STANDARDS OF HIGH CULTURE UNDER UPWARD MOBILITY

AND OUTMARRIAGE

WOUT ULTEE & NAN-DIRK DE GRAAF

RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN

EQUALSOC BARCELONA

SEPTEMBER 22-23, 2006

QUESTION 1: IS THERE FOR THE NETHERLANDS FROM 1974, 1983, 1993, 1998,

2000 TO 2003 AN UPWARD TREND IN ATTENDANCE OF CLASSICAL CONCERTS

AND VISITING MUSEUMS?

QUESTION 2: DOES IN EVERY YEAR MORE EDUCATION MAKE FOR HIGHER CHANCES

OF ATTENDANCE AND VISITING?

QUESTION 3: IF THERE IS NO UNIFORM UPWARD TREND, DID THE CHANCES OF

ATTENDANCE AND VISITING DECLINE FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION?

QUESTION 4: AND IF SO, DID THE CHANCES OF ATTENDANCE AND VISITING

ALSO DROP

FOR THOSE WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND A FATHER AND SPOUSE

WITH THAT EDUCATION?

QUESTION 5: AND IF SO, DID THIS DECLINE COVARY

WITH THE PERCENT OF THE PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION

MARRIED TO A PERSON WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND BORN TO A

FATHER WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION?

QUESTION 6: AND WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR A PERSON’S ATTENDANCE AND

VISITING,

DID THE WEIGHT OF THIS PERSON’S EDUCATION INCREASE

RELATIVE TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EDUCATION OF THIS PERSON’S SPOUSE

AND FATHER?

A HARD-NOSED EXERCISE IN QUANTITATIVE SOCIOLOGY? YES, BUT:

MY THEORY IS A MIRROR-IMAGE OF A GENERAL THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES IN

VARIOUS FORMS OF ART AND ELITIST ACTION

THIS THEORY WAS PROPOSED BY ELIAS, GOMBRICH AND BOURDIEU

WITH THE THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO KANT’S THEORY OF

PURE AESTHETICS,

AND WITH THE THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES AVOIDING THE OBJECTION OF

SOCIAL ARBITRARINESS

IF SOMETHING IS NOT EITHER UGLY/KITSCH OR BEAUTIFUL/ART,

BUT IF THERE IS AN UNDERLYING CONTINUOUS YET ‘PURE’ SCALE,

THEN INHERENT PROCESSES OF IMPROVEMENT PROPELLED BY

COMPETITION

IN CLOSED SOCIETIES MAKE FOR UPWARDLY CHANGING CUT-OFF

POINTS

AND IN OPEN SOCIETIES FOR DOWNWARDLY CHANGING CUT-

OFF POINTS

ACCORDING TO ELIAS, COMPETITION BETWEEN THE

BOURGEOISIE AND THE NOBILITY IN ABSOLUTIST

FRANCE MADE FOR MORE AND MORE ELABORATE RULES OF

CIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR

ACCORDING TO GOMBRICH, THE COMPETITION BETWEEN CITIES IN MEDIEVAL FRANCE

MADE FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER VAULTS IN

CATHEDRALS

OTHER CASES FROM ARCHITECTURE:

THE ROMAN PANTHEON AND THE DOME OF FLORENCE

MOSQUES WITH HIGHER AND HIGHER DOMES IN ISTANBUL AFTER THE FALL

OF CONSTANTINOPLE

ESCORIAL, VERSAILLES, SCHOENBRUNN: LARGER ROYAL

PALACES WITH LARGER GARDENS

THE ‘GRAND TRAVAUX’ OF THE PRENCH POST-WORLD-WAR-TWO PRESIDENTS SINCE THE CENTRE

POMPIDOU

COMPETITION BETWEEN THE ABSOLUTIST RULERS OF THE 18 TH

CENTURY GERMAN STATES:

NOT ONLY LARGER PALACES, BUT ALSO

BIGGER COLLECTIONS OF PICTURES AND

LARGER ORCHESTRAS

IN THE 19TH CENTURY BIEDERMEIDER ERA AND THE KAISERREICH:

FROZEN INTO BILDUNGSBUERGERTUM

THE NETHERLANDS AS A MARITIME REPUBLIC WITH AMSTERDAM AS

COMMERCIAL CENTER REMAINED OUTSIDE THIS COMPETITION,

BUT COMPETITION BETWEEN PAINTERS IN A PROTESTANT COUNTRY FOR THE FAVORS OF THE SMALL BOURGEOISIE

LED TO VARIOUS GENRES IN PAINTING, AMONG THEM STILL LIFES

THE NETHERLANDS DID NOT HAVE COURT CULTURE, SINCE IT AS A

REPUBLIC DID NOT HAVE MUCH OF A COURT

THE DUTCH REPUBLIC DID HAVE A STADTHOLDER WITH ROYAL

ASPIRATIONS, AND STADTHOLDER WILLIAM V, WHO

WAS MARRIED TO A PRINCESS FROM PRUSSIA,

IN 1774 OPENED IN THE HAGUE, THE POLITICAL CENTER OF THE

DUTCH REPUBLIC, TO THE PUBLIC HIS COLLECTION OF

PAINTINGS

THE FRENCH IN 1795 TOOK THAT COLLECTION TO THE LOUVRE, AS PART OF THEIR ‘ARTISTIC

VICTORY’

AT THE VIENNA CONGRESS IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE NETHERLANDS

WOULD BECOME A KINGDOM

THE STADTHOUDER COLLECTION STOLEN BY THE FRANCH WAS

RETURNED IN 1822

AND HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY SINCE THEN IN ROYAL MUSEUM MAURITSHUIS IN

THE HAGUE

IT COULD BE VIEWED BY ANY ADULT WHO WAS WELL-DRESSED AND

WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING CHILDREN

IN THE HAGUE IN 1800 IN ‘HUIS TEN BOSCH’, A RESIDENCE OF THE LAST STADTHOLDER WHO FLED IN 1795, A STATE MUSEUM WAS OPENED

LOUIS-NAPOLEON, KING OF HOLLAND FROM 1806 TO 1810, MOVED IT TO THE TOWNHALL IN

AMSTERDAM

IT WAS MOVED AGAIN IN 1817 TO THE HOUSE OF THE BROTHERS TRIP WHO BECAME FILTHY RICH IN THE 17TH CENTURY IN IRON TRADE,

PRIMARILY WEAPONS, WITH SWEDEN

THE COLLECTION MOVED IN 1885 TO THE CURRENT BUILDING OF THE RIJKSMUSEUM IN

AMSTERDAM

WHAT NOW IS CELEBRATED AS CLASSICAL MUSIC CAME TO THE NETHERLANDS AT THE

END OF THE 18TH CENTURY WITH THE ENLIGHTENMENT

THE QUARTERS OF THE STADTHOLDER IN THE HAGUE IN THE 18TH CENTURY HAD A

MUSIC AND DANCE HALL AND A BAND – BUT NOT AN ORCHESTRA

NANNERL AND WOLFGANG MOZART PLAYED THERE IN 1765

THEY STAYED FOR SEVEN MONTHS BECAUSE FIRST SHE AND THEN HE CAUGHT TYPHOID

MOZART’S SYMPHONY KV20 PREMIERED IN AMSTERDAM IN 1766 IN THE RIDING SCHOOL

IN ASTERDAM, IN 1785 THE SOCIETY FELIX MERITUS (‘HAPPY THROUGH MERIT’)

OPENED A BUILDING WITH A MUSIC HALL AND A HALL FOR NATURAL EXPERIMENTS

IN 1830 ODEON OPENED AS A MUSIC HALL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

THE PRESENT CONCERTGEBOUW IN AMSTERDAM WAS OPENED IN 1887

IN THE HAGUE IN 1805 THE SOCIETY DILIGENTIA (‘PERSEVERING APPLICATION’) FOR EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OPENED

A NEW BUILDING, AND 1821 COME TO OFFER TO CONCERTI DILIGENTIA AN

AUDITORIUM WITH A ROYAL BOX

A THESIS FOR NOVEL COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGICAL-HISTORICAL RESEARCH:

IF A COUNTRY KNEW BEFORE 1795 AND BEFORE 1871 A STRONGER COURT CULTURE, THEN RIGHT NOW HIGH CULTURE IS A MORE

IMPORTANT PART OF LEISURE IN THAT COUNTRY

THIS HYPOTHESIS CAN BE TESTED QUITE EASILY IN A COUNTRY COMPARISON WHICH

ESTABLISHES THE YEARS IN WHICH MUSEUMS AND CONCERT HALLS WERE ESTABLISHED

AND TAKES THESE YEARS AS VARIABLES EXPLAINING NATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN

VARIOUS FORMS OF HIGH CULTURE

WEBER’S AND GOLDTHORPE’S WAY OF BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN

THEORY AND RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY:

IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THEORIES, TAKE WELL-ESTABLISHED

EMPIRICAL REGULARITIES AS STARTING POINT

ULTEE’S LESS SHAKY AND MORE PROMISING BRIDGE:

TAKE A MICRO-MACRO PARADOX AS STARTING POINT

THE MICRO-MACRO PARADOX OF PARIS-INSEE SOCIOLOGISTS:

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT READING IS DECLINING, WHEREAS MORE EDUCATION MAKES

FOR MORE READING AND THE GENERAL LEVEL OF EDUCATION HAS INCREASED?

THE EASY ANSWER:

IT’S THE TELEVISION STUPID!

THE LONG ANSWER:

WITH MORE UPWARD MOBILITY, THE ESTABLISHED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF

EDUCATION ARE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN ANY STANDARD OF HIGH CULTURE IN THE FACE OF

MANY NEWCOMERS

SO THE INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS IS A GENERALIZATION OF THE

EGOISM- PROPOSITION IN DURKHEIM’S LE SUICIDE:

IF PERSONS ARE MORE STRONGLY INTEGRATED INTO A

GROUP,

THEY WILL BE MORE LIKELY LIVE UP TO ANY OF ITS

STANDARDS

AND IF THEY ARE LESS INTEGRATED, THEY ARE LESS

LIKELY TO COMPLY

WITH AS AUXILIARY ASSUMPTIONS:

READING, ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERTS AND VISITING MUSEUMS ARE STANDARDS AMONG THE

HIGH LY EDUCATED

UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS ARE LESS INTEGRATED INTO THE GROUP OF HIGHLY EDUCATED PERSONS: COMPOSITION EFFECT

THE HIGHLY EDUCATED FROM HIGHLY EDUCATED PARENTS DISINTEGRATE S A GROUP UNDER UPWARD MOBILITY: CONTEXTUAL EFFECT

EDUCATIONAL HETEROGAMY HAS THE SAME EFFECTS AS EDUCATIONAL MOBILITY

THE DOWNWARD TREND IS EXPLAINED BY THE

COMPOSITION EFFECT

BUT THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE THEORY IS THE

CONTEXTUAL EFFECT: THERE IS IN AN OPEN SOCIETY A

DOWNWARD SPIRAL

MAKING THE THEORY A MIRROR OF THE UPWARD SPIRAL POSTULATED FOR

CLOSED SOCIETIES

THE ISSUE BEING RAISED RIGHT NOW BY OXFORD SOCIOLOGISTS IS WHETHER

STATUS HAS STRONGER EFFECTS ON HIGH CULTURE THAN CLASS

THE WAY OF MEASURING STATUS INVOLVES A MACRO-MEASURE REFERRING TO MARRIAGE AND FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS,

WHEREAS I USE A MICRO-MEASURE AND A CONTEXTUAL MEASURE

DO NOT GO AFTER CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS WITHOUT INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS

IN THE NETHERLANDS OF ALL INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS, THAT OF EDUCATION IS

STRONGEST

THE FOLLOWING TIME SERIES FOR THE NETHERLANDS PERTAIN

ONLY TO PERSONS WHOSE EDUCATION IS KNOWN, AS WELL

AS THE EDUCTION OF THEIR SPOUSE AND FATHER

1974 AND 1983 ARE FROM THE LIFE STUATION SURVEY OF STATISTICS NETHERLANDS

1993, 1998, 2000 AND 2003 FROM THE SERIES FAMILY SURVEY

DUTCH POPULATION FNB

FOUR LEVELS OF EDUCATION:

ONLY PRIMARY, LOWER SECONDARY, HIGHER SECONDARY,

TERTIARY

I SKIP READING AS HIGH CULTURE TO

LESSEN THE TELEVISION EFFECT

ANSWER 1

PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR)

ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT

VISITING MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

28 33 25 31 29 22

29 42 47 65 67 55

ANSWER 2

ODDS RATIO HIGHEST / LOWEST EDUCATION AND ODDS RATIO HIGHERS / HIGHEST BUT ONE EDUCATION

ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT

VISITING MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

9.3 9.3 5.9 6.4 7.5 5.9

1.4 2.8 2.7 4.9 3.6 3.6

11.2 9.5 5.6 11.0 2.5 5.7

1.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.6 3.1

ANSWER 3

PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR) ONLY PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION

ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT

VISITING MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

56 64 42 55 53 37

58 74 70 85 87 77

ANSWER 2 AGAIN

ODDS RATIO HIGHEST / LOWEST EDUCATION AND ODDS RATIO HIGHERS / HIGHEST BUT ONE EDUCATION

FOR THE EDUCATIONALLY HOMOGENEOUS ONLY

ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT

VISITING MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

40.836.0 21.418.3 14.4 8.1

1.9 4.3 6.2 11.5 7.1 6.1

38.5 22.5 9.6 24.7 8.6 11.5

2.14.5 4.3 3.9 3.5 4.8

ANSWER 4

PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR) ONLY PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND

FATHER AND SPOUSE WITH THE SAME EDUCATION

ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT

VISITING MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

78 80 65 67 64 50

77 84 78 91 88 85

ANSWER 5

AND AS THE CLIMAX OR ANTI-CLIMAX THE NUMBER OF PERSONS

HOMOGENEOUS AT THE HIGHEST (AND LOWEST) LEVEL OF EDUCATION AS A PERCENT OF THE PERSONS WITH THE

HIGHEST (LOWEST) LEVEL OF EDUCATION

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

8 11 17 20 18 19

HIGHEST LOWEST

58 52 28 27 34 27

THERE GOES A NON-GRAND

THEORY?

OUR INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS WAS ABOUT LIVING UP TO THE STANDARDS OF A GROUP

THESE STANDARDS ARE BEST EXEMPLIFIED BY PERSONS WHOSE FATHER AND SPOUSE ARE IN THIS

GROUP TOO

FOR ESTIMATING EFFECTS OF OWN, FATHER’S AND SPOUSAL EDUCATION, LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS

MISS THE GIST OF THE INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS

THESE MODELS ASSUME THAT MARGINAL FREQUENCIES ARE REFERENCE POINT FOR PERSONS,

WHEREAS DIAGONAL FREQUENCIES ARE SO

APPLY SOBEL’S DIAGONAL REFERENCE MODELS

ANSWER 6

WEIGHTS IN DIAGONAL REFERENCE MODELS FOR OWN, SPOUSE’S, AND FATHER’S EDUCATION

CONCERT MUSEUM

1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003

0.43 0.35 0.22 0.35 0.48 0.17 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.52 0.45 0.07 0.56 0.42 0.02 0.50 0.30 0.20

0.48 0.30 0.22 0.52 0.34 0.14 0.62 0.27 0.11 0.52 0.45 0.07 ?!0.61 0.56 -0.17!? 0.48 0.44 0.08

WEIGHTS OF OWN EDUCATION ARE UP, OF FATHER’S EDUCATION DOWN, OF SPOUSE’S

EDUCATION UP WITH RESPECT TO MUSEUM VISITS

IF YOU WISH TO VIEW THIS PRESENTATION ONCE MORE,

TYPE IN GOOGLE

‘WOUT ULTEE’

AND ON MY WIBE SITE YOU WILL FIND IT UNDER THE

HEADING OF

‘FOREIGN PRESENTATIONS’

AND THE SUB-HEADING OF ‘BARCELONA’