Talk:Social reproduction

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Umedi2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I want to thank whoever wrote this article. it is clear and concise without the often unnecessary tangents to explain the concepts. This tendency to tangent and explain cobcepts in each definition, in my mind, if often unecessary and embeds meaning into supportive yet usually diffuse topics. The challange i see is to create reference works a.k.a., hyperlinks that are truly supportive by using [ (contextualized) reference works ].

An example of this would be similar to the bracketed terms above. Instead of a separate link for [ reference ] that implicitly includes "works", or more implicity and not directly indicated by a hyperlink blue Line underneath - "contextualized", I would care to see a contextaluzed 2-3 term link that references the specific meaning of the general article. From my perspective as a user I see that this would be a greater use, by providing specific quoted text or examples in history where the meaning of these set of related terms can be referenced in more detail. For example [ social stratification ] being directed to This is starts the reading over againnstead of contextualizing it as "reference works" as a related page collaborated by those who link their page with direct "page" links for the page instead of general ones. EcoEconomist (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As you may be able to tell by reading this message was unfinished as I was right in the middle of editing it when I had to navigate away from the page. I falsely assumed the "save" button would hold my work while I went to another page where upon I could return and finish my message.

it seems that I cannot readily edit this message and the touch of some sort of "edit" or "resume" button.

I have a suggestion that instead of "Save" the button needs to be more accurately labeled "Publish" as that is what it appears to be its function.

I may be mistaken about editing however. Does anyone know how to edit the talk page messages?

EcoEconomist (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography of Relevant and Reliable Sources

Marx, Karl. Capital. New York: International, 1967. Print.

Pertaining to the origins of Social reproduction.

Baehr, Peter. Founders, Classics, Canons: Modern Disputes over the Origins and Appraisal of Sociology's Heritage. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2002. Print.

This piece contains a broad spectrum into the world of sociology. Mentioning pieces from Durkheim, Weber, but most importantly Karl Marx as he suggested the concept of Social Reproduction. Though this may lack on Social Reproduction it would aid in understanding Karl Marx through his works, and ideas. One of those works being Marx's Capital . Where Social Reproduction was brought forth in.

Mitchell, Katharyne, Sallie A. Marston, and Cindi Katz. Life's Work: Geographies of Social Reproduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Print.

This piece by Katharyne Mitchel discusses Social Reproduction on a global scale. Bringing in it's purpose in the material world, as well as introducing where you see it's uses. For example through case studies done in education, migration and domesticity.

Advice for this bibliography is welcomed.

Umedi2016 (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Outline Suggestion

• Four Types of Capital

1. Financial
2. Cultural
3. Human
4. Social

• Connections to Sociology of Education
• Connection to Capital
• References
• See also

Divide up the four types and go slightly more in depth in them. Perhaps an overview on there purpose and applications. As well as making fuller connections the to Karl Marx's Capital .

Any thoughts or opinions? Please feel free to share.

Umedi2016 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Need for review

The article needs to be improved for spelling and sources. Karl Marx published not 'Capital' but 'Das Kapital' and not in the 20th century but in 1867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungGandalf (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be working on corrections later on. As for the source I was having trouble finding the original copy of Karl Marx. So I ended up with a copy of his text that was re-published in the 20th century, and as I am drawing from this source of text I'd like any reference checks to be made be to the book that was re-published. The re-published copy only had a publisher by name of "International Publisher" not enough information to completely cite a text. If you haven't already fixed the name I will do so now. Thank you for taking the time to note the errors. Let me know of any further opinions or comments you have. Umedi2016 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But please note that that Karl Marx original was called Das Kapital but the name translate to Capital in many copies of the text. Umedi2016 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is perfectly allowed to cite Capital in English. A more serious problem is that the first sentence of the introduction mentions Marx, but his name is totally absent of the developments. The page is essentially about Bourdieu. The introduction should reflect the contents. As long as the page says nothing about Marx, all reference to Marx in the introduction should be removed. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to be revised as there are some significant mistakes in the content. The foundations of this article are mostly relying on Bourdieu's theory, and the intro notes four primary forms of capital are economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. However, the "Four types of capital" section then proceeds lists them as economic, cultural, human, and social capital. Particularly, human capital was theorized by Gary Becker, not Bourdieu. Furthermore, Bourdieu explicitly criticized Becker's notion of human capital as sociologically inappropriate and incoherent (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 2). Part of what this wiki article is attributing to 'human capital' is actually just a form of cultural capital. Bourdieu theorized that cultural capital is comprised of three states: embodied cultural capital, objectified cultural capital, and institutionalized cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 243-248). Knowledge and skills are embodied cultural capital. Things like jewellery, artwork, etc. which are valued in the society of which the holder is a part. Finally, institutionalized cultural capital is found in things like credentials from diplomas, degrees, etc.. Economic, Cultural (in all 3 states), and Social capitals are all outlined in Bourdieu's (1986) article called "The Forms of Capital". Additionally, you can find more details on Bourdieu's many notions of capital (and some of his criticisms of Becker's 'human capital') in his book "The Social Structures of the Economy" (2005), ISBN: 0-7456-2539-8. It's also important to note that Bourdieu distinguished between primary capitals and secondary capitals. Bourdieu's initial three primary forms of capital were economic, cultural, and social capital. Symbolic capital was later added to the mix. Additionally, if this wiki article is going to base itself on Bourdieu's theories, then his related concepts of habitus and field may also be worth mentioning, and at least some of Bourdieu's work should probably be cited. TheEducatedEducator (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

French page

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction_sociale --Japarthur (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

But that French page links to Cultural reproduction. There seems to be two pages in English for essentially the same subject: Social reproduction, or Cultural reproduction. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)