Understanding cultural omnivorousness, or the myth of the cultural Ala - PDF document

Understanding cultural omnivorousness, or the myth of the cultural Alan Warde, David Wright, Modesto Gayo-Cal, Tony Bennett, Elizabeth Silva, University of Manchester and Open University, UK Paper delivered to the Eure without authors’ permission. alan.warde@manchester.ac.uk or David 1 Introduction: the discovery offor everything. There has been much speculation and empirical research since aiming to corroborate this findisubstantial number of papers have now been written explicitly exploring the nature, extent and significance of tHolbrook et al, 2002; Simtas and Al Chan and Goldthorpe, 2005). This academic production is based exclusively on (secondary) analysis of survey ural engagements and tastes than the and implication of omnivorousnesidentifiable sector of thhe second (espoused by most others) know how omnivores think and reason. Inmost effective social scientific solutiHowever, without use of a social survey it difficult to know who to interview, defined the socio-demographic characteriststudy which has a unique set of evidence in this regard, in which we interviewed face-to-face individualsvels of cultural engagement, i.e. and Social Exclusion: A the existence of cultural capital in former through focus-group discussions and semi-structured household interviews exploring the cultural participation and sample of Indian, Pakistani and Afrosuch indicators of cultural capital alongside indicators of economic and social This paper draws on data produced by the research team for the ESRC project Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion: A Critical Investigation (Award no R000239801). The team comprised Tony Bennett (Principal Applicant), Mike Savage, Elizabeth Silva, Alan Warde (Co-Applicants), David Wright and Modesto Gayo-Cal (Research Fellows). The applicants were jointly responsible for the design of the national survey and the focus groups and household interviews that generated the quantitative and qualitative date for the project. Elizabeth Silva, assisted by David Wright, co-ordinated the analyses of the qualitative data from the focus groups and household interviews. Mike Savage and Alan Warde, assisted by Modesto Gayo-Cal, co-ordinated the analyses of the quantitative data produced by the survey. Tony Bennett was responsible for the overall direction and co-ordination of The focus groups, totalling 25, comprised between 4 and 8 participants per group, involving a total of 143 participants, including 74 women and 69 men. The groups were conducted in 6 areas in the UK in order to take account of regional and national differences as well as of differences between urban and rural areas and those between metropolitan and provincial cities. Focus groups were held between March and July 2003 in London (8), Birmingham (2), rural Scotland (3), Belfast (2), Swansea (3), and Nottingham (7). Household interviews were conducted with 30 respondents from the survey and, in some cases, their partners, yielding a total of 45 interviews. The selection of households was based on a theoretical sample which aimed to take account of the distribution of households in terms of (i) cultural capital composition, (ii) the presence or absence of dependent children, (iii) geographical location, and (iv) a division between ‘white’ and minority ethnic composition. The survey was administered to a main sample of 1564 and an ethnic boost sample of 227 divided roughly equally between members of the Indian, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean communities. The survey was conducted between November 2003 and March 2004 by the National Centre for Social Research. See Thomson (2004) for the technical report ve of greater than average degree of tap opinions about culture and cultural rousness as a preliminary approach to all six questions. We cannot tell whether participation proved to be more appreciate them. Omnivores exhibit s that anything counts as art today’. However, specifically with respect to music, they experience apparently teaches, or world than did those who were less omnivorous. The obvious interpretation opportunity to experience domains and situations where snobbish attitudes are displayed, presumably by other people since it seems unlikely that they would think of themselves as snobbishas ‘ordinary’, their more extensive use we also considered the relationship betwe Six answers were available: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree strongly, don’t know. The questions, and percentage of answers in each category, were: ‘One person’s taste is as good as the next’: 10, 47, 13, 26, 4, 1 ‘You need to know more about are and classical music than I do to enjoy them fully’: 5, 35, 16, 40, 4, 0 ‘It seems that anything can count as art these days’: 19, 54, 12, 13, 1, 1 ‘The old snobbery once associated with cultural taste has now all but disappeared’: 1, 26, 23, 45, 4, 2 ‘There are definite standards for deciding whether music is good or bad’: 3, 36, 22, 35, 2, 1 ‘The arts funded by the government aren’t really designed for ordinary people’: 9, 37, 25, 27, 1, 2 book genres; score on 1 or 2 on a seven point scale from like to dislike for seven genres of writing music genres: score on 1 or 2 on a sevseven genres of music. inter-related, we constructed a simple scale which summed how many items any respondent liked. The lowest recoscore was 27. The lowest quintile he highest quintile liked 14 or Mean (%) Films of Rathnam 0.6 Films of Campion 2.2 Einstein on the Beach (Glass) 3.3 Paintings of Kahlo 3.8 Religious books 8.5 Heavy Metal music 10.8 Modern Jazz 12.0 Watching World Cup football on TV 44.4 Wonderwall (Oasis) 46.6 Work of Picasso 48.8 Paintings of Turner 50.5 Paintings of L.S.Lowry 54.5 Chicago (Sinatra) 64.7 Paintings of Van Gogh 67.3 We then conducted a regression analysismodel which explained most variance (15%) is presented as Table 2. Incidentally, this model explained much less variance than did measures for significance than in our other analyses 3.3 Transgression of cultural boundaries? high and popular culture. profit. There is an obvious circularity here, although it is one which neither issue of cross boundary tastes. Thus, if t items. A second option is to observe a invoke a criterion implicit inof critics and artists than on responses llege and university curricula, likely to foundations, or government agencies based on the perceived aesthetic value of their product, and often produced es some or many of these and who also (increasingly) likes other genrinstituted. This requires a form of institutional analysis that we have not by those with high institutionalised cultare excluded) and to their legitimacy. some rare items which are consecrated. Not all rare items are, however, as one might expect. Note that in this is a piece which the highly educated particularly (a) (b) (c) Item’s rank: Rank by ‘Omnivore measure of ‘omnivore ratio’: top/ consecration ratio’ bottom quintile Kahlo 1 2 37.23 Almodovar 2 5 14.93 Warhol 3 7 7.76 Modern literature 4 8 7.29 Campion 5 10 5.26 Emin 6 3 32.32 Einstein on Beach 7 1 infinite Mahler 8 6 10.75 Kind of Blue 9 4 29.4 Heavy metal 10 Modern jazz 9 5.28 Picasso 11 4.64 Note that the taste for modern jazz is minority (12.0%) It is not especially consecrated but is in the omnivores repertoire. Picasso is not rare but popular (48.8% like his work) and just under the threshold for being disproportionately liked by graduates. it were so, we might be inclined to of cultural capital. Omnivores are the omnivore will be disproportionately associated with cultural capital and self confirming, but it nevertheless salso has a disproportionate taste for items which are education (i.e. lower rank and ratio). We identified those items where the ratio However, this evidence could equally well suggest that those with omnivorous select the same prestigious items as do those with high cultural capital, and pick almost notfrom the lower echelons of the hierarch Bourdieu’s terms, between being an omnivore and only a change in volume, not a restructof items that they like which come fromcontext, where it is unclear what might 4 Interviewing omnivores The interviews were conducted with people identified as omnivores from the scales. This might reflect an over-representation in our qualitative sample with those of relatively high levels of educEqually, the high number of omnivores distinctiveness of omnivorousness and its social location. A count of possible forms of omnivorousness, pation but less highly on likes and one ics of omnivorousness identified by the high levels of participation, knowledge but and a freelance worker in the heritage indusprofessional cultural expertise. These works, and a particular knowledge of if they chose science fiction, as two ofescapist thing’, contrasting with the explaining her preference for crime fiMiss Marpleof thing, I actually like the Amnd set down in the bayou with the This discerning approach to genre is also evident in the choices of these ‘cultural intermediaries’ regarding muthe survey scores to cluster arenthusiasm for particular genres, but equally no clearly expressed dislikes. respondents of distinctions and hierarchies within genres, as well as a mes, the academic, for example talked sic, he also distinguished between that offered by the BBC’s classical commercial station, which he described, box music’. His relative dislike ofprofessed openness to all types of music, described by him as a requirement of his role in teaching the dramatic arts. The Simpsonson, and can be further illustrated with our cularly strongly developed in one respondent, a social worker from Wales.high levels of participation, know no doubt assisted by cultural policies which subsidise museum and gallery admthe works of Turner and Hockney and a more than typically nuanced take on that demonstrated awareness There is the possibility here, then, that arts, theatre or film are a more visible fferent. She scored highly on knowledge highly on likes. Her preferences do not straddle obvious cultur less that is distinctive about her likes. In the interview she struggles to articulateexperience of higher education in the pressing non-committal openness to might manifest itself in high scores for experience of higher education in the arthe time of the interview she was in the process of renovating her house, strongly influenced ation is part of ‘expressing your e young people, omnivorousness might be closest this process of identifying omnivores discovered ‘omnivores’ with less clearly expressed orientations. The itself in a tendency to choose recent best-selling books (the biography of the connection with specifically high The kinds of people we have identified asconsumption and participation. They stinctive and more enduring social liberal. Although they also expressed like sport on television, reality TV or snobbishness in the middle class is a decisive aspect of the new orientation, recognise the continued existence ofthey personally have, and certainly would profess to have, an anti-snobbish qualitative evidence is the importance of likes, i.e. omnivorousness is not necessarily an altered hierarchy of prefease in the volume of things liked The most distinctive group appear to be ‘cultural intermediaries’, who have a a professional interest than an enthusiasm for some but not all areas of popular culture. tendencies. Graduates are particularly lik hierarchy of legitimacy is indication into their own cultural repertoire. rather relaxed about standards. Eastenders’ of good taste, it was said: ‘we’re surrounded by ideas of ‘La stratification sociale des gouts musicaux’, Rev Francaise de Sociologie. DiMaggio, P. (1987) ‘Classification in art.’, American Sociological ReviewLamont and M. Fournier (eds) PoeticsErickson, B.H. (1996) ‘Culture, class and connections’, American Journal of Han, S-K. (2003) ‘Unravelling the browSociological Perspectives, J. (2002) ‘Disentangling effacement, American Sociological Review, Bureaucracy and Culture: middle class formation in contemporary Britain ng the television to going to the opera, he scale was normally distributed. The lowest quartile were involved in 14 actional events broadcast on TV (TV7); the familiarity respondents scored between 13 and 18, a stA third possible measure of omnivorousness refers to at what they say they like. There werequestions ranged across six domains. Consains together, le additive scale was 39. The lowest west quintile liked siThe highest quintile liked 14 or more