On the other hand, cultural capital largely refers to non-financial social assets. These assets may be either intellectual or educational which in turn may widely promote social mobility beyond any form of economic means. The concept of cultural capital gained renowned popularity when Pierre Bourdieu initially initiated it. For Pierre, capital is perceived to act as a social relation within a definable system of exchange (Bowles and Gintis, 2002).
As developed by Pierre Bourdieu, the Cultural capital theory gives an analysis of the consequences of disinterested habits, which include the appreciation of artwork. The theory maintains that people accumulate sets of cultural resources and implicit competencies as in the socialization process into the assigned class stratum. The embodied and crystallized acquaintance and the ability to be able to correctly consume the cultural objects is believed to operate in a form of social currency that in return can be transformed into social and material resources and benefits. Bourdieu further argues that it is almost impossible to give an explanation on the social world’s functioning and structure if capital is only introduced in one form and not in all forms as recognized by the economic theory (Bourdieu, 1984).
The theory emphasizes that any type of competence becomes an asset in form of capital for as long as it foresees the appropriation of the cultural heritage of a society. However, it is unequally distributed thus offering opportunities would witness exclusive advantages. To the proponent, cultural capital is in three forms. To begin with, cultural capital is a skill or competence in its embodied form and cannot be taken away or separated from the bearer. This implies that the acquisition of cultural capital requires the need to be devoted into activities that will build the skills and knowledge. Cultural capital may also act and exist in the form of the objects.