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 embedded in every corner and aspect of modern life. Time dedicated to non-monetisable activities or individuals from whom we don’t extract tangible benefits doesn’t seem well-spent. Have we forgotten 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 even quantify the “assets” close friends provide us with. We hear about “investing in people” as if we were interchangeable objects, valued only according to immediate needs. “Why would I keep spending time with you if you’re moving abroad??” – I once heard someone say. Isn’t it enough that two like-minded citizens of planet Earth happened to exist in the same place at the same 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 “return” on the energy it takes to build and maintain such connections translates into solidarity, access to information, trust, and status, among other things. 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: real, disinterested connections. 

Where do you think our obsession with viewing human connection in economic terms comes from? Is individualism making us misunderstand the very basics of our species because we are using the wrong vocabulary? 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)