Loading...

Sociology Questions DQ5

Open Posted By: surajrudrajnv33 Date: 16/10/2020 Graduate Essay Writing

For this homework, please revisit the concepts of  ‘cultural capital’ and ‘cultural reproduction’ from your readings for this week, and discuss in what specific ways  these concepts help us understand and explain this phenomenon. 

Category: Accounting & Finance Subjects: Finance Deadline: 12 Hours Budget: $120 - $180 Pages: 2-3 Pages (Short Assignment)

Attachment 1

Race Ethnicity and Education Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 69–91

ISSN 1361-3324 (print)/ISSN 1470-109X (online)/05/010069–23 © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1361332052000341006

Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth Tara J. Yosso* University of California, USA Taylor and Francis LtdCREE080105.sgm10.1080/1361332052000341006Race Ethnicity and Education1361-3324 (print)/1470-109X (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Group Ltd81000000March [email protected]

This article conceptualizes community cultural wealth as a critical race theory (CRT) challenge to traditional interpretations of cultural capital. CRT shifts the research lens away from a deficit view of Communities of Color as places full of cultural poverty disadvantages, and instead focuses on and learns from the array of cultural knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed by socially marginalized groups that often go unrecognized and unacknowledged. Various forms of capital nurtured through cultural wealth include aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial and resistant capital. These forms of capital draw on the knowledges Students of Color bring with them from their homes and communities into the classroom. This CRT approach to education involves a commitment to develop schools that acknowledge the multiple strengths of Communities of Color in order to serve a larger purpose of struggle toward social and racial justice.

Introduction

Theory, then, is a set of knowledges. Some of these knowledges have been kept from us— entry into some professions and academia denied us. Because we are not allowed to enter discourse, because we are often disqualified and excluded from it, because what passes for theory these days is forbidden territory for us, it is vital that we occupy theorizing space, that we not allow white men and women solely to occupy it. By bringing in our own approaches and methodologies, we transform that theorizing space. (Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xxv, emphasis in original)

In the epigraph above, Gloria Anzaldúa (1990) calls on People of Color to trans- form the process of theorizing. This call is about epistemology—the study of sources of knowledge. Scholars such as Gloria Ladson-Billings (2000) and Dolores Delgado Bernal (1998, 2002) have asked: whose knowledge counts and whose knowledge is discounted? Throughout US history, race and racism have shaped this

*Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. Email: [email protected]

70 T. J. Yosso

epistemological debate (Scheurich & Young, 1997; Lopez & Parker, 2003). Indeed, it has been over a century since DuBois (1903, 1989) predicted that racism would continue to emerge as one of the United States’ key social problems. Racism overtly shaped US social institutions at the beginning of the twentieth century and continues, although more subtly, to impact US institutions of socialization in the beginning of the twenty-first century. Researchers, practitioners and students are still searching for the necessary tools to effectively analyze and challenge the impact of race and racism in US society.

In addressing the debate over knowledge within the context of social inequality, Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) argued that the knowledges of the upper and middle classes are considered capital valuable to a hierarchical society. If one is not born into a family whose knowledge is already deemed valuable, one could then access the knowledges of the middle and upper class and the potential for social mobility through formal schooling. Bourdieu’s theoretical insight about how a hier- archical society reproduces itself has often been interpreted as a way to explain why the academic and social outcomes of People of Color are significantly lower than the outcomes of Whites. The assumption follows that People of Color ‘lack’ the social and cultural capital required for social mobility. As a result, schools most often work from this assumption in structuring ways to help ‘disadvantaged’ students whose race and class background has left them lacking necessary knowledge, social skills, abilities and cultural capital (see Valenzuela, 1999).

This interpretation demonstrates Anzaldúa’s point: ‘If we have been gagged and disempowered by theories, we can also be loosened and empowered by theories’ (Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xxvi). Indeed, if some knowledges have been used to silence, marginalize and render People of Color invisible, then ‘Outsider’ knowledges (Hill Collins, 1986), mestiza knowledges (Anzaldúa, 1987) and transgressive knowledges (hooks, 1994) can value the presence and voices of People of Color, and can re- envision the margins as places empowered by transformative resistance (hooks, 1990; Delgado Bernal, 1997; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001). Critical race theory (CRT) listens to DuBois’ racial insight and offers a response to Anzaldúa’s theoretical challenge. CRT is a framework that can be used to theorize, examine and challenge the ways race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact on social structures, practices and discourses.

Below, I discuss the ways CRT centers Outsider, mestiza, transgressive knowl- edges. After outlining the theoretical framework of CRT, I critique the assumption that Students of Color come to the classroom with cultural deficiencies. Utilizing a CRT lens, I challenge traditional interpretations of Bourdieuean cultural capital theory (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) and introduce an alternative concept called community cultural wealth. Then, I outline at least six forms of capital that comprise community cultural wealth and most often go unacknowledged or unrec- ognized. In examining some of the under-utilized assets Students of Color bring with them from their homes and communities into the classroom, this article notes the potential of community cultural wealth to transform the process of schooling.

Cultural capital and critical race theory 71

Critical race theory in education

CRT draws from and extends a broad literature base of critical theory in law, sociol- ogy, history, ethnic studies and women’s studies. Kimberlé Crenshaw (2002) explains that in the late 1980s, various legal scholars felt limited by work that separated critical theory from conversations about race and racism. Alongside other ‘Outsider’ scholars (Hill Collins, 1986) Crenshaw (2002) was ‘looking for both a crit- ical space in which race was foregrounded and a race space where critical themes were central’ (p. 19). Mari Matsuda (1991) defined that CRT space as:

… the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to develop a jurispru- dence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and that work toward the elim- ination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all forms of subordination. (p. 1331)

In previous work, I describe a genealogy of CRT that links the themes and patterns of legal scholarship with the social science literature (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). Figure 1 addresses some of this intellectual history.1 Figure 1. An intellectual genealogy of critical race theoryIn its post-1987 form, CRT emerged from criticisms of the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement. CLS scholars questioned the role of the traditional legal system in legitimizing oppressive social structures. With this insightful analysis, CLS scholar- ship emphasized critique of the liberal legal tradition as opposed to offering strategies for change. Scholars such as Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman asserted that one reason why the CLS critique of the law could not offer strategies for social transformation was because it failed to incorporate race and racism into the analysis (Delgado, 1995a; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Not listening to the lived experiences and histories of those oppressed by institutionalized racism limited CLS scholarship. This argument had also been taking place in social science and history circles, specifically in ethnic and women’s studies scholarship.

Figure 1. An intellectual genealogy of critical race theory

72 T. J. Yosso

Critical race theorists began to pull away from CLS because the critical legal framework restricted their ability to analyze racial injustice (Delgado, 1988; Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Crenshaw, 2002). Initially, CRT scholarship focused its critique on the slow pace and unrealized promise of Civil Rights legislation. As a result, many of the critiques launched were articulated in Black vs White terms. Women and People of Color who felt their gendered, classed, sexual, immigrant and language experiences and histories were being silenced, chal- lenged this tendency toward a Black/White binary. They stressed that oppression in the law and society could not be fully understood in terms of only Black and White. Certainly, African Americans have experienced a unique and horrendous history of racism and other forms of subordination in the US. Other People of Color have their own histories that likewise have been shaped by racism and the intersecting forms of subordination (Espinoza & Harris, 1998). By offering a two-dimensional discourse, the Black/White binary limits understandings of the multiple ways in which African Americans, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Chicanas/os, and Latinas/os continue to experience, respond to, and resist racism and other forms of oppression.

For example, Latina/o critical race (LatCrit) theory extends critical race discus- sions to address the layers of racialized subordination that comprise Chicana/o, Latina/o experiences (Arriola, 1997, 1998; Stefancic, 1998). LatCrit scholars assert that racism, sexism and classism are experienced amidst other layers of subordination based on immigration status, sexuality, culture, language, phenotype, accent and surname (Montoya, 1994; Johnson, 1999). Indeed, the traditional paradigm for understanding US race relations is often a Black/White binary, which limits discus- sions about race and racism to terms of African American and White experiences (Valdes, 1997, 1998). Like Manning Marable (1992), who defines racism as ‘a system of ignorance, exploitation and power used to oppress African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Americans, American Indians, and other people on the basis of ethnicity, culture, mannerisms, and color’ (p. 5), CRT scholarship has benefited from scholarship addressing racism at its intersections with other forms of subordina- tion (Crenshaw, 1989, 1993).

Over the years, the CRT family tree has expanded to incorporate the racialized experiences of women, Latinas/os, Native Americans and Asian Americans (see Figure 1). For example, LatCrit, TribalCrit and AsianCrit are branches of CRT, evidencing Chicana/o, Latina/o, Native American and Asian American communities’ ongoing search for a framework that addresses racism and its accompanying oppres- sions beyond the Black/White binary (Ikemoto, 1992; Chang, 1993, 1998; Chon, 1996; Delgado, 1997; Williams, 1997; Brayboy, 2001, 2002). Women of Color have also challenged CRT to address feminist critiques of racism and classism through FemCrit theory (Caldwell, 1995; Wing, 1997, 2000). In addition, White scholars have expanded CRT with WhiteCrit, by ‘looking behind the mirror’ to expose White privilege and challenge racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 1997).

CRT’s branches are not mutually exclusive or in contention with one another. Naming, theorizing and mobilizing from the intersections of racism, need not initiate

Cultural capital and critical race theory 73

some sort of oppression sweepstakes—a competition to measure one form of oppres- sion against another. As Cherrie Moraga (1983) writes,

The danger lies in ranking the oppressions. The danger lies in failing to acknowledge the specificity of the oppression. The danger lies in attempting to deal with oppression purely from a theoretical base. Without an emotional, heartfelt grappling with the source of our own oppression, without naming the enemy within ourselves and outside of us, no authen- tic, non-hierarchical connection among oppressed groups can take place. (pp. 52–53)

Indeed, racism and its intersections with other forms of subordination shape the experiences of People of Color very differently than Whites (Bell, 1986; 1998; Essed, 1991; Baca Zinn, 1989). Still, the popular discourse in the US, as well as the academic discourse, continues to be limited by the Black/White binary. CRT adds to efforts to continue to expand this dialogue to recognize the ways in which our strug- gles for social justice are limited by discourses that omit and thereby silence the multi- ple experiences of People of Color (Ellison, 1990).

As a student of Chicana/o Studies, the theoretical models informing my work included the Internal Colonial model (Bonilla & Girling, 1973; Blauner, 2001), Marxism (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Barrera, 1979), Chicana and Black feminisms (Anzaldúa, 1987; hooks, 1990; Zavella, 1991; Hurtado, 1996; Hill Collins, 1998, 2000; Saldivar-Hull, 2000) and cultural nationalism (Asante, 1987). Even with all of their strengths, each of these frameworks had certain blindspots that limited my abil- ity to examine racism. Now, as a professor of Chicana/o Studies, my work is informed by the hindsight of CRT and its genealogical branches. To document and analyze the educational access, persistence and graduation of underrepresented students, I draw on my interdisciplinary training and those theoretical models whose popularity may have waned since the 1960s and 1970s, but whose commitment to speaking truth to power continues to address contemporary social realities.

For the field of education, Daniel Solórzano (1997, 1998) identified five tenets of CRT that can and should inform theory, research, pedagogy, curriculum and policy:2

(1) the intercentricity of race and racism; (2) the challenge to dominant ideology; (3) the commitment to social justice; (4) the centrality of experiential knowledge; and (5) the utilization of interdisciplinary approaches.

1. The intercentricity of race and racism with other forms of subordination. CRT starts from the premise that race and racism are central, endemic, permanent and a fundamental part of defining and explaining how US society functions (Bell, 1992; Russell, 1992). CRT acknowledges the inextricable layers of racialized subordination based on gender, class, immigration status, surname, phenotype, accent and sexuality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1993; Valdes et al., 2002).

2. The challenge to dominant ideology. CRT challenges White privilege and refutes the claims that educational institutions make toward objectivity, meritocracy, color- blindness, race neutrality and equal opportunity. CRT challenges notions of ‘neutral’ research or ‘objective’ researchers and exposes deficit-informed research that silences, ignores and distorts epistemologies of People of Color (Delgado Bernal, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 2000). CRT argues that these traditional claims

74 T. J. Yosso

act as a camouflage for the self-interest, power, and privilege of dominant groups in US society (Bell, 1987; Calmore, 1992; Solórzano, 1997).

3. The commitment to social justice. CRT is committed to social justice and offers a liberatory or transformative response to racial, gender and class oppression (Matsuda, 1991). Such a social justice research agenda exposes the ‘interest- convergence’ (Bell, 1987) of civil rights ‘gains’ in education and works toward the elimination of racism, sexism and poverty, as well as the empowerment of People of Color and other subordinated groups (Freire, 1970, 1973; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001).

4. The centrality of experiential knowledge. CRT recognizes that the experiential knowledge of People of Color is legitimate, appropriate, and critical to under- standing, analyzing and teaching about racial subordination (Delgado Bernal, 2002). CRT draws explicitly on the lived experiences of People of Color by including such methods as storytelling, family histories, biographies, scenarios, parables, cuentos, testimonios, chronicles and narratives (Bell, 1987, 1992, 1996; Delgado, 1989, 1993, 1995a, b, 1996; Espinoza, 1990; Olivas, 1990; Montoya, 1994; Carrasco, 1996; Solórzano & Yosso, 2000, 2001, 2002a; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Delgado Bernal & Villalpando, 2002; Villalpando, 2003).

5. The transdisciplinary perspective. CRT goes beyond disciplinary boundaries to analyze race and racism within both historical and contemporary contexts, draw- ing on scholarship from ethnic studies, women’s studies, sociology, history, law, psychology, film, theatre and other fields (Delgado, 1984, 1992; Olivas, 1990; Gotanda, 1991; Harris, 1994; Garcia, 1995; Gutiérrez-Jones, 2001).

These five themes are not new in and of themselves, but collectively they represent a challenge to the existing modes of scholarship. Informed by scholars who continue to expand the literature and scope of discussions of race and racism, I define CRT in education as a theoretical and analytical framework that challenges the ways race and racism impact educational structures, practices, and discourses. CRT is conceived as a social justice project that works toward the liberatory potential of schooling (hooks, 1994; Freire, 1970, 1973). This acknowledges the contradictory nature of education, wherein schools most often oppress and marginalize while they maintain the potential to emancipate and empower. Indeed, CRT in education refutes dominant ideology and White privilege while validating and centering the experiences of People of Color. CRT utilizes transdisciplinary approaches to link theory with practice, scholarship with teaching, and the academy with the community (see LatCrit Primer, 1999; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001).

Many in the academy and in community organizing, activism, and service who look to challenge social inequality will most likely recognize the tenets of CRT as part of what, why and how they do the work they do. CRT addresses the social construct of race by examining the ideology of racism. CRT finds that racism is often well disguised in the rhetoric of shared ‘normative’ values and ‘neutral’ social scientific principles and practices (Matsuda et al., 1993). However, when the ideology of racism is examined and racist injuries are named, victims of racism can often find

Cultural capital and critical race theory 75

their voice. Those injured by racism and other forms of oppression discover that they are not alone and moreover are part of a legacy of resistance to racism and the layers of racialized oppression. They become empowered participants, hearing their own stories and the stories of others, listening to how the arguments against them are framed and learning to make the arguments to defend themselves.

Challenging racism, revealing cultural wealth

CRT’s five tenets provide a helpful guiding lens that can inform research in Commu- nities of Color. Looking through a CRT lens means critiquing deficit theorizing and data that may be limited by its omission of the voices of People of Color. Such deficit- informed research often ‘sees’ deprivation in Communities of Color. Indeed, one of the most prevalent forms of contemporary racism in US schools is deficit thinking. Deficit thinking takes the position that minority students and families are at fault for poor academic performance because: (a) students enter school without the normative cultural knowledge and skills; and (b) parents neither value nor support their child’s education. These racialized assumptions about Communities of Color most often leads schools to default to the banking method of education critiqued by Paulo Freire (1973). As a result, schooling efforts usually aim to fill up supposedly passive students with forms of cultural knowledge deemed valuable by dominant society. Scholars Shernaz García and Patricia Guerra (2004) find that such deficit approaches to schooling begin with overgeneralizations about family background and are exacer- bated by a limited framework to interpret how individual views about educational success are shaped by personal ‘sociocultural and linguistic experiences and assump- tions about appropriate cultural outcomes’ (p. 163). Educators most often assume that schools work and that students, parents and community need to change to conform to this already effective and equitable system.

Indeed, García and Guerra’s (2004) research acknowledges that deficit thinking permeates US society, and both schools and those who work in schools mirror these beliefs. They argue that this reality necessitates a challenge of personal and individual race, gender and class prejudices expressed by educators, as well as a ‘critical exami- nation of systemic factors that perpetuate deficit thinking and reproduce educational inequities for students from nondominant sociocultural and linguistic backgrounds’ (p. 155). I believe CRT can offer such an approach by identifying, analyzing and chal- lenging distorted notions of People of Color.

As part of the challenge to deficit thinking in education, it should be noted that race is often coded as ‘cultural difference’ in schools. Indeed, culture influences how society is organized, how school curriculum is developed and how pedagogy and policy are implemented. In social science, the concept of culture for Students of Color has taken on many divergent meanings. Some research has equated culture with race and ethnic- ity, while other work clearly has viewed culture through a much broader lens of char- acteristics and forms of social histories and identities. For my purposes here, culture refers to behaviors and values that are learned, shared, and exhibited by a group of people. Culture is also evidenced in material and nonmaterial productions of a people.

76 T. J. Yosso

Culture as a set of characteristics is neither fixed nor static (Gómez-Quiñones, 1977). For example, with Students of Color, culture is frequently represented symbolically through language and can encompass identities around immigration status, gender, phenotype, sexuality and region, as well as race and ethnicity.

Looking through a CRT lens, the cultures of Students of Color can nurture and empower them (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001; Delgado Bernal, 2002). Focusing on research with Latina/o families, Luis C Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff and Norma Gonzalez (1992), Carlos Vélez-Ibáñez and James Greenberg (1992) and Irma Olmedo (1997) assert that culture can form and draw from communal funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 1995; Gonzalez & Moll, 2002). Likewise, Douglas Foley (1997) notes research revealing the ‘virtues and solidarity in African American community and family traditions’ as well as the ‘deeply spiritual values passed from generation to generation in most African American communities’ (p. 123).

Taken together, the CRT challenge to deficit thinking and understanding of the empowering potential of the cultures of Communities of Color, leads me to the following description of cultural wealth. I begin with a critique of the ways Bourdieu’s (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) work has been used to discuss social and racial inequity. In education, Bourdieu’s work has often been called upon to explain why Students of Color do not succeed at the same rate as Whites. According to Bourdieu, cultural capital refers to an accumulation of cultural knowledge, skills and abilities possessed and inherited by privileged groups in society. Bourdieu asserts that cultural capital (i.e., education, language), social capital (i.e., social networks, connections) and economic capital (i.e., money and other material possessions) can be acquired two ways, from one’s family and/or through formal schooling. The dominant groups within society are able to maintain power because access is limited to acquiring and learning strategies to use these forms of capital for social mobility.

Therefore, while Bourdieu’s work sought to provide a structural critique of social and cultural reproduction, his theory of cultural capital has been used to assert that some communities are culturally wealthy while others are culturally poor. This interpretation of Bourdieu exposes White, middle class culture as the standard, and therefore all other forms and expressions of ‘culture’ are judged in comparison to this ‘norm’. In other words, cultural capital is not just inherited or possessed by the middle class, but rather it refers to an accumulation of specific forms of knowledge, skills and abilities that are valued by privileged groups in society. For example, middle or upper class students may have access to a computer at home and therefore can learn numerous computer-related vocabulary and technological skills before arriving at school. These students have acquired cultural capital because computer-related vocabulary and technological skills are valued in the school setting. On the other hand, a working class Chicana/o student whose mother works in the garment industry may bring a different vocabulary, perhaps in two languages (English and Spanish) to school, along with techniques of conducting errands on the city bus and translating mail, phone calls and coupons for her/his mother (see Faulstich Orellana, 2003). This cultural knowledge is very valuable to the student and her/his family, but is not neces- sarily considered to carry any capital in the school context. So, are there forms of

Cultural capital and critical race theory 77

cultural capital that marginalized groups bring to the table that traditional cultural capital theory does not recognize or value? CRT answers, yes.

CRT shifts the center of focus from notions of White, middle class culture to the cultures of Communities of Color. In doing so, I also draw on the work of sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro (1995) to better understand how cultural capital is actually only one form of many different aspects that might be considered valuable. Oliver and Shapiro (1995) propose a model to explain how the narrowing of the income or earnings gap between Blacks and Whites is a misleading way to examine inequality. They argue that one’s income over a typical fiscal year focuses on a single form of capital and that the income gap between Blacks and Whites is narrowing over time. On the other hand, they examine separately the concept of wealth and define it as the total extent of an individual’s accumulated assets and resources (i.e., ownership of stocks, money in bank, real estate, business ownership, etc). They then argue that while the income of Blacks may indeed be climbing and the Black/White income gap narrowing, their overall wealth, compared to Whites, is declining and the gap is diverging (see also Shapiro, 2004).

Traditional Bourdieuean cultural capital theory has parallel comparisons to Oliver and Shapiro’s (1995) description of income. Both place value on a very narrow range of assets and characteristics. A traditional view of cultural capital is narrowly defined by White, middle class values, and is more limited than wealth—one’s accumulated assets and resources. CRT expands this view. Centering the research lens on the experiences of People of Color in critical historical context reveals accumulated assets and resources in the histories and lives of Communities of Color.

Figure 2 demonstrates that community cultural wealth is an array of knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed and utilized by Communities of Color to survive and resist macro and micro-forms of oppression.3 Figure 2. A model of community cultural wealth. Adapted from: Oliver & Shapiro, 1995Indeed, a CRT lens can ‘see’ that Communities of Color nurture cultural wealth through at least 6 forms of capital such as aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant capital (see Delgado Bernal, 1997, 2001; Auerbach, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Faulstich Orellana, 2003).These various forms of capital are not mutually exclusive or static, but rather are dynamic processes that build on one another as part of community cultural wealth. For example, as noted above, aspirational capital is the ability to hold onto hope in the face of structured inequality and often without the means to make such dreams a reality. Yet, aspirations are developed within social and familial contexts, often through linguistic storytelling and advice (consejos) that offer specific naviga- tional goals to challenge (resist) oppressive conditions. Therefore, aspirational capital overlaps with each of the other forms of capital, social, familial, navigational, linguis- tic and resistant. As Anzaldúa asserts, ‘In our mestizaje theories we create new cate- gories for those of us left out of or pushed out of existing ones’ (Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xxvi, emphasis in original).

1. Aspirational capital refers to the ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers. This resiliency is evidenced

78 T. J. Yosso

in those who allow themselves and their children to dream of possibilities beyond their present circumstances, often without the objective means to attain those goals. This form of cultural wealth draws on the work of Patricia Gándara (1982, 1995) and others who have shown that Chicanas/os experience the lowest educa- tional outcomes compared to every other group in the US, but maintain consis- tently high aspirations for their children’s future (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992, 1994; Solórzano, 1992; Auerbach, 2001). These stories nurture a culture of possibility as they represent ‘the creation of a history that would break the links between parents’ current occupational status and their children’s future academic attain- ment’ (Gándara, 1995, p. 55).

2. Linguistic capital includes the intellectual and social skills attained through communication experiences in more than one language and/or style (see Faulstich Orellana, 2003).4 This aspect of cultural wealth learns from over 35 years of research about the value of bilingual education and emphasizes the connections between racialized cultural history and language (Cummins, 1986; Anzaldúa, 1987; Darder, 1991; García & Baker, 1995; Gutierrez et al., 1995; Macedo & Bartolomé, 1999; Gutierrez, 2002). Linguistic capital reflects the idea that Students of Color arrive at school with multiple language and communication skills. In addition, these children most often have been engaged participants in a storytelling tradition, that may include listening to and recounting oral histories,

Figure 2. A model of community cultural wealth. Adapted from: Oliver & Shapiro, 1995

Cultural capital and critical race theory 79

parables, stories (cuentos) and proverbs (dichos). This repertoire of storytelling skills may include memorization, attention to detail, dramatic pauses, comedic timing, facial affect, vocal tone, volume, rhythm and rhyme. Linguistic capital also refers to the ability to communicate via visual art, music or poetry.5 Just as students may utilize different vocal registers to whisper, whistle or sing, they must often develop and draw on various language registers, or styles, to communicate with different audiences. For example, Marjorie Faulstich Orellana (2003) exam- ines bilingual children who are often called upon to translate for their parents or other adults and finds that these youth gain multiple social tools of ‘vocabulary, audience awareness, cross-cultural awareness, “real-world” literacy skills, math skills, metalinguistic awareness, teaching and tutoring skills, civic and familial responsibility, [and] social maturity’ (p. 6).

3. Familial capital refers to those cultural knowledges nurtured among familia (kin) that carry a sense of community history, memory and cultural intuition (see Delgado Bernal, 1998, 2002). This form of cultural wealth engages a commit- ment to community well being and expands the concept of family to include a more broad understanding of kinship. Acknowledging the racialized, classed and heterosexualized inferences that comprise traditional understandings of ‘family’, familial capital is nurtured by our ‘extended family’, which may include immedi- ate family (living or long passed on) as well as aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends who we might consider part of our familia. From these kinship ties, we learn the importance of maintaining a healthy connection to our community and its resources. Our kin also model lessons of caring, coping and providing (educación),6 which inform our emotional, moral, educational and occupational consciousness (Reese, 1992; Auerbach, 2001, 2004; Elenes et al., 2001; Lopez, 2003). This consciousness can be fostered within and between families, as well as through sports, school, religious gatherings and other social community settings. Isolation is minimized as families ‘become connected with others around common issues’ and realize they are ‘not alone in dealing with their problems’ (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001, p. 54). Familial capital is informed by the work of schol- ars who have addressed the communal bonds within African American communi- ties (Foley, 1997; Morris, 1999), the funds of knowledge within Mexican American communities (Moll et al., 1992; Vélez-Ibáñez & Greenberg, 1992; Gonzalez et al., 1995; Olmedo, 1997; Rueda et al., 2004) and pedagogies of the home that Students of Color bring with them to the classroom setting (Delgado Bernal, 2002).

4. Social capital can be understood as networks of people and community resources. These peer and other social contacts can provide both instrumental and emotional support to navigate through society’s institutions (see Gilbert, 1982; Stanton-Salazar, 2001). For example, drawing on social contacts and community resources may help a student identify and attain a college scholarship. These networks may help a student in preparing the scholarship application itself, while also reassuring the student emotionally that she/he is not alone in the process of pursuing higher education. Scholars note that historically, People of Color have

80 T. J. Yosso

utilized their social capital to attain education, legal justice, employment and health care. In turn, these Communities of Color gave the information and resources they gained through these institutions back to their social networks. Mutualistas or mutual aid societies are an example of how historically, immigrants to the US and indeed, African Americans even while enslaved, created and main- tained social networks (Gómez-Quiñones, 1973, 1994; Gutman, 1976; Sanchez, 1993; Stevenson, 1996). This tradition of ‘lifting as we climb’ has remained the motto of the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs since their organi- zation in 1896 (see Gurnier, Fine & Balin, 1997, p. 167). Concha Delgado- Gaitan’s (2001) ethnographic research with the Mexican immigrant community of Carpinteria, California further confirms that ‘Families transcend the adversity in their daily lives by uniting with supportive social networks’ (p. 105).

5. Navigational capital refers to skills of maneuvering through social institutions. Historically, this infers the ability to maneuver through institutions not created with Communities of Color in mind. For example, strategies to navigate through racially-hostile university campuses draw on the concept of academic invulnerability, or students’ ability to ‘sustain high levels of achievement, despite the presence of stressful events and conditions that place them at risk of doing poorly at school and, ultimately, dropping out of school’ (Alva, 1991, p. 19; see also Allen & Solórzano, 2000; Solórzano et al., 2000; Auerbach, 2001). Scholars have examined individual, family and community factors that support Mexican American students’ academic invulnerability—their successful navigation through the educational system (Arrellano & Padilla, 1996). In addition, resil- ience has been recognized as ‘a set of inner resources, social competencies and cultural strategies that permit individuals to not only survive, recover, or even thrive after stressful events, but also to draw from the experience to enhance subsequent functioning’ (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2000, p. 229). Indeed, People of Color draw on various social and psychological ‘critical navigational skills’ (Solórzano & Villalpando, 1998) to maneuver through structures of inequality permeated by racism (see Pierce, 1974, 1989, 1995). Navigational capital thus acknowledges individual agency within institutional constraints, but it also connects to social networks that facilitate community navigation through places and spaces including schools, the job market and the health care and judi- cial systems (Williams, 1997).

6. Resistant capital refers those knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality (Freire, 1970, 1973; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 1994; Delgado Bernal, 1997; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001). This form of cultural wealth is grounded in the legacy of resistance to subordi- nation exhibited by Communities of Color (Deloria, 1969). Furthermore, maintaining and passing on the multiple dimensions of community cultural wealth is also part of the knowledge base of resistant capital. For example, even from within internment camps, Japanese communities resisted racism by main- taining and nurturing various forms of cultural wealth (Wakatsuki Houston & Houston, 1973).7 Extending on this history, Tracy Robinson and Janie Ward’s

Cultural capital and critical race theory 81

(1991) research shows a group of African American mothers who consciously raise their daughters as ‘resistors’. Through verbal and nonverbal lessons, these Black mothers teach their daughters to assert themselves as intelligent, beauti- ful, strong and worthy of respect to resist the barrage of societal messages devaluing Blackness and belittling Black women (Ward, 1996). Similarly, Sofia Villenas and Melissa Moreno (2001) discuss the contradictions Latina mothers face as they try to teach their daughters to valerse por si misma (value themselves and be self-reliant) within structures of inequality such as racism, capitalism and patriarchy. In each of these research studies, Parents of Color are consciously instructing their children to engage in behaviours and maintain atti- tudes that challenge the status quo. These young women are learning to be oppositional with their bodies, minds and spirits in the face of race, gender and class inequality. In analyzing students’ historical and contemporary efforts to transform unequal conditions in urban high schools, Daniel Solórzano and Dolores Delgado Bernal (2001) reveal that resistance may include different forms of oppositional behavior, such as self-defeating or conformist strategies that feed back into the system of subordination. However, when informed by a Freirean critical consciousness (1970), or recognition of the structural nature of oppression and the motivation to work toward social and racial justice, resis- tance takes on a transformative form (see Solórzano & Yosso, 2002b). There- fore, transformative resistant capital includes cultural knowledge of the structures of racism and motivation to transform such oppressive structures (Pizarro, 1998; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999).

Discussion

Recently, The Journal of African American History dedicated an entire issue to ‘Cultural capital and African American education’ (see Franklin, 2002). In this issue, Franklin (2002) defines cultural capital as ‘the sense of group consciousness and collective identity’ that serves as a resource ‘aimed at the advancement of an entire group’ (p. 177). Franklin (2002) goes on to explain that various forms of cultural capital ‘became a major resource historically for the funding of African American schools and other educational institutions and programs’ (pp. 177–178). This research indicates that ‘African Americans were willing to contribute their time, ener- gies, and financial and material resources to support these educational institutions because they knew they were important to the advancement of African Americans as a group (Franklin, 2002, pp. 177–178).

Furthermore, in discussing implications of his ethnographic work with two African American school communities in the US urban south and midwest, Jerome Morris (2004) explains, ‘Black people shared their cultural capital with one another and developed their social capital (Black social capital) for survival and success in a segre- gated world bounded by the omnipresent forces of racism and discrimination’ (p. 102). This scholarship documenting community mobilization efforts to create access and equity for African Americans in education, bolsters the examples of

82 T. J. Yosso

cultural wealth offered above. Such work also demonstrates that the forms of capital comprising community cultural wealth are engendered from within the context of a legacy of racism and are thus tied to a larger social and racial justice project (Perea et al., 2000). Morris (2004) asserts, ‘it is important that social capital theory also consider the agency and sustenance that are characteristic of African American people, culture and institutions—apart from and in response to oppressive forces’ (p. 102). Indeed, the main goals of identifying and documenting cultural wealth are to transform education and empower People of Color to utilize assets already abun- dant in their communities.

As demonstrated through the concept of cultural wealth, CRT research begins with the perspective that Communities of Color are places with multiple strengths. In contrast, deficit scholars bemoan a lack of cultural capital or what Hirsch (1988, 1996) terms ‘cultural literacy’ in low income Communities of Color. Such research utilizes a deficit analytical lens and places value judgments on communities that often do not have access to White, middle or upper class resources. In contrast, CRT shifts the research lens away from a deficit view of Communities of Color as places full of cultural poverty or disadvantages, and instead focuses on and learns from these communities’ cultural assets and wealth (Solórzano & Solórzano, 1995; Valencia & Solórzano, 1997; Villalpando & Solórzano, 2005).

CRT centers the research, pedagogy, and policy lens on Communities of Color and calls into question White middle class communities as the standard by which all others are judged. This shifting of the research lens allows critical race scholars to ‘see’ multiple forms of cultural wealth within Communities of Color. CRT identifies various indicators of capital that have rarely been acknowledged as cultural and social assets in Communities of Color (i.e., aspirational, social, navi- gational, linguistic, resistant and familial capital). These forms of capital draw on the knowledges Students of Color bring with them from their homes and commu- nities into the classroom. They are not conceptualized for the purpose of finding new ways to co-opt or exploit the strengths of Communities of Color.8 Instead, community cultural wealth involves a commitment to conduct research, teach and develop schools that serve a larger purpose of struggling toward social and racial justice.

In the opening epigraph of this essay, Anzaldúa urges the generation of theories based on those whose knowledges are traditionally excluded from and silenced by academic research. She further asserts that beyond creating theories, ‘we need to find practical application for those theories. We need to de-academize theory and to connect the community to the academy’ (Anzaldúa, 1990, p. xxvi). Anzaldúa (2002) also notes that ‘Change requires more than words on a page—it takes perseverance, creative ingenuity and acts of love’ (p. 574). CRT offers a response to Anzaldúa’s challenge in listening to the experiences of those ‘faces at the bottom of society’s well’ (Bell, 1992, p. v). These experiences expose the racism underlying cultural deficit theorizing and reveal the need to restructure US social institutions around those knowledges, skills, abilities and networks—the community cultural wealth— possessed and utilized by People of Color.

Cultural capital and critical race theory 83

Notes

1. Although not exhaustive, the following resources are some examples of the different frame- works cited: ethnic studies (see Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies); feminist studies (see Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies); cultural nationalist paradigms (see Asante, 1987); critical legal studies (see Kelman, 1989); Marxist and neo-Marxist frameworks (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Barrera, 1979); internal colonial models (see Bonilla & Girling, 1973); LatCrit (see Arriola, 1998; Valdes, 1997, 1998); WhiteCrit (see Delgado & Sefancic, 1997); FemCrit (see Wing, 1997); AsianCrit (see Chang, 1993).

2. Solórzano and Yosso (2001) note that while each individual tenet of CRT is not ‘new’, synthe- sizing these tenets into a CRT framework in education is relatively recent. For instance, William Tate’s 1994 autobiographical article in the journal Urban Education—titled ‘From inner city to ivory tower: does my voice matter in the academy’—represents (to my knowledge) the first use of CRT principles in education. A year later, in 1995, Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate wrote a paper titled, ‘Toward a critical race theory of education’ in the Teachers College Record. Two years later, Daniel Solórzano’s 1997 essay on ‘Images and words that wound: critical race theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education’ in Teacher Education Quarterly applied CRT to a specific subfield of teacher education. Also in 1997, William Tate’s ‘Critical race theory and education: history, theory and implications’ in the Review of Research in Education furthered our understanding of the history of CRT in education. The field was expanded significantly with the 1998 ‘Special issue on critical race theory in education’ in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. The 1999 edited book on Race is—race isn’t: critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (Parker et al., 1999) was followed by individual scholars presenting on panels at professional conferences across the country and publishing their work in various journals. In 2002, the journals Qualitative Inquiry and Equity and Excellence in Education dedicated a special issue to CRT in education. In 2004, the American Education Research Association conference symposium ‘And we are still not saved: critical race theory in education ten years later’ acknowledged the ten year anniversary of Tate’s 1994 article introducing CRT officially to education.

3. As is consistent with the concept of community cultural wealth, this working definition demon- strates an accumulation of collaborative work. Thank you to Daniel G Solórzano who originally conceptualized cultural wealth. He shared with me a model in progress and later a collabora- tively written piece (with Octavio Villalpando), and asked me to ‘run with it’. Since that time, cultural wealth has taken on multiple dimensions. I also acknowledge those personal and professional experiences, community histories and students’ research projects that have informed this work. I look forward to the ways that cultural wealth will take on new dimensions as others also ‘run with it’.

4. Thanks to Rebeca Burciaga, whose identification of linguistic and familial capital added impor- tant dimensions to cultural wealth.

5. Thanks to UCSB undergraduate students, Pablo Gallegos, Moises Garcia, Noel Gomez and Ray Hernandez, whose research conceptualizing graffiti and hip hop poetry as unacknowledged sources of community cultural wealth expanded my thinking about linguistic capital.

6. Chicana scholars note for example that in Spanish, educación holds dual meanings (Delgado- Gaitan, 1992, 1994, 2001; Elenes et al., 2001). A person can be formally educated with multiple advanced degrees, but may still be rude, ignorant, disrespectful or unethical (immoral)—mal educada. On the other hand, a person with only a second grade formal educa- tion may be una persona bien educada or a well-mannered, kind, fair-minded, respectful (moral) individual.

7. The book Farewell to Manzanar (Wakatsuki Houston & Houston, 1973) offers a first-hand account of some of the ways Japanese internees held onto hope, fostered caring, coping and responsibility, maintained skills of language, poetry, music, social networks and critical naviga- tional skills, and challenged social and racial inequality.

84 T. J. Yosso

8. I recognize that the notion of capital may be associated with capitalism, which is a system that is exploitative and has historically been an oppressive force against Communities of Color. The concept of schooling itself can be contradictory, given that schools have historically oppressed Students of Color, while still having the potential to be transformative places of empowerment. Similarly, as viewed through mainstream media, hip-hop’s contradictory nature offers an example of how historically some aspects of community cultural wealth are co-opted and utilized for exploitative purposes (see Spike Lee’s film Baboozled, 2000). Still, hip-hop main- tains amazing potential to be a revolutionary art form and transformative cultural expression that can inspire and inform social movement. I believe community cultural wealth and forms of capital nurtured in the histories of People of Color holds the same potential.

Note on contributor

Tara J. Yosso is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research and teaching focuses on educational equity utilizing the frameworks of critical race theory, LatCrit theory and critical media literacy.

References

Allen, W. (1993) A response to a ‘white discourse on white racism’, Educational Researcher, 22, 11–13.

Allen, W. & Solórzano, D. (2001) Affirmative action, educational equity, and campus racial climate: A case study of the university of Michigan law school, Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 12(2), 237–363.

Alva, S. (1991) Academic invulnerability among Mexican American students: the importance of protective resources and appraisals, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 18–34.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera: the New Mestiza (San Francisco, CA, Aunt Lute Book Company).

Anzaldúa, G. (1990) Haciendo Caras/making face, making soul: creative and critical perspectives by women of color (San Francisco, CA, Aunt Lute Press).

Anzaldúa, G. (2002) Now let us shift … the path of conocimiento … inner work, public acts, in: G. Anzaldúa & A. Keating (Eds) This bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation (New York, Routledge), 540–578.

Arrellano, A. R. & Padilla, A. M. (1996) Academic invulnerability among a select group of Latino university students, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4), 485–507.

Arriola, E. (1997) LatCrit theory, international human rights, popular culture and the faces of despair in ins raids, Inter-American Law Review, 28(2), 245–262.

Arriola, E. (1998) Difference, solidarity and law: building Latina/o communities through LatCrit theory, Chicano-Latino Law Review, 19, 1–612.

Asante, M. K. (1987) The Afrocentric idea (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press). Auerbach, S. (2001) Under co-construction: parent roles in promoting college access for students of color,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Auerbach, S. (2004) From moral supporters to struggling advocates: reconceptualizing parent

involvement through the experience of Latino families, paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.

Baca Zinn, M. (1989) Family, race and poverty in the eighties, Signs: Journal of Woman in Culture and Society, 14, 856–874.

Barnes, R. (1990) Race consciousness: the thematic content of racial distinctiveness in critical race scholarship, Harvard Law Review, 103, 1864–1871.

Cultural capital and critical race theory 85

Barrera, M. (1979) Race and class in the southwest: a theory of inequality (London, University of Notre Dame Press).

Bell, D. (1986) Application of the ‘tipping point’ theory to law faculty hiring practices, Nova Law Journal, 10, 319–327.

Bell, D. (1987) And we will not be saved: the elusive quest for racial justice (New York, Basic Books). Bell, D. (1992) Faces at the bottom of the well: the permanence of racism (New York, Basic Books). Bell, D. (1995) Who’s afraid of critical race theory?, University of Illinois Law Review, 1995,

893–910. Bell, D. (1996) Gospel choirs: psalms of survival for an alien land called home (New York, Basic

Books). Bell, D. (1998) Afrolantica legacies (Chicago, IL, Third World Press). Blauner, B. (2001) Still the big news: racial oppression in America (Philadelphia, Temple University

Press). Bonilla, F. & Girling, R. (Eds) (1973) Structures of dependency (Stanford, CA, Stanford Institute of

Politics). Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001) White supremacy and racism in the post civil rights era (Boulder, CO, Lynne

Rienner Publishers). Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture (London, Sage). Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalistic America: educational reform and the contradictions

of economic life (New York, Basic Books). Brayboy, B. (2002) Tribal critical race theory in education, paper presentation at annual conference

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April. Brayboy, B. (2001) Toward a tribal critical theory in higher education, paper presentation at

Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA. Caldwell. P. (1995) A hairpiece: perspectives on the intersection of race and gender, in:

R. Delgado (Ed.) Critical race theory: the cutting edge (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press), 267–277.

Calmore, J. (1992) Critical race theory, Archie Shepp and fire music: securing an authentic intellectual life in a multicultural world, Southern California Law Review, 65, 2129–2231.

Calmore, J. (1997) Exploring Michael Omi’s ‘messy’ real world of race: an essay for ‘naked people longing to swim free’, Law and Inequality, 15, 25–82.

Carrasco, E. (1996) Collective recognition as a communitarian device: or, of course we want to be role models!, La Raza Law Journal, 9, 81–101.

Chang, R. (1993) Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: critical race theory, post- structuralism, and narrative space, California Law Review, 81, 1243.

Chang, R. (1998) Who’s afraid of Tiger Woods?, Chicano-Latino Law Review, 19, 223. Chon, M. (1995) On the need for Asian American narratives in law: ethnic specimens, native

informants, storytelling and silences, UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal, 3(1), 4–32. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of

antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1993) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics and the violence against Women of Color, Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G. & Thomas, K. (Eds) (1995) Critical race theory: the key writings that formed the movement (New York, The New Press).

Crenshaw, K. (2002) The first decade: critical reflections, or ‘a foot in the closing door’, in: F. Valdes, J. McCristal Culp & A. Harris (Eds) Crossroads, directions and a new critical race theory (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press), 9–31.

Cummins, J. (1986) Bilingual education and anti-racist education, Interracial Books for Children Bulletin, 17(3&4), 9–12.

Darder, A. (1991) Culture and power in the classroom: a critical foundation for bicultural education (New York, Bergin & Garvey).

86 T. J. Yosso

Davis, P. (1989) Law as microaggression, The Yale Law Journal, 98, 1559–1577. Delgado, R. (1984) The imperial scholar: reflections on a review of civil rights literature, University

of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132, 561–578. Delgado, R. (1988) Critical legal studies and the realities of race: does the fundamental contradiction

have a corollary?, Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, 23, 407–413. Delgado, R. (1989) Storytelling for oppositionists and others: a plea for narrative, Michigan Law

Review, 87, 2411–2441. Delgado, R. (1992) The imperial scholar revisited: how to marginalize outsider writing, ten years

later, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 140, 1349–1372. Delgado, R. (1993) On telling stories in school: a reply to Farber and Sherry, Vanderbilt Law

Review, 46, 665–676. Delgado, R. (Ed.) (1995a) Critical race theory: the cutting edge (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University

Press). Delgado, R. (1995b) The Rodrigo chronicles: conversations about America and race (New York, New

York University Press). Delgado, R. (1996) The coming race war?: and other apocalyptic tales of American after affirmative

action and welfare (New York, New York University Press). Delgado, R. (1997) Rodrigo’s fifteenth chronicle: racial mixture, Latino-critical scholarship, and

the black-white binary, Texas Law Review, 75, 1181–1201. Delgado, R. (1999) When equality ends: stories about race and resistance (Boulder, CO, Westview Press). Delgado, R. (2003) Justice at war: civil liberties and civil rights during times of crisis (New York, New

York University Press). Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (1992) Images of the outsider in American law and culture: can free

expression remedy systematic social ills?, Cornell Law Review, 77, 1258–1297. Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (1993) Critical race theory: an annotated bibliography, Virginia Law

Review, 79, 461–516. Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (1994) Critical race theory: an annotated bibliography 1993, a year of

transition, University of Colorado Law Review, 66, 159–193. Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (Eds) (1997) Critical white studies: looking behind the mirror (Philadelphia,

Temple University Press). Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2001) Critical race theory: an introduction (New York, New York

University Press). Delgado Bernal, D. (1997) Chicana school resistance and grassroots leadership: providing an alternative

history of the 1968 East Los Angeles blowouts, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Delgado Bernal, D. (1998) Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research, Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–582.

Delgado Bernal, D. (2001) Living and learning pedagogies of the home: the mestiza consciousness of Chicana students, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623–639.

Delgado Bernal, D. (2002) Critical race theory, LatCrit theory and critical raced-gendered episte- mologies: recognizing Students of Color as holders and creators of knowledge, Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105–126.

Delgado Bernal, D. & Villalpando, O. (2002) An apartheid of knowledge in academia: the struggle over the ‘legitimate’ knowledge of Faculty of Color, Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 169–180.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992) School matters in the Mexican American home: socializing children to education, American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 495–513.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994) Socializing young children in Mexican-American families: an intergen- erational perspective, in: P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds) Cross-cultural roots of minority development (New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 55–86.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2001) The power of community: mobilizing for family and schooling (Boulder, CO, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers).

Cultural capital and critical race theory 87

Deloria, V. (1969) Custer died for your sins: an Indian manifesto (New York, Avon). DuBois, W. E. B. (1989) The soul of black folks (New York, Bantam). (Originally published in

1903.) Elenes, C. A., Gonzalez, F., Delgado Bernal, D. & Villenes, S. (2001) Introduction: Chicana/

Mexicana feminist pedagogies: Consejos respeto, y educación, International Journal of Qualita- tive Studies in Education, 14(5), 595–602.

Ellison, R. (1990) Invisible man (New York, Vintage Books). Espinoza, L. G. (1990) Masks and other disguises: exposing legal academia, Harvard Law Review,

103, 1878–1886. Espinoza, L. G. (1998) Latino/a identity and multi-identity: community and culture, in:

R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds) The Latino/a condition: a critical reader (New York, New York University Press), 17–23.

Espinoza, L. & Harris, A. (1998) Embracing the tar-baby: LatCrit theory and the sticky mess of race, La Raza Law Journal, 10(1), 499–559.

Essed, P. (1991) Understanding everyday racism: an interdisciplinary theory (Newbury Park, Sage Publications).

Faulstich Orellana, M. (2003) In other words: en otras palabras: learning from bilingual kids’ translat- ing/interpreting experiences (Evanston, IL, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University).

Fay, B. (1987) Critical social science: liberation and its limits (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press). Foley, D. E. (1997) Deficit thinking models based on culture: the anthropological protest, in:

R. Valencia (Ed.) The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice (London, The Falmer Press), 113–131.

Franklin, V. P. (2002) Introduction: cultural capital and African-American education, The Journal of African-American History, 87, 175–181.

Freire, P. (1970) Education for critical consciousness (New York, Continuum Publishing Company). Freire, P. (1973) Pedagogy of the oppressed (New York, The Seabury Press). Gándara, P. (1982) Passing through the eye of the needle: high-achieving Chicanas, Hispanic

Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 167–179. Gándara, P. (1995) Over the ivy walls: the educational mobility of low-income Chicanos (Albany, State

University of New York Press). Garcia, R. (1995) Critical race theory and proposition 187: the racial politics of immigration law,

Chicano-Latino Law Review, 17, 118–148. García, O. & Baker, C. (1995) Policy and practice in bilingual education: a reader extending the

foundations (Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters). García, S. B. & Guerra, P. L. (2004) Deconstructing deficit thinking: working with educators to

create more equitable learning environments, Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168. Gilbert, M. J. (1982) Los parientes: social structural factors and kinship relations among second

generation Mexican Americans in two southern California communities, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Giroux, H. (1983) Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: a critical analysis, Harvard Educational Review, 55, 257–293.

Gómez-Quiñones, J. (1973) The first steps: Chicano labor conflict and organizing 1900–1920, Aztlan, 3(1), 13–49.

Gómez-Quiñones, J. (1977) On culture (New York, UCLA Chicano Studies Center Publications). Gómez-Quiñones, J. (1994) Roots of Chicano politics, 1600–1940 (Albuquerque, NM, University of

New Mexico Press). Gonzalez, N. & Moll, L. C. (2002) Cruzando el puente: building bridges to funds of knowledge,

Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P. Gonzales, R. & Amanti, C.

(1995) Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households, Urban Education, 29(4), 443–470.

88 T. J. Yosso

Gotanda, N. (1991) A critique of ‘our constitution is color-blind’, Stanford Law Review, 44, 1–68. Guinier, L., Fine, M. & Balin, J. (1997) Becoming gentleman: women, law school, and institutional

change (Boston, MA, Beacon Press). Gutiérrez, K. (2002) Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities, Human Develop-

ment, 45(4), 312–321. Gutiérrez-Jones, C. (2001) Critical race narratives: a study of race, rhetoric and injury (New York,

New York University Press). Gutman, H. (1976) The Black family in slavery and freedom, 1750–1925 (New York, Pantheon

Books). Harris, A. (1994) Forward: the jurisprudence of reconstruction, California Law Review, 82,

741–785. Hill Collins, P. (1986) Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of Black

feminist thought, Social Problems, 33, S14–S32. Hill Collins, P. (1998) Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice (Minneapolis, MN,

University of Minnesota Press). Hill Collins, P. (2000) Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment

(New York, Routledge). Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1988) Cultural literacy: what every American needs to know (New York, Vintage

Books). Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1996) The schools we need and why we don’t have them (New York, Doubleday). hooks, b. (1990) Yearning: race, gender and cultural politics (Cambridge, MA, South End Press). hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom (New York, NY,

Routledge). Hurtado, A. (1996) The color of privilege: three blasphemes on race and feminism (Ann Arbor, Univer-

sity of Michigan Press). Ikemoto, L. (1992) Furthering the inquiry: race, class and culture in the forced medical treatment

of pregnant women, Tennessee Law Review, 59, 487. Johnson, K. (1999) How did you get to be Mexican? A White/brown man’s search for identity

(Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press). Ladson-Billings, G. (1998) Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: a critical race

theory perspective, Review of Research in Education, 24, 211–247. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000) Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies, in: N. Denzin &

Y. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage), 257–277. Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. (1995) Toward a critical race theory of education, Teachers College

Record, 97, 47–68. LatCrit Primer (1999) Fact sheet: LatCrit, presented to the Fourth Annual LatCrit Conference,

Stanford Sierra Conference Center, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 29 April–5 May. Lawrence, C. (1987) The id, the ego, and equal protection: reckoning with unconscious racism,

Stanford Law Review, 39, 317–388. Lawrence, C. (1992) The word and the river: pedagogy as scholarship as struggle, Southern California

Law Review, 65, 2231–2298. Lawrence, C. & Matsuda, M. (1997) We won’t go back: making the case for affirmative action

(Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin). Lawson, R. (1995) Critical race theory as praxis: a view from outside to the outside, Howard Law

Journal, 38, 353–370. Lopez, G. (2003) Parental involvement as racialized performance, in: G. Lopez & L. Parker (Eds)

Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology (New York, Peter Lang Publishing), 71–95. Lopez, G. & Parker, L. (Eds) (2003) Interrogating racism in qualitative research methodology (New

York, Peter Lang Publishing). Lynn, M. (1999) Toward a critical race pedagogy: a research note, Urban Education, 33, 606–626. Lynn, M. & Adams, M. (Eds) (2002) Special issue of critical race theory in education, Equity and

Excellence in Education, 35(2), 87–199.

Cultural capital and critical race theory 89

Lynn, M., Yosso, T., Solórzano, D. & Parker, L. (2002) Special issue: critical race and qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 3–126.

Macedo. D. & Bartolomé, L. (1999) Dancing with bigotry: beyond the politics of tolerance (New York, Palgrave).

Marable, M. (1992) Black America (Westfield, NJ, Open Media). Matsuda, M. (1991) Voices of America: accent, antidiscrimination law and a jurisprudence for the

last reconstruction, Yale Law Journal, 100, 1329–1407. Matsuda, M., Lawrence, C., Delgado, R. & Crenshaw, K. (1993) Words that wound: critical race

theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment (Boulder, CO, Westview Press). McLaren, P. (1994) Life in schools: an introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education

(2nd edn) (New York, Longman). Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N. (1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: using

a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Montoya, M. (1994) Mascaras, trenzas, y grenas: un/masking the self while un/braiding Latina

stories and legal discourse, Chicano-Latino Law Review, 15, 1–37. Montoya, M. (2002) Celebrating racialized legal narratives, in: F. Valdes, J. McCristal Culp &

A. Harris (Eds) Crossroads, directions and a new critical race theory (Philadephia, PA, Temple University Press), 243–250.

Moraga, C. (1983) La güera, in: C. Moraga & G. Anzaldúa (Eds) This bridge called my back: writings by radical women of color (2nd edn) (New York, Kitchen Table), 24–33.

Morris, J. (1999) A pillar of strength: an African-American school’s communal bonds with families and community since Brown, Urban Education, 33(5), 584–605.

Morris, J. (2004) Can anything good come from Nazareth? Race, class and African-American schooling and community in the urban south and Midwest, American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 69–112.

Olivas, M. (1990) The chronicles, my grandfather’s stories and immigration law: the slave traders chronicle as racial history, Saint Louis University Law Journal, 34, 425–441.

Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T. (1995) Black wealth/White wealth: a new perspective on racial inequality (New York, Routledge).

Olmedo, I. M. (1997) Voices of our past: using oral history to explore funds of knowledge within a Puerto Rican family, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28(4), 550–573.

Parker, L. Deyhle, D., Villenas, S. & Crossland, K. (1998) Special issue: critical race theory and education, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 1–184.

Parker, L., Deyhle, D. & Villenas, S. (Eds) (1999) Race is … race isn’t: critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (Boulder, CO, Westview Press).

Perea, J., Delgado, R., Harris, A. & Wildman, S. (2000) Race and races: cases and resources for a multiracial America (St Paul, MN, West Group).

Pierce, C. (1974) Psychiatric problems of the Black minority, in: S. Arieti (Ed.) American handbook of psychiatry (New York, Basic Books), 512–523.

Pierce, C. (1989) Unity in diversity: thirty-three years of stress, in: G. Berry & J. Asamen (Eds) Black students: psychological issues and academic achievement (Newbury Park, Sage), 296–312.

Pierce, C. (1995) Stress analogs of racism and sexism: terrorism, torture, and disaster, in: C. Willie, P. Rieker, B. Kramer & B. Brown (Eds) Mental health, racism and sexism (Pitts- burgh, PA, University of Pittsburgh Press), 277–293.

Pizarro, M. (1998) ‘Chicano power!’ Epistemology and methodology for social justice and empow- erment in Chicana/o communities, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 57–80.

Reese, L. J. (1992) Ecocultural factors influencing the academic success of young Latino students, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Robinson, T. & Ward, J. (1991) ‘A belief in self far greater than anyone’s belief’: cultivating resistance among African-American female adolescents, in: C. Gilligan, A. Rogers & D. Tolman (Eds) Women, girls and psychotherapy: reframing resistance (New York, Haworth), 87–103.

90 T. J. Yosso

Rueda, R., Monzo, L. D. & Higareda, I. (2004) Appropriating the sociocultural resources of Latino paraeducators for effective instruction with Latino students: promises and problems, Urban Education, 29(1), 52–90.

Russell, M. (1992) Entering great America: reflections on race and the convergence of progressive legal theory and practice, Hastings Law Journal, 43, 749–767.

Saldivar-Hill, S. (2000) Feminism on the border: Chicana gender politics and literature (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).

Scheurich, J. & Young, M. (1997) Coloring epistemologies: are our research epistemologies racially biased?, Educational Researcher, 26, 4–16.

Shapiro, T. (2004) The hidden cost of being African-American: how wealth perpetuates inequality (New York, Oxford University Press).

Solórzano, D. (1989) Teaching and social change: reflections on a Freirean approach in a college classroom, Teaching Sociology, 17, 218–225.

Solórzano, D. (1992) Chicano mobility aspirations: a theoretical and empirical note, Latino Studies Journal, 3, 48–66.

Solórzano, D. (1997) Images and words that wound: critical race theory, racial stereotyping and teacher education, Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19.

Solórzano, D. (1998) Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and the experiences of Chicana and Chicano Scholars, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 121–136.

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M. & Yosso, T. (2000) Critical race theory, racial microaggressions and campus racial climate: the experiences of African-American college students, Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.

Solórzano, D. & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001) Critical race theory, transformational resistance and social justice: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context, Urban Education, 36, 308–342.

Solórzano, D. & Solórzano, R. (1995) The Chicano educational experience: a proposed frame- work for effective schools in Chicano communities, Educational Policy, 9, 293–314.

Solórzano, D. & Villalpando, O. (1998) Critical race theory, marginality, and the experience of minority students in higher education, in: C. Torres & T. Mitchell (Eds) Emerging issues in the sociology of education: comparative perspectives (New York, SUNY Press), 211–224.

Solórzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2000) Toward a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano educa- tion, in: C. Tejeda, C. Martinez, Z. Leonardo & P. McLaren (Eds) Charting new terrains of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (Cresskill, NJ, Hampton Press), 35–65.

Solórzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2001) Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: counterstorytelling Chicana and Chicano graduate school experiences, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495.

Solórzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2002a) A critical race counterstory of race, racism and affirmative action, Equity and Excellence in Eduction, 35(2), 155–168.

Solórzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2002b) Maintaining social justice hopes within academic realities: a freirean approach to critical race/LatCrit pedagogy, Denver Law Review, 78(4), 595–621.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001) Manufacturing hope and despair: the school and kin support networks of US–Mexican youth (New York, Teachers College Press).

Stanton-Salazar, R. & Spina, S. U. (2000) The network orientations of highly resilient urban minority youth: a network-analytic account of minority socialization and its educational implications, The Urban Review, 32(3), 227–261.

Stefancic, J. (1998) Latino and Latina critical theory: an annotated bibliography, La Raza Law Journal, 10, 423–498.

Stevenson, B. (1996) Life in Black and White: family and community in the slave south (New York, Oxford University Press).

Tate, W. (1994) From inner city to ivory tower: does my voice matter in the academy?, Urban Education, 29(3), 245–269.

Cultural capital and critical race theory 91

Tate, W. (1997) Critical race theory and education: history, theory and implications, Review of Research in Education, 22, 191–243.

Tatum, B. D. (1997) Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race (New York, Basic Books).

Tierney, W. (1993) Building Communities of difference: higher education in the twenty-first century (Westport, CT, Bergin & Garvey).

US Bureau of the Census (2000) 2000 census of the population: general population characteristics, United States summary (Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office).

Valdes, F. (1997) LatCrit theory: naming and launching a new direction of critical legal scholarship, Harvard Latino Law Review, 2, 1–501.

Valdes, F. (1998) LatCrit: Latinas/os and the law, La Raza Law Journal, 10, 1–600. Valdes, F., McCristal Culp, J. & Harris, A. (2002) Crossroads, directions and a new critical race theory

(Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press), 243–250. Valencia, R. (1991) Chicano school failure and success: research and policy agenda for the 1990s (New

York, Falmer Press). Valencia, R. (2002) Chicano school failure and success: past, present and future (New York, Routledge/

Falmer). Valencia, R. & Solórzano, D. (1997) Contemporary deficit thinking, in: R. Valencia (Ed.) The evolu-

tion of deficit thinking in educational thought and practice (New York, Falmer Press), 160–210. Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring (New York,

SUNY Press). Vélez-Ibáñez, C. & Greenberg, J. (1992) Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge

among U.S.-Mexican households, Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313–335. Villalpando, O. (2003) Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o

critical theory analysis of findings form a longitudinal study of Chicana/o college students, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(5), 619–646.

Villalpando, O. & Solórzano, D. (2005) The role of culture in college preparation programs: a review of the literature, in: W. Tierney, Z. Corwin, & J. Kolyar (Eds) Preparing for college: nine elements of effective outreach (Albany, NY, SUNY Press), 13–28.

Villenas, S. & Deyhle, D. (1999) Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance, Curriculum Inquiry, 29(4), 413–445.

Villenas, S. & Moreno, M. (2001) To valerse por si misma between race, capitalism, and patriar- chy: Latina mother-daughter pedagogies in north Carolina, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 671–688.

Wakatsuki Houston, J. & Houston, J. D. (1973) Farewell to Manzanar: a true story of Japanese American experience during and after the World War II internment (Boston, Houghton Mifflin).

Ward, J. (1996) Raising resisters: the role of truth telling in the psychological development of African-American girls, in: B. Leadbetter & N. Way (Eds) Urban girls: resisting stereotypes, creating identities (New York, New York University Press), 85–99.

Williams, P. (1991) The alchemy of race and rights: diary of a law professor (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).

Williams, P. (1997) Spirit-murdering the messenger: the discourse of fingerprinting as the law’s response to racism, in: A. Wing (Ed.) Critical race feminism: a reader (New York, New York University Press), 229–236.

Williams, R. (1997) Vampires anonymous and critical race practice, Michigan Law Review, 95, 741–765.

Wing, A. (Ed.) (1997) Critical race feminism: a reader (New York, New York University Press). Wing, A. (Ed.) (2000) Global critical race feminism: an international reader (New York, New York

University Press). Zavella, P. (1991) Reflections on diversity among Chicanas, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies,

2(2), 73–85.

Attachment 2

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

R

E V I E W

S

I N

A D V A

N C

E

Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools James Collins Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009. 38:33–48

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085242

Copyright c© 2009 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

0084-6570/09/1021-0033$20.00

Key Words

language, social class, social inequality, education, ethnographies, multilevel analysis

Abstract Social reproduction theory argues that schools are not institutions of equal opportunity but mechanisms for perpetuating social inequalities. This review discusses the emergence and development of social repro- duction analyses of education and examines three main perspectives on reproduction: economic, cultural, and linguistic. Reproduction analy- ses emerged in the 1960s and were largely abandoned by the 1990s; some of the conceptual and political reasons for this turning away are addressed. New approaches stress concepts such as agency, identity, person, and voice over the structural constraints of political economy or code, but results have been mixed. Despite theoretical and method- ological advances—including new approaches to multilevel analysis and alertness to temporal processes—the difficult problem remains to un- derstand how social inequality results from the interplay of classrooms, schools, and the wider society.

33

Review in Advance first posted online on June 12, 2009. (Minor changes may still occur before final publication online and in print.)

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

INTRODUCTION

Concern with the processes whereby societies and cultures perpetuate themselves has an an- cient pedigree, traceable back to Aristotle’s (1959) analysis of the domestic economy in political orders. Researchers have suggested that scholastic institutions were important sites of cultural reproduction in classical Greece (Lloyd 1990), imperial Rome (Guillory 1993), medieval Europe (Bloch 1961), and modern France (Durkheim 1977). Overt concern with social reproduction is, however, a product of post–World War II social dynamics, especially the political and intellectual ferment of the 1960s. It is a product of concern with inequal- ity. As a framework of inquiry, it draws from diverse disciplines but is typically rooted in dia- logue with Marxist traditions of social analysis.

Early studies of social reproduction in edu- cation emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, Britain, and France. Founda- tional works include Bowles & Gintis’s (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America (United States), Willis’s (1977) Learning to Labor (Britain), and Bourdieu & Passeron’s (1977) Reproduction in Education, Culture, and Society (France). Al- though these works differed in regard to the- orization, scope of analysis, and methodology, each attempted to trace links between economic structures, schooling experience, and modes of consciousness and cultural activity. Their anal- yses responded to debates concerning central contradictions of these postwar societies. In each country, public education was officially un- derstood and presented as a meritocratic insti- tution in which talent and effort alone predicted outcomes, but by the post–World War II period considerable evidence indicated otherwise (e.g., Coleman 1966, Jencks 1972).

The basic reproductionist argument was that schools were not exceptional institutions promoting equality of opportunity; instead they reinforced the inequalities of social structure and cultural order found in a given country. How they were understood to do so depended on the theoretical perspective of analysts, the sites they prioritized for study, and a varying

emphasis on top-down structural determina- tion versus bottom-up agency by individuals or small groups. Early research on educational reproduction provided structuralist accounts, identifying systematic features of language, cul- ture, and political economy, which were re- flected in the conduct and organization of class- rooms and curricula and assigned a causal role in perpetuating linguistic, cultural, and eco- nomic inequalities (Bernstein 1975, Bourdieu & Passeron 1977, Bowles & Gintis 1976). The economic perspective on reproduction (Bowles & Gintis 1976) attracted criticism for its treat- ment of culture as secondary to economics and politics. “Cultural reproduction” analyses, when they emerged, often attempted to in- tegrate class analyses with analysis of race or gender formation and to investigate the social practices of small groups. An early, influential and highly controversial argument about class and education focused on the role of language (Bernstein 1960, 1964). It was quickly taken up for criticism and exploration by sociolinguistic and anthropological researchers in the United States but with an emphasis on ethnicity and culture and a focus on situated communication, especially in classrooms (Cazden et al. 1972).

Although the reproductive thesis is simple to state in academic terms, it has been and continues to be quite unpalatable to many of those who work in schools or educational sys- tems more generally (Rothstein 2004). This is probably because it presents a direct chal- lenge to meritocratic assumptions and seems to dash egalitarian aspirations. Early arguments and analyses of reproduction were also of their era, the 1960s and early 1970s, when economic and social stability seemed more secure than it has in recent decades. They were also formu- lated with a structuralist intellectual confidence that has not survived the intervening decades of reflexive, postmodern uncertainty (Bauman 1997). By the early 1990s, there was a turning away from arguments about social reproduction and education, whether focused on economic, cultural, or linguistic dimensions. This is puz- zling in some respects because the problem of

34 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

inequality remains a central feature of the con- temporary world, within nations and on a global scale (Henwood 2003; Stiglitz 2002), and the centrality of straightforward economic factors in school performance appears little changed over more than 40 years (Coleman 1966, U.S. Dep Educ. 2001).

This review surveys studies developing eco- nomic, cultural, and linguistic perspectives on social reproduction in classrooms and schools. After examining work using each lens, it then discusses why the reproduction framework was largely abandoned, exploring the conceptual and political dilemmas that seem to have moti- vated the turn to new approaches and assessing the achievements and limitations of subsequent efforts. Last, it takes up the question of “What now?,” arguing that the issue of social repro- duction in education and society remains highly relevant but that its study requires new concep- tual tools as well as a reworking of old find- ings and insights. Two central theses inform the overall argument. The first is that to understand social reproduction we have to consider multi- ple levels of social and institutional structure as well as microanalytic communicative processes and cultural practices. The second is that social class matters profoundly but that analysts strug- gle to understand its protean nature, including its intricate interplay with other principles of inequality, such as race and gender.

ECONOMIC REPRODUCTION

Althusser’s (1971) essay on “Ideological State Apparatuses” was an early and influential argu- ment about education and social reproduction. It conceptualized the school as an agency of class domination, achieving its effects through ideological practices that inculcated knowledge and dispositions in class-differentiated social subjects, preparing them for their dominant or dominated places in the economy and society. The foundational work on economic reproduction, however, was Schooling in Capitalist America (Bowles & Gintis 1976). In this account, classroom experience, and school knowledge more generally, emphasized

discrete bits of knowledge and discipline for those bound for blue-collar occupations, alongside more synthetic, analytic knowledge and self-directedness for those destined for middle-class professions. It provided a straight- forward argument in which school curricula and classroom procedure reflected the organi- zation of class-differentiated adult dispositions, skills, and work experiences and transmitted similar dispositions and skills to subsequent generations. The argument quickly attracted criticism, in part because it maintained consid- erable distance conceptually and empirically from actual schools and classrooms (Giroux 1983). However, the basic thesis that schooling as a system rations kinds of knowledge to class- and ethnically-stratified student populations has been empirically confirmed by a number of studies (Anyon 1981, 1997; Carnoy & Levin 1985; Oakes 1985). Published in translation at about the same time, Reproduction in Education, Culture and Society (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977) dealt with France. It provided a more nuanced analysis, both in its framework, which related forms of symbolic value (economic, cultural, and social “forms of capital”) to economic and political arenas, and in its attention to forms of pedagogic discourse, which hypothesized systemic miscommunication in classrooms (1977, Chapter 2). It also attracted many critics of its “determinism” (Giroux 1983, Levinson & Holland 1996) because it argued that class-based differences in material resources were ultimate causes in the reproduction of cultural and educational inequality.

According to critics, a primary deficiency in all the early formulations was their neglect of the problem of agency and change (Giroux 1983, MacLeod 1987). Instructive criticism in this regard is provided by Apple (1982). As does Schooling in Capitalist America, this work takes as its starting point that certain shared principles govern the organization of schooling and work. It argues that in essence schooling is organized to provide individuated, technical knowledge to select strata of consumer-workers (largely white, middle class, and compliant). The abstract and schematic treatment of

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 35

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

social dynamics and the education process is enriched, however, by Apple’s argument that “cultures and ideologies” are “filled with con- tradiction” and “produced . . . in contestation and struggle.” (pp. 24, 26). In support of this argument, Apple turns to sociological case studies and educational ethnographies. The first of these address adults in work situations and show, for example, male factory workers and female salespeople as they slow down, disrupt, and otherwise exert informal control over work processes. Such studies document how class-situated practices of resistance subvert the formal procedures and control mechanisms of the workplace bureaucracy (see also Scott 1998, pp. 310–11).

The ethnographic studies Apple discusses focus on class conflicts in society and in re- lation to school. One of these, Willis’s Learn- ing to Labor (1977), is a classic because of its detailed observation of peer group behav- ior and its provocative theorization of cultural agency and reproduction. The study examines how working-class English lads penetrate the school’s meritocratic ideology. Through peer group solidarities analogous to their fathers’ shop-floor tactics for controlling the flow of factory work, they disrupt classroom procedure with humor and aggression, ubiquitously call- ing into question the classroom social contract whereby compliance is exchanged for knowl- edge and grades. They celebrate masculine sol- idarity and power through partying, fighting, and “having a laff”; they also oppress girls, de- ride ethnoracial minorities, and fail in school. Another study is McRobbie’s (1978) “Working Class Girls and the Culture of Femininity.” It is an ethnographic analysis of both class and sexu- ality, theorized as structures of domination that are lived as partially autonomous cultural for- mations, zones of practice and meaning wherein working-class girls assert femininity and sexual- ity against the prudish compliance expected of good girls in school. Like their working-class mothers, these girls form bonds of self and soli- darity through gender expression, but they also disengage from schooling and its prospects of

social mobility and enact self-limiting rituals of sexual subordination.

In these two studies, rather than reproduc- tive processes that involve congruence across multiple levels of organizations and actors (e.g., by parents, teachers, and education bureaucra- cies), we instead find oppositional practices that nonetheless reproduce social relations. We have sophisticated accounts of how the winner loses. Adolescent class- and gender-based solidarities draw from parental legacies of class and gender struggles, and the students building these sol- idarities develop considerable insight into the selective, class-biased nature of school curricu- lum and normative classroom conduct. They disrupt the logic of schooling, but their group- and practice-based insights are limited “pene- trations” (Willis 1977, chapters 5 and 6) because their class expressions also reinforce ethnora- cial antagonism, gender oppression, and edu- cational failure.

Carnoy & Levin (1985) share Apple’s em- phasis on education as a site of class conflict and social contradiction, and they emphasize the role of the state. They argue that school- ing serves primarily as an instrument of class domination but that it is also a site of struggles for equality. As does Apple, they also turn to ethnographies to understand reproductive pro- cesses, focusing on comparative ethnographic studies of schools serving upper- and lower- middle-class communities in California. Ana- lyzing teacher beliefs and classroom practices regarding work-relevant knowledge and dispo- sitions, parental views of schooling, their chil- dren, and their occupational futures, and state education criteria for adequate and nonade- quate performance on core subjects, they find a lockstep pattern of teacher and parental beliefs, classroom practices, and state performance cri- teria that “reinforce the differential class struc- ture in preparing the young for future occupa- tional roles” (p. 141).

Lareau’s Home Advantage (1989) provides a further perspective on class conditions and school experiences, focusing especially on fam- ilies. It comparatively analyzes how working

36 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

and middle class adults with elementary-age children view education and interact with school, thus influencing their children’s school experiences. Lareau finds that what might be called work process shapes families’ tacit theo- ries of the home/school relation. Does parents’ office work come home with them? If so, expect (middle-class) parents and children to perceive and enact many home/school connections. Does parental work end at the factory gate or retail shop door? If so, expect (working-class) parents and children to perceive and enact a clear separation of home and school, viewing school as the place for schooling and home as a needed respite. The study reports a salient home advantage: Middle-class parents, especially mothers, are avid and effective school minders. When well-resourced, school- confident women set the standard for normal parenting, their blue-collar counterparts inevitably lag behind. School personnel often view working-class parents as insufficiently involved in their children’s education (Freeman 2004, Luttrell 1997, Thompson 1995).

CULTURAL REPRODUCTION

Lareau uses the concept of cultural capital to an- alyze cultural knowledge as class advantage in educational areas. This concept, from Bourdieu (Bourdieu 1984, Bourdieu & Passeron 1977), has been applied in numerous studies of so- cial advantage and classroom processes (e.g., Collins 1999a, Heller 1994, Nespor 1987). Key extended works on cultural reproduction fo- cused on the relative autonomy of cultural forms and practices vis-à-vis political economy, investigating the interplay of class with other significant social relations, especially those of gender and race. They often analyze how so- cial relations are produced and reproduced in encounters between adolescents and their peers in a variety of school settings, including classrooms.

Foley’s (1990) Learning Capitalist Culture proposes to show “how schools are sites for popular cultural practices that stage or reproduce social inequality” (p. xv). It reports

on a south Texas town and high school in the ferment of 1970s civil rights reforms. Inves- tigating the dynamics of class in relation to other axes of inequality, it analyzes the staging and reproducing of class and racial hierarchies at multiple sites: football games, the dating scene, beer parties, and classrooms. Foley argues that class relations take priority over ethnic affiliations but that class is expressive rather than structural in the usual sense. More particularly, he argues that middle-class Anglo and Latino cohorts, of athletes and other popular cliques, share greater commonalities in their presentation of self (Goffman 1959, 1967), whether in classrooms or elsewhere, than they share with ostensible working-class counterparts, whether Anglo “shitkickers” or Chicano “vatos.” In this account, capitalist cul- ture is fundamentally “communicative action” (Habermas 1987), and class culture is a “situatal speech performance” (pp. 178–81, 192–94) en- acted and learned in many places, including the classroom; it crosscuts and informs the staging and reproduction of ethnic identities. Essen- tially, middle-class expressive culture is highly instrumental: Middle-class kids, whether Anglo or Chicano, play the classroom “game,” appearing interested while discreetly mocking teacher authority and school knowledge. Working-class expressive culture is less strate- gic for various reasons: Working-class kids do not play the classroom game as well; they are either passive and exclude themselves from classroom interaction or openly defiant and likely to provoke confrontations with teachers.

What adds additional substance to Foley’s ethnography of social reproduction is its com- panion analysis From Peones to Politicos (Foley 1988), a historical treatment of the chang- ing political economy of the town and region in which the more detailed school/community study is situated. This study analyzes the broad movement of adult Chicanos from field laborers to civil rights advocates, as the region’s economy transforms over an 80-year period from feudal- ized ranching to modern capitalist agriculture. It shows the space made for an expanded Latino middle class, investigates the role of public

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 37

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

institutions such as schools in class-stratified ethnic social mobility, and provides the broader compass for the social scenes, institutional pro- cesses, and face-to-face conduct explored in Learning Capitalist Culture.

Despite its strengths, Foley’s analysis of cap- italist culture gave short shrift to questions of gender (Collins 1992). Other studies have addressed this lack; a pair by Weis is partic- ularly valuable. Working Class Without Work (Weis 1990) takes up issues of gender, race, and aspiration in the context of identity, so- cial movements, feminism, and class restruc- turing. It examines how white high-school stu- dents in “Freeway,” a working-class suburb of Buffalo, New York, in the throes of late 1980s deindustrialization and job loss, phrase their as- pirations, behave in classrooms, and relate to each other on the basis of their gender and race. The study calls for attention to the production of class identities, rather than the reproduction of class conditions. It argues that social move- ments of feminism and New Right populism inform female and male responses to the loss of traditional working-class livelihoods, deeply influencing the meaning of school and pro- viding alternative, conflicting paths of identity formation. In particular, girls are analyzed as proto-feminists, aspiring to education and so- cially mobile work independent of the patriar- chal domination endured by their mothers and grandmothers; they do not have the resentment of institutional authority that boys have. Boys, for their part, seem more attuned to a social conservative agenda; they aspire to a restora- tion of their fathers’ world of good wages and good jobs with the women at home, and they avoid and resist schoolwork and teacher author- ity. Working Class Without Work portrays class formation in a time of uncertain transition (the late 1980s), arguing that class legacies of un- derachievement in schooling can be reshaped by social movements that speak to gender and racial as well as class identities.

Class Reunion (Weis 2004) is a follow-up investigation conducted with many of the women and men originally studied as students at Freeway High. The heart of Class Reunion is

an analysis of class in relation to both gender and race dynamics in an era of global economic reconstruction. Talking with earlier research participants about their adult lives, Weis finds predictable outcomes as well as instructive surprises. Few of the men have successfully pursued tertiary education; with the ongoing loss of industrial work, most make livings in lower-wage service-sector jobs. Many of the women have completed college and hold white- collar jobs, challenging assumptions that family background simply predicts educational attain- ment. Weis finds—unexpectedly—that many men have given up their aspirations to the patri- archal authority and privilege embedded in an earlier white, working-class masculinity. They have opted of necessity for domestic partner- ships in which economic resources are shared along with domestic work, including child care. But this kinder, gentler domestic realm shows a harsher face to the outside world: These men and women forge new domestic alliances as whites, protecting “their communities” from African Americans and “Arabs” (Weis 2004).

Those “Arabs,” who Weis’s research partic- ipants see as racial others, are predominantly of Yemeni origin. Yemeni immigrants are also the subjects of Sarroub’s (2005) All American Yemeni Girls, a study of high-school girls who are members of a working-class immigrant community in Dearborn, Michigan. The con- trasts of site and study are instructive. Sarroub finds very different gender dynamics in this working-class community. In the 1990s, there appears to have been plenty of factory work in Dearborn, supporting a multigenerational Yemeni community that is devoutly Islamic and starkly patriarchal. In Sarroub’s analysis, school-focused, society-wide cultural repro- duction of the sort proposed by Bourdieu & Passeron (1977) is rejected. Schools are not the site of social reproduction; instead classrooms are “an oasis” where talk flows relatively freely between girl and boy, Yemeni and native-born American, and where educational achieve- ment is sought and aspirations flower. Home and community are where diasporic Yemeni identities are reinforced through transnational

38 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

marital strategies; a locally construed Muslim faith entails a very close monitoring of female dress, speech, and conduct; and achievement in school is appreciated but firmly subordinated to marriage and family. Documenting “the religious and cultural traditions that are in fact reproduced and reconstructed within the Yemeni family, and by the girls,” Sarroub convincingly shows that “cultural tools and traditions may have little bearing on learning and achievement [in school] but may serve the purpose of easing cultural or religious tensions as home and school worlds collide” (p. 12). Some outcomes of that collision—desperation as high-school graduation approaches, flight from family, and ostracism from community for girls who do choose education and jobs over submission to patriarchal authority—are sober reminders that identity can be anguished as well as reassuring and that the meanings of class, gender, and race vary widely.

This variation and its challenges for so- cial analysis are central issues in Bettie’s (2003) Women Without Class. Studying Latina and Anglo adolescents, Bettie documents that working-class style and demeanor were both sexualized and racialized. School personnel judged working-class Anglos and Latinas as overly sexualized; both girls and school person- nel saw upwardly mobile Latina girls as “acting white” (pp. 83–86). Theoretically focused on the interplay of class, gender, and race, Bettie argues that class should be understood as both performance and performative. It is perfor- mance because there is an indirect fit between background and style: Some working-class and middle-class “performers” depart from family origins. It is performative because family and community origins constrain the class expres- sions with which people are comfortable: Class expressivity is “an effect of social structure” (pp. 49–56). Examining working-class Latinas’ expressivity, she explores how class is deflected into sexuality, negatively judged by school per- sonnel, feeding into curriculum tracking pro- cesses that lead these “class performers” to working-class futures (chapter 3).

LINGUISTIC REPRODUCTION

Language pervades formal education as the pri- mary means of teaching and learning (Cazden 2001). As shown by the fields of sociolinguis- tics and linguistic anthropology, as well as some of the work on cultural reproduction just re- viewed, language is also a primary means of expressing social identities, affiliating with cul- tural traditions, and building relations with others (Gee 2001, Harris & Rampton 2003, Schieffelin & Ochs 1986). A third major ap- proach to social reproduction has focused on language and communication conduct in and out of schools, and with such studies we see the emergence of research into public debates about schools and society, often with unin- tended consequences.

Bernstein provided the major early theoret- ical and empirical work arguing for the role of class and language in social reproduction (Bernstein 1960, 1964, 1975). Briefly, he argued that the experience of work process reinforces kinds of family role relations, themselves real- ized as discursive identities that are carried by “elaborated” and “restricted” codes (1964). The codes are seen as the “genes of social class,” the semiotic-communicative sources of identities that are congruent with or disjunctive from the expressive styles required in school (Bernstein 1986, p. 472). Because of its schematic formula- tion of relations between classes and codes and its uptake in American debates about “cultures of poverty” and “linguistic deficit,” Bernstein’s account attracted much criticism (see Atkinson 1985, Collins 1988, Edwards 1976 for reviews).

Bernstein’s early work on language and class had been picked up in the 1960s by American researchers who argued that poor people, es- pecially poor African Americans concentrated in cities, performed inadequately in school be- cause they were linguistically or culturally de- prived (Bereiter & Englemann 1966, Deutsch 1967). This began the first iteration of con- troversies over linguistic deprivation explana- tions for educational failure. Anthropologists and other critics of the deficit model argued that minorities did poorly in school not because

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 39

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

of their language per se but because they were treated differently in schools (Leacock 1969, 1971; Rist 1970).

Functions of Language in the Classroom (Cazden et al. 1972) is an influential response to the deficit arguments in which linguis- tic anthropologists, socially minded psychol- ogists, sociologists, and educators investigate the relationships between group-based com- municative styles and classroom interactional dynamics that might lead to poor educational outcomes. Among the contributors, Bernstein (1972) criticizes facile notions of compensatory education, and Hymes (1972) argues for the need to investigate community-specific “com- municative competencies” underlying language use that might be perceived as deficient in classroom settings. Some contributions ana- lyze ethnically grounded preferences for col- laborative approaches to socializing and learn- ing, including Hawaiian-American traditions of “talk story” (Boggs 1972) and Native American preferences for peer-based “participation struc- tures” (Philips 1972); others explore stigmatiz- ing assumptions about Standard English ver- sus other languages (Spanish) or varieties (Black English), which result in differential treatment in classrooms (Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez 1972, Mitchell-Kernan 1972). The volume es- tablished a standard for arguments about com- municative differences, which departed from middle-class white and school-based practice but had an underlying logic or rationale. Many findings led to additional research and analy- sis, either confirming and elaborating the orig- inal phenomena (Au 1980, Erickson & Mohatt 1992, Philips 1983) or applying concepts to new domains, such as literacy learning (Michaels 1981) and mathematics instruction (O’Connor & Michaels 1996).

The major contribution in this tradition, however, is Heath’s (1983) Ways With Words. It melds Bernstein’s concerns with work, socialization, language, and schooling and the linguistic anthropological concerns with community-based differences in communica- tive style that appeared to influence classroom processes and learning outcomes. The book

painstakingly analyzes three different commu- nities in the Carolina Piedmont: a mixed-race middle-class cohort of “Townspeople”; a black working-class neighborhood of “Trackton”; and a white working-class neighborhood of “Roadville.” It documents striking differences in language and literacy socialization among the three groups, relates these differences to expec- tations about language held by classroom teach- ers and embedded in school curriculum, and compellingly argues that ethnographic inquiry by research participants (children and teach- ers) can lessen the mismatch between home and school. Despite its strengths, the book is cir- cumspect about the perpetuation of race and class inequalities clearly implied by its find- ings, perhaps in part owing to methodologi- cal modesty, but also in part because it ignores power relations, in particular, the larger state- level political forces that roll back the classroom reforms, which are only mentioned in a final Postscript (Collins & Blot 2003, chapters 3 and 5; de Castell & Walker 1991).

Drawing on the now-established school/home mismatch framework, a series of studies in the 1980s and early 1990s closely examined teacher-student and student-student interaction to demonstrate disadvantages faced by working-class African American students in standard classroom literacy lessons (Collins 1986; Gee 1996; Michaels 1981, 1986) and the advantages of classroom innovation (Foster 1987, Lee 1993). Others drew similar con- clusions from analyses of community-based “funds of knowledge” possessed by working- class Latino students but larger ignored by public schools (Gonzalez et al. 2005, Moll et al. 1992). Few studies in this period explicitly thematized the reproductive aspects of class- or race-inflected classroom encounters with literacy (Bigler 1996; Collins 1988, 1989).

In early 1997, however, a second iteration of the linguistic deprivation debate occurred after the Oakland Unified School District proposed to treat Ebonics (African American Vernacular English) as a classroom language resource. In making sense of the firestorm of protest this proposal unleashed, analysts

40 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

drew on the Functions of Language tradition of trying to understand community-based ways of speaking as resources for learning (Delpit & Perry 1998). They also pointed to the larger cultural-political processes that systematically devalued African American Vernacular (i.e., working-class) ways with words (Baugh 2000). Some explicitly treated it as an ideological conflict that revealed the reproductive nature of standard school language hierarchies and procedures in the United States (Collins 1999b) and internationally (Long 2003).

In recent years, the ways in which linguistic differences correlate with class differences have been getting renewed attention because of de- bates about school reform and the failure of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind man- dates and programs (No Child Left Behind Act 2001). This is an ambitious national interven- tion in public education that was supposed to change long-standing patterns of educational inequality but has not done so (Rothstein 2007, Tough 2006). In the search for explanations and alternative, research making linguistic differ- ence or deficit arguments is being considered in policy discussions and schools reforms. This development has largely escaped published dis- cussion in anthropology (but see Bomer et al. 2008).

Two studies are relevant for our discussion because of the substance of their claims and the way they have been picked up in policy debates. Both studies provide accounts of class-based differences in language and interactional dispo- sitions and argue why they matter for school- ing. Hart & Risley’s (1995) Meaningful Differ- ences is a study of child socialization, based on a substantive, longitudinal sampling of language use in family settings. It makes strong claims about social class and language use, and it has had influential uptake in discussions of com- pensatory literacy programs for poor children. The book is explicitly cast as a dialogue with Bernstein’s claims about class and code, and the analysis concentrates on the amount of vocabu- lary, specific sentence types, and specific inter- actional features of talk directed to children in “professional,” “working-class” and “welfare”

homes during their infant, preschool, and early primary years. Hart & Risely argue that the cumulative vocabulary differences they found have direct effects on early literacy. Although no commentators seem to have noticed, the spe- cific literacy measures they study do not support their claim, nor do their findings show a regu- lar class distribution. Compounding the prob- lem of the flawed analysis of class and language, Hart & Risley subsequently simplified their re- sults and promoted them in policy discussions as a “catastrophic” linguistic disadvantage for the poor (Hart & Risley 2003), and this version of findings has been used to justify strict ped- agogical regimes aimed at the inner-city poor (Brook-Gunn et al. 2003, Tough 2006).

Lareau’s (2003) Unequal Childhoods is a more measured work investigating child-rearing practices among poor, working-class, and afflu- ent, professional white and black families living in Philadelphia and its suburbs. It supports and elaborates Bernstein’s and Heath’s arguments about class and language socialization, showing a disjuncture between poor and working-class language practices and those expected in public arenas such as school or the (white-collar) workplace. It also explores how the differences in child-rearing are rooted in class-based cultural models that unite ideas about parents, children, and learning. Middle-class families believe in “concerted cultivation,” whereas their working-class counterparts view child de- velopment as akin to “natural growth” (Lareau 2003, chapter 1; see Heath 1983, chapters 3 and 7 for evidence of similar beliefs). The professional patterns go together with school achievement, the working-class patterns do not, and these class differences supersede oth- erwise notable white/black differences. Lareau is frank about the “power of class” (Chapter 12) in shaping child language socialization, schooling experiences, and life chances, and although her findings are not part of a deficit argument, they have been picked up in the same commentary as those of Hart & Risley.

There is reason to take Meaningful Differ- ences (Hart & Risley 1995) seriously. Stripped of its alarmist rhetoric and read closely, the

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 41

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

study reports findings commensurable with those of Lareau (2003) and Heath (1983) and the body of work in England supporting Bernstein’s early arguments (Cook-Gumperz 1973, Hawkins 1977). The recurrent depriva- tion debates, which have not ended, are an in- dication of the difficulties of understanding the dynamic interactions among racial formations, class conditions, and language. The fact that the most recent iteration of the debate has attracted little attention from sociolinguists or linguistic anthropologists calls to mind Hymes’s (1972) observation regarding Bernstein in the 1970s:

Bernstein is in the complex, difficult position of defending a kind of communication he calls a “restricted code” and of insisting on its lim- itations. His position will please few. Those who defend children by placing all blame on the schools, and those who explain the failures of schools by the language of the children, will both be offended. (p. xlvi)

THE TURN FROM REPRODUCTION AND THE CURRENT SCENE

The “difficult position” to which Hymes refers has largely been abdicated. Although there are exceptions, by the late 1980s efforts to un- derstand social reproduction in classrooms and schools had largely been abandoned. This was not because social inequality had lessened in the latter part of the twentieth century; in- deed, as numerous analysts have demonstrated, it has increased in the United States and in- ternationally since the early 1970s (Henwood 2003, Kuttner 2007), but concern with repro- duction as a conceptual focus was set aside in favor of other approaches. Instead analysts have given priorities that emphasize individ- ual or group initiative—”agency,” “identity,” “person,” and “voice”—over the structural con- straints of political economy or linguistic code. Economic reproduction models, the first for- mulated, were also the first criticized, most pointedly for neglecting the role of ethnora- cial formations and gender relations in capitalist

political economies and class relations (Bettie 2003, Foley 1990, Weis 1990).

The difficulties of formulating multifaceted accounts of race, class, and gender in relation to schooling have been formidable, however, and the new directions are informative both for their achievements and their limitations. Weis (1990) argued for a shift away from analyzing class reproduction to analyzing identity forma- tion, and her subsequent study (2004) supports the earlier argument that schools are not sim- ply about reproducing class relations to edu- cation. However, it does not show that social movements posited in 1990 as sources of iden- tity formation do in fact serve such a role; the discussion of ideology and consciousness is the weakest part of the latter work. The collection in Levinson et al. (1996) represents an anthro- pological option, arguing against cultural re- production models as too deterministic and for the priority of the “cultural production of per- son” in schools, with a wider diversity of kinds of person than is allowed by the broad social cat- egories of class, race, and gender. It is not clear, however, whether their project of studying the schooled production of persons has continued. Bettie (2003) explicitly analyzes class in rela- tion to gender and race, and her conceptualiz- ing class as “performance” and “performativity” moves forward the study of class-as-expression (see also Rampton 2006). However, although she argues against reproductionist accounts, she reports outcomes of class-expressive be- havior very similar to Willis’s and McRobbie’s findings—that is, while dismissing reproduc- tion models, she presents straightforward re- productive outcomes (Bettie 2003, chapter 3).

On the language front, there has been a dra- matic turning away from models of structure and code (Rampton et al. 2008), and this has left a troubling situation. On the one hand, there are currently very sophisticated accounts of practice, semiosis, and indeterminacy in the relation between language and social order; on the other hand, the new approaches would ap- pear to have little to say about the substan- tive projects, just discussed, that report strong links between class background and language

42 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

use. This aversion to social reproduction anal- ysis can be seen in a recent Annual Review es- say. Wortham (2008) presents a cogent account of the “Linguistic Anthropology of Education.” What is notable in his treatment of this field is the emphasis on the contextual indetermi- nacy of language use, on the constructed, con- tested nature of language ideologies, and in general on the creative, flexible aspect of social life in educational settings. This is not so much wrong as it is one sided. He presents a “com- positionist” view of social orders (Kontopoulos 1993), acutely aware of language use by per- sons and creativity in small group processes, but inattentive to the nature of institutions and vague about hierarchy or power. Thus stud- ies addressing ethnic inequalities are lauded for avoiding “simple reproductionist accounts” (Erickson & Schultz 1982) and for not arguing “simply that minority languages are devalued” (Rampton 1995) (Wortham, 2008, p. 42). Re- search that deals with language ideologies that organize nation-state hierarchies of language, class, and ethnorace (Blommaert 1999, Heller 1999), is euphemistically described as showing that “language policies. . .differentially position diverse populations” (Wortham 2008, p. 44). Discussing an analysis of narrative and iden- tity among Latino dropouts in an alternative school in Southern California (Rymes 2001), Wortham stresses the speakers’ narrative cre- ativity but omits any mention of the author’s sobering discovery that despite rich hybrid nar- ratives, alternative schools can be quickly shut down by higher administrative powers (Rymes 2001, chapter 9). In brief, this linguistic anthro- pology of education is attuned to the perfor- mative dimensions of language use, but not to structural constraint or social conflict.

CONCLUSION

A federally commissioned study in the 1960s sought to determine the influence of schools in educational attainment and occupational out- comes. It found that differences among schools mattered much less than assumed and that family socioeconomic status was the strongest

influence on a child’s educational achievement and life chances (Coleman 1966). More than four decades later, that generalization still holds (Jencks & Phillips 1998, Kingston 2000, U.S. Dep. Educ. 2001); furthermore, this pattern is found in most nations (Lemke 2002). This is a sobering feature of our world, and efforts to un- derstand such enduring social and educational inequality have occupied a wide range of schol- ars. The Marxian paradigm of social reproduc- tion provided one angle on the question but arguably proved both too narrow (excluding gender and race) and too rigid (failing to ac- count for agency or identity). But efforts to go beyond this framework—studying class iden- tity as a result of social movements, drawing on performance theory, or stressing the contextual creativity of language in educational settings— have not provided comprehensive accounts that enable us better to understand the gross dis- tribution of class-linked statuses and resources. Although this is a stalemate, there are lessons to be learned. Here are two worth thinking about.

First, it is necessary to conceptualize and study multiple social levels to understand mech- anisms that might produce such large-scale structural inequality. The need to move beyond a micromacro dichotomy of individual and soci- ety has been long-established (Bourdieu 1977, Ortner 1993); there are now sophisticated, the- oretically and empirically robust accounts of “heterarchical structures” (Kontopoulos 1993) that presume neither bottom-up construction of the social world by aggregate individual ac- tion nor top-down determination by large-scale entities but allow instead for emergence over time and complex feedback among structures and processes. Such approaches are needed to understand the internal ecologies of edu- cational systems or the external relations be- tween schools and other social institutions, such as families. Regarding the internal ecolo- gies, heterarchical models can help formulate the place of classrooms and schools in larger educational systems, as a structured but not predetermined process, shedding light on stud- ies of schools as sites of innovation and resis- tance that can quickly be reversed by higher

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 43

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

bureaucratic levels, as both Heath (1983) and Rymes (2001) discover. Such models can also provide insight into organizational and interac- tive processes that produce class-differentiated curricula, which have such inegalitarian out- comes (Anyon 1981, 1997; Carnoy & Levin 1985, Leacock 1969, Oakes 1985). Regarding the external relationships between schools and other social institutions, such as families, het- erarchical models are needed to analyze the in- terplay between schools and social-class-based dispositions to intervene in schools (Lareau 1989, 2003); between such class-based disposi- tions and the disabling stigma of working-class parents, especially mothers (Freeman 2004, Luttrell 1997, Thompson 1995); or between the class-specific, family-inculcated gender ex- pressivity and school tracking decisions (Bettie 2003, Luttrell 1996).

Second, understanding reproductive pro- cesses requires alertness to patterns that be- come evident only over longer periods of time. Some patterns follow the school year. For exam- ple, classroom processes such as formal lessons show a structured interplay among immediate face-to-face exchanges, event-level topical co- herences, and such things as patterns of differ- ential response to vernacular speech or second languages that unfold over the course of a year (Bartlett 2007, Collins 1996); the acquisition of problematic identities in schools (as, say, “trou- blemaker” or “learning disabled”) is a process that occurs in face-to-face exchanges as they oc- cur over time and across multiple institutional domains (as Wortham 2008 insightfully dis-

cusses; see also Rogers 2003, Wortham 2006). Other patterns reveal themselves in what might be called the time of the life course. Weis’s (2004) discovery of the significance of gender both for working-class educational attainment and the reworking of family organization de- pended on a longitudinal research strategy that followed high-school students into their adult lives. It would be valuable to have such a per- spective on the life trajectories of Sarroub’s (2005) research participants, allowing us to see whether their plight is transitional or enduring. This question brings us to the issue of the tem- porality of more abstract political and economic processes as they bear on more tangible cul- tural dynamics. Heightened diasporization— as described by Sarroub—seems to be a char- acteristic of the contemporary globalization, now some three to four decades into its course (Friedman 2003). Foley’s (1990) study of repro- ductive class cultures derives its insight into in- terplay of class and ethnicity in school settings and other social arenas in part because of the companion study (Foley 1988) analyzing the community’s transitions over an 80-year period.

Attention to multilevel processes and alert- ness to differing time frames would show that reproductive processes need not be simple to be systematic, nor to be consequential over the long term. Despite theoretical and method- ological advances of work in the postreproduc- tion period, there is much to be done to un- derstand how social inequality results from the interplay of classrooms, schools, and the wider society.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to many people who contributed to this review: Greg Urban, who responded to an early prospectus, raising useful questions about scope; Laura Hallgren Flynn, who provided a number of stimulating references and insights into the changing nature of “linguistic reproduc- tion” in classroom contexts and wider educational arenas; Fiona Thompson, who listened to many

44 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

ideas-in-progress and carefully read a presubmission draft; and Rosa Collins, who provided valu- able (paid) clerical assistance compiling the large bibliography.

LITERATURE CITED

Althusser L. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy, pp. 127–86. New York: NLB

Anyon J. 1981. Social class and school knowledge. Curric. Inq. 11:3–42 Anyon J. 1997. Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform. New York: Teachers Coll.

Press Apple M. 1982. Education and Power. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Aristotle. 1959. Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Atkinson P. 1985. Language, Structure, and Reproduction: An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. London:

Methuen Au K. 1980. Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children: analysis of a culturally

appropriate instruction event. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 11:91–115 Bartlett L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguist. Educ. 18:215–

31 Baugh J. 2000. Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Bauman Z. 1997. Postmodernity and Its Discontents. New York: Routledge Bereiter C, Englemann S. 1966. Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Pre-School. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall Bernstein B. 1960. Language and social class. Br. J. Sociol. 11:271–76 Bernstein B. 1964. Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences. Am. Anthropol.

66(No. 6, Part 2):55–69 Bernstein B. 1972. A critique of the concept of compensatory education. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 135–51 Bernstein B. 1975. Class, Codes, and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Bernstein B. 1986. A sociolinguistic approach to socialization; with some reference to educability. In Directions

in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. J Gumperz, D Hymes, pp. 465–97. New York: Blackwell

Bettie J. 2003. Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bigler E. 1996. Telling stories: on ethnicity, exclusion, and education in upstate New York. Anthropol. Educ. Q.

27:186–203 Bloch M. 1961. Medieval Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Blommaert J. 1999. State Ideology and Language in Tanzania. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag Boggs S. 1972. The meaning of questions and narratives to Hawaiian children. See Cazden et al. 1972,

pp. 299–327 Bomer R, Dworin J, May L, Semington P. 2008. Miseducating teachers about the poor: a critical analysis of

Ruby Payne’s claims about poverty. Teach. Coll. Rec. ID Number: 14591. http://www.tcrecord.org Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Bowles S, Gintis H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books Brooks-Gunn J, Klebanov P, Smith J, Duncan G, Lee K. 2003. The black-white test score gap in young

children: contributions of test and family characteristics. Appl. Dev. Sci. 7:239–52 Carnoy M, Levin H. 1985. Schooling and Work in the Democratic State. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Cazden C. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.

Press Cazden C, Hymes D, John V, eds. 1972. Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers Coll.

Press Coleman J. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off. Collins J. 1986. Differential treatment in reading groups. See Cook-Gumperz 1986, pp. 117–37

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 45

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

Collins J. 1988. Language and class in minority education. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 19:299–326 Collins J. 1989. Hegemonic practice: literacy and standard language in public education. J. Educ. 171:9–35 Collins J. 1992. Review of Learning Capitalist Culture (Douglas E. Foley). Latin Am. Anthropol. Rev. 4:83–84 Collins J. 1996. Socialization to text: structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In Natural Histories of

Discourse, ed. M Silverstein, G Urban, pp. 203–28. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Collins J. 1999a. The culture wars and shifts in linguistic capital: for combining political economy and cultural

analysis. Int. J. Qual. Res. Educ. 12:269–86 Collins J. 1999b. The Ebonics controversy in context: literacies, subjectivities, and language ideologies in

the United States. In Language Ideological Debates, ed. J Blommaert, pp. 201–34. New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Collins J, Blot R. 2003. Literacy and Literacies: Texts, Power, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Cook-Gumperz J. 1973. Social Control and Socialization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Cook-Gumpertz J, ed. 1986. The Social Construction of Literacy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press de Castell S, Walker T. 1991. Identity, metamorphosis and ethnographic research: What kind of story is ‘Ways

with Words’? Anthropol. Educ. Q. 22:3–20 Delpit L, Perry T, eds. 1998. The Real Ebonics Debate: Power, Language, and the Education of African-American

Children. New York: Beacon Deutsch M, ed. 1967. The Disadvantaged Child. New York: Basic Books Durkheim E. 1977. The Evolution of Educational Thought: Lectures on the Formation and Development of Secondary

Education in France. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Edwards A. 1976. Language, Education, and Class. London: Heinemann Erickson F, Mohatt G. 1992. Participation structures in two communities. In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling,

ed. G Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Erickson F, Schultz J. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Foley D. 1988. From Peones to Politicos: Class and Ethnicity in a South Texas Town, 1900–1987. Austin: Univ. Tex.

Press Foley D. 1990. Learning Capitalist Culture: Deep in the Heart of Tejas. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Foster M. 1987. “It’s cookin’ now”: a performance analysis of the speech events of a black teacher in an urban

community college. Lang. Soc. 18:1–29 Freeman M. 2004. Toward a rearticulation of a discourse on class within the practice of parental involvement.

Qual. Inq. 10:566–80 Friedman J. 2003. Globalizing languages: ideologies and realities of the contemporary global system. Am.

Anthropol. 105:744—52 Gee J. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies. London: Taylor & Maxwell Gee J. 2001. Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Rev. Res. Educ. 25:99–125 Giroux H. 1983. Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education. Harv. Educ. Rev.

53:257–93 Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday Goffman E. 1967. Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-to-Face Interaction. New York: Anchor Gonzalez N, Moll L, Amanti C, eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practice in Households, Communities,

and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Guillory J. 1993. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Gumperz J, Hernandez-Chavez E. 1972. Bilingualism, bidialectalism, and classroom interaction. See Cazden

et al. 1972, pp. 85–108 Habermas J. 1987. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. The Theory of Communicative Action.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press Harris R, Rampton B, eds. 2003. The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader. New York: Routledge Hart B, Risley T. 1995. Meaningful Differences. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Hart B, Risley T. 2003. The early catastrophe: the 30 million word gap by age 3. Am. Educ. 17:110–18 Hawkins P. 1977. Social Class, the Nominal Group and Verbal Strategies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Heath S. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge

Univ. Press

46 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

Heller M. 1994. Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. New York: Mouton de Gruyter Heller M. 1999. Linguistic Minorities and Modernity. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Henwood D. 2003. After the New Economy. New York: New Press Hymes D. 1972. Introduction. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. xi–lvii Jencks C. 1972. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books Jencks C, Phillips M, eds. 1998. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press Kingston P. 2000. The Classless Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Kontopoulos K. 1993. The Logics of Social Structure. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Kuttner R. 2007. The Squandering of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Lareau A. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention Elementary Education. New York: Falmer Lareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Leacock EB. 1969. Teaching and Learning in City Schools: A Comparative Study. New York: Basic Books Leacock EB, ed. 1971. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. New York: Simon & Schuster Lee C. 1993. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an African American

Discourse Genre. Urbana, IL: NCTE Lemke M. 2002. Outcomes of Learning. Results From the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment of

15-Year-olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy. NCES 2002–115. Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Off. Educ. Res. Improv.

Levinson B, Holland D. 1996. The cultural production of the education person: an introduction. See Levinson et al. 1996, pp. 1–54

Levinson B, Holland D, Foley D, eds. 1996. The Cultural Production of the Educated Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practice. Albany: State Univ. NY

Lloyd GER. 1990. Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Long M. 2003. Ebonics, language and power. In Language and Social Identity, ed. R Blot, pp. 147–70. Westport,

CT: Praeger Luttrell W. 1996. Taking care of literacy: one feminist’s critique. Educ. Policy 3:342–65 Luttrell W. 1997. Schoolsmart and Motherwise: Working-Class Women’s Identity and Schooling. New York: Rout-

ledge MacLeod J. 1987. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder, CO:

Westview McRobbie A. 1978. Working class girls and the culture of feminity. In Women Take Issue: Aspects of Women’s

Subordination, ed. Women’s Study Group. London: Hutchinson Michaels S. 1981. “Sharing time”: children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Lang. Soc.

10:423–41 Michaels S. 1986. Narrative presentations: an oral preparation for literacy with first graders. See Cook-

Gumperz 1986, pp. 94–116 Mitchell-Kernan C. 1972. On the status of Black English for native speakers: an assessment of attitudes and

values. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 195–210 Moll L, Amanti C, Neff D, Gonzalez N. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach

to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Pract. 31:133–41 Nespor J. 1987. The construction of school knowledge: a case study. J. Educ. 169:34–54 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2002. Public Law No. 107–110 Oakes J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press O’Connor MC, Michaels S. 1996. Shifting participation structures: orchestrating thinking practices in group

discussion. In Discourse, Learning, and Schooling, ed. D Hicks, pp. 63–103. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Ortner S. 1993. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. In Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. N Dirks, G Eley, S Ortner, pp. 372–411. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Philips S. 1972. Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. See Cazden et al. 1972, pp. 370–94

Philips S. 1983. The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Highland Park, IL: Waveland

www.annualreviews.org • Social Reproduction and Schools 47

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

ANRV388-AN38-03 ARI 21 April 2009 17:25

Rampton B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman Rampton B. 2006. Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. New York: Cambridge Univ.

Press Rampton B, Harris R, Collins J, Blommaert J. 2008. Language, class and education. In Kluwer Encyclopedia of

Language and Education, ed. N Hornberger, S May, pp. 71–81. New York: Springer Rist R. 1970. Student social class and teacher expectations: the self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education.

Harv. Educ. Rev. 40:411–51 Rogers R. 2003. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Family Literacy Practices: Power In and Out of Print. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum Rothstein R. 2004. Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White

Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers Coll. Press Rothstein R. 2007. What schools can (and cannot) do. (Plenary lecture, Every Child Counts, NYSUT Symp. Albany,

NY, Oct. 27) Rymes B. 2001. Conversational Borderlands: Language and Identity in an Alternative Urban High School. New

York: Teachers Coll. Press Sarroub L. 2005. All American Yemeni Girls: Being Muslim in a Public School. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Schieffelin B, Ochs E, eds. 1986. Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.

Press Scott J. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven,

CT: Yale Univ. Press Stiglitz J. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton Thompson F. 1995. An exploration of the use of cultural capital in home-school interactions around homework. PhD

thesis, Temple Univ. 323pp. Tough P. 2006. What it takes to make a student. New York Times, Nov. 26:27 U.S. Dep. Educ. 2001. The Condition of Education. Washington, DC: NCES Weis L. 1990. Working Class without Work: High School Students in a De-Industrialized Economy. New York:

Routledge Weis L. 2004. Class Reunion: The Remaking of the American White Working Class. New York: Routledge Willis P. 1977. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Teachers Coll.

Press Wortham S. 2006. Learning Identity: The Mediation of Social Identity through Academic Learning. New York:

Cambridge Univ. Press Wortham S. 2008. Linguistic anthropology of education. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 37:37–51

48 Collins

A nn

u. R

ev . A

nt hr

op ol

. 2 00

9. 38

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

a rj

ou rn

al s.

an nu

al re

vi ew

s. or

g by

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs ity

o f

N ew

Y or

k -

A lb

an y

on 0

7/ 09

/0 9.

F or

p er

so na

l u se

o nl

y.

Attachment 3

Elaine Hayes on

"The Forms of Capital"

In the "Forms of Capital" Bourdieu expands the notion of capital beyond its economic

conception which emphasizes material exchanges, to include "immaterial" and "non-

economic" forms of capital, specifically cultural and symbolic capital. He explains

how the different types of capital can be acquired, exchanged, and converted into

other forms. Because the structure and distribution of capital also represent the

inherent structure of the social world, Bourdieu argues that an understanding of the

multiple forms of capital will help elucidate the structure and functioning of the social

world.

The term cultural capital represents the collection of non-economic forces such as

family background, social class, varying investments in and commitments to

education, different resources, etc. which influence academic success. Bourdieu

distinguishes three forms of cultural capital. The embodied state is directly linked to

and incorporated within the individual and represents what they know and can do.

Embodied capital can be increased by investing time into self improvement in the

form of learning. As embodied capital becomes integrated into the individual, it

becomes a type of habitus and therefore cannot be transmitted instantaneously. The

objectified state of cultural capital is represented by cultural goods, material objects

such as books, paintings, instruments, or machines. They can be appropriated both

materially with economic capital and symbolically via embodied capital. Finally,

cultural capital in its institutionalized state provides academic credentials and

qualifications which create a "certificate of cultural competence which confers on its

holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to power."

(248) These academic qualifications can then be used as a rate of conversion between

cultural and economic capital.

Throughout his discussion of cultural capital, Bourdieu favors a nurture rather than a

nature argument. He states that the ability and talent of an individual is primarily

determined by the time and cultural capital invested in them by their parents.

Similarly, Bourdieu argues that "the scholastic yield from educational action depends

on the cultural capital previously invested by the family" (244) and "the initial

accumulation of cultural capital, the precondition for the fast, easy accumulation of

every kind of useful cultural capital, starts at the outset, without delay, without wasted

time, only for the offspring of families endowed with strong cultural capital." (246)

Based upon these assertions, it appears that cultural capital regulates and reproduces

itself in a similar fashion as habitus. According to this model, families of a given

cultural capital could only produce offspring with an equal amount of cultural capital.

This approach strikes me as too inflexible. How does Bourdieu account for those

individuals who elevate their social status or increase their cultural capital from what

they inherited. I am probably reading Bourdieu too literally and missing his point, but

I still do not understand how a given group with a specified cultural capital, such as

the "New Class," could increase in size if, as Bourdieu claims, it simply regenerates

itself.

Bourdieu defines social capital as, "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources

which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized

relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition." (248) An individual's social

capital is determined by the size or their relationship network, the sum of its

cumulated resources (both cultural and economic), and how successfully (quickly) the

individual can set them it in motion. According to Bourdieu, social networks must be

continuously maintained and fostered over time in order for them to be called upon

quickly in the future.

Finally, in his discussion of conversions between different types of capital, Bourdieu

recognizes that all types of capital can be derived from economic capital through

varying efforts of transformation. Bourdieu also states that cultural and social capital

are fundamentally rooted in economic capital but they can never be completely

reduced to an economic form. Rather, social and cultural capital remain effective

because they conceal their relationship to economic capital.