1

The various guises of cultural capital.

Analysing localised symbolic struggles using Class Specific Analysis.1

Henk Roose, PhD

Department of Sociology

Ghent University (Belgium)

henk.roose@ugent.be

Abstract

Central focus in this paper is to analyse empirically whether and how the monopoly and

legitimacy of highbrow arts as a status marker varies across positions in the social space.

Drawing on unique Flemish survey-data (n = 2,846) that include information on what

cultural objects are consumed as well as on how these are appropriated, I construct a two-

dimensional social space that relates cultural practices to positions in the social hierarchy

through Multiple Correspondence Analysis (see Roose et al., 2012). Using Class Specific

Analysis I look into the structuring principles within two age clusters (-25 and 55+) and try

to get at the ways in which the distinguishing status and legitimacy of highbrow arts varies

between different groups—hereby challenging the assumption that cultural classifications

are equally salient to every social group—and explore localised symbolic struggles with

reference to the structuring principles of the global space.

1. Introduction

One of the assumptions in research on the social structuring of cultural consumption is that the symbolic value

attached to every cultural product/practice is similar for every individual—that everyone more or less

acknowledges the existence of some cultural hierarchy or classification scheme with on the one hand consecrated

highbrow works worth contemplating and on the other hand practices denounced as mere entertainment or

lowbrow culture. Certainly in research using large-scale surveys, it is common practice to assume that each

respondent attaches similar worth to similar cultural products and that highbrow cultural practices, such as

attending an opera or visiting a museum, count as status markers. This assumed societal consensus on cultural

classifications, on the symbolic value attached to cultural practices/products and on their potential for social

distinction, has not remained unchallenged. Writing in the eighties American sociologist Paul DiMaggio states:

“Artistic classification systems are becoming more differentiated and less hierarchical, classifications weaker and

1 I would like to thank colleagues Johs Hjellbrekke, Frédéric Lebaron and Daan Vandenhaute for their generous

help in the preparation and interpretation of the analyses.

2

less universal.” (DiMaggio, 1987: 452). Evidently, this weakening of boundaries and the waning of the universality

of classifications has repercussions for the status of high-brow arts as form of cultural capital. Indeed, there is

considerable debate about the status of highbrow cultural products as a means of ensuring and proclaiming a

dominant social position. Does attending an opera or visiting museums for example, function as a symbol for

status and whom for? Or has the monopoly and legitimacy of the beaux arts dwindled in view of recent societal

developments, such as the rise of the entertainment industry, Internet’s boom or the advent of the omnivorous

consumer? Then the centrality and universality of the fine arts as a form of cultural capital is contested and other,

less canonized forms of culture such as computer games, television, pop music, or jazz for example, may be more

central as elements of distinction for certain social groups. So, instead of global oppositions at work in the field of

lifestyles, there may be different, more localised symbolic struggles and principles of distinction at work. This idea

resonates with Mohr’s critique on the universal applicability of the structuring dimensions in a field. He argues that

such a general analysis—however fruitful—misses possible local oppositions and distinctive forces (Mohr,

forthcoming). Then, certain practices may have similar worth for different individuals—and the symbolic value

attached may be quite universal as a scheme of classification in the minds of individuals—, but may generate or

involve totally different forces of distinction in actual practice. Attending an opera may be considered as the

epitome of being cultivated, but for some this apex is deemed unreachable and it is other cultural practices and

dispositions that generate social distinction in a more localised social environment.2

In this article I want to analyse empirically possible variations in distinctive force of certain cultural practices for

different age clusters. The idea is that the alleged universal nature of cultural capital may vary between social

segments, thus challenging the idea of a universal standard of cultural worth and highlighting multiple and

competing forms of cultural capital striving for recognition and perhaps functioning within certain boundaries of—

or at certain localities within—the global field of social positions. Age is interesting as it involves a generational

aspect and may hint at shifts, changes or evolutions. Using survey data that have shown their usefulness in

detecting underlying structuring dimensions in lifestyles in Flanders, I apply Class Specific Analysis (CSA), a

technique building on Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) that allows to study classes/segments of

individuals with reference to the total sample (Le Roux & Rouanet, 2004; 2010). Thus, sub-clouds of individuals are

selected in the multi-dimensional space and their principal axes are visualised and interpreted compared to the

principal axes of the global cloud.

2. Theoretical background

A good theoretical starting point is DiMaggio’s framework and insights on artistic classification systems (DiMaggio,

1987). Within a heterogeneous, highly differentiated society cultural activities serve as identity markers, as

common subjects of conversation, and as markers of status. “Taste, then, is a form of ritual identification and a

2 ‘Localised’ may refer to some specific geographical/social locale or spot, but here it denotes a specific area on the

space of lifestyles—hence involving people with a similar social background.

3

means to constructing social relations” (DiMaggio, 1987: 443). So, cultural activities may have varying meaning for

different groups and also serve different purposes. They may be deployed as sheer status behaviour through

people attending and being conspicuously present at an event; they may be used as a means to be sociable and

serve as subject matter in everyday conversation—more as an overt manifestation of an unconsciously developed,

‘habitualized’ disposition than as something conscious or part of a rational choice strategy. Familiarity, knowledge

and mastery of certain activities then function as a resource, as a way of proclaiming and producing a favourable

social position. It is especially the arts or highbrow culture that have functioned and function as such a common

and universally understood marker of high social status in Western societies.

Also Bourdieu’s ideas—and especially his ideas on cultural capital—can be taken as a reference, and especially

his insights of how ‘traditional’ highbrow culture related to the bourgeoisie has become ‘naturalised’ and

institutionalised over time. His concept of field further encourages to think about processes of consecration in

Darwinian terms (Bennett, 2005): it is the result of a battle or symbolic struggle for the legitimacy of certain

cultural goods and practices, hereby doing justice to the relative nature of cultural capital instead of seeing it as a

universal, essentialist concept. “Capital is a relational concept that designates a social force that works within a

field in which it is subject to contestation. […] As it depends on perception, there can be no universal standards

[…]” (Prieur & Savage, 2011: 569). A social field in Bourdieusian terms is a snapshot of ever continuing processes of

contestation and redefinition about what activities are valuable or worthwhile endorsing, what culture is superior

and for whom. Within the social space you can see different and differing oppositions at work. There is growing

evidence that the specific content of cultural capital is being contested. For example, working class respondents in

the UK claim not to be “in awe of legitimate culture and find no value in refinement” (Bennett et al., 2009: 205),

neither is there “a deference towards legitimate culture” (ibid.: 212). So, the idea that the activities of the

dominant classes are universally and generally legitimate may be questioned. What is consecrated may not have

universal legitimacy and different forms of ‘capital’ may be at work simultaneously—gendered, age-related or

ethnic for example. Moreover, even though some practices may be regarded as more valuable or more legitimate

by everyone—providing evidence for the existence of some scheme that is universally and often implicitly

maintained with regard to the value of certain activities—, in everyday practice some activities/dispositions may

be deployed differently and may have different consequences for different individuals according to their positions

in the social space.

Central query is to what extent do different social segments—the socially dominated as well as the dominant,

the young and the old—share socially distinguishing practices and dispositions? For example, do the cultural

activities deemed worthwhile by the dominant groups in society have similar distinctive force in other social

segments and thus, do the socially dominated in a way devalue their ‘own’ cultural practices? Or do these ‘own’ or

other cultural practices/attitudes and dispositions function as a force in and for itself, limited to certain social

strata engendering resources and opportunities specific for and embedded within certain social contexts? Of

course, this contextualisation of the working of certain practices and/or passing knowledge of culture is not served

4

well by the nature of survey research. So, I try to explore pre-defined social circles/groups and the ways material

goods, dispositions and cultural activities function as a means of distinction within these groups. Does attending an

opera have the same distinctive and socially classifying power for people form the upper classes as it has for the

middle and working classes? For example, one can easily imagine that opera attendance separates the well-

dressed ‘bon chic bon genre’ for whom conspicuous leisure is as important as the aesthetic pleasure derived from

attendance from the ‘bobos’, the ‘bourgeois bohemians’, who favour complex avant-garde plays as a vehicle for

contemplation and discussion among likeminded friends. However, it is harder to imagine if a night at the opera

works the same way for the car mechanic or the student as a form of distinguishing practice. Thus, the idea of the

fine arts as a common cultural currency is challenged and its universal applicability across the social space is put to

an empirical test. Are other, less-universal cultural activities more distinguishing for certain social groups and less

so for others? So, it also opens up the question of attribution of value to certain cultural practices.

The type of analysis introduced in this paper also tackles one of the issues that have been raised—and I think

rightly so—against Bourdieu’s relational method. On the concept of field and the principles at work within a field,

Mohr for example notes that only the global oppositions are taken into account to relate social positions to

practices and that “[o]ther conflicts, other engagements and, especially, more localised struggles over resources

and positions are not taken into account in this mode.” (Mohr, forthcoming). With CSA it is possible to overcome

that kind of critique and analyse some of these local struggles, to explore empirically what social forces are at work

and what kind of localised struggles take place within certain segments of the global space.

Of course, the choice for certain social circles/strata and the criteria on which this happens, are pivotal to this

empirical exercise. One strategy could be to take already existing groups that are inherently linked to the social

hierarchy, such as managers, unskilled manual labourers, or technicians for example, and investigate variation in

the socially distinguishing force of certain cultural practices within each group. In that way one would be able to

see how the fine arts or visiting the opera function as status markers for different occupational groups taking up

different positions in a social hierarchy—however defined and constituted. In an attempt to get at possible past

contestations and symbolic struggles, it is necessary to use longitudinal data that link practices to positions in the

social space—Bourdieu justly claims that “[…] distances between styles or lifestyles are never better measured

than in terms of time.” (Bourdieu, 1996: 159). So, one would be able to investigate whether highbrow practices

were socially distinctive in the past, say the seventies, and how, in what way and for what societal segments they

continue to be so anno 2013. Due to lack of longitudinal data I resort to another strategy that tries to explore

cross-sectional variation and use age as a central variable.

In that way, age is an indicator for at least two things: life phase and generation. With regard to cultural

practices and their social distinctive features, life phase refers to the material resources and the accumulated

cultural and social capital different age groups typically dispose of. Generation brings in longitudinal thinking and

refers to the educational experiences and socializing influences of different cohorts. The idea is that since the

sixties a number of changes have taken place that affect the position of highbrow culture. First of all, there is the

5

change in the educational system and school curriculum in Flanders within the sixties/seventies. Highbrow arts and

especially the literary canon was criticized inter alia because it offered themes and stories that were too distant

from the life-world of adolescents and teachers should consider offering pupil-oriented, out-of-school literacies to

stimulate leisure reading among youngsters (Vacca, 2002). Even the benefits of reading and literary education

itself have been challenged (Soetaert, 2000). Second, highbrow activities have to compete for participants with a

wide array of alternatives as a result of the booming of commercial popular culture and the entertainment

industry. Due to the competition with commercial music, films, and many highbrow products find it difficult to

maintain their cultural centrality and the position as institutionalized cultural products that had been taken for

granted in the past (Warde et al., 1999). Television and Internet reinforce these trends. Third, in Flanders state

support for culture is no longer restricted to consecrated genres or organizations staging classical music, opera, or

theatre—what DiMaggio (1991) calls de-institutionalization of highbrow culture. Fourth, the educational expansion

and the steady increase in rates of social mobility result in a growing number of people with a college or university

degree. This may result in an erosion of the rigidity of the cultural stratification system (cf. Verboord & Van Rees,

2008): Upward social mobility causes an influx of individuals originating from lower social backgrounds into the

middle classes. This results in a mixture or mingling of tastes at the high end of the stratification system affecting

the symbolic value attached to the arts.

By just using age in a cross-sectional survey of the population, it is impossible to disentangle this life phase or

cohort effects. Yet, if CSA would reveal differences between the global space and certain age groups in terms of

structuring principles, it opens up the possibility to explore what kind of localised symbolic struggles are going on,

around what kind of cultural practices, what may constitute cultural capital and to what extent and in what way

highbrow culture or the fine arts function as status markers for the young and the old. The data being what they

are, I cannot make any justifiable claims in terms of evolutions or changes in the nature of cultural capital, but just

point at actual oppositions and try to hint at a number of explanations of how these come about.

3. Data and statistical method

I use data from the survey ‘Cultural participation in Flanders 2003-2004’, a large-scale survey conducted among a

representative sample of the Flemish population. Flanders is the densely populated and highly urbanized Dutch-

speaking part of Belgium. Data are collected by means of CAPI, resulting in a sample size of n = 2,849 with a

response rate of 61 per cent (AAPOR, 2011). The survey contains information on participation in and attitudes

towards a wide range of cultural activities and leisure practices—it is very similar to ‘Cultural Capital and Social

Exclusion’ in the UK (Bennett et al., 2009) or ‘Survey of Public Participation in the Arts’ in the US (National

Endowment of the Arts, 2009).

The social space is constructed by means of a Specific Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) using 64

variables that can be subdivided into two groups. First, there is the participation variables that include cultural

activities ranging from lowbrow to highbrow and situated both in the public as well as the private sphere, such as

6

watching television, going to the movies, reading comics, going to a restaurant, traveling, doing sports, etc. (Roose

et al., 2012). Second, there is a set of variables tapping into the ways people do things in an attempt to get at the

dispositional aspects of cultural behaviour. These include motives for traveling, expectations towards movies,

attitudes towards what’s good food, preferences in the fine arts, etc. Variables in the first group are dichotomous,

in the second group they have three categories: ‘like’, ‘neutral’ and ‘dislike’ or ‘agree’, ‘neither agree/nor disagree’

and ‘disagree’ (see Table A1 and Table A2 in Appendix for an overview of the variables used in the global space).

Three dimensions turn out to be essential in making up the global social space in Flanders—dimensions that are

similar to comparable studies using MCA in the UK (Bennett et al., 2009), Denmark (Prieur, Rosenlund & Skjott-

Larsen, 2008) and Serbia (Cvetičanin & Popescu, 2011). The first dimension is an engagement-disengagement axis

contrasting an active, outward-oriented lifestyle with a more domestic and passive leisure pattern.3 This

opposition in behaviour is related to attitudes opposing openness to new things versus an orientation favouring

the familiar, things that have proven their use/quality. Dimension two opposes a preference for action, adventure

and thrills versus a more contemplative, reflective lifestyle with a taste for consecrated or legitimate forms of

culture. The third axis depicts again an openness to new things versus a neutral stance towards openness. This

openness is a dispositional characteristic applicable to a variety of domains—for example, sport, movies, travel,

food, etc.—and not confined to the public/private sphere nor to high- or lowbrow activities. Axis one and two are

related to indicators of social position. Axis one is associated with educational credentials and cultural participation

of the parents, dimension two is linked up with age, an indicator of life phase or birth cohort. Axis three is linked to

a combination of characteristics, viz. for people aged 65+ relatively poor in cultural capital openness is associated

with a preference for consecrated, figurative art—a ‘bonne volonté culturelle’ so to speak. For the highly educated

with a lot of cultural capital between 35 and 45 years it is related to omnivorousness. For individuals younger than

25 and students openness manifests itself through a strong predilection for amusement and action.

This MCA is a snapshot of a global field in flux from a bird’s eye view—or a sociologist’s stance as it were.

Moreover, the nature of a field is inherently historical. After all, the field and its dimensionality are the result of

diachronic struggles which remain entrenched in any cross-sectional image of it. Moreover, MCA is a relational

method à la De Saussure: cultural practices are not to be considered per se, but in relation to other cultural

activities—within the field of cultural practices, objects and dispositions. Yet, the three general principles of

distinction mentioned above, may conceal other logics at work, principles of distinction that are confined to a

certain locality within the social space, restricted to a certain social segment. Class-Specific Analysis (CSA) allows to

unpack or to explore these localised logics, that may be traces of some of the contestations that have taken place

over time within the field. More specifically, with CSA it is possible to analyse if and to what extent oppositions and

distinctions within specific subpopulations are similar to the dimensionality of the general population that I just

3 Tables A3 and A4 in Appendix show detailed information on the contribution of various variables to the

orientation of the global axes.

7

presented. In other words, are the distinctions drawn within specific sub-clouds of individuals and the cultural

practices/activities related to these distinctions similar to the dimensions in the field as a whole? For example, are

the same kind of cultural activities as distinctive for the young as they are for older individuals? How is educational

attainment related to these oppositions? etc. This is what I want to explore: to what extent are socially

distinguishing cultural practices differently structured within different age groups, and more specifically for

individuals younger than 25 and older than 55?

So, I only include the extreme age groups in this exploration, viz. people younger than 25 (n = 532) and older

than 55 (n = 881). Rationale behind this is that the 55+ age segment—i.e. people born before 1948—have attended

school before the democratization and expansion of higher education. The -25 group (born after 1980) have

been—or are—educated within a much less rigid school system and have experienced the results of the changes

within the field of cultural production mentioned above. This may affect the social force of highbrow culture, a

distinguishing force that I imagine to be more manifest with older and highly educated people. I expect that the

kind of cultural activities structuring the sub-cloud of the youngsters will not take—or at least less so—the fine arts

and classical music as status benchmarks, but instead centre around things that are considered typical for their

lifestyle, viz. clothing, music and television.

***TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE***

***GRAPH 1 ABOUT HERE***

A first glance at the cloud of individuals from the global space shows a number of differences between age

segments. Table 1 presents the break-down of variance along the axes and age. η² (= the ratio of the between and

total variance and comparable to R² from regression analysis) is large on axis one and two, respectively .20 and .29

and very small on axis three. This means that in general age accounts for 20 and 29 per cent of the variance in

dimension one and two. The variation in individual scores along axis one is bigger for 55+ than for -25 (.12 > .07)

and similar for axis two (.06 ≈ .06). Axis three is not differentiated by age. Graph 1 displays the dispersion of the

two sub-clouds. Actually, they form a visualisation of the data from Table 1. The concentration ellipse for the

young is slightly tilted to the left, less so than for the 55+ which has a much smaller angle with the first dimension.

Also note the positioning within the global space: the young are scattered in the South-West quadrant relatively

closer to the engaged and active/adventure poles, while the older individuals are positioned in the North-East—

they are more disengaged and inclined to highbrow, legitimate cultural forms, such as classical music, paintings of

the Flemish Primitives, baroque portraits while shunning action and adventure. This is the general picture—I will

continue with zooming in on the structuring dimensions of the two sub-clouds using CSA, focusing on the first two

dimensions of the global space.

8

4. Analysis and results

To run the CSA’s on the two sub-clouds, I use SPAD 7.4 and a macro that was written by Brigitte Le Roux that

calculates distances/contributions of the sub-clouds within the global space. The differences between individuals

and their cultural practices make sense in the global space. When trying to get at what activities and dispositions

generate distance between individuals within a specific sub-group or segment of the population, focus on the

oppositions in the global space loses significance and relevance. It is the distances and the principal components

making up the restricted sub-space that become of interest if you want to unravel the structuring dimensions of

each cluster—be it with reference to the global cloud (Le Roux & Rouanet, 2010: 61-69). Class-Specific Analysis

looks for principal dimensions within a sub-cloud—say for example for the elderly—without ‘extracting’ it from the

global space. It allows you to see and consider the sub-cloud inside the global space but projected onto its own

principal dimensions. CSA starts off with a PCA of all global structuring dimensions I obtained from the Specific

MCA for the sub-clouds only. So here, two CSA’s are produced.

Looking at the correlations of the factors characterising the sub-clouds with the dimensions making up the

global space, it becomes clear that the sub-cloud of the young has rather specific structuring principles as opposed

to the sub-cloud of the 55+, which is similarly structured like the global cloud or total population. Correlations

coefficients between axis one in the sub-cloud and the global first axis for the young is .80; for the old, it is .97

(both p < .001). For axis two these numbers are respectively .31 and .72 (p < .001). To explore what are the typical

oppositions at work in the sub-cloud of the young, it is necessary to look at the contributions of the modalities

structuring the sub-clouds of the young as opposed to the old—and it is especially axis two for the -25 that shows

least resemblance to the second structuring principle within global space, interestingly the dispositional dimension

opposing action/adventure versus a preference for legitimate, highbrow art/music and contemplative practices,

like visiting museums or reading prose/poetry (see Table 2 and 3, as well as Graph 2 and 3).

***TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE***

***GRAPH 2 ABOUT HERE***

Table 2 and Graph 2 show the contributions of the modalities that contribute more than average to the

orientation of axis one and two for age segment -25. For the young axis one centres on television and on the type

of programmes/channels watched—contrary to the global space in which axis one stands for . The items

contributing most—the ones that should be most important in interpreting the dimension—are watching music

channels like MTV or TMF and commercial channels that regularly programme action movies and series, popular

sitcoms (e.g. Friends), and reality television like Big Brother (VT4 and KA2). A manifest dislike for legitimate arts like

9

the Flemish Primitives, late-renaissance or baroque works, baroque portraits and (post-)impressionism4 as well as

contemplative activities like reading or visiting culture when on holidays reinforce the image of a dimension

opposing a preference for action and adventure on television and in real life versus a neutral stance towards

action, adventure, partying, and doing sports for the kicks.

Axis two opposes a neutral attitude with a disposition towards an active lifestyle indicated by doing sport for

the kick, wanting to change one’s limits and to get a beautiful body and adventurous travel with backpack to meet

new people or explore other cultures. Here, a sportive disposition is supplemented with some sort of openness

towards new things, a sociable attitude towards the ‘other’ in terms of travel. This openness also seems to

manifest itself through a preference for avant-garde art, like abstract expressionism, surrealism and Dada or

listening to jazz—without a devotion for more consecrated forms of art which is the case in the global space. The

love of art in the global space encompasses all genres with the older, canonised, figurative streams as being more

important in the orientation of the second dimension than the more recent and more difficult, abstract forms.

***TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE***

***GRAPH 3 ABOUT HERE***

The sub-cloud of people older than 55 is structured along the same dimensions as the global space (compare

Table 3 with Tables A3 and A4). Axis one distinguishes an out-of-the-house, active lifestyle with concert

attendance, museum visits, travel and sport activities with a more passive, home-bound disposition centred

around watching commercial television and ‘eating at home is the best there is’. With the elderly engagement is

manifested through culture and traveling, less through going to the movies, shopping or going to a pub. The

second axis for the 55+ contrasts a preference for consecrated art forms such as impressionism, baroque portraits

as well as more contemporary streams (surrealism and abstract expressionism) with a neutral stance—while in the

global space these aesthetic preferences are opposed to an outright rejection. Contrary to the younger age groups,

consecrated, figurative art and more avant-garde art go hand in hand, and co-exist as status marker. For the young

a preference for avant-garde art runs parallel with an active, adventurous way of living contrasted with a neutral

attitude.

5. Conclusion and discussion

With this article I wanted to explore whether different social segments use different markers to distinguish

themselves, contributing to the idea that the socially structuring principles within a global space may be

manifested differently within certain localised social segments. Using CSA, which allows to analyse the structuring

4 Axis one in the global space is characterised especially by a dislike for more ‘difficult’ art forms, like abstract

expressionism, surrealism, etc. (cf. Table A3).

10

dimensions for certain sub-clouds without abandoning the dimensionality of the global space, I found clear

differences in the structuring dimensions for the two age segments under consideration, viz. -25 and 55+. In the

global space highbrow culture and Bildung—the idea that familiarity with the fine arts is essential to a person’s

upbringing—are important structuring principles that stand opposed to an active, adventurous lifestyle.

Interestingly, I found that both the younger as well as the older age cluster use the fine arts as a distinguishing

force—be it in different ways.

For the 55+, the fine arts turn up as distinguishing practices in both axis one and two which is similar to the

structuring of the global space, but slightly and meaningfully different. On axis one listening to classical music and

visiting art museums are part of an array of cultural activities like going to a restaurant, traveling, doing sport,

shopping, and reading showing a willingness to engage in public activities that require a certain openness. This

echoes the interpretation of axis one in the global space. After all, the correlation coefficient between the first axis

in the global space and the first dimension of the sub-cloud for the elderly is .97 (p < .001). So, participation in

legitimate culture points at a wish to be confronted with ‘new’ experiences that contrast with a more traditional,

‘disengaged’ way of life that sticks to more homebound, ‘safe’ behaviour/ways of behaving (e.g. with regard to

food: a wish for familiar fare, agreeing that eating at home is the best there is and not wanting to try out new

recipes). On axis two it is taste and preference in the arts that are central. Here, ‘older’ art as well as more avant-

garde streams are central—a taste for art includes both consecrated as well as avant-garde genres. Interestingly,

there are no real dislikes for whatever genre (cf. Table A4). So, preferences for people born before 1950 are very

much characterised by a deference, by awe and no real dislike vis-à-vis legitimate culture. Liking legitimate culture

signals openness, a wish to be confronted with new experiences.

For people born after 1980 this is different: legitimate art is less central as a distinctive force. And if it turns out

to be structuring the sub-cloud, it is as something that is disliked versus a neutral attitude (cf. the dislike for

impressionism, late-renaissance/baroque, baroque portraits, Flemish primitives on dimension one). Apparently,

younger people are not in awe for ‘classical’ fine arts—perhaps they consider them ‘stained’ or old-fashioned—,

while abstract expressionism, Dada, abstract art and surrealism are part of an underlying adventurous, open

attitude. In that way, there is the paradoxical combination of an explicit dislike for canonized, classical culture and

a preference for (post-)modern art—for the 55+ segment and global space these two go hand in hand. I think that

explanations should be sought first, in the way modern art is positioned and marketed in the artistic field as hip,

trendy and cosmopolitan as opposed to ‘traditional’ figurative art and second, in changes in the educational

curriculum in Flemish schools. These curricula have been transformed from a dominantly Bildung-oriented

exposure to the legitimate arts to a more inclusive, pupil-oriented approach with classes on popular music,

youth/popular writers—things close to the pupils’ lifestyle and life-world. These changes have taken place since

the eighties and thus, have only been part of the curriculum for the -25 segment. Analyses that include education

as a variable into the sub-clouds, show that educational attainment ensures a reverence for legitimate highbrow

11

culture—also for the younger age segment.5 This needs further inquiry: how does highbrow culture fit differently

into the lives of the old and the young? How does its meaning, its position in cultural repertoires and the way it is

appropriated differ?

The results presented here suggest that the symbolic value attached to cultural practices and/or aesthetic

dispositions is different for different age segments. Thus, similar activities—legitimate culture for example—

‘mean’ different things to different people in different ways. For younger people in Flanders, the fine arts socially

distinguish through the opportunity they provide to take a neutral or an opposing stance towards figurative,

classical genres. Attitudes towards modern art are part of the young’s openness to action and adventure. For the

older age group both classical and (post-)modern art indicate an opposition between an active, contemplative

lifestyle versus a way-of-being that sticks to more homebound and traditional practices. Thus, legitimate culture

means different things to different people, reminiscent of the different ways—the how—art works are

appropriated by various museum visitors (Hanquinet, Roose & Savage, in press) or the variety in aesthetic

dispositions towards classical concerts (Roose, 2008). And likewise, the potential for social distinction of the same

practices may differ depending on the social circles where they are deployed. So, it is not only other activities that

form part of a change in the manifested preferences/dispositions/practices related to cultural capital (Prieur &

Savage, 2013), but also different ways of appropriating similar activities. This questions the idea of a societal and

universally deployable symbolic meaning of cultural activities in terms of social distinction: e.g. the inter-

generational difference of the meaning of the fine arts as indicator of openness for the elderly versus a sign of an

old-fashioned nature or something passé for the young. Perhaps we are not dealing with entirely different

classification systems, but with a different social use of same symbols and markers; a use related to more localised

deployment of symbolic resources.

What does this mean for the evolution or changes in cultural capital? It certainly does not mean that the social

force of cultural capital dwindles—in Bourdieu’s conceptualisation it cannot, per definition. The content however,

the ways it manifests itself, may of course change. Unfortunately, here I cannot disentangle age/cohort effects in

this cross-section of the Flemish population. Possibly, the oppositions characterising the -25 segment may change

in the direction of the symbolic struggles characterising the elderly now—this will probably be the case with the

sportive and adventurous disposition. The state of localised distinctive forces may—together with changes in the

field of cultural production mentioned before, such as the rise of commercial industry of film, music, etc. aptly

characterised by Wright (2011) as an era of ‘cultural abundance’—evolve towards more contemporary genres like

jazz, abstract art, Internet practices, etc. Yet, certain schemes and modes of appropriation, like an open,

cosmopolitan, aestheticized disposition, may prevail and continue to function as a social resource. After all, it is

5 Analyses are not shown: a detailed description of the results of this exploration would require too much space to

fit into this paper. Suffice to say here that in both sub-clouds, a high educational attainment, casu quo more than

high school, is related to the poles with a reverence or at least a neutral stance towards the fine arts.

12

easily transposable to new, ‘unknown’ cultural products and readily deployed in new social contexts (cf. Lizardo &

Skiles, 2012).

So, in Flanders the fine arts function as status marker and can claim quasi universality as a structuring principle.

Yet, this universality does not manifest itself in straightforward likes/dislikes for the legitimate arts, but in a

complex interplay of education and age/generation-specific socialization. This article presents a first attempt to

use CSA to get at some of the localised struggles and processes of distinction with a more restricted impact—

without losing focus of the global social forces that are active in the social space. It is a first tentative step in trying

to analyse empirically some of the local forces at work within the global contours of the structuring principles of

the entire social space. Of course, other groups/segments may be selected and analysed, like gender-specific or

ethnic related groups. Here, I merely attempted to see if differences in distinctive forces between age groups were

present and what form—around what practices—they manifest themselves. It became obvious that legitimate

culture and the fine arts functions as a benchmark for the elderly—both in positive and negative sense—while

classical consecrated art for the young is more something they oppose to and use as a standard they define

themselves against.

References

The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2011), Standard definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes

and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th

edition, AAPOR.

Bennett, Tony (2005), “The historical universal: The role of cultural value in the historical sociology of Pierre

Bourdieu,” The British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 141-164.

Bennett, Tony, Mike Savage, Elisabeth Silva, Alan Warde, Modesto Gayo-Cal & David Wright (2009), Culture, Class,

Distinction. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1996), The rules of art. Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Cvetičanin, Predrag & Mihaela Popescu (2011), “The Art of Making Classes in Serbia: Another Particular Case of the

Possible,” Poetics, 39: 444-468.

DiMaggio, Paul (1987), “Classification in art,” American Sociological Review, 52: 440-455.

DiMaggio, Paul (1991), “Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920-

1940,” in: Powell & DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, pp. 267-92.

Hanquinet, Laurie, Henk Roose & Mike Savage (in press), “The eyes of the beholder. Aesthetic preferences and the

remaking of cultural capital,” Sociology.

Le Roux, Brigitte & Henry Rouanet (2004), Geometric Data Analysis: From Correspondence Analysis to Structured

Data Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

13

Le Roux, Brigitte & Henry Rouanet (2010), Multiple Correspondence Analysis: Series Quantitative Applications in the

Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications.

Lizardo, Omar & Sara Skiles (2012), ““Reconceptualizing and theorizing “omnivorousness”. Genetic and relational

mechanisms,” Sociological Theory, 30(4): 263-282.

Mohr, John (forthcoming), “Bourdieu’s relational method in theory and practice,” Dépelteau, François & Powell,

Christopher (eds.), Relational sociology: From project to paradigm. Palgrave.

National Endowment of the Arts (2009) consulted via Internet: http://www.nea.gov/research/2008-SPPA.pdf

Prieur, Annick, Lennart Rosenlund & Jacob Skjott-Larsen (2008), “Cultural Capital Today: A Case Study from

Denmark,” Poetics, 36: 45-71.

Prieur, Annick & Mike Savage (2011), “Updating cultural capital theory: A discussion based on studies in Denmark

and in Britain,” Poetics, 39: 566-580.

Prieur, Annick & Mike Savage (2013), “Emerging forms of cultural capital,” European Societies, 15(2): 246-267.

Roose, Henk (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.

Roose, Henk, Koen Van Eijck & John Lievens (2012), “Culture of distinction or culture of openness: Using a social

space approach to analyse the social structuring of lifestyles,” Poetics, 40(6): 491-513.

Soetaert, Ronald (2000), “Literatuuronderwijs in Vlaanderen: stand van zaken en een standpunt,” in: Van den

Berghe W. & Muller, G.W. (2000). Literatuur op school. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Academie van Wetenschappen,

pp. 31-50.

Vacca, R.T. (2002), “Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area

reading,” in: Farstrup A.E. and Samuels S.J. (eds.) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. Newark,

DE: IRA.

Verboord, Marc & Kees Van Rees (2008), “Cultural classifications in literary education: Trends in Dutch literary

textbooks, 1968–2000,” Cultural Sociology, 2(3): 321–343.

Warde, Alan, Lydia Martens & W. Olsen (1999), “Consumption and the problem of variety: Cultural

omnivorousness, social distinction and dining out,” Sociology, 33(1): 105–127.

Wright, David (2011), “Making tastes for everything: omnivorousness and cultural abundance,” Journal for Cultural

Research, 15(4): 355-371.

14

Table 1. Coordinates of mean points and variances of sub-clouds on the first three axes (break-down of variance

along axes and age).

Age Mean point coordinates Variances

weight Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3

14-25 532 -0.17 -0.26 -0.05 0.0713 0.0600 0.0765

25-54 1436 -0.08 -0,02 +0.01 0.0952 0.0684 0.0589

55-85 881 +0.23 +0.19 +0.02 0.1226 0.0565 0.0552

within-Age 0.0991 0.0631 0.0610

between-Age 0.0254 0.0254 0.0007

total (λi) 0.1245 0.0885 0.0617

Legend: Used transition formula from coordinate of modality to modality mean point = coordinate * SQRT(λi);

Variances based on one-way ANOVA on coordinates (N.B.: Sum of Squares divided by n).

η² on axis 1 = 0.20, axis 2 = 0.29 and axis 3 = 0.01.

15

Table 2. Contributions of modalities (in per cent) for first two axes in sub-cloud of individuals ’14-25 years’ (n =

532).

Age: -25 (n = 532) Contribution of modalities Contribution of modalities

Axis 1 Left Right Axis 2 Left Right

Watching TV: music channel - - Often 9.3 Sport: to change limits Neutral 2.2 Agree 5.3

Film: contains violent scenes - - Like 5.9 Travel: other cultures Neutral 1.3 Agree 4.0

Watching TV: VT4 - - Often 4.0 Sport: kick Neutral 0.9 Agree 3.0

Film: uses a lot of special effects - - Like 3.6 Arts: abstract expressionism - Like 2.6

Watching TV: KA2 - - Often 3.4 Sport: a beautiful body - Agree 2.6

Film: contains action & adventure Neutral 1.4 Like 2.6 Travel: meet new people - Agree 2.4

Arts: (post-)impressionism - - Dislike 1.7 Travel: visit culture Disagree 2.4 - -

Travel: party and fun Neutral 1.0 Agree 1.5 Arts: (post-)impressionism Dislike 2.4 - -

Arts: late-renaissance/baroque Neutral 1.3 Dislike 1.5 Arts: surrealism - - Like 2.2

Reading Yes 1.5 No 0.9 Listening to jazz/blues/soul/funk Never 1.0 Often 2.2

Travel: sea & beach - - Agree 1.4 Travel: adventure Neutral 0.8 Agree 2.1

Sport: kick Neutral 1.1 Agree 1.4 Watching TV: music channel - Often 2.0

Film: makes you laugh Neutral 1.3 Like 1.0 Film: original in form and style - Like 2.0

Travel: visit culture - - Disagr 1.3 Travel: hiking and trekking Neutral 1.3 Agree 1.9

Arts: baroque portraits Neutral 1.1 Dislike 1.3 Food: try new recipes Neutral 1.0 Agree 1.9

Sport: a beautiful body Neutral 1.1 Agree 1.3 Visiting museum contemp. arts - - Yes 1.7

Food: familiar fare - - Agree 1.2 Sport: team spirit Neutral 1.6 - -

Arts: Flemish primitives Neutral 1.0 Dislike 1.1 Arts: abstract art - - Like 1.6

Listening to chanson Once/wh 0.9 Never 1.1 Film: critical comment on society - - Like 1.4

Listening to classical music Once/wh 1.1 - - Arts: conceptual art/Dadaism - - Like 1.3

Total contribution: 63% 17% 46% Total contribution: 66% 17% 49%

16

Table 3. Contributions of modalities (in per cent) for first two axes in sub-cloud of individuals ’55-85 years’ (n =

881).

Age: 55-85 (n = 881) Contribution of modalities Contribution of modalities

Axis 1 Left Right Axis 2 Left Right

Going to a restaurant - - No 3.3 Arts: baroque portraits Neutral 2.4 Like 10.2

Visiting museum fine arts Yes 3.1 - - Arts: late-renaissance/baroque Neutral 2.1 Like 8.4

Travel: other cultures Agree 1.0 Disagr 2.5 Arts: Flemish primitives Neutral 2.7 Like 8.2

Traveling Yes 0.9 No 2.5 Arts: (post-)impressionism Neutral 0.9 Like 4.0

Film: original in form and style - - Dislike 2.5 Listening to classical music - - Often 3.9

Food: try new recipes - - Disagr 2.4 Arts: landscapes Neutral 1.4 Like 2.3

Listening to classical music Often 2.2 Never 1.3 Film: contains action & adventure - - Dislike 1.7

Food: familiar fare Disagr 0.9 Agree 2.2 Travel: visit culture - - Agree 1.7

Visiting museum contemp. arts Yes 2.1 - - Travel: party and fun Neutral 1.1 Disagr 0.9

Shopping - - No 1.8 Arts: abstract expressionism - - Like 1.4

Travel: visit culture Agree 1.7 Disagr 1.7 Arts: surrealism - - Like 1.0

Travel: hiking and trekking - - Disagr 1.7 Doing sport - - No 1.0

Doing sport Yes 1.1 No 1.6 Going to a restaurant - - No 0.9

Watching television: VTM - - Often 1.2

Food: eating at home is the best - - Agree 1.4

Listening to music: opera Once/wh 1.4 - -

Reading Yes 1.4 No 1.2

Attending concerts Yes 1.3 - -

Total contribution: 63% 25% 38% Total contribution: 56% 12% 44%

17

Graph 1. Sub-clouds of two age segments in principal plane 1-2 with mean points and concentration ellipses.

Age segment -25

Age segment 55+

18

Graph 2. CSA of sub-cloud ‘14-25 years’ with modalities contributing more than average to sub-plane 1-2.

λ2 = .0713

λ1 = .1282

19

Graph 3. CSA of sub-cloud ‘55-85 years’ with modalities contributing more than average to sub-plane 1-2.

λ1 = .1423

λ2 = .0738

20

Appendix

Table A1. Relative frequencies for participation variables (n = 2,849).

Yes No Often Once in a while Never

Going to the movies .472 .528 Listening to pop/rock .539 .174 .286

Watching movies at home .819 .181 Listening to dance .342 .272 .384

Reading .535 .465 Listening to folk/traditional music .104 .360 .535

Reading: prose/poetry .373 .627 Listening to chanson .124 .411 .463

Reading: comics .291 .709 Listening to jazz/blues/soul/funk .120 .352 .526

Attending concerts .141 .859 Listening to classical music .118 .331 .550

Visiting museum fine arts .154 .846 Listening to opera .032 .148 .818

Visiting museum contemporary arts .130 .870

Shopping .833 .167 0-1 hrs 2-3 hrs 4+ hrs

Going to a pub .775 .225 Frequency watching television .181 .483 .330

Going to a restaurant .854 .146

Doing sport .604 .396

Traveling .740 .260

Watching TV: TV1 .485 .515

Watching TV: Canvas .148 .852

Watching TV: commercial station VTM .316 .684

Watching TV: KA2 .099 .901

Watching TV: VT4 .111 .889

Watching TV: Music channel .062 .938

21

Table A2. Relative frequencies for dispositional variables (n = 2,849).

A1 N DA A N DA

Film3: “original in form and style” .284 .529 .176 Food1: “do not spend much money” .259 .508 .229

Film4: “makes you laugh” .538 .399 .055 Food2: “good food important in life” .371 .483 .145

Film7: “uses a lot of special effects” .128 .473 .387 Food3: “familiar fare” .357 .403 .240

Film9: “contains action & adventure” .338 .502 .152 Food4: “try new recipes” .428 .409 .163

Film10: “contains violent scenes” .067 .330 .596 Food6: “steak and french fries” .306 .367 .326

Film15: “is romantic” .284 .542 .164 Food8: “eating at home is the best” .438 .413 .147

Film20: “critical comment on society” .146 .563 .280 Sport2: to change limits .238 .403 .358

Arts1: (post-)impressionism² .243 .551 .243 Sport4: team spirit .326 .381 .293

Arts2: Flemish primitives .249 .376 .372 Sport6: kick .142 335 .522

Arts3: surrealism .178 .389 .432 Sport7: a beautiful body .190 .461 .348

Arts4: baroque portraits .193 .435 .368 Sport8: friendship .426 .408 .166

Arts5: abstract expressionism .133 .349 .516 Travel3: meet new people .287 .513 .189

Arts6: landscapes .325 .480 .193 Travel4: sea & beach .319 .421 .251

Arts7: conceptual art/Dadaism .067 .300 .630 Travel5: visit culture .240 .466 .283

Arts8: late-renaissance/baroque .223 .416 .359 Travel9: party and fun .230 .429 .333

Arts9: abstract art .108 .340 .459 Travel11: adventure .264 .440 .287

Clothing2: “new clothes every season” .241 .361 .397 Travel14: other cultures .339 .456 .196

Clothing4: “clothes reflect personality” .371 .473 .152 Travel15: hiking and trekking .353 .406 .231

Clothing5: “dressed properly” .518 .351 .130

1 A=agree, N=neutral, DA=disagree or like, neutral, dislike.

² For ‘Arts: …’ respondents are shown three works considered ‘iconical’ for each style. For (post-)impressionism:

Claude Monet “La cathédrale de Rouen” (1894), and “The Thames at Westminster Bridge” (1871) and Georges

Seurat “Vue de Fort Samson, Grandcamp” (1885); Flemish primitives: Jan van Eyck “Het echtpaar Arnolfini” (1434),

Hans Memling “The virgin and child with angel” and “Saint George and a donor” (1470-1480); surrealism: Salvador

Dalí “The burning giraffe” (1936/1937), Paul Delvaux “Ode to Jules Verne” (1971), Rene Magritte “Le faux mirroir”

(1928); baroque portraits: Hendrik Verbrugghen “A laughing bravo with bass violin and a glass”; abstract

expressionism: Karel Appel “Cry for freedom” (1948); Jackson Pollock “The key” (1946), Pierre Alechinksy “Roland

Garros” (1988); 19th

century landscapes: Wauter van Troostwijk “Braampoortje in Amsterdam” (1809), Barend

Koekkoek “Winterlandschap” (1838); conceptual art/dadaism: Joseph Beuys “Wirtschaftswerte” (1980), Marcel

Broodthaers “Grande casserole de moules” (1960), Marcel Duchamp “Fountain” (1917); late-renaissance/baroque:

Pieter Paul Rubens “St.-Serge and the dragon” (1606-1607), Caravaggio “Supper at Emmaus” (1601); abstract art:

Pieter Cornelius Mondriaan “Compositie nr. 2, lijn en kleur” (1913), Malevich “Self-portrait in two dimensions”

(1915), Mark Rothko “Untitled”.

22

Table A3. Axis 1 of global space. Engagement-disengagement dimension. Contributions.

Variables Contribution of variables

Modalities Contribution of modalities

Left Right Left Right

Going to the movies 3.91 Yes No 2.07 1.84

Food: familiar fare 3.63 Disagree Agree 0.66 2.31

Listening to pop/rock 3.39 Often Never 1.13 2.26

Arts: abstract 3.32 Neutral Dislike 1.21 1.47

Reading 3.26 Yes No 1.52 1.74

Arts: abstract expressionism 3.20 Neutral Dislike 1.03 1.52

Listening to jazz/blues 3.01 Once/while Never 1.13 1.42

Food: eating at home 2.97 Neutral Agree 1.04 1.66

Doing sport 2.89 Yes No 1.15 1.74

Arts: surrealism 2.81 - Dislike - 1.53

Travel: other cultures 2.77 Agree Disagree 0.58 2.07

Clothing: dressed properly 2.50 Neutral Agree 0.88 1.20

Traveling 2.49 Yes No 0.65 1.84

Reading prose/poetry 2.39 Yes No 1.50 0.89

Reading comics 2.26 Yes No 1.61 0.66

Going to a restaurant 2.18 - No - 1.86

Film: original style 2.16 - Dislike - 1.72

Listening to chanson 2.02 Once/while No 0.87 1.06

Watching VTM 2.00 No Yes 0.60 1.39

Food: try new recipes 2.00 - Disagree - 1.67

Travel: adventure 1.95 - Disagree - 1.32

Visiting museums of cont. arts 1.90 Yes - 1.65 -

Listening to dance 1.82 - Never - 1.12

Going to a pub 1.78 - No - 1.38

Arts: conceptual art/Dadaism 1.72 Neutral Dislike 0.72 0.61

Sport: beautiful body 1.62 Neutral - 1.42 -

Listening to classical music 1.58 Once/while Never 0.79 0.69

Shopping 1.55 - No - 1.29

Arts: 19th C landscapes 1.52 - Like - 1.01

Food: steak & french fries 1.29 - Agree - 0.89

Attending concerts 0.91 Yes - 0.78 -

72.80 22.99 40.16

23

Table A4. Axis 2 of global space. Contemplation-action dimension. Contributions.

Variables Contribution of variables

Modalities Contribution of modalities

Left Right Left Right

Arts: Flemish primitives 6.74 Dislike Like 3.03 3.67

Arts: baroque portraits 6.64 Dislike Like 3.18 3.27

Arts: renaissance 5.69 Dislike Like 2.84 2.72

Listening to classical music 4.52 Never Often 1.46 2.73

Arts: (post-)impressionism 4.25 Dislike Like 1.67 2.51

Travel: party 3.91 Agree Disagree 1.96 1.91

Listening to opera 3.83 Once/while Often 2.03 1.13

Film: violent scenes 3.63 Like Dislike 1.15 1.33

Travel: visit culture 3.10 Disagree Agree 1.20 1.88

Travel: adventure 3.05 Agree Disagree 1.20 1.79

Film: action & adventure 2.86 Like Dislike 1.29 1.52

Listening to dance 2.70 Often Never 1.44 1.25

Visiting museums of fine arts 2.64 - Yes - 2.23

Watching VT4 2.47 Yes - 2.23 -

Sport: kick 2.21 Agree Disagree 0.99 0.45

Listening to pop/rock 2.20 Often Never 0.76 1.44

Watching MTV/TMF 2.05 Yes - 1.94 -

Travel: sea & beach 2.02 Agree Disagree 0.83 1.19

Film: special effects 1.96 Like Dislike 0.90 0.91

Sport: limits 1.86 Agree Disagree 0.89 0.59

Watching KA2 1.83 Yes - 1.68 -

Visiting museums cont. arts 1.79 - Yes - 1.55

Arts: 19th C landscapes 1.78 Dislike Like 0.79 0.94

Reading prose/poetry 1.59 No Yes 0.59 1.00

Arts: surrealism 1.53 - Like - 1.08

Watching Canvas 1.45 - Yes - 1.20

78.30 34.05 38.29