Funds of Knowledge and Cultural Capital: Working toward Diversity and Equity of Knowledges

Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of Funds of Knowledge (FoK hereafter) has been adopted by a growing number of researchers to theorize practices in households and communities in recent years (see Hogg 2011; Rodriguez 2013). Cultural Capital (CC hereafter) theory, on the other hand, has a far longer record as an important concept in education and applied linguistics. Although these two concepts originated from different fields of study (FoK from anthropology; CC from sociology) for different purposes in different contexts, researchers recently have explored overlaps across FoK and CC as concepts. In this process, un(der)examined tensions have surfaced, which this Forum article aims to highlight. Furthermore, we discuss issues deriving from applications of these two theoretical constructs in the hope of advancing current conversations in applied linguistics. We begin by clarifying each concept and then discuss three emerging issues, followed by a conclusion.

2. FOK AND CC

Drawing upon Vygotsky’s (1978)^,Cultural Mediation in combination with Wolf’s (1966) first use of the concept of ‘funds’, a group of US-based researchers defined the concept of FoK to refer to ‘historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being’ (Moll et al. 1992: 134). They researched the FoK in minority students’ homes and neighborhoods and then recontextualized as resources¹ for classroom instruction (see Gonzales et al. 2005).

CC theory, on the other hand, was initially hypothesized by Bourdieu, to explain unequal academic achievements of children from different social classes in France in the 1960s (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bourdieu 1986). For example, schools tend to favor students from middle and upper classes on the basis of their CC, defined as ‘instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially-designated as worthy of being sought and possessed’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977: 488). Bourdieu’s CC theory has been adapted, in concepts of linguistic capital or linguistic cultural capital, to investigate ways in which English language and ‘upper’ class-based dialects, in particular, carry capital in education and policies, and therefore, function to reproduce social stratification at both micro- and macro-levels. In international terms, English language can be viewed as CC because proficiency in English language skills, education through a medium of English, and degrees from English-speaking countries lead to selection for better employment opportunities, promotion, privileges, and wealth in many parts of the world (Lin 1999; Chang and Kanno 2010).

Why, then, do some researchers relate FoK and CC and, in some cases, use them interchangeably? In the next section we explore how FoK and CC may be related while discussing concerns about equating them too carelessly.

3. ISSUE 1: SOCIAL CLASS-BASED KNOWLEDGE DISTINCTIONS

The first issue encompasses differentiating knowledges and resources based on social classes. Both CC and FoK focus on the knowledges and other social–cultural resources that are acquired through immersion in practices over time within families. However, Bourdieu’s CC theory posits that children from elite families inherit cultural resources and knowledge that are valued and rewarded by schools and societies, who therefore excel over their working-class counterparts. FoK scholars, however, challenge the view that children from working-class families lack resources and knowledge to be successful. Most FoK research and practice highlights a wealth of resources and knowledges inhering in working-class, ethnic, and linguistic minority students’ families (see Gonzales et al. 2005; Yosso 2005; Ramirez 2012). As such, CC and FoK appear to present opposite views of the value of different families’ knowledges and resources, stemming from different social classes or social status (elite vs. minority). However, it could also be understood that CC analysis focuses on the injustice of systematically unequal distinctions that mainstream schools make between different groups’ cultural resources, whereas FoK focuses on how schooling can/should make richer use of resources from less powerful social groups.

If FoK, thus, concentrates on what schools could do to include use of resources from less privileged families, while CC concentrates on how schools systematically exclude those resources, these two theoretical constructs could be seen to complement each other theoretically. Rios-Aguilar et al. (2011) suggest the need to bring both constructs into theoretical compatibility in the following statement: ‘[C]ontinuing to study attainment solely from a capital perspective will further perpetuate a deficit literature. Moreover, conducting research entirely from a funds of knowledge perspective may understate the power structures that function within the dominant system’ (p. 175). They further outline the potential benefits of analyzing FoK from a CC perspective in that CC allows researchers to reexamine educational opportunities and experiences of minority students. While we agree with their argument, we do not make suggestions which theoretical construct researchers should adopt to explain resources or knowledges from a particular social class. Instead, we do argue it is central for researchers and practitioners to clearly understand both CC and FoK, as distinctive concepts, in their applications.

4. ISSUE 2: LITTLE CONSIDERATION OF DIVERSITY AND AGENCY

The second issue involves essentializing or generalizing minority students’ resources and knowledges with little consideration of subgroup diversity among minority students. Some researchers and practitioners lump English Learners (ELs) into a low-income working-class minority group when, in reality, ELs’ socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds are diverse. When ELs are immigrant ethnic minority, some nonetheless are from families with elite backgrounds in nations of origin, with CC and social privileges (which may or may not translate in education settings of a new nation).

Another layer of diversity in a knowledge/resource domain concerns ‘dark’ or hidden FoK that students would not ‘normally’ share, and/or teachers would ‘normally’ avoid adopting or appreciating (Zipin 2009: 321). Some students may have ‘dark’ lifeworld experiences that include violence, mental illness, and drug addiction, and such dark knowledge is often viewed as problematic. However, Zipin argues ‘dark funds of knowledge’ should be recognized and taken up as rich assets for learning, and not seen as deficit attributes to be avoided in the curriculum (p. 325). By tapping into students’ ‘darker lifeworld assets’ (p. 330), Zipin shows how to make curriculum more engaging and achieving for less advantaged students. For instance, students’ lifeworld experience regarding violence was recontextualized into issues of bullying and harassment in school. In this process, Zipin highlights not only ‘dark’ content but also ‘inter-subjective ways of knowing and transacting knowledge’(p. 324).

Another important yet overlooked area within both FoK and CC frameworks is the role of individual agency. Hawkins’ (2005) study, which researched two kindergarten ELs from different socioeconomic backgrounds, shows the child from a less privileged socioeconomic background developed English language skills and academically better engaged than his counterpart from a more privileged background. The child utilized his ‘agency’ to interpret the social–cultural space, adopt his identity as a learner, and determine viable courses of action (p. 78). This finding led Hawkins to claim: ‘Their language and literacy development was not necessarily determined by economic and cultural capital nor by their social status within the classroom’ (Hawkins 2005: 59). Although Hawkins did not specifically illustrate how the student developed his individual agency to put him in a favorable position as a learner in school, her findings shed light on the strong possibility of agency in learning irrespective of students’ FoK or CC. Similarly, Rodriguez (2013) calls attention to the potential power of agency of teachers, researchers, parents, and students in transforming pedagogical practices through a FoK approach.

Thus, we believe that exploring hidden or dark knowledge and family values, while also taking account of power of agency, will help to steer away from essentialist or deterministic views of knowledges and resources based on social class that leave little room to comprehend how people can learn, live, and make changes in their lives in ways not limited to social class determinants.

5. ISSUE 3: LACK OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON TRANSFERABILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGES

The third issue entails the convertibility and transferability of knowledges to not only school curriculum but to further economic and social gains. CC, as a species of what Bourdieu calls ‘capital’ (along with economic, social, and symbolic), argued that CC holds a value that is convertible to economic capital (e.g. profit-investable assets in economic markets) and social capital (e.g. networks of powerful social connection). That is, CC can reinforce power in other species of capital, supporting reproduction of status quo inequalities. In contrast, as Rios-Aguilar et al. (2011) and Zipin (2009) have argued, the concept of FoK does not directly address power issues for the most part, such as which knowledge is valued in schools and transferred beyond. While FoK projects do seek to integrate minority knowledges and resources into school curriculum (see Moll et al. 1992; Ramirez 2012), the question of how FoK might transfer or convert to capital has not received much clarification, and we suggest that debate on this premise is needed. As Cooper (2016: 48) pertinently suggests, ‘questions still remain about who benefits from learning about household knowledge and what are the processes related to how, when, and by whom funds of knowledge are negotiated, activated, and expanded upon’. Echoing Cooper’s suggestion, we argue that heightening the awareness of who is endorsing what and whose knowledge should be the first step toward promoting greater educational equity across diverse knowledges. We should continuously raise critical questions regarding what type of knowledge is rewarded and what is silenced at schools and in society, in our research and practice. Thus, questions of recognition, not just conversion, should guide researchers to address knowledge diversity and equity.

6. CONCLUSION

Undeniably, tapping into students’ knowledge and experiences, including their uses of language, is a crucial principle for approaching more socially just teaching-and-learning. In this regard, FoK provides a platform to recognize, appreciate, and integrate the knowledges that have been historically marginalized and silenced in language education. At the same time, the concept of FoK helps researchers theorize and investigate knowledge and practices of households and communities beyond classroom. Furthermore, it serves ‘as a basis for teachers to rethink what is useful knowledge for underrepresented students’ (Rios-Aguilar et al. 2011: 177). On the other hand, CC theory allows us to view knowledges and language through a critical lens which can elucidate how, systematically, not all knowledges are appreciated and treated equally in educational institutions. In this view, knowledges are neither culturally neutral nor apolitical. We thus believe that both theoretical constructs offer significant contributions to pursuing equity across a diversity of worthy knowledge for learning purposes. Finally, we suggest that researchers and practitioners in applied linguistics pay closer attention to knowledges and other social–cultural resources that language minorities and multilingual learners bring to classrooms and societies, and how they are used in their lives beyond schooling.

NOTE

References