According to Bourdieu, there are 3 forms of capital: the economical, social, and cultural.

All forms of capital are created by and make up social constructs within any given society, thus
making inequality possible. Bourdieu refers to capital as if it was being viewed as a game
Roulette, in which the players believe that they each have equal access or chance to survival
(or in this case, the 3 forms of capital). Western ideals infer that if each works hard, then theyll
be able to reach the same level as someone in a higher position--but due to the unequal
opportunities and distribution of capital, this reality is not the case.
According to Bourdieu, the structure of the distribution of the different types and
subtypes [of capital]...represents the immanent structure of the social world (81). This illustrates
the idea that capital distribution is unfair and chances are unequal because the social structure
and the society that creates these ideas are unfair. Economic capital rules much of our social
world; it is the principle [that] only goods that are directly and immediately convertible into
money, are the only quantifiable or important subjects (82). This form of capital gives one
power because power is directly correlated to money. These profits allow someone of power to
establish laws, that give them the power to effect and maintain other forms of capital, such as
cultural capital.
Cultural Capital exists in 3 forms: 1) the embodied state: ones inherent qualities of mind,
body, and character, 2) the objectified state: ones cultural items and goods (i.e. books,
instruments, etc.), 3) the institutionalized state: which is ones educational recognition or
legitimacy that one holds due to their qualifications (82). The embodied state is important
because it describes ones work ethic and strive for self improvement, and unlike money,
property rights, or even the title of nobility, cannot be transferred or taken from the individual
(83). The objectified state allows for their goods to be appropriated and used to ones
advantage. Lastly, the institutionalized state which guarantees the monetary value of a given
academic capital, meaning that cultural capital can be transferred into economic capital
because of the credentials come in some form of entitlement.
Social capital is building a network to formulate other opportunities. These relationships
form an emblem of homogeneousness that allows the in-group to maintain its power (88).
I had to read this paper twice and some parts are still very confusing to me--and I dont
think that I grasped the entirety of the work. I know that all forms of capital are important in
maintaining the social structure, but I noticed that it all leads back to economical capital. Which
made me think about ones legitimacy when they have the economic means to gain power. For
instance, if a homeless person were to win the lottery and become a millionaire, theyd be
considered rich but lack legitimacy and therefore social and cultural capital. The rich wouldnt
entirely accept them in their class because theyre not homogeneous enough to join them or
have the cultural standings to be taken seriously. Therefore, my question is why is money seen
as the most important when society is built upon the idea of being social? (I hope this makes
sense.)