In “Forms of Capital”, Bourdieu figuratively throws down the gauntlet towards much of our standard economic thinking. In his discussions, he roundly criticized the idea of homo economicus, or the economic human (preference based, utility maximizing, rational choice, etc.), for presenting an unrealistic view of human behavior. This may seem to be a minor academic squabble but given the amount of attention standard economic models have received in guiding public and economic policy, Bourdieu is legitimately concerned about the degree to which the adoption of standard economic views serves to obfuscate systems of entrenched social classes. How compelling do you find this critique, and how important do you believe such academic assumptions are for the "real world"?
In “Forms of Capital”, Bourdieu figuratively throws down the gauntlet towards much of our standard economic thinking. In his discussions, he roundly criticized the idea of homo economicus, or the economic human (preference based, utility maximizing, rational choice, etc.), for presenting an unrealistic view of human behavior. This may seem to be a minor academic squabble but given the amount of attention standard economic models have received in guiding public and economic policy, Bourdieu is legitimately concerned about the degree to which the adoption of standard economic views serves to obfuscate systems of entrenched social classes. How compelling do you find this critique, and how important do you believe such academic assumptions are for the "real world"?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
