Why do claims of cultural belonging promote institutional transformation by expanding community boundaries in some instances and constricting them in others? To address this question, I introduce an elite-capital conflict approach, which synthesizes Bourdieu’s concept of capital with elite-conflict theories. I argue that this approach is valuable for understanding key aspects of mass mobilization such as the conditions under which marginalized elites will attempt to mobilize non-elites through appeals of cultural similarity; the factors which shape the cultural boundaries that these appeals propose; and when non-elites are likely to answer an elites’ call to mobilize. Drawing on historical analysis of 19th-century nationalism in Congress Poland, I show that the degree of capital concentration in the hands of Polish elites and conversion rates between different types of capital determined whether, and how, Polish elites utilized appeals to shared beliefs and practices as grounds for mobilization of non-elites. Whether appeals to shared cultural practices became a successful basis of widespread mobilization, however, depended on the benefits for non-elites of the reconceptualization or re-valuation of Polish culture and its boundaries that Polish elites were proposing.

中文翻译：

---

文化资本的政治价值：19 世纪波兰国会中的民族主义、种族排斥和精英

为什么文化归属感在某些情况下通过扩大社区边界而在其他情况下限制社区边界来促进制度转型？为了解决这个问题，我引入了一种精英资本冲突方法，它将布尔迪厄的资本概念与精英冲突理论相结合。我认为，这种方法对于理解群众动员的关键方面很有价值，例如边缘化精英试图通过诉诸文化相似性来动员非精英的条件；塑造这些呼吁所提出的文化界限的因素；以及何时非精英可能会响应精英的动员号召。借鉴波兰国会对 19 世纪民族主义的历史分析，我表明，波兰精英手中的资本集中程度和不同类型资本之间的转换率决定了波兰精英是否以及如何利用对共同信仰和实践的呼吁作为动员非精英的理由。然而，诉诸共享文化实践是否成为广泛动员的成功基础，取决于波兰精英提出的对波兰文化及其边界的重新概念化或重新评估对非精英的好处。