2004
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Abstract

Several scholars have argued that the relation between social and cultural hierarchy has less to do with cultural objects as such – people consume: high or low/popular culture – and more with their ‘modes of consumption’ – they (say they) consume and evaluate art: by applying a ‘pure’ or ‘popular’ aesthetic repertoire. To both support nuance this thesis, this article, based on in-depth interviews with ninety Dutch people, scrutinises in detail which aesthetic criteria individuals use, and how, when speaking about their likes and dislikes within several cultural fields. It shows that ‘pure’ aesthetic criteria are indeed used more often by the well-educated than by the less-educated, but that ‘popular’ aesthetic criteria are used by both educational groups about as much. It can be argued that this makes the well-educated more ‘omnivorous’ in their use of aesthetic repertoires.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/SOC2018.2/3.003.HAAK
2019-03-01
2021-11-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexander, V.D.(2003)Sociology of the arts. Exploring fine and popular forms. Malden: Blackwell.
  2. Bachmayer, T., N. Wilterdink en A. van Venrooij(2014)Taste differentiation and hierarchization within popular culture: The case of salsa music. Poetics, 47: 60-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baumann, S.(2001)Intellectualization and art world development: Film in the United States. American Sociological Review, 66(3): 404-426.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Becker, H.(1982)Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  5. Bell-Villada, G.H.(1996)Art for art’s sake and literary life. How politics and markets helped shape the ideology and culture of aestheticism 1790-1990. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  6. Bennett, T., M. Savage, E. Silva, A. Warde, M. Gayo-Cal en D. Wright(2009)Culture, class, distinction. London: Routledge.
  7. Benzecry, C. en R. Collins(2014)The high of cultural experience: Toward a microsociology of cultural consumption. Sociological Theory, 32(4): 307-326.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, P.(1984)Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
  9. Bourdieu, P.(1996)The rules of art. Genesis and structure of the literary field. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  10. Daenekindt, S.(2017)On the structure of dispositions. Transposability of and oppositions between aesthetic dispositions. Poetics, 62: 43-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Daenekindt, S. en H. Roose(2013)A mise-en-scène of the shattered habitus: The effect of social mobility on aesthetic dispositions towards films. European Sociological Review, 29(1): 48-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Daenekindt, S. en H. Roose(2017)Ways of preferring: Distinction through the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of cultural consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1): 25-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De Meyer, G.(2006)De beste smaak is de slechte smaak. Populaire cultuur en complexiteit. Leuven: Acco.
  14. DeNora, T.(2000)Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Friedman, S. en G. Kuipers(2013)The divisive power of humour: Comedy, taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology, 7(2): 179-195.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gans, H.J. (1999 [1974]) Popular culture and high culture. An analysis and evaluation of taste (herziene druk). New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ganzeboom, H.(1982)Cultuurdeelname als verwerking van informatie of verwerving van status: een confrontatie van twee alternatieve verklarende theorieën aan de hand van reeds verricht onderzoek. Mens en Maatschappij, 57(4): 341-372.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haak, M. van den(2014)Disputing about taste. Practices and perceptions of cultural hierarchy in the Netherlands. Proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  19. Haak, M. van den(2018)High culture unravelled. A historical and empirical analysis of contrasting logics of cultural hierarchy. Human Figurations, 7(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Halle, D.(1993)Inside culture. Art and class in the American home. Chicago: University Press.
  21. Hanquinet, L., H. Roose en M. Savage(2014)The eye of the beholder: Aesthetic preferences and the remaking of cultural capital. Sociology, 48(1): 111-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hartog Jager, H. den(2014)Het streven. Kan hedendaagse kunst de wereld verbeteren?Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep.
  23. Hekkert, P. en P.C.W. van Wieringen(1996)Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(3): 389-407.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hennion, A.(2001)Music lovers. Taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5): 1-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Holstein, J.A. en J.F. Gubrium(1995)The active interview. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  26. Holt, D.B.(1998)Does cultural capital structure American consumption?Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1): 1-25.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jarness, V.(2015)Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research. Poetics, 53: 65-79.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnston, J. en S. Baumann(2007)Democracy versus Distinction: A study of omnivorousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1): 165-204.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lamont, M.(1992)Money, morals and manners. The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Lizardo, O.(2008)The question of culture consumption and stratification revisited. Sociologica, 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Michael, J.(2017)Highbrow culture for high-potentials? Cultural orientations of a business elite in the making. Poetics, 61: 39-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ollivier, M.(2008)Modes of openness to cultural diversity: Humanist, populist, practical, and indifferent. Poetics, 36(2-3): 120-147.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Parsons, M.J.(1987)How we understand art. A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Peters, J., K. van Eijck en J. Michael(2018)Secretly Serious? Maintaining and crossing cultural boundaries in the karaoke bar through ironic consumption. Cultural Sociology, 12(1): 58-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Peterson, R.A. en A. Simkus (1992)How musical tastes mark occupational status groups. In: M.Lamont en M.Fournier (red.) Cultivating differences. Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 152-186.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rimmer, M.(2012)Beyond omnivores and univores: The promise of a concept of musical habitus. Cultural Sociology, 6(3): 299-318.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Roose, H.(2008)Many-voiced or unisono? An inquiry into motives for attendance and aesthetic dispositions of the audience attending classical concerts. Acta Sociologica, 51(3): 237-253.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rössel, J.(2011)Cultural capital and the variety of modes of cultural consumption in the opera audience. The Sociological Quarterly, 52: 83-103.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schulze, G.(1992)Die Erlebsnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
  40. Swidler, A.(2001)Talk of love. How culture matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  41. Thornton, S.(1995)Club cultures: Music, media, and subcultural capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  42. Vander Stichele, A.(2007)De culturele alleseter? Een kwantitatief en kwalitatief onderzoek naar ‘culturele omnivoriteit’ in Vlaanderen. Proefschrift, KU Leuven.
  43. Venrooij, A. van en V. Schmutz(2010)The evaluation of popular music in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands: A comparison of the use of high art and popular aesthetic criteria. Cultural Sociology, 4(3): 395-421.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vermeulen, L. en M. van den Haak(2012)“Je moet onder aan de ladder beginnen.” Distinctie en hiërarchie binnen de klassieke en hedendaagse muziek. Sociologie, 8(3): 273-296.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wermuth, M.(2002)No sell out. De popularisering van een subcultuur. Amsterdam: Aksant.
  46. White, H.C. en C.A. White(1965)Canvases and careers. Institutional change in the French painting world. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/SOC2018.2/3.003.HAAK
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error