The Role of Culture in Class Identity and The Fatal Error of Karl Marx

Class isn’t just a material condition. It also involves social identity and the cultural capital that individuals carry with them. Culture includes things like language, manners, education, tastes, social practices, and even how we perceive ourselves in the world. These things are shaped by class, and once they’re ingrained, they’re difficult to change even if someone were to gain or lose wealth suddenly.

Cultural capital (a term coined by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu) refers to the non-economic assets that are associated with a particular social class—things like education, social etiquette, tastes, behavioral norms, and connections.
For example, if someone grows up in a working-class environment, they are likely to have different cultural practices than someone raised in an elite background, even if they share the same income level later in life. The way you speak, how you dress, and how you perceive the world are all products of class-based cultural learning.

Marx’s focus was primarily on the material conditions of life—the economic base of society—rather than on the cultural superstructure. In his theory, he saw the economic base (the modes of production) as determining the social superstructure (everything from culture to politics). This means he believed that economic changes would eventually lead to cultural changes—a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for example, would create a new working-class culture.
This assumption fails to account for the deep-rooted cultural traditions that are associated with class identity. People don’t just identify with a class because of their wealth—they do so because they are raised in it and socialized into it. The norms, values, and behaviors of the upper or working class are so ingrained that removing wealth does not automatically transform one’s cultural worldview.