Chapter 5: Discussion
I. The Same Social Class but a Different Age: A Redefinition of the Forms of Capital
1. Cultural Capital
There are quite a few disparities between the cultural capital described by Bourdieu and the descriptions of teachers of the new generation in the interviews. We can talk about the disappearance of the “cultural goodwill” that Bourdieu refers to. There is very little in terms of responses by means of “cultural” activities that seem to want to “imitate” the upper class. Museum visits are only very rarely mentioned. As These young teachers do not listen to classical music at all.
However, Bourdieu observed this cultural aspect of the upper classes in France during the second half of the twentieth century. This is not at all the same as it is in the twenty-first century. Today, the global context of massification that goes with the globalization of society has had a very strong impact on the social classes. The impact appears more complex and more uncertain than is suggested by the traditional critical approach. This process of massification has two main dimensions. One is the massification of school, the other, the massification of production and cultural consumption (Coulangeon, 2004).
Indeed, the massification of school is seen especially through the great difference of in the level of the diploma required by teachers in Bourdieu’s time and those of today.
For Bourdieu, the social position of individuals depends on school diplomas.
Consequently, members of the dominant classes (the big bosses) or middle classes (e.g.
artisans, traders) who have substantial economic capital must invest in schools. This way their children will maintain their social position. This is a process of “capital conversion”
that would preclude their downgrading (In the study: How to report on social mobility?
Capital culture”, 2016). However, we realize that today even “just” elementary school teachers have completed five years of studying after high school. It is worth a high level of study. The level of study does not seem to much determine the social class to which one belongs today. Except perhaps (in the case of France), for the prestigious universities which have considerable fees per year. The value of the diploma is no longer the same as
it was at the time of Bourdieu. Today it is not valued as much, and it is not always a means of social climbing.
The desire for social ascent is only minimally present. There has been a certain evolution of the inherited capital (see inherited capital) and the new capital they have built.
2. Economic Capital
Economic capital does not seem to experience much evolution. The goods the teachers obtain from their professions are still not substantial, though most of them have a car.
Yet, although there is no distinction between men and women here, we notice more of a distinction between those more or less advanced in age and, hence, in terms of the number of years they have spent in the profession. This allows the only man interviewed, for example, to own property since he is older than three others, while others only own a car. We must therefore qualify the remarks in this study, which focuses only on young teachers just as they begin their careers. Thus, it is a little more difficult to compare it with Bourdieu’s analysis of economic capital.
As for salaries, because of the generation gap, we have gone from the franc to the euro, so wages seem to show a considerable gap. Yet, if we put each salary in its context, in both cases, they are considered to have low economic capital and thus low income. At the time that Bourdieu wrote, primary school teachers still earned more than the French average since household income in the 1970s was about the equivalent of 1,470 euros per month (about 50 000 Taiwan dollars). This is why, at the time of Bourdieu, primary school teachers felt more recognized in society. Outside of today, the salary does not change much.
However, it is important to note that even if the salaries do not seem to have changed, the grade level has (see cultural capital). Thus, one should have expected a salary increase as a result; however, this has remained the same and does not evolve. This is why, in a certain way, all the teachers are dissatisfied with their current salaries. This can also explain non-recognition in society. Previously, work as an elementary school teacher was seen as providing the correct and, above all, stable salary. Obviously, today, national education is still perceived as a stable profession; however, the teachers’ income is no longer equal to their cultural capital. There is a tremendous gap between economic and cultural capital.
In this sense, it corresponds with Bourdieu’s theory. And maybe this is why there is some unease on the part of the teachers? They do not feel that they are in the right place in an economic sense. However, unlike with Bourdieu, they do not seem to feel that they are in the wrong box from the cultural point of view.
3. Social Capital
As I explain in the results, the teachers have many friends. However, they do not consider choosing the kind of friends they have. They do not need more “cultivate” friends, as Bourdieu demonstrates. This may be because they feel at home in popular culture, the culture of the majority of the population in France. In the academic world, it seems that
“relationships” count, if only in the minimal form of peer knowledge. This is the case for some of them; however, they do not think this is because they need relationships but because they are surrounded by them.
The social work connection is difficult to avoid, so it seems normal to have friends from same profession. They do have friends from different backgrounds and no one mentions “poor” friends. Most of them have friends from the middle or upper class. They think it is easier to make friends with such people. As the study of Kraus, Côté, and Keltner (2010) reminds us, people tend to interact almost exclusively with people who share common characteristics in terms of education, income, and occupation.
Politically, the status of teachers makes some of them continue to support the left, as was the case in Bourdieu’s time, but they remain very few. Yet, the leftist political party of Bourdieu’s time and today’s left are not quite the same. In addition, if, for Bourdieu, the left was seen more as a safe value, today, it is more related to a spirit of protest, even if, in Bourdieu’s sense, teachers think that morality and a concern for equality are inscribed by nature and because they remain faithful to Jules Ferry's republican ideals. The need to protest is also different from the point of view of Bourdieu.
In France, there is always a stereotype of teachers who go on strike. The status of the civil service in general is often linked to the left and to militancy (although this missing on the part of the teachers here), perhaps, first, because the status of teachers has not changed much in the right direction, and today they need to claim their discontent.
However, it is also because the teachers share their high cultural capital and have enough reflection to push on themselves and on life in general. They are aware of their status and
the fact that their current salaries are not “right.” The trades of education confront teachers with the social realities of the country. They often realize how disastrous the situations of certain families are. Somewhere, there is a need for justice, and this political choice is a reflection of that, although the teachers do not seem very committed in view of the results of the interviews. However, it is very likely that during a strike for a salary increase, they would always be present.
4. Inherited Capital
Inherited capital seems to be a form of capital that does not change much at first sight.
Whether it is Bourdieu’s analysis or the results of the interviews, the majority of primary school teachers come from an average social background. They come from a middle class.
The decommissioning that Bourdieu also referred to no longer seems to take place. I can say that, today, primary teachers seem socially to be on a rising slope more than a downward one.
We also meet many more teachers whose fathers or mothers were also teachers (this is the case for one of the interviewees). Family socialization as a teacher prepares young people more easily. In this sense, we can speak of social inheritance, and, in this case, we often talk about self-recruitment.
However, can we talk about social reproduction? If we look at the family pattern of these different teachers and their current status, we can indeed say that the status of a teacher increasingly fits within a logic of social reproduction. There is no real evolution in social status since they belong to and all come from the same middle class.
However, if we look even precisely, and following the logic of Bourdieu, parents seem to belong more to the petite bourgeoisie in decline.4 Due to their jobs as elementary school teachers, children are more in the part of petite bourgeois of execution. Yet, as we see with their tastes, sometimes they can also be a part of the middle class of the “new bourgeoisie.” Hence, in this case, we can say that sometimes there is a certain evolution of social class for teachers. However, this evolution remains minimal because, whatever the case, they still belong to the middle class.
4 The petite bourgeoisie in decline is a social class which belongs to the middle class but which is below