The value of that which will not make you money: a dive into Bourdieu

As I go about my day, I often realise how economic capital seems to be impregnated in every corner and aspect of modern life. Time dedicated to non-monetizable activities or individuals from whom we don’t extract tangible benefits doesn’t seem well-spent. Have we forgotten about our essence?

“In social networks, the function of “friends” is primarily to heighten narcissism by granting attention, as consumers, to the ego exhibited as a commodity.”

The philosopher Byung-Chul Han writes in his book, The Burnout Society.

In the past few months, it has horrified me to see how we quantify the assets even close friends provide us with. We hear about investing in people as if we were interchangeable objects you can count on according to your immediate needs. “Why would I keep spending time with you if you’re moving abroad??” – once I witnessed. Isn’t it good enough the fact that two like-minded citizens of planet Earth coincided in existence at the exact same place and moment in time? 

Pierre Bourdieu’s work has caught my attention recently and keeps me wondering why his knowledge isn’t more present in our vocabulary. I have found profound relief in his words, which I believe are key when rethinking interpersonal relationships. The French sociologist mentions that to comprehend the structure and functioning of society, we need to look at capital (understood as accumulated labour) in all of its forms. Economic capital is the self-interested form, oriented to profit-seeking. While two immaterial forms are born out of disinterest: social and cultural capital. 

Social capital is a concept that refers to the resources we can access because we belong to a group characterised by long-lasting relationships. The profit of the energy it takes to build and maintain such solid connections translates as solidarity, access to information, trust and status, among others. Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, symbolic or material, a person accumulates. One can own machines, but in order to use them correctly, cultural capital is needed.

(And yes, before you call me an idealist, cultural and social capital can also be converted into economic capital.)

Speaking of human connections in economic terms seems like reducing very fundamental values, relevant to one’s well-being and nature, to mere practicality. I have found beauty in Bourdieu’s work, learning that such distinction helps to understand the essence of what to seek in life. The simplest things can be the most beautiful ones: real, disinterested connections. 

Where do you think the interest in looking at connections in economic terms relies on? Is individualism making us misunderstand the very basics of our species because we are using the wrong terminology? In my opinion, language really matters.

Share your thoughts!

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258)