An analysis of the harmonious process in intercultural communication.

Wang, YiHong

In the 21st century, short-term and long-term international interaction or intercultual communication is unavoidable (Gogolin, 2001). Two communication channels, namely media communication and transportation communication, which can be employed as social capital, are widely established and connected, enabling human beings to travel both spiritually (psychologically) and physically (bodily) faster than in any other times we experienced.

In the process of intercultural communication between nations, it is noticeable that sometimes this process develops harmoniously; sometimes it proceeds with conflict (Wang, 2007). Realizing this, one may immediately raise the questions: except for the political and ideological reasons, what are the key factors influencing the harmonious intercultural communication? Or going one step further, what are the important concepts which these factors reside in? Moreover, how can we approach the harmonious process of intercultural communication?.

In the following, we will analyze the basic concepts and their relations for answering the questions mentioned above. In an early research (Wang, 2006), we developed a doxa model and now we borrow it for an analysis of harmonious process in intercultural communication. In that early research we find three factors, in which there are six basic variables, to understand the basic concepts of the international migration process as pull and push factors by a triangulation method. The six variables are constituted by different forms of capital, i.e., political capital, cultural capital, social capital and symbolic capital as the intangible forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1998 [1986]); Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Jacobs, 1961; Putnam, 1995; Coleman, 1994), and economic capital and natural capital as tangible forms of capital, (Smith, (1904[1776]); Marx, 1886[972]; von Boehm-Bawerk, 1959; Hawken, Paul; Amory Lovins & L. Hunter Lovins, 1999; Jansson, AnnMari; et al. 1994). Habitus, field and doxa are the fundamental variables for exploring and understanding the relationship among different forms of capital in a doxa model. These different forms of capital can build up habitus, which are functioned in the different fields that we make use of, in an analysis of the communication in a harmonious way in an intercultural communication doxa. Other subvariables such as time, space, objective and subjective reflection are the indispensable accompanied aspects for consideration. In our analysis of the harmonious process of intercultural communication, we choose four variables of capital in this study; they are economic capital, cultural capital, social capital and symbolic capital. Since natural capital and political capital are not so popular as the other four types of capital, they take much more space to elucidate, thus another paper is needed to have a further study.

Basic Concepts for Analyzing the Harmonious Process of Intercultural Communication

Capital

Capital, in our definition, not only refers to the economic capital, but also includes the non-economic forms of capital by our raising natural, political, cultural (including human capital), social, and symbolic capital, which, however, have the same properties as economic capital, i.e., the investment and the conversion character (Bourdieu, 1986, Wang, 2006). An understanding of capital should at first recognize the fact that circulation is the premise for investment and the conversion of capital.

Capital can be invested in not only by its own form, but also by other forms of capital.

Capital can be converted not only into its own form but also into other forms of capital.

Capital can be converted into four different kinds of outcomes after being circulated, such as more/positive values, equal values, less/negative values and no values as zero.

It is in this sense that I define capital in its fundamental form, which includes other subforms of capital, tangible or less tangible, as well as intangible, i.e., economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital, which includes their subforms (Wang, 2006:18).

We define forms of capital as communication resources/power/energy that are managed by the communicators' habitus in different fields in the process of intercultural communication. They are the key concepts to understanding the harmonious process of intercultural communication. Four kinds of capital concepts employed in this research are explained as followed.

The concept of economic capital

The definition of economic capital follows two forms: one being physical economic capital and the other, financial economic capital. However, both forms are embodied in wealth or assets. Physical economic capital includes properties and other material assets; the financial form includes money, whether in cash or other forms such as stocks, shares, bonds, securities, and so on. Both forms of economic capital can, in the end, be transformed into money.

The circulation of economic capital is the most important process to realize the value of economic capital. The fundamental investment of economic capital is the physical or financial tangible forms of capital; yet, time and effort/energy are the necessary investment factors in all forms of capital. All physical and financial capital investment can be converted into money, which is the basic form of economic capital investment. Money can be gained from other forms of capital, too, i.e., from cultural, social and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986, Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1990). Time is the necessity in the process of circulation, either for gaining use value or for gaining 'exchange value'. Besides time, effort/energy is another factor of economic capital investment. Effort includes the social necessity of labor but also emerges from the energy spent in socialization, which is part of people's everyday living and communication, and which, without labor's wage, has the possibility of direct gain from other forms of capital. For instance, cultural, social and symbolic capital can gain in socialization and communication (cf. Bourdieu, 1977[1972]; 1990[1980]).

The capacity of economic capital to produce a surplus value over its own value (cf. Marx, 1886[1972]) is what communicators intend to invest in and expect to convert to profits for communication. After the investment, an individual or an institution possesses forms of capital from the investment, but only in the conversion step does the investment have the opportunity to be realized in different returns, which result in four different kinds of outcomes:

a. Economic capital will be transformed into more returns.

b. Economic capital will be converted into no gain/benefits but no debts; it means that the same gain is obtained after the conversion.

c. Economic capital will be transformed into fewer returns, such as being burdened with debt.

d. Economic capital will be transformed into zero returns that no gain as outcome is resulted in, and no debt, while no conversion from the investment is eventuated.

Different outcomes after the conversion will influence the communication power. The individual who invests and transforms more will have more communication power.

The concept of cultural capital

Bourdieu's motivation to develop cultural capital is that he wants to criticize functionalists' definition of human capital which highlights only the economic part while concerned with education, such as the returns of the higher earnings (Schultz, 1961; Becker, 1964). According to Bourdieu, their concept of human capital misses the parts of cultural legitimacy and the practices of habitus.

He pointed out: "When endeavoring to evaluate the profits of scholastic investment, they can only consider the profitability of educational expenditure for society as whole, the 'social rate of return,' or the "social gain of education as measured by its effects on national productivity" (Becker 1964b: 121, 155). There are three forms of cultural capital. The first is the embodied state in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and the body with its distinctive value known as "habitus" (cf. Jenkins 1992: 79). The second is the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods, pictures, books, dictionaries, instrument, machines, etc., and as well as modern media, e.g., TV, Internet, etc. The last is the institutionalized state. This form is defined comparatively as the form of human capital, i.e. sanctioned by educational institutions. Three forms of cultural capital are described in Table 1 below.

Bourdieu's definition of three forms of cultural capital do not only help to understand human capital to a great extent, but also from another viewpoint help to understand that an individual's different cultural asset or possession can be transmitted from the traditions of a nation and a family by communictaion, i.e., the communicator's cultural background. Based on the characteristics of capital concept, cultural capital endows the same properties, which can be invested and converted into other forms of capital as well (cf. Bourdieu 1998[1986]: 48, 54; Wang, 2006: 36).

The investment in cultural capital is the quantity of "time devoted to acquiring" it (Bourdieu, 1986) and the investment of time is the period that a communicator offers to absorb a certain sort of culture in a society. Cultural capital can be attained, to a varying degree, depending on the period, the society, and the social class, in the absence of any deliberate inculcation, and therefore can be acquired quite unconsciously (ibid: 48-49).

The conversion of cultural capital successes only when cultural capital can be converted into future use, i.e. to make profit or to gain returns, as argued by Bourdieu (1986). The returns can be turned into other forms of capital, too. Cultural capital is the most powerful communication resource that individuals or institutions cannot avoid to employ as the context in harmonious intercultural communication.

Social capital

Social capital can be briefly explained as the relationship in social network, which can make the benefit to both the individuals and the institutions. The institution defined here includes individual organization and public or government organizations or a nation. The World Bank defines that "social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions ... Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions that underpin a society--it is the glue that holds them together" (The World Bank 1999).

Due to Bourdieu's (1986), Coleman's (1988, 1990), and Putnam's (1995) contributions, the term of social capital becomes widely spread, the summarization of the concepts of social capital by these three scholars is followed in table 2 below.

To go over the main points of Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam, we find that social capital can be originated from social relations, social network or the social structure. Therefore, the accumulation of social capital can also be analyzed as the investment in social relation and the social network. Two forms of investment in social capital exist. One is constituted from the social relation and another is the social network. They are unintentional and intentional forms of social capital (Wang, 2006).

One form of investment, embedded in history and natural relations as unintentional investment, cannot be invested by a communicator's choice; it is from a kinship relationship (KR), a relative relationship (RR) and local relationship (LR) (Fei, 1998 and Qiao, 1992). Another form of investment is the intentional investment, constituted by relations that can be invested intentionally by a communicator, such as friend relationship (FR) and organizational relationship (OR). To develop intentional investment in intercultural communication is one of the best ways to carry on harmony when the intercultural communicators have no unintentional relationship.

The conversion of social capital is the same as other forms of capital. Social capital can expect to gain benefits, and to incur of its own form and other forms of capital (Bourdieu 1986). But the investment does not assure whether the social relations and networks can have the trust (norms) to facilitate social actions or not, and can in fact convert into more returns or not. The conversion of social capital can be positive value to certain activities or to certain individual, institution and/or to the society, but may also result in a negative or in other outcomes as the conversion of other forms of capital. Social capital as the positive returns after investment can be seen as a glue, which can keep the senders and the receivers in a harmonious intercultural communication.

Symbolic capital

Symbolic capital is "the form that the various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate" (Bourdieu, 1989e: 17). It is not what is gained and recognized internally but what is perceived externally, such as the prestige and renown attached to a person or a family or a nation and a name recognized by other communicators from an intercutlural society. Its definition suggests that various forms of capital come into being as symbolic capital, not by the communicator's self-recognition but by other communicators' recognition, and that the recognition could be "misrecognition" depending on a different intervention of habitus.

The form of symbolic capital is "capable of treating all practices, including purporting to be disinterested or gratuitous", non-economic practices could be treated as economic practices and vice versa (Bourdieu, 1979[1972]: 183). It means that the form of symbolic capital can be invested in and converted into other forms of capital economically and non-economically in its circulation or communication practices.

Economic capital as "... [a] strictly [material] economic practice is simply a particular case of a general theory" (Bourdieu, 1977[1972]: 178). We need "... to extend economic calculation to all the goods, material and symbolic, without distinction ..." (ibid: 178). Symbolic capital as the communicating symbol is the strongest and the initiate communication power, without recognition and acceptance by others of one's symbolic capital, communicators in intercultural communication are hard to start on.

Communicators can invest what they possess from other forms of capital as the investment in symbolic capital, but holding other forms of capital as the investment in symbolic capital does not mean the realization of it, because they need to be "perceived and recognized as legitimate" by other communicators in the fields of a doxa. This makes it distinct from other forms of capital, such as economic capital materially possessed by the communicators, human capital endowed and institutionalized in communicators, cultural capital embodied or objectified in communicators, social capital connected among communicators. The form of symbolic capital is converted by the legitimacy of the other communicators' habitus in diffferent fields in a doxa.

Symbolic capital can be gained from and transformed into other forms of capital. It means that symbolic capital can be converted into the returns to maximize its symbolic profits or values if other forms of capital are perceived, recognized, and accepted authoritatively or legitimately, thereby they can be transformed into symbolic capital. This conversion step to realize symbolic capital without conflicts is the key step in the harmonious process of intercultural communication practices.

The capacity of owing certain forms of capital, either tangible or intangible form, is that an individual person or an institution can be analyzed during the intercultural communication process. If the communicators from both sides can own the similar forms of capital, they can communicate in a more or less harmonious way. Furthermore, they own more similar intangible forms of capital than tangible forms of capital, such as similar cultural, social and symbolic capital, they can communicate in a more harmonious way in intercultural communication. For instance, intercultural communicators have the same kinds of religious background, they will develop a harmonious communication process more easily than those who do not.

Habitus

Though "[t]he notion of habitus has been used innumerable times in the past, by authors as diverse as Hegel, Husserl, Weber, Durkheim, and (Marcel) Mauss, all of whom used it in a more or less methodical way" (Bourdieu, 1990: 12), Bourdieu "wanted to insist on the generative capacities of dispositions, it being understood that these are acquired, socially constituted dispositions", he wanted to emphasize that this "creative," active, inventive capacity was not that of a transcendental subject in the idealist tradition, but that of an active communicator. He wanted to insist on the "primacy of practical reason" that "Fichte spoke of, and to clarify the specific categories of this reason" (ibid.:13) for understanding intercultural communication, the communication process is the practice of habitus.

Bourdieu conceives habitus as a.) generative capacity of socially constituted disposition, b.) creative, active, inventive capacity of active communicator, c.) specific categories of the practical reason. Gogolin clarifies that; "Bourdieu emphasizes the circularity between structure, habitus and practice. Habitus' function as awareness matrix, action matrix and thought matrix is acquired under certain social conditions, 'objective structures'" (2001:132). Practice is the essential theme of habitus. It is a shifting, relational system of disposition and of the state of feeling; while internally structured and externally developed, it is transferable and changable.

Habitus is constituted by all different forms of capital that an individual or an institution can have (Wang, 2006). As a durably installed set of dispositions, the habitus transferred by forms of capital tends to generate practices and perceptions, works and appreciations, which harmonize with the conditions of existence. Although habitus is itself the product, when individuals act or practice or communicate with habitus, they always do so in specific social contexts or settings, which are defined as the field.

Field

A field or a market may be seen as a structural space of positions. Their positions and their interrelations are determined by the distribution of different kinds of resources or "capital" that communicators possess and that can be exchanged.

In a field, a game engages an objective relationship between individuals or institutions that are competing for the same stakes; stakes exist the amassing of capital as social resources that are recognized and exchanged within that field (cf. Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, Bourdieu, 1998[1996]). "To think in terms of field is to think relationally. The relational (rather than more narrowly 'structuralist') mode of thinking is, as Cassirer (1923) demonstrated in Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff (substance concept and function concept, translated from German by the author), the hallmark of modern science" (Bourdieu and Waquant, 1992: 97). A field is a "relational mode" in which the communicators embody different habitus and possess different forms of capital to compete for the maximization of communicating power symbolically and materially. The concept of "the field" requires that human beings interact with objective structures in an external world.

Bourdieu describes social relations or social transformation relations in the context of "field" (1998 [1996]), performing according to its own specific logic or rules as a competitive system of social relations. It is a legitimacy and practice in reality; however, that legitimacy, bestowed in the form of symbolic capital, is not only recognized by the objective logic of the field, but also it is facilitated and perceived by the subjective habitus from different communicators in the field.

The relationship of capital, habitus and field

Habitus is closely related to the field, since the internalization of principles associated, in practice, with objective structures has the function of forming and constituting the habitus (Bourdieu, 1989e). Nonetheless, communicators are not completely structurally constrained by predetermined social experiences of habitus, but they are subjective individuals and institutions, which make decisions driven by different rules in different fields.

Habitus, together with field, has the effect of justifying what individuals and institutions have endowed as the legitimate forms of capital. Habitus, a system of dispositions acquired through a relationship to a certain "field," reproduces the innate and intuitive energy to the outside field (structure). Habitus and field also interact with each other (Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990 [1980]). It is "durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively 'regulated' and 'regular' without in any way being the product of obedience to rules" (Bourdieu, 1972: 72). "Strategies" of the habitus, i.e., predispositions and a reaction to "the game" in the social world, which the communicators fall into, involve individual histories, group histories, and "fields" (Wang, 2006:75), in which communicators make an effort/"struggle" for recognition, legitimization, and maximization of their communicating power of forms of capital.

How intercultual communicators can change their habitus depends on the different fields in which they are brought up or in which their habitus are built up. As different fields have different rules of how an individual or an institution wants to communicate with others in an intercultural communication field, one should identify with the regulations or laws in order to have an effective communication or harnomious communication.

On the one hand, one wants to communicate interculturally, one has to change their different forms of capital; on the other hand, it can cause changes in a different society, by their different habitus developed from other fields when communicating, which can result in the change of the social order.

Doxa

A doxa is a structured structure of the social order/system. It is essentially developed by different forms of capital, fields, and habitus in a doxa. Bourdieu refers to the social order as doxa,"[t]he natural and social world appears as self-evident. This is experience we shall call doxa, so as to distinguish it from an orthodox or heterodox belief implying awareness and recognition of the possibility of different or antagonistic beliefs" (Bourdieu 1977[1972]: 160). If new forms of capital, endowed by intercultural communicators, are perceived, recognized and legitimated as communicating power, then the already established doxa is challenged and disputed as orthodox or heterodox. This requires the recognition of the intercultural communicators who become involved in a field by this dispute.

It is obvious that when the intercultural communicators want to communicate with each other in an intercultural field they will invest and transform their different forms of capital in the fields of a doxa such as in a host country by intercultural communication. Thus, they can change the doxa by associating, communicating and interacting in the transformation of different forms of capital in the process of intercultural communication. When sender wants to invest (bring their forms of capital) and transform (communicate) forms of capital in an intercultural communication field, they need the perception, recognition, and acceptance from receivers. If accepted, harmony can be more easily achieved. There are three steps to understand the harmonious process in intercultural communication. The first one is the allowance to communicate from an individual or an institution in another intercultural field; the second one is the recognition from the other sides; the third one is the acceptance to change by communicating with all different forms of capital embodied as habitus by intercultural communicators, that is the change of the habitus and also the changing or transforming rules in an intercultural communicating field.

The following is the chart (see chart 1 at the end of the article) after the analysis of capital, habitus and doxa, which can help us better understand our research and our analysis about how to achieve harmony in intercultural communication process based on the doxa model (Wang, 2006: 241).

Doxa, the biggest word in the chart both in the upper and the lower part, is a structured structure of a society that is a kind of "harmony" or a kind of "balanced" structure when it is relatively stable in some special time and space. But it is not easy to be realized. Human life cannot stop transforming and maximizing some forms of capital by their habitus in different fields in a doxa.

Capital Forms of capital, represented either in the upper or the lower part of chart 1 as communicating power, are mainly formed by economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital and each of the main forms of capital has its own subforms. When communicators holding these forms of capital as communicating power to associate, interact and communicate in different fields in a doxa, communicators from the other side will be accepted or not accepted in the fields with different habiuts in a different doxa, if accepted in a harmonious communication process.

Field When communicators want to invest or transform different forms of capital, they must do it according to the game theory in a field. Thus, fields in the chart are put under different forms of capital linked for them to invest and transform for intercultural communication. Agents should obey the rules, regulations or laws in different fields to communicate with each other. In addition, each field has its own rules, such as the rules of economic capital field, which are different from the rules of cultural capital field for interaction, exchange, and communication. In other words, the basic rule of economic capital field is the interaction and communication for the maximization of economic capital without considering the spiritual (thought) or emotional value. The basic rule of cultural capital field is to consider the spiritual value or aesthetical appreciation, in which money cannot be measured the same as in the field of economic capital, they are valued with a reduction.

Habitus In the middle of the upper and lower parts of the chart, the multicolored word illustrates that habitus are diverse. A person or an organization or a nation embodies habitus with all kinds of capital he or she possesses, and habitus is formed by all these different forms of capital (Wang, 2006). Individual persons' or institutions' perception, recognition and acceptance of others cannot be the same, but may be to a certain similar degree; when the communicators with habitus from different persons, organizations or nations communicate with each other, the ones holding similar habitus can be perceived, recognized or accepted by others in a more harmonious state.

Intercultural communicators process communication under all these interactions and relationships of capital(s), habitus and fields in a doxa (Wang, 2008). Capital cannot be exchanged without communication and without considering the different fields regulated for capital to be invested and converted by their habitus. Therefore, it must be taken into account how intercultural communicators can communicate with others harmoniously by achieving their goals to invest and transform different forms of capital when changing others' habitus or fields in a doxa.

Time and space The fields in different time and different social spaces in a doxa are regulated and legitimated differently and can be generally different for outside communicators from the inside communicators to invest and transform their forms of capital. A doxa demonstrates different structured components in different time and social spaces distinctively.

Subjective and objective In the middle part of the chart, we can see that habitus perceive others and also are perceived by others' habitus in different fields. They have subjective perception to others' objective habitus and to the objective fields in a doxa. But their subjective reaction to the objective world is also restricted and regulated by the objective world of forms of capital, fields, and others' subjective habitus in a doxa in different time and social spaces.

During the process of perception, recognition and acceptance from both subjective and objective communicators' habitus, fields and doxa, as shown in Chinese YINYAN diagram in the middle heart of the chart, if the balance is found, the harmony will appear, otherwise conflicts will be provoked for different intercultural communication to maximize different forms of capital.

Policy In the middle of each doxa, in the upper and the lower part, we can find the term of policy. No matter which kind of capital is transformed, other forms of tangible or intangible forms of capital are accompanied (embedded) with communicators or embodied in communicators' habitus to influence the transformation and communication. Moreover, the communication is always from two sides. When making policies, it is a holistic process to study the relationship of capital(s), habitus and field in the intercultural communication from the both sides, the senders and the receivers from different doxas.

Conclusions and Discussion

By analyzing some "basic concepts" within the doxa model, we find that it can stand as an analyzing instrument in the study of intercultural communication, particularly for the harmonious communication process.

By virtue of the doxa model, we analyzed the concepts that play major roles in influencing the progress of intercultural communication, and we then obtained some conclusions to the two questions raised at the outset of the paper. We found:

1). The important concepts for an analysis of the harmonious intercultural communication are habitus, capital field, and doxa.

2). The construction process of the harmonious intercultural communication will be easier to establish between or among individuals, organizations, or nations that hold similar intangible forms of capital; the senders and the receivers in intercultural communication are easier to be understood, perceived and accepted by others; otherwise, it is vice versa. Different intangible forms of capital are hard to be accepted between the communicators even when they both hold similar tangible forms of capital. Relinquishing one's intangible form of cultural capital of embodied form is especially hard, and giving up one's view-value or viewpoint of the world, or judgment on one's religion, and so on, takes longer time. Since intangible forms of capital need a long-term investment and conversion, the communicators holding different intangible forms of capital need a long-term for a harmonious intercultural communication, a short-term communication or a forced quick-change communication can easily cause a conflict way of communication.

Habitus, capital, field and doxa are related concepts; studying harmonious intercultural communication needs an investigation by all the concepts holistically. Moreover, changing others' habitus involves painstaking efforts for both sides of the intercultural communicators, thus there is a need to take time and also seek common ground while maintaining difference between communicators in order to have the harmonious process in intercultural communication.

Implication of the chart From the chart, we can easily discover that the senders and the receivers in a harmonious intercultural communication process can be analyzed from the concepts of habitus, capital, and field in a doxa model. The implication for the intercultural communication field of the research is that it can help the researchers understand the different strategies of different people to communicate to a new doxa by analyzing their different habitus holding with different forms of capital. This doxa model can be used to analyze the different communication types, such as interpersonal communication, organizational communication and national or international communication.

Additionally, it may help the policy makers to make the policies related to the different groups of people with their habitus. As shown from the chart, the harmonious intercultural communication is not instigated only by the senders, but also by the receivers. It provides important factors to study the intercultural communication power, i.e., the different forms of capital and their relationship with habitus, capital and field for the policy makers.

The communication in an intercultural doxa by maximizing the transformation of forms of capital can cause conflicts if not in a harmonious process. The maximization of the social resources or communicating power in the process of intercultural communication makes the change and the transformation of the world. When analyzing the relationship of concepts as habitus, capital, field and doxa in a doxa model, which helps us understand the intercultural communication process of harmony. Furthermore, this doxa model can help us understand the conflicting intercultural communication process for our dialectic analysis of the world, which can lead to the study in the future.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Note. The author wants to express her special thanks to the editors of GM Chen and J. Z. Edmondson.

References

Becker, G. (1964a). A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bourdieu, P. (1977 [1972]). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1979 [1963 and 1972]). Algeria 1960: The disenchantment of the world; The sense of honour; The Kabyle house, or, the world reversed. Essays by Pierre Bourdieu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). "The Forms of Capital" in J.E. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 241-58.

Bourdieu, P. (1989e [1988]). "Social Space and Symbolic Power." Sociological Theory, 7, No. 1 (June): 18-26.

Bourdieu, P. (1990 [1980]). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991 [1982]). Language and symbolic power: The economy of linguistic exchanges. Cambridge: Polity.

Bourdieu, P. (1998 [1996]). On television and journalism. London: Pluto.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bos, W. (1996). Ergebnisse qualitativer und quantitativer empirischer paedagogischer Forschung, Munster: Waxmann.

Coleman, J. (1996). The Loss of Social Capital and Its Impact on Schools, in: Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 34, 99-105.

Coleman, J. S. (1998). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital" American Journal of Sociology, Supplement, 94, 481-510.

Fei, X. T. (1994). "Individual, group, society--self thinking on the whole life's academic career", Journal of Peking University, 1, 1-94.

Flick, U. (1998). (3. Aufl.). Qualitative Forschung. Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften, Reinvek: Rowohlt.

Gogolin, I. (2001). Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Europe: a Challenge for Educational Research and Practice. In European Educational Research Journal, 1, 123-138.

Hawken, P.; Lovins, A. & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little Brown and Co..

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random House.

Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.

Jansson, A. M. (1994). Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Lauderdale, J. M. (1804). An inquiry into the nature and origin of public wealth, and into the means and causes of its increase. Edinburgh [u. a.]: Constable.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital", Journal of Democracy 6, 65-78.

Qiao, Z. Q. (1992). The History of Chinese Modern Sociology, Beijing: People's Publishing.

Smith, A. (1904[1776]). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, compiled by Edwin Cannan, Methuen and Co., Ltd.

Schultz, T. W. (1961). "Investment in Human Capital", American Economic Review. 3, 1-17.

The World Bank (1999). http://www.worldbank.org/ poverty/scapital/library/webgd1.htm.

von Bohm-Bawerk, E. (1959). Capital and Interest, trans. George D. H. and Hans F. S. (South Holland, Illinois: Libertarian Press.

Wang, Y. H. (2006). A new perspective on intercultural communication: the transformation of different forms of capital, E-dissertation: Hamburg University. http://www.sub.uniamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2006/ 2783/pdf/thesis0910_05final1.pdf.

Wang, Y. H. (2007). "Harmony and Conflicts in Order, Fairness, Justice and social Development in Human Civilizations". Proceedings of "International Symposium on Order, Fairness, Justice and social Development in Human Civilizations", the 3rd Beijing Conference of Harvard-Yenchin Institute, 320-330.

Wang, Y. H. (2008). The Doxa of the Intercultural Communication, An example of the Chinese in Germany. HongKong Press for Social Sciences Ltd.

YiHong Wang, Peking University/Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

YiHong Wang,

Peking University/Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

Correspondence to:

Dr. YiHong Wang

Center of Intercultural Communication and Management

School of Journalism and Communication

Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China or Department of Communication, School of Humanities

Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, YuQuan Road, No. 19A, Beijing, 100049, China

Email: [email protected] or

[email protected]

Table 1. Cultural Capital Existing in Three Forms

FORMS MEANING

Embodied Form In the form of long/lasting dispositions
 of the mind and body as habitus

Objectified Form In the form of cultural goods (pictures,
 books, dictionaries, instruments,
 machines, electronic media, television,
 radio, internet, etc.), which are the
 trace or realization of theories,
 problematics, etc.

Institutionalized In a form of objectification, which is
Form presumed to guarantee conferment of
 entirely original properties on the
 cultural capital, sanctioned by
 educational institutions.

Sources: Wang, 2006: 32

Table 2. The Comparison of the Concepts of Social Capital

 function/
Name Definition method significance

Bourdieu the aggregate supporting illumination of
 of the actual cultural social
 or potential capital/ capital's
 resources theoretic transformation
 backing of as benefits to
 membership in a an individual
 group as the
 collectivity-
 owned capital

Coleman Closure facilitating illumination of
 structures, human social
 social theoretic capital's
 relationship of empiric & sanction to the
 trust, theoretic individual's
 obligation, benefits
 worthiness, and
 norms; all
 facilitating
 certain actions
 of actors

Putnam interaction improving society
 enabling people economy and benefits from
 to build social social capital
 communities, to activities,
 commit i.e. democracy
 themselves to civic
 each other, and participation
 to knit the and solidarity/
 social fabric empiric

Sources: Wang, 2006: 58