Producing and appropriating neighbourhood prestige: cultural capital in Australia’s elite suburbs

Abstract

Bourdieu's theory of capital can contribute to geographies of elites and the super-rich, as a lens through which spaces of consumption, such as the residential neighbourhood, can also be understood as spaces where capital is accumulated in its varied economic, social and cultural guises. In this paper, I examine how residents of highly affluent neighbourhoods produce and sustain the prestige or distinction of their neighbourhood, and how they appropriate it as their own cultural capital. Addressing this question empirically, I analyse qualitative data from interviews with 46 residents of three of Australia's most affluent neighbourhoods: Mosman (Sydney), Toorak (Melbourne) and Cottesloe (Perth). The analysis uncovers the practices-from consumption of luxury houses and cars to 'everyday conservatism'-through which distinction becomes spatially fixed in elite neighbourhoods, and appropriated by residents, however unevenly across lines of gender, age and other social differences. I argue that distinguishing between different phases of the cultural capital circuit-the performance, appropriation and operationalisation of distinction-can help address geographers' unease with matters of agency, social difference and spatiality in Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital.

The damages of stigma, the benefits of prestige: Examining the consequences of perceived residential reputations on neighbourhood attachment

“…Indeed, positive reputations may, for example, be capitalised in land values and pave the way for important urban dynamics in the educational or commercial spheres that reinforce existing class disparities in the city (e.g. Wiesel, 2020). Prestigious reputations could also constitute an aspirational force guiding self-segregation strategies, favouring class reproduction among the most privileged groups (see also Méndez and Gayo, 2019).…”

“…While perceived residential stigma may affect place attachment, it must be noted that the large number of studies assessing territorial stigmatisation strongly contrasts with the scant research on perceived ‘positive’ residential reputations and their consequences for residents’ outcomes. This is important because the symbolic power managed by dominant groups in cities can be deployed not only by denigrating others but also by increasing one’s own worth (Otero et al, 2022; Wiesel, 2020), which might in turn improve neighbourhood attachment (Andersen, 2008; Kullberg et al, 2010; Permentier et al, 2009). Moreover, the reputational structure can also include less intense forms of perceived positive and negative reputations in between the extremes of stigma and prestige.…”

European Capital of Culture 2023 - Comparative Analysis of the Hungarian Candidate Cities

“…(Boland, 2010) Culture is a cultural capital for cities, which is a major building element for urban development. (Wiesel, 2018) The preservation of cultural values is also important for cities, to which a cultural megaproject can make a significant contribution. (Cohen & Shoval, 2007) At the same time, culture plays an important role in the economy.…”

Road – gate – enclosure: elite securityscapes in London and Mexico City

“…Intensifying social inequalities in many cities have made them focal points of debate regarding the acceptability of elite withdrawal and its effect on urban life more broadly (Andreotti, Le Galès and Moreno-Fuentes 2015). While the discussion has focused on questions of taxation and contribution (Piketty 2020) and forms of segregation and disaffiliation by higher income and wealthy urbanites (Atkinson 2020;Wiesel 2018b), physical boundaries and internal design measures now seen in many affluent areas may be considered as key elements of a wider 'disembedding' of more advantaged urban groups out of urban physical and social space (Rodgers 2004). In this sense, forms of social 'exit' may be facilitated by urban design features that include gates, street furniture (or its absence) and varying symbolic markings of enclosure and spatial demarcation.…”