I've been eating, sleeping and dreaming Bourdieu lately...so I must provide as the opening to this post a bit of Bourdieu's wisdom (quoted here from The State Nobility...):

"Given that, as established elsewhere, the structure of social space as observed in academic societies is the product of two fundamental principles of differentiation---economic capital and cultural capital---the educational institution, which plays a critical role in the reproduction o fthe distribution of cultural capital and thus in the reproduction of the structure of social space, has become a central stake in the monopoly on dominant positions." (1996: 5)

Some of you are aware that my current research interest is in first-generation university students at a prestigious university (namely, Australia's premiere and "ivy league" university: The University of Sydney). I'm particularly intrigued by identity management of students who are coming from working-class backgrounds.

I, myself, am from a working-class background. At times I find myself feeling a bit out of place in the university environment. It isn't that I feel I shouldn't be in university---it's more that I feel that I'm living someone else's life. (Does that make sense?) Given my background...and considering the lives many of my former classmates are living back in Eastern Kentucky...I wonder how on earth I made it! Knowing what I do, there are, of course, many sociological explanations for why I (and other working-class students) have made it. But what interests me is the journey and the transformations that we undergo in the process of moving toward the more equitable achievement of social/cultural/academic capital. It is through this achievement that our social spheres are reconfigured and our social networks essentially redesigned.

It's fascinating to me---particularly when utilizing my overactive "sociological imagination"---that if one is astute enough, one can derive social class, geographical location, familial power patterns, and educational attainment level (among many other things) within two-minutes of social interaction with another. I guess that's why I love interactionism as a sociological perspective! There are so many symbols attached to our discussions and social interactional patterns; there's so much to be discovered!

At the same time, this could be a bit troubling, as folks can use the information they obtain in the course of short social interactions to negatively label the person with whom they are conversing. (Granted, this is good to an extent---it provides a mental/categoric orientation of the two social actors which will assist in the process of social interaction, as it allows them to determine where they're coming from and how to navigate the social distance that lies between them.) By mentally labeling the person with whom they are engaged in discussion, the social actor is actively constructing subsequent interactional patterns with the person they have labeled. That is, by labeling that person, they are determining the way in which they will converse with that person. If they consider their interactional counterpart a socially inferior person, they may speak condescendingly. If that is the case, and if the person who has been labeled picks up on the condescension, then said labeled individual may internalize the label. This could thus cause the "labeled" to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, thereby acting upon the internalized label (thus, in effect, being what is expected of them and, in essence, becoming the label they've received).

These fascinating patterns of socialization, social interaction, labeling and such have brought me to my interest in working-class university students and their identity management/formation (particularly in the educational field of power/control). These students have successfully passed through primary and secondary education---two successive levels that are dominant class oriented. They have overcome the labeling of their classmates/peers and teachers. They've in turn adapted their lives to be able to "code switch" between an academic (i.e., dominant-class) and working-class language, they've internalized dominant-class expectations (e.g., competition, aesthetic values, individuality, etc.) and they've navigated through these discrepant spheres to ultimately attain some level of inter-generational social mobility. Thus, the question becomes: How does this social mobility achieved by working-class students affect familial interaction? Are there particularly discernible patterns, or do these interactional patterns depend entirely upon subjective experiences that, in effect, are in operation on an individual basis?

Let's assume the student has been unable to successfully "switch" between their two social locations (working-class background in a dominant class oriented field). It can be assumed that they would cling more needily to their academic qualifications and their occupational location attained through their academic qualifications. They have therefore become insulated within the social sphere that generally doesn't want their kind (considering that many working-class children don't make it into university in the numbers that middle- and upper-class children do). Therefore, they may deny their background or conveniently skip over the details of their background while struggling in the course of social interaction not to convey said background (through relying heavily upon dominant class language and reference to qualification[s]).

Isn't sociology so interesting?!?!

:D