Models of Cultural Reproduction as Drivers of Socio-cultural Resilience: Insights from a Systematic Review

Cultural reproductive factors

Factors that influence cultural reproduction span a wide range of dimensions, ranging from education, politics, economics, family, to media, religion, technology, and social community. Each factor plays a role in maintaining, transmitting, and transforming cultural values, norms, and identities across generations. Education and politics occupy a dominant position due to their role in shaping social structure and legitimacy, while other factors serve as complementary supporting arenas. A comprehensive picture of the distribution of these factors can be seen as described in Table 3.

The study of donut tables and diagrams reveals the allocation of literary focus on eight primary factors that affect cultural reproduction. The educational factor comprises the largest segment, with 15 citations or 17.6% of the total, affirming that educational institutions play a pivotal role in the transmission of cultural values and norms. Education serves as a formal teaching medium and a mechanism for the reproduction of social habitus that sustains class structures and social hierarchies (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). The curriculum, language of instruction, and pedagogical methods systematically reinforce the legitimacy of dominant cultures, rendering education a strategic domain for perpetuating or contesting social inequality.

Thirteen citations, or 15.3%, put political and power factors in second place. This demonstrates the significance of the state and political institutions in influencing the trajectory of cultural reproduction via policies, regulations, and ideologies. Gramsci (1971) elucidates that political hegemony is executed not solely through coercive means, but also via ideological domination that compels subordinate groups to perceive dominant values as inherently natural. So, politics controls the flow of cultural discourse by giving it a symbolic legitimacy that is part of the collective consciousness of society.

Third, the family factor had 12 citations, or 14.1%, which shows that the family is the main socialization agent that passes down language, customs, and cultural values from a young age (Bourdieu, 1977; Lareau, 2011). Cultural capital conveyed within the family establishes a basis for individuals to obtain and amass additional forms of capital, both economic and symbolic, in subsequent stages of life. The economy comes in fourth place, with 11 citations, or 12.9%. This shows that the way economic capital is distributed has a big effect on how culture can reproduce itself. Bourdieu (1986) asserted that the allocation of economic capital is intricately linked to cultural capital, as access to education, media, and political arenas is significantly influenced by the availability of economic resources.

The mass media factor was responsible for 10 citations, or 11.8%, which shows that the media is an important way to spread cultural ideas, ideologies, and group stories. The media is not impartial; it is a battleground for meaning where prevailing forces strive to maintain hegemony, while opposing forces endeavor to contest it (Kellner, 1995). Also, technology and digitalization are at 9 citations or 10.6%, which shows how information technology has changed the way culture is passed down from one generation to the next in the modern world (Castells, 2000). Digital platforms, algorithms, and transnational networks facilitate the transcendence of cultural boundaries, engendering novel modes of interaction that frequently result in identity hybridization.

The religious factor had 8 citations, or 9.4%, which shows that even though society is changing quickly, religion is still the main way that moral values and a sense of community are passed down. Geertz (1973) says that religion’s symbolic system creates meanings that shape the collective consciousness through rituals, traditions, and moral teachings. Lastly, the social and community environment, with 7 citations or 8.2%, demonstrated that daily interactions within local communities, ethnic groups, and social spaces are crucial for sustaining the dynamics of cultural reproduction. The community serves as both a site for conservation and a platform for negotiating meaning and identity, which evolves in response to contextual factors (Anderson, 1991).

The citation distribution indicates that the literature predominantly focuses on structural factors, including education, politics, and economics, that institutionally influence patterns of cultural reproduction. These factors constitute the predominant focus in academic studies, whereas community and religious factors are comparatively underemphasized. This pattern indicates that research often emphasizes macro mechanisms over macrodynamic, despite the significance of both in cultural reproduction. These results suggest that comprehending cultural reproduction necessitates a holistic approach that examines both substantial institutions and quotidian social interactions.

Types of factor relationships with cultural reproduction

The types of relationships between factors and cultural reproduction show a diversity of mechanisms at work, ranging from direct relationships such as family, religion, and community to mediations run by education, media, politics, and technology. In addition, there is also a role of moderation played by economics and technology in strengthening or weakening the influence of other factors. This pattern shows that cultural reproduction does not take place alone, but through a combination of micro and macro mechanisms that complement each other. A comprehensive overview of this type of relationship can be seen as described in Table 4.

The results of the table and heatmap study show that cultural reproductive factors have different types of relationships, reflecting the diversity of mechanisms at work in the process of inheriting values, norms, and identities. First, family and religious factors have a direct relationship to cultural reproduction. The family as the primary socialization agent instills habitus, language, and norms that are automatically inherited across generations (Bourdieu, 1986). Similarly, religion creates the reproduction of values through symbols, rituals, and belief systems that make up a collective identity (Geertz, 1981). In this context, the family and religion are fundamental sources of the formation of cultural consciousness without additional intermediaries or mechanisms, since they are integrated in the daily practices of society.

Furthermore, the education factor occupies a dual position with a direct relationship as well as mediation. As a direct relationship, education functions to reproduce social structures through curriculum, academic evaluation, and pedagogical practices that instill dominant habitus (Jiao et al., 2016). But education also works as a mediator by bridging cultural capital inherited from the family into a broader social system. For example, children from families with high cultural capital tend to take advantage of educational opportunities more easily to access greater social resources. Thus, education not only establishes structure, but also mediates the distribution of capital between generations.

Mass media and digital technology factors play a role mainly through mediation relationships. Mass media provides symbolic representations that shape public opinion, direct behavior, and mediate individual perceptions of social reality (Anwar et al., 2025). Meanwhile, digital technology serves as a mediator that accelerates cultural flows across geographical boundaries, creating new forms of cultural interaction in cyberspace (Anwar et al., 2025). These two factors confirm that cultural reproduction does not only take place in physical spaces, but also in symbolic and digital spaces that are increasingly dominant in modern society.

In addition to serving as a mediator, digital technology also acts as a moderator. Technology amplifies or weakens the effects of other factors, for example by expanding the reach of education through online platforms or changing the way mass media distributes information. In other words, technology creates conditions that regulate the intensity of the influence of other factors on cultural reproduction (So & Ip, 2020). Similarly, economic factors also serve as moderators, as the distribution of economic capital determines the extent to which individuals or groups can access education, media, and technology. Those with greater economic resources have a greater chance of maintaining or expanding their cultural influence (Bourdieu, 1984).

Political and power factors show a pattern of dual relationships: direct and mediated. As a direct relationship, politics directs cultural reproduction through education policies, language regulations, or national cultural policies. However, politics also functions as a mediator by channeling dominant ideologies and values into public consciousness. Gramsci (1971) emphasized that political hegemony works through a combination of coercive domination and moral-intellectual leadership, so that the state and the political elite become the main link between the power structure and the cultural consciousness of citizens.

Finally, social and community environmental factors have a direct relationship with cultural reproduction. Everyday interactions within the community create a space for the formation of a collective identity, where norms, practices, and symbols are inherited and negotiated (Anderson, 1991). These relationships are direct because communities provide a real social arena for cultural practice, without the need for formal institutional intermediaries.

The distribution of relationships shown by the heatmap shows an interesting pattern: structural factors such as education, politics, and economics tend to play a role through mediation or moderation mechanisms, while socio-cultural factors such as family, religion, and community tend to be directly related with cultural reproduction. Media and technology occupy a transitional position, serving as mediators as well as moderators. This indicates that the process of cultural reproduction takes place through a combination of direct and indirect mechanisms, in which macro institutions play more of a role as a liaison or regulator, while microagents play a role in everyday transmission.

Cultural reproduction

Cultural reproduction is the way that social values, norms, symbols, and practices are passed down from one generation to the next. This happens through primary agents like family, religion, and community, as well as through intermediary institutions and mechanisms like education, media, politics, economics, and technology. This process not only preserves the current social structure but also facilitates the transformation and negotiation of meaning in response to an evolving social context. There are three types of relationships between each factor: direct, mediated, and moderate. Together, these make up a complicated system for keeping culture alive. The interaction pattern of these factors is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Cultural reproduction model based on (Jiao et al., 2016) https://zenodo.org/records/18059311.

Cultural reproduction is a complicated process that uses a number of different ways to keep values, norms, and identities the same from one generation to the next. Conceptual diagrams derived from theoretical analysis indicate that social, political, economic, technological, and cultural factors operate not uniformly, but through distinct relationships: direct, mediation, and moderation. The differences in these kinds of relationships show that cultural reproduction happens through interactions at different levels, where microagents, macro institutions, and contextual infrastructures all affect each other. To figure out how culture survives and changes in modern society, we need to understand these different kinds of relationships better.

Family, religion, social community, and certain educational and political roles are directly associated with cultural reproduction. The family, as the principal agent of socialization, transmits habitus, language, and normative values from early childhood (Bourdieu, 1977). Conversely, religion preserves the continuity of collective moral identity through symbols, rituals, and traditions grounded in quotidian existence (Geertz, 1973). Social communities create a space for people to interact with each other and work out their shared cultural identities (Anderson, 1991). Education and politics, in their direct relationship, dictate cultural curricula and policies that shape the propagation of prevailing values (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Gramsci, 1971). So, direct relationships show that both primary agents and macro institutions are very important for making sure that culture lasts.

Education, mass media, politics, and digital technology are some of the things that can help with mediation. Education serves a dual role: it operates directly and also mediates between the family’s cultural capital and broader social opportunities. Schools not only replicate the classroom structure but also facilitate individual access to social resources (Bourdieu, 1986). Mass media mediates symbolic representations that shape people’s perceptions of reality, providing material for the construction of identity and behavior (Kellner, 1995). Politics, via ideology and policy, functions as a conduit that transmits prevailing values into societal consciousness (Kaufusi, 2024). On the other hand, digital technology speeds up the flow of cultural exchange across borders, making virtual spaces a new place for meaning to be reproduced (Castells, 2000). This mediation mechanism illustrates that cultural reproduction frequently occurs via intermediary channels that filter, modify, and disseminate specific values.

The moderation factor also plays a big role in controlling how strongly other factors affect things. The main factor that controls things is economics, because the way economic capital is spread out affects how people or groups can get to education, media, and politics. People who have more money are more likely to keep or grow their cultural influence, while people who don’t have much money are often pushed to the side (Bourdieu, 1986). Digital technology also acts as a moderator, making other factors stronger or weaker depending on how it is used. Digital platforms, for instance, can broaden the accessibility of online education or alter the dynamics of mass media information distribution, simultaneously creating opportunities for counterculture (Kudelić et al., 2025). Moderation, then, is a contextual variable that affects the size and scope of cultural reproduction.

From the overall analysis, it is evident that cultural reproduction is neither a linear nor a static process; instead, it arises from intricate interactions among various types of relationships. Directly related factors are the main source of cultural value, and mediating factors make sure that those values are spread and changed in society. Moderation, conversely, governs the intensity of influence, allowing cultural reproduction outcomes to differ across social contexts. This pattern aligns with Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of capital, which underscores inter-modal interaction (economic, social, cultural, symbolic) in sustaining social structure, and Gramsci’s (1971) theory of hegemony, which highlights the significance of ideological dominance in perpetuating cultural power. The role of technology and media as mediators and moderators aligns with Castells’ (2000) examination of a networked society, wherein the circulation of digital information constitutes the primary foundation of social reproduction.

This conceptual diagram delineates the factors of cultural reproduction and underscores the necessity of differentiating the types of relationships that operate within the process. The interplay of direct relations, mediation, and moderation demonstrates that cultural reproduction is dialectical, emerging from the interaction among objective structures, subjective agents, and technological and economic contexts. These results indicate the necessity for a comprehensive analytical framework that perceives cultural reproduction as a multi-dimensional and evolving phenomenon. Only through this perspective can the examination of cultural reproduction yield a more comprehensive understanding of how societies sustain and evolve their cultural identities amid global transformation.

1. Interpretation of main findings and their relation to research objectives

The results of a systematic review of 143 articles show that cultural reproduction is a complex process that works through multi-level interactions between micro-agents (family, community, religion) and macro structures (education, politics, economics, media, and technology). Overall, these findings confirm that cultural reproduction not only serves to maintain existing social structures but also allows adaptation and transformation of values according to dynamic social contexts. Thus, these results successfully answer the research objectives of analyzing the factors that influence cultural reproduction, explaining the main concepts, and formulating a conceptual model that links them to socio-cultural resilience.

The distribution of factors shows that education, politics, and family are the dominant agents in maintaining cultural sustainability. Education plays a dual role: first, as an instrument of legitimization of dominant values through curriculum and pedagogy (direct reproduction); Second, as a mediator between family cultural capital and social opportunities (indirect reproduction). Politics and economics work to regulate the distribution of capital that determines access to cultural resources, while media and digital technology are becoming new links in the transmission of values across geographical and generational boundaries. Thus, the cultural reproduction model formed is integrative-adaptive, combining direct relationships, mediation, and moderation among the eight main factors. These findings strengthen the position of the research as a theoretical and empirical synthesis that bridges various disciplinary domains in understanding socio-cultural resilience.

2. Comparison with previous literature

3. Thematic synthesis of each research question

4. Theoretical, practical, and policy implications

5. Unexpected findings and explanations

One unexpected result is the emergence of the ambivalent role of digital technology in the process of cultural reproduction. Although it is expected to be a means of democratizing culture, the results of the synthesis suggest that technology can also reinforce inequality through algorithms that focus on dominant cultures. This phenomenon explains how social media can reproduce symbolic hegemony in a new format. But on the other hand, the digital space also opens opportunities for minority cultures to express their identities and build a global solidarity network. This ambivalence confirms that digitalization is not just an instrument, but a new ideological arena that needs to be critically examined.

In addition, another interesting finding is the role of local communities that has tended to be overlooked in previous literature. Community turns out to play a strategic function in maintaining a balance between value conservation and social adaptation. The practice of cooperation, rituals, and traditional arts are a source of moral strength that sustains social resilience amid modernization pressure. This shows that resilience is not only built through macro policies, but also through micro-social networks that live in people’s daily lives.

6. Methodological strengths and limitations

The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach is a major strength of this research because it allows for cross-disciplinary integration in a transparent and replicative manner. The use of the PRISMA protocol and MMAT tool ensures the validity of the selection and the reliability of the interpretation of the results. Thematic analysis using NVivo deepens the understanding of the relationships between factors and enables the development of evidence-based conceptual models. However, there are some limitations. First, the dominance of English-language articles has the potential to exclude local non-English literature that is relevant to Asian or African contexts. Second, the analysis only covers the 2015–2025 range, so it does not fully capture the historical dynamics of long-term cultural reproduction. Third, although SLR provides a strong theoretical synthesis, this study does not include direct empirical validation through field observations or in-depth interviews. Therefore, the results are conceptual and need to be tested in a specific empirical context.

7. Knowledge gap and direction of advanced research

This study reveals several gaps in knowledge that open up opportunities for further study. First, there is still limited research on the reproduction of digital culture in developing countries, even though online space is now the main arena for cultural interaction. Second, there is a need for cross-generational empirical studies that observe the transmission of cultural values from families to digital communities, including the dynamics of resistance and identity hybridization. Third, the integration between cultural reproduction and environmental resilience is still minimal, even though climate change significantly affects local cultural practices.

To fill these gaps, future research can combine mixed-methods with a community-based participatory approach. This approach will allow for empirical validation of the developed model while enriching the theory with contextual data. Interdisciplinary studies between cultural sociology, communication technology, and policy studies also need to be expanded to understand new dynamics in global cultural reproduction.

This discussion emphasized that cultural reproduction is the main foundation of socio-cultural resilience. Through the complex interaction between micro-agents and macro structures, cultural values and identities are not only maintained but also adapted in the face of global change. This research expands on classical theory by adding digital, participatory, and social ecology dimensions that make cultural reproduction a mechanism of collective resilience. With an integrative model that combines direct relationships, mediation, and moderation, the results of this study make new contributions to the theory, practice, and policy of cultural preservation. Through this synthesis, cultural reproduction is understood not only as a process of preserving the past, but as a future adaptive strategy for society to survive and develop in the ongoing flow of globalization and technological transformation.

This section should be completed as per the PRISMA checklist, item 23. (For scoping reviews, see PRISMA-Scr, items 19-21).

Suggestion

This study acknowledges methodological constraints, including the predominance of English-language literature, the restricted analysis period (2015–2025), and the absence of direct empirical validation for the developed conceptual model. Consequently, additional research is advised to implement a mixed-methods approach, incorporating field observation and participatory interviews, to evaluate the contextual validity of the model. Cross-generational and cross-cultural studies are essential for comprehending the dynamics of cultural value transmission in the digital era, particularly within non-Western societies that remain under-represented in the literature. Furthermore, subsequent research must broaden its emphasis on the amalgamation of cultural reproduction with environmental resilience and the sustainability of the creative economy, considering its significance amid global crises and climate change. The findings of this study highlight the imperative for policymakers to establish a participatory and collaborative cultural policy ecosystem that integrates education, technology, the creative economy, and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. So, cultural reproduction can be a way to keep your identity and a group strategy for making society more resilient in the long run.