In Les Classes Sociales dans la Mondialisation (2007), Anne-Catherine Wagner claims that the principles of social hierarchy and differentiation in a given country are at least partially founded on unequal access to international cultural, relational and symbolic resources.

She first says that cosmopolitism is a cultural disposition that has been valued throughout history and cultivated by the aristocracy and high bourgeoisie. Learning foreign languages, broadening behavioural references and learning about the history and culture of other countries (especially dominant ones) were regarded as cultural and identity dispositions that defined membership of the dominant classes. Today, the acquisition of cosmopolitan skills and ways of thinking and acting is still important in the processes of social stratification of societies, in that possession or lack of these resources helps determine positions in classes. She believes that the school and family socialization of the children of the more advantaged classes fosters the learning of foreign languages and attention to international affairs, broadens the scope of their cultural references and ways of thinking and enables them to build networks of sociability that go beyond their country?s borders. She feels that social inequalities in globalisation are not only related to income, qualifications or asset but are also symbolic and cultural:

?The cosmopolitism of the upper classes helps them to perceive as close that which is happening far away from them. A command of languages, knowledge of different countries, travel and easy relations with foreigners define the specific international forms of their cultural and social capital. In order to analyse the uses of an international culture in the upper classes, we must take into account the two meanings of this term: international culture is not only a mixture of unequally distributed symbolic assets, but it is also a culture in the sense given by anthropologists, i.e. a set of rules, practices and beliefs common to a group? (p.43, my translation).

Class inequalities in globalisation are also produced in the sphere of social recognition of the individual, of his/her status, which the author believes is a decisive resource in the definition of his/her future possibilities, especially in terms of employment. However, the value of international capital varies on the basis of national origin. She says, for example, that there is unequal recognition of bilingualism. While the predominant command of English by upper classes in France is regarded as an indicator of cosmopolitism, the use of their native language by immigrants is considered a stigmatising practice and classified socially and politically as an obstacle to integration in the host country. The structural relevance of international capital arises from its symbolic value and the social status achieved. The author believes that the dominant classes engage in symbolic manipulation of international resources and tend to recognise the dispositions that they have as legitimate and valuable.

?The dominant classes have the power to make their attributes recognised as elements that bestow and legitimise social superiority. It is in the possibility of choosing between mobility and stability, cosmopolitism and isolation on the basis of their benefits that the privileges of the dominant classes in globalisation lie? (103, my translation).

Frederico Cantante