Types of Capital Informing Class

Nevertheless, other distinctions such as cultural, social, political, economic, symbolic (Bourdieu 1986), ethnic (Cutler et al. 2005) or human capital can greatly alter one’s class position, solely construed based on wealth and income. Bourdieu’s theory on the

transformation, transposition and validation of different types of capitals (cultural, social, economic and in cases symbolic) and its interpretations by scholars are frequently used in migration related research. Bourdieu argued that social stratification resulted from uneven allocation of the different types of capital (Bourdieu 1986, Nowicka 2013). He employed the term capital ‘in a wider system of exchanges whereby assets of different kinds are

transformed and exchanged within complex networks or circuits within and across different fields’ (Grenfell 2008). The principle of convertibility of the capitals into one another is situated at the centre of his capital theory. The notion of capital is often conflated with other terms such as resources, assets, ties, bonds, networks, etc. However, as some academics pointed out, capital was not the mere synonym of these latter (e.g. Erel 2010). For instance, Anthias (2007) argued that [social] capital should be exclusively used to depict ‘mobilisable’ networks and resources, i.e. those, which are useful in gaining social advantage. This was in line with Bourdieu’s idea on the possibility of converting one type of capital into another,

while ‘resources’ remained merely the building blocks of capital and as such were not directly fungible. Bourdieu and Wacquant, however, accentuated that not only was the composition of the different types of capital in a person’s overall capital (Erel 2010) determinative, but to a great extent the person’s ‘position-taking’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 2007:99) i.e. the individual strategies in making use of their different types of capital, was also crucial. As I will use such types of capital in that part of my research that is related to the participants’ class position, I will describe Bourdieu’s capital theory in more detail below under the labels of the different forms of ‘Bourdieusian’ capital, i.e. economic, social, cultural and symbolic, together with ethnic and human capital that are similarly widely employed in the migration literature.

(i) Economic Capital

Economic capital is arguably the most unequivocal form of capital. It stands for financial resources, assets, rights (e.g. wages, property ownership) which can be ‘immediately and directly convertible into money’ (Bourdieu 1986: 243) as opposed to other types of capital. Economic capital, in Bourdieu’s understanding, is the driver of all forms of capital, since the attainment in social and cultural capital is highly informed by the availability and extent of economic capital. Although economic capital indeed is often overvalued in various social settings, Bourdieu aimed to keep a state of equilibrium by not according ‘determinate and determinant causal efficacy’ (Savage et al. 2005) to it to the detriment of other types of capital.

(ii) Social Capital

Social capital seems to be the most researched type of capital in the migration scholarship (e.g. Coleman 1988; Portes 1998; Putnam 2000; Anthias 2007). It is the ‘sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 119). As such it covers ‘contacts and group memberships which, through the accumulation of exchanges, obligations and shared identities, provide actual or potential support and access to valued resources’ (Bourdieu 1993: 143). This concept refers to a person’s capability to gain advantages by being part of a social group or structure such as networks, and by mobilising such networks (Portes 1998; Anthias 2007; Ryan et al. 2008, 2009). He further explained that a person’s social capital depended on many factors, ‘on the size of the network, of connections he can effectively mobilize, and on

the volume by each of those to whom he is connected’ (Bourdieu 1986: 249). Mutuality of relationships and recognition by the participants in such networks are core to the ability to operate them (Bourdieu and Wacquant 2007). The cited definition implies a complex and often ambivalent constitution of the notion. It presupposes a certain degree of embeddedness into various social structures from which, beside others, both positive (‘exchanges’) and negative (‘obligations’) increments can emanate. Portes (1998) highlighted the necessity to consider the ‘downsides’ of social capital, as well, when exploring the notion.

Other influential social scientists also attempted to capture the essence of the concept of social capital. Coleman and Putnam theorised along the lines of a Durkheimian structure- based approach. Their main concern with the notion, however, derived primarily not from the inequalities that emerged with the uneven use of social capital. They conceptualised its meaning in a community and solidarity-centred way, accentuating the primordial role of the family and community ties. Coleman (1988), for instance, believed that social capital offered by the community and family was paramount for the ‘creation of human capital’. He

emphasised the nature of social closure, the closed and entwined networks and relations operating on the basis of reciprocity and trust (Cederberg 2012). Similarly, Putnam (2000) also attributed great significance to social capital for an individual, however not so much for the creation of human capital but rather for one’s social accomplishment. He identified two forms of social capital, ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging ties’ which served as a tool for many researchers mapping migrant networks (e.g. Ryan et al. 2008). In his comprehension, ‘bonding ties are identificational and close knit solidary ties, whilst bridging ties are ties which are looser and more associational’. He argued that holding bridging ties was more rewarding, especially when ‘achieving’ in society, while bonding ties rather provided for subsisting. The boundaries of these two groups however remain fluid and are carved out by the specific contexts of use. By emphasising social structures, however, Coleman and Putnam failed to contextualise the concept in existing social hierarchies and remained insensitive to the power imbalances and heterogeneities within communities and families, especially to power relations linked to gender and class position (Anthias 2007), which was already present in Bourdieu’s approach. Moreover, the simplistic dichotomous structure of the ‘bonding/bridging ties’ failed to allow full investigation of the structural complexity of social capital (Bruegel, 2005; Raghuram et al., 2010), including the shifting spatialities and temporalities that migrants experience (Ryan et al. 2008). However, it still constitutes a useful tool to map social integration at the local level (Zetter et al. 2006). Interestingly, both Coleman and Putnam found that migration undermined social capital instead of enhancing it. They pointed out that the ties and bonds formed in the country of origin would mainly be

lost or too far away to be able to make use of them following migration. This idea could be convincing, especially before the arrival of globalised channels of communication and establishment of truly transnational ways of life. However, others did not view the loosening of social ties and bonds as a negative process, accentuating for instance the gradual decrease in familial or kin obligations, which in some cases were rather burdensome and potentially conflictual for female migrants and younger generations (Anthias et al. 2006).

Although Portes (1998) took a more temperate stance, he likewise argued for social capital as a structure. However, as already stated, he noted that social capital had a coercive nature as well. It could operate as a source of social control, besides being a support through for instance family or extra-familial networks. This idea was carried forward by Anthias (2007) when she identified two ways of mobilizing social resource based on the agency of the actor: (i) enhancing the position of advantage in the social hierarchical structure (‘positively advantaged social capital’), and (ii) mitigating disadvantages by establishing strategies to cope with new obstacles (‘negatively advantaged social capital’). It is worth noting that, similarly to economic capital, the social capital of a household member can be available to other household members as well, just as class position can also be understood in the frame of both the individual and the wider family (Kelly 2012). Thus, social capital may not only be linked to individual migrants but also to larger entities such as the household or kin (Raghuram 2006, 2008; Ryan et al. 2009; Nee and Sanders 2001). This argument is bolstered by empirical research that showed that migrants were likely to rely on networks established by family members or friends, already settled in the country of destination (Bevelander and Pendakur 2009).

(iii) Ethnic Capital

Although not articulated as such in Bourdieu’s works, the concept of ethnic ties as a form of social capital appeared in numerous pieces of research (e.g. Granovetter 1973, 1985; Aldrich and Waldinger 1990; Anthias 2007; Shah 2007; Cederberg 2012) either under this name or as part of social capital. Ethnic capital could be summarised as a ‘set of individual attributes, cultural norms, and group-specific institutions that contribute to an ethnic group’s economic productivity’ (Cutler et al. 2005: 206). One of the main premises of this strand of the

literature was that it assumed that culture was ethnically shaped. From this ensued that being a member of an ethnic community per se conferred some kind of social capital or at least social resources. This viewpoint was informed by the belief that ethnic communities were

clear-cut, homogeneous and enduring constructs. In reality, however, ethnic communities are far from being homogeneous (Anthias 2007; Yuval-Davis 2006); they are divided according to major social differences such as class, gender, age, dialect, etc. (Shah 2007; Erel 2010; Parameshwaran and Engzell 2014). Thus, Erel (2010) argued against the use of the concept as it defined culture as ‘ethnically bounded’ (p. 645) and the crosscutting markers of difference had thus been diminished. Its meaning is also under constant evolution, both temporally inter- and intra-generation and spatially (Fischer, 1986; Lutz, 1995; Erel, 2009). Recent work has drawn attention to the need to contextualise the notion within social hierarchies and social differences (Anthias 2007), and also to look beyond ethnic networks by recognising the relevance of wider social contexts (Raghuram et al. 2010; Cederberg 2012).

(iv) Cultural Capital

Cultural capital is another major type of capital in the Bourdieusian capital framework. He distinguished between three forms of cultural capital: embodied, objectified and

institutionalised cultural capital. The embodied cultural capital represents a person’s durable predispositions, tendencies, and deep-rooted habits. It is gained by being a member of a specific community/society and being exposed for a longer time to certain behavioural patterns, beliefs, norms which remain engrained and embodied in an individual, mainly unconsciously (e.g. through body language, behavioural choices, taste). Objectified cultural capital on the other hand, as its name suggests, stands for objectified, material pieces of culture (e.g. pieces of art in a museum, books). The notion of institutionalised capital, finally, is used mainly for cultural capital gained through formal education (e.g. educational qualifications, degrees, language knowledge), although informal education also conveys a significant bulk of cultural capital but is acquired in less institutionalised social arenas such as the family or peer group. A common feature of all types of cultural capital is that it takes a longer time and considerable effort, learning and exposure to acquire them (Bourdieu

2006:107). This is in contrast with, for instance, economic capital, which in general can be gained over a much shorter time span (e.g. sale of a flat, income from a well-paying job). The role of cultural capital in migration studies is somewhat under-researched as opposed to that of social capital. Some research emphasizes the more or less successful transferability of cultural capital acquired in the country of origin to the new environment of the host country. Zhou (2005:134) for instance noted that ‘different ethnic groups possess identifiable

and transplanted with minor modifications by immigrants in the new land and there transmitted and perpetuated from generation to generation’. This approach, which assumed existence of an easily deployed homogenous cultural capital, has since been challenged, the more so as cultural capital is embedded and operates differently in specific contexts which can hinder its simple transportation from one social system to another (Erel 2010).

Moreover, the skills, knowledge, experience, which were acquired in the home country, may not be appropriate and applicable in the host country (Nagel 2005). Erel (2010) critiqued the simplistic and unrealistic ‘rucksack approach’ (p. 642), which treated cultural capital as a package acquired in the home country and later unwrapped as if from a rucksack and deployed in an ‘as is’ condition in the host country. In the long process of migration, migrants create a specific ‘migration-specific’ cultural capital (p. 642) which cannot be equated with the cultural capital brought over in their ‘rucksack’, but which forms the bulk of their cultural capital allowing them to navigate their life in the host country. Migrants acquire a certain savoir-faire, a route to manage their life (Scott 2000), which could also be viewed as a distinct type of cultural capital.

(v) Human Capital

With the diversification of the entry routes of female migration and thus the shifting weight from family migration to other forms of migration, e.g. labour and study migration,

Bourdieu’s concept of capital is gaining a foothold in the management and human resources literature, as well. This latter focuses on expatriation/international assignment of migrants (Al Ariss and Syed 2011, Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer, 2011; Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005 as referred in Al Ariss and Syed 2011). In this set of literature, the term ‘human capital’ is more frequently used than cultural capital. Although the two terms have many aspects in common, based on the general understanding of the research corpus (Schultz 1971; Becker 1993; Chiswick 2005), human capital has been used to describe qualifications, directly work- related qualities and resources that can be used to negotiate career benefits. These mainly include institutionalised cultural capital in the form of academic qualifications and language knowledge, and to a certain extent embodied cultural capital to the extent it can be valorised in the labour market. Nee and Sanders (2001) noted that human capital was a more precise concept than cultural capital, which might have accounted for its wider use despite its narrower coverage. Nevertheless, they also agreed that the concept ‘missed important dimensions of cultural competence’.

capital is determined by its context. Its transferability is ‘imperfect’ (Friedberg 2000) and depends on both the social structures of the host country and the migrants’ agency (Chiswick et al. 2005). Some hail human capital as the elixir to smooth entry in the labour market of the destination country (in line with skill-based immigration policies of major migrant

destination countries of the global North). For instance, Chiswick (1979) argued that it was easier to find work in a host country where one’s human capital had a high value, including good knowledge of the host country language. Although his argument seemed plausible, he did not take into account certain other, typically structural causes impeding smooth labour market integration. His views were critiqued as slightly simplistic, for instance, by Csedo (2008) who posited that language knowledge did not necessarily led to better jobs or to better quality living conditions, but the lack of language knowledge definitely hampered communication and validation of one’s skills in the host society.

Opinions are divided as to elements of human capital that lead to better labour market integration. Some believed that skills which can be used internationally were more easily transferable than country-specific skills (Chapman and Iredale 1993). Others looked at general skills (obtained through formal training) and specific skills (acquired through practical, labour market training) and found that although specific skills could be important, general skills remained more easily transposable across the borders (Chiswick et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the time and country of acquisition of educational qualifications remain very important. Studying labour market incorporation of immigrants in Israel, Friedberg (2000) found that education acquired after immigration in general led to a higher return on the host country labour market, as opposed to education solely acquired abroad. She posited that the origin of a qualification and labour market experience in the host country was decisive in determining a person’s labour market value and thus labour market ‘assimilation’. She argued that although human capital could not be perfectly transferred across borders, the acquisition of a qualification in the host country to a certain extent enabled migrants to transform the skills acquired in their countries of origin into useful skills on the host country’s labour market. Alongside this line of thought, however, Purkhayastha (2005) highlighted that the recognition of foreign qualifications was not only based on the

geographical location of their acquisition but was highly contingent on the current needs of a specific host country labour market, i.e. on immigration regulations of the host countries, as is highlighted elsewhere in this chapter (literature review). This can lead to over-valuation of qualifications obtained in specific areas such as medicine, science, ICT to the detriment of other qualifications, for instance doctoral degrees in the social sciences. Similarly, the prestige of the organisation operating on the labour market also impacted on the

transferability of the home credentials, in a sense that more prestigious organisations may not accept foreign qualifications but only native ones (Kofman et al. 2000; Woo 2000).

(vi) Symbolic Capital

Finally, there exists a type of capital, symbolic capital, which is not widely used in the migration literature. Under this term, Bourdieu referred to authority and power gained through or emanating from acquisition and even more, aggregation of any of the other types of capital. Symbolic capital acts therefore as a type of meta-capital, as it is necessary for the legitimation or positive assessment of specific types of capital in order to convey power from them (Al Ariss and Syed 2011).