In the previous installment of this series, we delved into Musa al-Gharbi’s concept of “symbolic capitalists,” a group he argues is heavily influenced by the tenets of wokeness. These individuals, often referred to by various titles such as the “professional-managerial class” or “creative class,” dominate the discourse around social justice and progressive ideals. But what exactly defines a symbolic capitalist?
Symbolic capitalists are professionals who engage in the realm of symbols, rhetoric, narratives, and data analysis—essentially, they trade in ideas rather than tangible goods. Occupations in education, science, technology, finance, media, law, and public policy are typically filled by these individuals. If you’re reading this, you might just be one yourself—count me in as well.
To clarify, the realm of symbolic capitalists revolves around abstract concepts and intangible value, contrasting sharply with those whose labor produces physical objects and services. Al-Gharbi distinguishes between these two categories, noting:
The earnings of symbolic capitalists generally surpass those of most other professions, with healthcare practitioners being the only significant exception…
While medical professionals are indeed knowledgeable and respected, their work involves hands-on interventions rather than the creation of symbolic value. For example, after a recent cortisone injection on my wrist, I can assure you that my doctor’s contributions were decidedly non-symbolic.
As the term “symbolic capitalist” implies, these individuals thrive on symbolic capital. Drawing on sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s framework, al-Gharbi explains:
Unlike traditional wealth based on material assets, Bourdieu describes symbolic capital as resources derived from honor, prestige, and recognition… The roles assigned based on symbolic capital often overshadow conventional economic factors in shaping societal power dynamics.
Bourdieu identifies three main forms of symbolic capital: cultural, academic, and political—all of which serve as critical social assets according to al-Gharbi:
These forms of symbolic capital are instrumental in categorizing individuals as insiders or outsiders, experts or novices, and deserving or undeserving of social recognition.
Let’s break down these forms further, starting with political capital:
Political capital encompasses trust, goodwill, and institutional authority that can mobilize others toward specific objectives. This capital includes one’s title, credibility, and perceived reliability, all crucial for garnering support for a vision or plan.
Next, we examine academic capital:
Academic capital relates to the ability to command deference based on expertise, credentials, and education. It derives from formal qualifications and specialized knowledge.
Finally, there’s cultural capital:
Cultural capital reflects a person’s charm, sophistication, and charisma, expressed through speech, demeanor, and personal style. This form of capital is often the most exclusive, serving as a barrier between elites and non-elites. Wokeness, in today’s society, has emerged as a crucial source of cultural capital among the elite, particularly symbolic capitalists.
As a result, the priorities and perceptions of woke activists often diverge significantly from those of the very communities they aim to support:
The understanding of social justice termed “woke” is predominantly held by the educated elite, while those who are genuinely marginalized typically do not share these views. This disconnect is telling. For symbolic capitalists, adopting woke ideals is a way to signal elite status and cultural sophistication, effectively distinguishing them from the “normies.” Thus, individuals who advocate for the downtrodden in a manner detached from their actual perspectives are, in effect, affirming their own elite credentials.
Interestingly, surveys indicate that many Black Americans in low-income areas prefer a robust police presence, contrasting sharply with the affluent, predominantly white elites who champion police defunding as a cultural statement. This phenomenon highlights how expressing concern for the vulnerable can simultaneously elevate one’s status among the elite while distancing oneself from the realities faced by those they claim to represent.
However, al-Gharbi observes that the landscape of symbolic capitalists is not a straightforward ideological monolith:
While a significant majority align with the Democratic Party and the cultural left, a right-wing faction exists among them, albeit smaller. This group, while organized and funded, challenges the mainstream, often forming alliances with anti-woke counterparts.
These anti-woke symbolic capitalists are not merely the antithesis of their woke peers; rather, they are symbolically conservative, valuing patriotism, religion, and traditional narratives. They share a common grievance concerning the perceived marginalization of their ideals within the broader cultural discourse, often prioritizing symbolic struggles over tangible issues faced by everyday Americans.
Despite their differences, anti-woke and mainstream symbolic capitalists engage in similar types of work and share comparable lifestyles, suggesting that the distinctions may not be as pronounced as they seem.
Given the predominance of wokeness among symbolic capitalists, al-Gharbi’s focus leans towards this group:
This book will primarily examine the Left, as symbolic capitalists are predominantly aligned with progressive ideologies and the Democratic Party.
But what catalyzed wokeness becoming the prevailing ideology among these elites? Al-Gharbi argues that this is not just a matter of coincidence. It is not solely the product of rigorous academic study or a deep understanding of the communities they claim to uplift; rather, it reflects a cultural shift that has rendered wokeness a marker of elite identity. In the next post, we will explore al-Gharbi’s insights on this intriguing phenomenon.
