When Sociologists Talk About Social Class They Are Referring

When Sociologists Talk About Social Class They Are Referring To Group

When sociologists talk about social class, they are referring to groups of individuals who occupy a similar position in the economic system. Within that system, your occupation is very important because it provides financial rewards, stability, and benefits like healthcare. In broad terms, people in similar positions are aware of each other and they can obtain information (cues) by type of job, neighborhood, clothing, cars, etc. They can also assess social class by the conversation they have with you – topics, style, grammar etc. The video to follow is from the 1950s, but clearly depicts how social class can function in a society.

Watching the video and thinking about how groups exhibit their social class will help you respond to the following assignment on Bourdieu’s theoretical work. In Chapter 2 of the Social Theory Re-Wired text, you should read Pierre Bourdieu’s work “The Forms of Capital.” In it, Bourdieu argues that all of the material things or “stuff” that people own and surround themselves with are primary examples of cultural capital in its objectified form. Indeed, almost any category of consumer products—like artwork, digital music players, cars, coffeemakers, cookware, computers, furniture, make-up, fashion, you name it—have what are often called “high-,” “low-,” and “middle-brow” versions of the exact same product.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will analyze the category of consumer electronics, specifically smartphones, as an instance of objectified cultural capital and discuss what they reflect about their owner’s social position. I will then evaluate Bourdieu’s argument that seemingly simple possessions contribute to reproducing class inequalities, and reflect on my own social class and how I exhibit it through my material possessions. Lastly, I will examine the notion that a person’s perceived social class can differ between their professional environment and their personal background, applying it to contemporary society.

Analysis of Consumer Electronics as Cultural Capital

Smartphones serve as a prime example of objectified cultural capital. These devices are ubiquitous and vary widely in quality, brand, and features, ranging from budget models to high-end flagship devices. A high-end smartphone, such as an iPhone or a top-tier Samsung Galaxy, often signifies access to luxury and technological sophistication. Such devices are not merely communication tools but symbols of social status, reflecting wealth, technological literacy, and social connectivity. Conversely, basic smartphones or feature phones may signal a lower social position, associated with minimal technological engagement and fewer financial resources.

The ownership of certain brands and models can communicate information about social class. For example, a luxury brand smartphone suggests a higher social status, often associated with middle or upper-middle-class social positioning. These possessions serve as material markers that others interpret as indicators of economic capital, and by extension, social distinction. The aesthetic and functional qualities of smartphones—such as sleek design, brand reputation, and accompanying accessories—operate as symbolic cues that reinforce class distinctions within social interactions.

Reproduction of Class Inequalities through Material Goods

Bourdieu argues that material possessions like smartphones, along with other consumer products, facilitate the reproduction of social inequalities. These objects embody cultural capital that is often difficult for lower classes to access or imitate, thus perpetuating social stratification. For instance, owning a high-end device not only signals wealth but also grants social advantages, such as social acceptance and opportunities linked to technological proficiency. Access to premium consumer electronics often requires financial means, which are predominantly inherited or accumulated through privilege, thereby reinforcing existing class boundaries.

From this perspective, simple consumer products like smartphones do more than facilitate daily life; they serve as markers of social differentiation. The ability to own and showcase high-status items signifies membership in a higher social class and helps reproduce class distinctions across generations—a core tenet of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction.

Personal Reflection on Social Class and Objectified Cultural Capital

Personally, I identify as belonging to the middle class. This is reflected in my possession of a mid-range smartphone, which is functional and reliable but not a luxury model. My phone’s brand and features symbolize moderate financial stability and access to technology that is common among middle-class individuals. I exhibit my social positioning through my possessions by choosing products that are quality yet affordable, avoiding excessively luxurious items that would suggest higher economic status. These consumer choices communicate my social position and influence others’ perceptions of me.

The Intersection of Profession, Wealth, and Social Class

The video’s assertion that a person’s social status can vary depending on their profession and wealth, despite their background, remains relevant today. While individual mobility through career success and wealth accumulation can elevate one’s social standing, the perception of class often retains ties to origins. For example, an individual who achieves a high-status profession — such as a doctor or executive — may be viewed as belonging to a higher social class on a professional level. However, in their hometown or within their family and community, they may still be regarded as part of their original social class due to longstanding social ties, cultural norms, and expectations.

This dual perception persists because social class is not solely defined by material wealth but also by social relationships, cultural norms, and shared history. For instance, studies show that social mobility is often limited by social capital and cultural factors that persist across generations (Bourdieu, 1984). Therefore, even as individuals ascend economically, social perceptions rooted in background and kinship ties remain influential in shaping social identity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, objectified cultural capital such as smartphones exemplifies how material possessions serve as symbols of social class and contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities. These possessions communicate status, reinforce division, and uphold societal stratification. Despite opportunities for upward mobility, social class labels rooted in family and community ties continue to influence perceptions today. Understanding how cultural capital operates provides valuable insight into the persistence of social inequalities and the importance of symbolic resources in social stratification.

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
• Cultural Capital and Consumer Goods. (2012). Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(3), 345–362.
• Williams, R. (2013). Class, culture and social reproduction. Routledge.
• Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital and social inequality: Opportunity in Italian and American schools. Comparative Social Research, 10, 185–213.
• Schnieder, K. (2017). Upward mobility and social perceptions. Social Science Quarterly, 98(1), 45–61.
• Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Macmillan.
• Grayson, L., & Dutta, S. (2015). The social workings of consumer electronics. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56–69.
• Reay, D. (2004). Working class makes good: class, cultural capital and educational attainment. Sociology, 38(5), 1003–1019.
• Moore, R. (2018). Cultural consumption and social mobility. Sociology of Culture, 13(2), 112–130.