Defining Political Capital : A Reconsideration of Bourdieu ’ s Interconvertibility Theory

This article examines the concept “political capital” (PC) and its context in American politics. Political capital is ill-defined, little understood, yet an important concept for understanding political exchange and relationships in the political arena. I establish a definition based upon Pierre Bourdieu’s interconvertibility theory, which indicates that capital types, such as economic, social, and symbolic forms, interact and can be exchanged for one another. Since the material and non-material components of capital variations are transposable, it can be argued that no capital form is essentially “pure”—every type of capital contains elements of other varieties. Political capital, therefore, is an amalgamation of capital types combined in various ways for specific political markets. It is market demand that shapes capital formation. Capital elements from other capital types inherent in the candidacy market are identified as an example. An index for measuring this variant of political capital is created, demonstrating its conceptual viability. Introduction: After the 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush publicized his intent to utilize “political capital” for future projects garnered as a result of his victory. But what exactly is political capital? However much the term is bandied about by politicians or the press, political capital has no established definition in political science literature. Although it remains ill-defined and unmeasured, it is an important concept for understanding political exchange and relationships in the political arena despite the reservations some political scientists have expressed about its applicability because of its complex material and nonmaterial associations. An analysis of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s interconvertibility theory allows for conceptualization of material and non-material of interactions among capital forms making it possible to define political capital and design an index to measure it based upon previous capital literature. To develop an empirical basis for political capital, this article first examines the associations it connotes in the popular press today. In contrast, a definition of political capital based upon capitalization literature and Bourdieu’s interconvertibility theory is presented. Then, a theory of political capital functions and markets are suggested. Theorizing leads to proposals for objective means of identification and measurement. To illustrate the market association between capital and politics, an index associated with the resources associated with the candidacy market is offered. The paper concludes with directions that studying the concept of political capital may take towards theory-building and framework creation. Defining Political Capital It is erroneous to refer a “body” of PC literature when seeking a definition. Most writers and concerned actors who invoke the term political capital assume that its meaning is understood. It is inferred to be an entity which political actors possess, build up and spend.1 However, a definition of “political capital” is typically never stated—the reader or observer is left to determine their own definition based upon the politician’s or journalist’s usage of the term (Suellentrop 2004; Kennicott 2004; “A Year of Setbacks” 2005; and Froomkin 2004). The subjectivity is not reflective of what political capital conceptually means in and to the political arena. Without a sound definition that accurately portrays the elements of political capital as it works within a political marketplaces, such as the electoral arena, and among office holders (executive, legislative, and judicial), bureaucracy, and in society in general, the concept is meaningless. Defining and utilizing PC as a viable political variable can evolve from the proliferation of capital theories in various fields of study. Political capital can and should be associated with a wide variety of previous “capital” interpretations. The key to explicating political capital is within capital literatures and how they address materialism, non-materialism, and combining the two elements.2 The theory of capital is traditionally associated with economics. There is no clear consensus in defining capital as an ideological function applicable beyond material exchange as expounded in economic capital theory, however. Yet nonmaterial forms of capital are well established in scholarly literature. Most of the “capital type” definitions hover around the meaning and terminology of economic capital. Certain theorists believe that all capital forms, regardless of their 1 The most infamous reference to political capital in recent memory is the quote by George W. Bush: “Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It’s my style” (Froomkin 2004). 2 Why a definition has not been pursued is perhaps more obvious than understand the term itself. Paul Pierson (2004) in Politics in Time perhaps summarizes this problem best when he mentions that politics is a “far murkier environment” than economics and is fraught with difficulties in identification and measurement (38). He further states: “[Politics] lacks anything like the measuring rod of price, involves the pursuit of a wide range of largely incommensurable goals, and consists of processes that make it very hard to observe or measure important aspects of political performance (38). As North argued, ‘political markets are far more prone [than economic markets] to inefficiency. The reason is straightforward. It is extraordinarily difficult to measure what is being exchanged in political markets and in consequence to enforce agreements’”(38). While Pierson certainly has valid points of concern, other disciplines have found means to identify and measure capital-types, and this paper will offer potential alternatives to do so with PC. composition or purpose, connect in some way with economic capital.3 Pierre Bourdieu’s work is invaluable in understanding capital as conceptually distinguishable from its individual aberrations as a material phenomenon. Bourdieu extends the ideas and metaphor of economic interest (material or physical pursuits) to include non-economic goods and services (symbolic or nonmaterial pursuits). Within this conceptualization, Bourdieu constructs a science of practices that “analyzed all human functions as ‘oriented towards the maximization of material or symbolic profit. ’”4 His theory of capital has limitations, however. He relies on ideal types and lacks the empirical research needed to support much theory. It is impossible to refer to capital-types and not acknowledge Bourdieu’s contributions to multiple capital species (Bourdieu1986; Kane 2001; Putnam 2001; Becker 1993); Fitz-Enz 2000; Davenport 1999; Marr 2005). Bourdieu (1986) acknowledges three fundamental “guises” or primary types of capital: economic capital (money and property), cultural capital (cultural goods and services including educational credentials), and social capital (acquaintances and networks) (242). He also pays much attention to a fourth form of capital--symbolic capital (legitimation). Singling out these particular capital forms as primary (or at least theoretically succinct) Bourdieu’s conceptualization of capital (and therefore types of capital) can be extended to all forms of power, no matter the source. 3 Certainly economic capital “has one up” on other conceived capital forms because the initial concept of capital comes from economics through the works of Smith, Marx and others writing about economic concerns. Their theories spawned not only economic theory, but economic systems based upon their ideas and concepts. This dominance does not infer, however, that economics rightfully owns the word capital and its applications. The term capital, as understood in classical economic theory, is accepted as theoretically applicable to other disciplines and ideologies, and as such, is used. Conflict between capital-types does occur; the problem of non-economic types of capital is in opposition is that they are (generally) non-material in nature, challenging the materialism inherent in economic theory. Yet, other capital-types function or practice the same patterns of activity as do economic capital, even if measurability is sometimes a problem. Therefore, it can be said to be appropriate to utilize the terms capital and capitalization for the similar processes inherent in either material or non-material processes of exchange. See Bourdieu 1986. 4 Similar to Marxian theory, Bourdieu’s notion of capital is formulated around “accumulated labor” or at least that the measure of all capital is labor time, but “labor time” in the widest conceptualization possible. The type of labor prescribed would be based upon the type of capital form needed to process (Bourdieu1986). Bourdieu’s theory of capital is not linked to the exploitation of labor, prevalent in Marxian theory but capital is viewed as power relations. These power relations are founded in quantitative differences in the amount of labor the power relations embody. Bourdieu’s conceptualization does not distinguish material labor from nonmaterial forms of labor. Quantitative measurement of amounts of labor of nonmaterial forms would almost certainly be difficult to differentiate in all cases, since the term “labor” is abstracted by Bourdieu himself. Theoretically, this grouping together of labor types may make sense, or at least, not overtly affect understanding the process and functioning of capital and capitalization, but empirically differing labor types affect both defining and the processes of capitalization. Not differentiating between material and nonmaterial forms of more thoroughly in his work is a failing of Bourdieu’s capitalization literature (Swartz 1997, 66). While Bourdieu (1986) supports the existence of multiple capital forms and the idea that such types have some theoretical equality