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
Speakers: Professor Philippe Coulangeon, Dr Sam Friedman, Dr Laurie Hanquinet, Dr Andy Miles
Chair: Professor Mike Savage
Our research group will discuss with one of the French leading experts on cultural capital – Philippe Coulangeon -whether traditional forms of ‘highbrow’ cultural capital associated with the dominance of the classical and historical canon are being eclipsed by newer and more fluid kinds of cultural tastes, associated with contemporary music and art, sport, and engaging with the social media and computer games.
This is an occasion to meet Philippe Coulangeon, who is Director of Research at SNRS, SciencesPo and Visiting Professor in th Department of Sociology at LSE.
Monday 16 November 2015
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building @ LSE
Speakers: Dr Niall Cunningham, Professor Fiona Devine, Dr Sam Friedman, Dr Daniel Laurison, Dr Lisa McKenzie, Dr Andrew Miles, Professor Mike Savage, Dr Helene Snee, Dr Paul Wakeling
Chair: Professor Nicola Lacey
A fresh take on social class from the experts behind the BBC’s ‘Great British Class Survey’. Social class has re-emerged as a topic of enormous scholarly and public attention. In this new book, Social Class in the 21st Century, Mike Savage and the team of sociologists responsible for the Great British Class Survey report their definitive findings and propose a new way of thinking about social class in Britain today. The book presents the ideas and facts behind their new conceptualization of class: a new British class system composed of seven classes that reflect the unequal distribution of three kinds of capital: economic (inequalities in income and wealth); social (the different kinds of people we know) and cultural (the ways in which our leisure and cultural preferences are exclusive). This book looks beyond labels to explore how and why our society is changing and what this means for the people who find themselves in the margins as well as in the centre.
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building