or recording - and the dynamics are the same. There’s a store of cultural value which is extracted and put to work as capital. following the same dynamics.
This is where things get interesting. I’ve concentrated on music so far, but let’s think about cities. The social dynamics of gentrification are well understood. Area is cheap: artists and minority communities move there, it gains a reputation for ‘vibrancy’, developers move in, capitalise on this, push up prices, artists and minority communities move on.
What is this, if not the logic of the extraction of surplus value applied to cultural capital?
Artists and minority groups create the ‘vibrancy’ of an area which is then extracted by developers. There’s an extraction of an economic surplus here without a doubt, but there’s also cultural value being extracted. Once the capitalist class move in to gentrify an area, they don’t just take ownership of the material value, but of the cultural value. Look at literally any building site hoarding around a new development. Look at any middle class dad with an extensive record collection talking to his children about music. Look at ‘community’ arts projects which privilege ‘entrepreneurship’ over community and the enjoyment of cultural production in and of itself.
All of this is an example of not just a material surplus being extracted, but a cultural one too. It’s taken from the creators and passed from generation to generation of the privileged few.