Bourdieu in his habitus for cultural production states that the cultural capital formations have a visble exterior and an invisible interior. The visible is tangible and this will hide the invisible that determines it. In some ways cultural productions and performances have been tangible dramaticization of the society that it was produced out of. In a study conducted on the youth perception of traditional and elite art as opposed to popular and mass cultural art it was seen that high risk youths were different in how they rated the theatre and its productions as opposed to another group of middle class youth.Youth Theatre here was observed to be more in connection with that of the middle class youth background that that of the high risk youth. The youth theatre did not give the high risk people many choices to express what they were dealing with in their daily life. As stated by Bourdieu only when the population grows in an environment that produces cultural capital and hence institutionalizes cultural capital can it be said that cultural capital will grow. However when the youth are not interested in the cultural capital as a result of their life situations and when they view cultural capital such as the theatre as only a secondary part of the life, then the assimilation and acquisition of the same stops. There may be evident disinterestedness leading. This will stop the cultural capital production and will also stop the institutionalizing of cultural capital. This in the greater sense will mean the society that all this is subject too will lose in terms of symbolic power also.