Laurie Hanquinet in Cultural Sociology
The debate over the rise of eclecticism, more particularly Peterson’s ‘omnivore thesis’, has received much attention over recent years. For Lahire, eclecticism reflects less an increasing individual openness to a variety of cultural styles than intra-individual dissonances. Based on a large survey into cultural practices in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation (Belgium – N = 2021), this article compares these two notions with the aim of understanding the complexity of the structural relations that organise cultural tastes and practices into ‘cultural profiles’. I argue that omnivorousness cannot be reduced to dissonance but instead both notions characterise different configurations of cultural choices. More importantly, I show that identifying omnivorous and dissonant patterns matters less than understanding how these patterns emerge from tensions between existing and emerging cultural hierarchies at the individual and social levels.
‘Sociology in Museums’ edited by Gordon Fyfe and Paul Jones
Have a look! Some many great papers.
Happy to have been given the opportunity to write a paper on ‘Place and Cultural Capital: Art Museum Visitors across Space’
I am very much looking forward to attending and speaking at this seminar on Aesthetics, Morality & Class, organized by the excellent Dr Simone Varriale.
Dr Anna Bull (King’s College London)
Dr Dave O’Brien (Goldsmiths College)
Dr Mark Rimmer (University of East Anglia)
Come along if you can!
Conference organized by our very own Andrew Miles (among others). Sounds exciting!
The purpose of this conference is thus to re-visit the central issue of method in cultural participation research. They plan to address this from the two, overlapping, perspectives of conceptually- and empirically-driven work. On the one hand, they want to showcase research focused on understanding participation from different methodological perspectives (methods in practice); on the other hand, contributions highlighting the importance of the study of methods for understanding participation (methodological rationales).
Invited keynote speakers include:
- Philippe Coulangeon (Sciences Po, Paris, France).
- Nick Crossley (University of Manchester, UK).
- Tally Katz-Gerro (University of Haifa, Israel).
- Terhi-Anna Wilska (University of Jyväskylä, Finland).
In addition to keynote speakers, guest speakers and session leaders include: Predrag Cveticanin (TIMS, Serbia), Laurie Hanquinet (University of York, UK), Semi Purhonen (University of Tampere, Finland) and Understanding Everyday Participation team members.
Adrian Leguina (University of Manchester)
Andrew Miles (University of Manchester)
Claire Huyton (University of Manchester)
Susan Oman (University of Manchester)
The Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) are often thought of as being exemplars of meritocracy – if someone is talented and hardworking they will do well. However, recently, there has been a great deal of media and policy discussion about the makeup of CCIs, particularly in terms of social class.
The most detailed data on the composition of the creative workforce, for example – provided by Creative Skillset and most recently by the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) – lacks any information about class origin. In Are the Cultural and Creative Industries meritocratic?, a paper recently submitted to Cultural Trends, Daniel Laurison, Sam Friedman, Andrew Miles and I try to find out what the reality is. Along with analysis on gender and ethnicity, and building on the ‘class pay gap’ analysis Sam and Daniel have already done, our paper suggests there are clear inequalities in the class composition of those working in the CCIs. This post picks up on one particular aspect of the paper to show how CCIs, based on analysis of the ONS’s 2014 Labour Force Survey, are dominated by those from affluent backgrounds.
We can see this clearly in table 1, which shows how CCIs have larger proportions of individuals from NS-SEC 1 and 2 origins. NS-SEC is the way ONS thinks about social class, with 1 and 2 referring to higher managerial or professional (1) or lower managerial and professional jobs (2).
Table 1: Origins in Creative Industries compared with population & NS-SEC 1 & 2
|NS-SEC 1 Origins||NS-SEC 2 Origins||NS-SEC 3-5 Origins||NS-SEC 6 – 8 Origins|
|Creative Industries as a whole||26.1%||23.9%||32.0%||18.0%|
|Population as a whole||14.1%||15.0%||36.2%||34.7%|
Note: Weighted percentages based on recommended survey weighting. All respondents reporting an occupation, aged 23-69 and not in full-time education. N= 1637 for CCIs, and 5491 for NS-SEC 1, 9,614 for NS-SEC 2, and 45,356 for population as a whole.
If there is an over representation of NS SEC1 and 2 origin individuals in the Creative Industries as a whole, this over representation is more pronounced when compared to the rest of the population. For example, those from what might be popularly described as ‘working class’ backgrounds (NS-SEC 6-8) are about 34.7% of the British population, but represent only 18% of the CCI workforce. These findings clearly puncture romantic notions of the CCIs as paragons of merit and accessibility and instead point towards a sector dominated by the children of managers and professionals.
However, we can go deeper into the analysis thanks to the detail offered by the LFS data. Table 2 suggests that the CCIs are in no way a coherent formation in terms of their social composition. Some sectors, such as publishing, advertising, and music and performing and visual art, have a particularly high concentration of those from professional and managerial backgrounds (NS-SEC 1&2) whereas the distribution of the origins of those working in craft, by contrast, is much closer to what is found in the general population. Meritocracy, if it exists in CCIs, is unevenly distributed.
|Table 2: Origins for each sector and occupation|
|Higher Prof & Mgrs||Lower Prof & Mgrs||Inter-mediate Occs||Routine & Semi-Routine||n|
|Advertising and marketing||30.8%||24.0%||26.3%||19.0%||372|
|Music, performing and visual art||28.3%||25.0%||32.9%||13.8%||147|
|Design: product, graphic and fashion design||26.1%||19.2%||33.6%||21.2%||136|
|IT,software and computer services||22.5%||25.4%||32.6%||19.6%||478|
|Museums, galleries & libraries||27.8%||24.5%||22.2%||25.6%||43|
|Film,TV, video, radio and photography||17.2%||35.2%||38.4%||9.1%||117|
One striking point about the differing social composition of CCIs is how exclusive the sectors associated with aesthetic production can be. Film, for example draws only 9.1% of its workforce from those with parents in routine or semi-routine occupations; Music has a similarly low number (10%); as does publishing (11.9%). Indeed publishing, has a massive overrepresentation of the most advantaged in the country, with well over a third of the workforce (43.2%) from NS-SEC 1.
DCMS’ most recent economic estimates suggest CCIs are a well performing area of the economy. This makes them highly attractive to policy makers looking for a vision of the future for the British.
In contrast, our analyses show clear and often striking inequalities across and between the CCIs. Introducing class origin raises a number of new and important questions about the particular nature and consequences of inequality within the CCIs. For example, given the dominance of the children of professionals and managers in publishing, what are the implications for English literary culture? What are the implications for the way we think about cultural value if the sector is so unevenly accessible for those from different backgrounds? For those looking to work in those CCI occupations traditionally seen as the most ‘cultural’, such as music, museums and galleries, or publishing, the message from the 2014 Labour Force Survey is clear- if you’re from a working class background you need not apply.
Written by Dave O’Brien
Inequalities: when culture becomes a capital – pre-peer review submission to the Routledge Companion to Global Cultural Policy
Here is a draft text called ‘Inequalities: when culture becomes a capital’ that I have written for the Routledge Companion to Global Cultural Policy edited by Dave O’Brien, Toby Miller & Victoria Durrer.
This is a draft version that is likely to change after peer review comments from the editors and possibly from some of you. So any comment welcome!
I will talk about some of the issues discussed in the paper tonight at our LSE event with Philippe Coulangeon.
The introduction to the Special Issue on ‘New forms of distinction’ that we have coordinated is now available online (as well as most of the papers included in the SI):
Friedman, S., Savage, M., Hanquinet, L. & Miles, A. (2015). Cultural sociology and new forms of distinction. Introduction, Poetics: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X15000753