Brooklyn Beckham, Maya Hawke, Lily-Rose Depp – recognizable names, especially among those born around 2000. The above three young celebrities are united not only by fame, but also by the fact that they are all from famous families (David and Victoria Beckham, Ethan Hawke-Uma Thurman and Johnny Depp-Vanessa Paradis, respectively).

Of course, this is nothing new in the pop culture universe. Let’s remember her Liza Minnelli (daughter of Vincente Minnelli and Judy Garland) Sofia Coppola (her father Francis Ford Coppola) or her Angelina Jolie (daughter of Jon Voight).

But returning to today, let’s take the example of Brooklyn Beckham, who, at 23, has already tried his luck as football player, photographer, model and chef, without necessarily possessing any exceptional talent in any of them.

It doesn’t really matter, of course. With a £380 million cushion from his parents, Beckham can play with a new piece every six months without stress. He has what those who love fame crave, and which always goes hand in hand with it: money and connections. But also something else: cultural capital.

I mean? Celebrity kids are basically given backstage access from birth. Not only do their parents, if and when necessary, know where to turn for the development of their budding star children, but their children, in turn, have seen “how it works” from the cradle.

You don’t have to have famous parents to have “access” to the cultural universe – as long as your parents are “cool.” Parents who can pass on their knowledge to their children, the way they see life and, in general, their “coolness”. In these cases, it is “spiritual nepotism”.

And if “spiritual nepotism” is a neologism, then its term “cultural capital” it exists and was introduced by a sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Based on the theory of Karl Marx, Bourdieu essentially argued that cultural capital also plays a smaller but not insignificant role in social stratification.

‘Cause for better or for worse, in a way, cultural and economic status are linked: someone more affluent is more likely to have more access to what we call “high” culture, spending their time in the hallways of museums rather than on the couch in front of the TV.

Of course, this does not necessarily happen in popular culture. A working-class parent may well want to bond with their child by listening to Fleetwood Mac records or Martin Scorsese films. And this should not be associated with the negative connotation that nepotism has.

However, nowadays the two “camps” can often be confused. Artists (and others) who look cool and approachable, who wear hoodies and sneakers (which of course could be Balenciaga) often come from wealthy families, even if they opt for a seemingly “poorer” look.

However, the debate around the “cultural capital” deserves to be continued. Perhaps, of course, the concept of high culture is no longer so consistent and we need to rethink that culture has, after all, a substantial value. And what’s for sure is how talent, creativity and coolness cannot be bought with money.

According to Dazed.