03Apr20

Yesterday I finished my reading of our foundational theory texts, Yosso's 2005 paper on Community Cultural Wealth, and Sewell's 1992 paper on Structure & Agency. We'll be citing these papers in our literature review, leaning on them to provide a framework through which to analyze other theoretical texts, and structuring the methods and goals of our research around the concepts discussed in them.

Yesterday I made short write-ups on both of them, included below.

Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth - Tara J. Yosso, 2005

Yosso’s goal is to identify and detail various forms of wealth that exist within communities, but goes unacknowledged by the prevailing western epistemological system. She lists what forms of wealth students can bring to educational systems, and how this can be leveraged to advance the interests of communities typically locked out of higher education. Through the lens of critical race theory (CRT), she demonstrates out how education in non-white communities is driven by a “deficit model,” that sees communities of color as lacking essential knowledge. This privileged knowledge is at once defined by ruling classes or racial groups, and valued reciprocally for that exact reason; it is likewise withheld from communities of color in order to sustain systemic wealth inequalities in society. “Indeed, the main goals of identifying and documenting cultural wealth are to transform education and empower People of Color [sic] to utilize assets already abundant in their communities.” (p. 82)

A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation - Sewell, 1992

            Sewell’s main purpose is to nail down an exact sociological definition of ‘Structure’ and its constituent elements, to an extent where it may be applied to a structure as diverse and complex as Capitalism Through this process, he also defines what an ‘actor’ is, as well as what provides them with ‘agency’. One of the greatest hurdles to overcome is the prevailing theoretical notion that structures are immune to the actions of agents, but that agents and their actions are wholly shaped by structures. Sewell tears this notion - along with that of ‘habitus’ - down, demonstrating that the intersection and overlap of structures is applied by actors in abstract and unpredictable ways. No matter how permanent or mutually reproductive a structure and its resources may be, the interaction of individual agents with their generalities will inevitably reshape them.