Discussion 7:

Bourdieu describes capital as "accumulated labor" during the introduction of "The Forms of
Capital". Later he divides capital into three types, economic, social and cultural. Economic
capital are things in society that are "immediately and directly convertible to money," (Bourdieu,
82). This is said to be the most recognizable form of capital and most used definition by todays
standards. He refers to this type of capital as "disinterested" and very transactional. It is referred
to when dealing with profits and implemented into society through things like property rights,
(Bourdieu, 82).
On page 82 Bourdieu provides a brief definition of cultural capital, convertible...into economic
capital...Cultural capital can exist in three forms: embodied state...objectified state...and in the
institutionalized state. Embodied state refers to self-improvement or working on oneself
which can be either positive, like a head start, or negative like wasted time. Objectified state
is cultural capital that can be materialized like paintings and transmissible like legal ownership.
Bourdieu goes on to say that this means that cultural goods can be appropriated both
materially...and symbolically, (Bourdieu, 85). The last state of cultural capital, institutionalized
state, has to do with autonomy and qualifications like educational level.
The last form of capital Bourdieu explains is social, which he states is, the aggregate of the
actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships, (Bourdieu, 86). Meaning that social capital has to do with who
someone knows or their status and how that can benefit them. It is described on page 86 as, a
credential which entitles them to credit.
Bourdieu claims the function of capital in society is to gain access to certain things. Whether that
be through economic capital and monetary value or social capital and the ability to access
something. I wonder if these are the only types of capital as well as if everyone else agrees that
this what Bourdieu meant or if it is completely different. I also wonder if there are better ways to
explain and apply it today.
Discussion 11:
"Fund of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and
Classrooms" written by Luis C. Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma Gonzalez
describe funds of knowledge as, "historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being, (133).
The authors describe two different types of relationships that provide funds of knowledge,
single stranded or thin and multi-stranded or thick. The thin relationships are usually
teacher-student, the student learning from the person in one particular area and context; whereas,
the thick relationships refer to a student having multiple relationships to the person they learn
from, like a family member.
As I toured my apartment I noticed there are a wealth of books under my desk. This represents
cultural and traditional knowledge. My western culture has provided a funds of knowledge for
particular subjects like business and economics. On a more cultural level however, my culture

has created a fund of knowledge based on the need to acquire these types of skills for my well
being not just about the skills themselves. The theory suggests that intelligence is different than
the western idea of it we have talked about during class discussions. Intelligence can be cultural
and based on skills rather than traditional classroom knowledge. This theory applies cultural
needs to an idea of different sources of knowledge that accumulate to a persons well-being
rather than a comparison between people, as tests and classrooms sometimes do. The reading
made me wonder if all things could be examples of funds of knowledge and be related back to a
particular culture, like bedding, backpacks, etc.
Discussion 15:
The practices described in To Be Part of the Story by Elizabeth B. Moje focus on villainized
and marginalized youth in Salt Lake City, Utah. She observed students for 3 years and their
lives inside and sometimes outside of school as they learned. Moje noted that the practices,
specifically their literacy practices, were meaningful in providing them their own story. By this
she means that these youths didnt have a pre-carved out place in the society with which they
existed and through gang affiliation and practices associated with gang life they found that place.
Much of what they practice is dependent on the context with which it occurs, because only in
that context does it make full sense and become meaningful. In the context of their lives,
explained through their knowledge their practices are highly inventive and intelligent. These
practices are learned and passed on through the communities they exist from older generations to
younger ones, an example in the text is a youth learning about being jumped in from her two
older sisters who had been jumped in prior, (Moje, 673). These functions serve to make these
youths feel they have a voice in a world that sees them negatively. It gives them a place to belong
and to expand a type of cultural knowledge that provides capital beneficial to the social life of
where they live. This reading made me wonder if it will be possible to view gang affiliated youth
in this context when violence does occur. Is it possible to disassociate the violence in real life
scenarios, like the suggestion Moje makes at the end of the text, from the value with which their
literacy practices have?