Class, Consumption and Taste (SAGE Handbook of Consumer Culture, 2018)
Introduction
This chapter engages a sociological examination of class and taste and how they shape consumer practice.
Historical context: since the Cultural Turn and the rise of post-industrial neoliberal free‑market capitalism, traditional class boundaries have seemed blurred (boundaries between working- and middle-class occupations and their cultures). This prompts questions about whether pronounced class differences persist today.
Approach: combine insights on how social group differences find expression in consumption with tools to observe these manifestations.
Consumption as lens: goods produce, reflect, and stabilize cultural categories; consumption helps read class through taste, aligning with Bourdieu’s framework.
Core theoretical anchor: Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus, field, and capitals (economic, social, cultural, symbolic) as mechanisms shaping taste across domains such as art, music, clothing, food, and home furnishings.
Scope of the chapter: outlines key Bourdieusian concepts and tracks contemporary adaptations and debates (e.g., Mennell’s critique, cultural omnivorousness debate, and newer class analyses).
Critical prompts: do snobbish behaviours persist in a more diverse, democratic cultural field? Are new forms of distinction emerging in an era of abundance?
Contextual texts referenced for synthesis: Bennett et al. (2009); Lamont (1992); Silva & Warde (2010); Southerton (2002); and Peterson & Kern (1996) on omnivorousness.
Class, Consumption and Consumer Culture: Shifts in How Class is Read Through Consumption
Decline of manufacturing and rise of consumerism led some to argue class is less meaningful as a descriptive category in Britain (Bauman, Clark & Lipset; Pahl). Some even called for the “death” of class (Pakulski & Waters).
Alternative frameworks emerged: self as reflexive, shaped by high modernity; lifestyle projects replace traditional style as markers of identity (Featherstone).
Postmodern perspectives question the relevance of class for shaping identities (Appignanesi & Bennington; Hebdige).
Consumptio n as self-cultivation: marketplace choices become vehicles for identity; social inequality interpreted through intersecting identities (race, gender, disability, religion, sexuality) in addition to class (Andersen & Hill-Collins note the chapter doesn’t provide that full analysis).
Processes of distinction persist as markets offer broad choice; boundaries become more diffuse yet can shift into new forms of differentiation.
Some scholars argue class remains a driver of consumption, especially as production declines and consumption concentrates identity formation around lifestyle choices (Saunders; Warde).
Central tension: consumption reorganizes class rather than erases it; people may appear to cross traditional cultural divides while still operating within structured sites of capital distribution.
Everyday life: shopping baskets and consumer practices historically provided signposts of social position (Tomlinson & Warde); societies re‑frame class membership as more internally differentiated within middle strata.
Practical takeaway: to study class today, combine economic data with cultural and social capital indicators, and consider how context, culture, and consumption intersect.
Bourdieusian Core: Habitus, Field and Capitals
Habitus: a deeply structured, often unconscious cultural grammar that guides social action and dispositions; a “structured structure” that produces regular practices over time and tends to sanction behaviors aligned with objective conditions in a given field. It also excludes extravagant or incongruent practices.
Field: a network of relations between positions; bounded arenas of competition over resources defined as capitals. The field shapes what counts as valuable and what counts as legitimate.
Capitals (as resources in the field):
Economic capital: economic resources; “power to keep necessity at arm’s length” (dominant base for other capitals).
Cultural capital: long-lasting dispositions, cultural goods, educational qualifications.
Social capital: social networks and memberships that mobilize collective resources.
Symbolic capital: misrecognized capital; the perceived worth or legitimacy of resources, recognized or misrecognized by others.
Interplay: The field distributes capital; the habitus orients action within those distributions; capital conversion and misrecognition reproduce or challenge social domination.
Key quote framing: habitus is both formative (what people come to see as reasonable) and limiting (what is not possible or sanctionable within a field).
The body of theory supports an analytic intersection with gender, class, and other axes; cultural capital can include tastes that bridge or segregate social worlds.
Practical example: bounded eating practices reflect habitus; working class preferences emphasize substantial, masculine foods and communal meals; bourgeois practices emphasize form, restraint, and aesthetic refinement in meals and dress.
The Great British Class Survey (GBCS) (Savage et al., 2013) extends these ideas via latent class analysis to reveal new class assemblages beyond NS-SEC, integrating economic, social, and cultural capitals.
Capitals in more detail
Economic capital underpins access to all other capitals in the field; its relative abundance shapes what is valued.
Cultural capital can be embodied (taste, dispositions) or objectified (goods, qualifications); it can be institutionalized (educational credentials).
Social capital involves networks and group memberships enabling access to resources through social connections.
Symbolic capital arises when misrecognition or misattribution of value legitimizes certain goods or practices; it captures the symbolic valuation of status.
In sum: the field is the battleground for capital accumulation, while habitus constrains and directs how one engages with opportunities in that field.
Distinction and Homologies of Taste
Bourdieu’s Distinction (1984) built on data from 1217 people across Paris and surrounding areas (1963 and 1967–68) to map taste hierarchies and their social functions.
Core claim: taste both marks and legitimates social differences; “taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier.”
Distinction operates through what is valued in culture (art, music) and everyday domains (food, home) within a classed habitus.
Homologies of taste: across different cultural domains, similar dispositions cluster together and reveal broader ideological worldviews. These are “elective affinities” that unify tastes across fields.
The body as signifier: taste patterns are inscribed on the body via food choices and body practices; the body becomes a material trace of class taste.
Food as a key example:
Working class: preference for substantial, salty, robust dishes; meals served communally, with little concern for portion control; emphasis on substance over form.
Bourgeois: form, order, restraint; meals structured with etiquette, focus on quality and appearance; crumbs brushed away; emphasis on discipline and refinement.
These distinctions extend beyond food to clothing, decor, and leisure preferences, illustrating how “taste” legitimates social differences.
Distinction remains a central frame for understanding how cultural consumption helps reproduce inequality, even if boundaries are less rigid in practice.
Critical Development and Amendments to Distinction
Lamont (1992): boundary work around socio-economic, cultural, and moral dimensions; emphasizes discourse of refinement and success in work and conspicuous consumption.
Boundary work has been adapted in the UK (Southerton, 2002), highlighting how non-affluent groups claim cultural distinction through economy signals and domestic cues (e.g., garden care).
Bourdieu’s framework expanded and contested by later scholars for ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, ability, etc., prompting calls for broader axes of differentiation (e.g., Bennett et al., 2009; Lahire, 2008; Bryson, 1996).
Great British Class Survey (Savage et al., 2013) introduces a latent-class approach to map British class in a more nuanced way than NS-SEC; identifies an elite class and several middle/working-class segments, including:
Elite
Established middle class
Traditional working class
Technical middle class
New affluent workers
Emergent service workers
Precariat
New axes of differentiation: cultural capital as a dynamic, cosmopolitan, or cosmopolitan-style capacity; the emergence of new forms of cultural capital that reflect contemporary urban and global tastes (gig attendance, ethnic cuisines, etc.).
These developments show Bourdieu’s influence while inviting adjustments to accommodate broader social realities, such as ethnicity, gender, and age, and new forms of capital and consumption.
Question remains: is omnivorousness (broad taste across high and low forms) itself a new form of distinction, or a sign of democratization of taste? The literature presents both possibilities depending on how omnivores display and deploy their capitals.
Cultural Omnivorousness: Debate and Contemporary Realignments
Omnivorousness (Peterson & Kern, 1996): high-status groups sample from both high- and low-cultural forms; signals cosmopolitan taste and social flexibility.
Counterpoints and refinements: not all elites are truly omnivorous; some engage in selective breadth that still serves prestige and boundaries (e.g., DiMaggio & Mukhtar, 2004; Bryson, 1996; Emmison, 2003).
Objections to a blanket rise of omnivorous taste:
Omnivorousness can function as a new form of snobbery, enabling social mobility while preserving status boundaries (Portwood-Stacer on abstention as conspicuous non-consumption; Johnston & Baumann on authenticism and exoticism as frames of distinction).
Omnivore status can be selective, focusing on particular domains (e.g., foodies emphasize authenticity and exoticism rather than broad tolerance across all forms).
Some scholars argue omnivorous cultures are not universally accessible, and taste hierarchies persist through quality and context (e.g., the role of ingredients, assembly, and origin stories).
The concept evolves into broader discussions about cosmopolitanism, globalization, and the material bases of taste (e.g., the ability to access diverse cultural goods).
Methodological critique: much of the omnivorousness literature relies on surveys; qualitative work is urged to unpack the meanings behind taste categories, the constraints of socio-economic position, and the nuances of genre within tastes.
The term “omnivore” itself has been disputed by Friedman (2012) who describes upwardly mobile individuals as potentially culturally homeless rather than omnivorous, complicating neat classifications.
Varieties of Cultural Capital and Class Structures in Britain
The NS-SEC framework still provides a robust, widely used measure of class by employment status, but it may not capture contemporary class complexity.
The GBCS ( Savage et al., 2013 ) proposes a more nuanced model based on latent class analysis and cross-cutting capitals. New class groupings include:
Elite
Established middle class
Traditional working class
Technical middle class
New affluent workers
Emergent service workers
Precariat
The GBCS framework suggests that in contemporary Britain, social and cultural capital significantly shape class position beyond income alone; cultural practices, taste, and social networks matter for status and opportunities.
Across studies, visual art consumption often marks the most pronounced class distinctions, reinforcing elite cultural capital despite efforts to widen access (e.g., museum usage and gallery participation).
Scholarly debates emphasize the need to consider ethnicity, gender, age, and other axes in combination with class to understand social positioning and consumption.
The concept of “cultural class analysis” broadens Bourdieu’s schema to account for cross-cutting forms of capital and social differentiation (Atkinson, 2011, 2016).
Food, Taste and Bodies: Bodies, Eating, and Class Distinctions
Food serves as a vivid domain where habitus manifests through body techniques, meal structures, and taste hierarchies.
Working-class food practices (as described by Bourdieu):
Emphasis on substance, robustness, and practicality; meals with abundant, shared dishes; less concern with portion control or formal table manners.
Eating is more about nourishment and communal sharing; less consideration of ceremonial utensils or formal dining rituals.
Bourgeois (middle/upper) habitus in eating:
Emphasis on form, etiquette, precise portions, and restrained consumption; dining as a display of refinement and aesthetic taste; careful management of foods and presentation.
Food thus operates as a key site where taste and class distinctions are performed and communicated, with the body as a visible marker of these dispositions.
The broader implication: consumption in different fields (food, home decor, art) reveals the recurring logic of distinction and the embedding of class in everyday life.
Emergent Developments: Delineating Boundaries and New Forms of Distinction
Lamont (1992) highlights boundary work anchored in three nodes: socio-economic, cultural, moral. This concept has been operationalized in UK contexts for understanding how people draw boundaries around tastes and lifestyles.
Boundary work explains how individuals at different points of social mobility negotiate culture, economy, and morality to position themselves as distinct from others or to claim cultural legitimacy.
The UK studies (Southerton, 2002) show that boundaries are actively maintained through everyday practices (garden care, wine knowledge, leisure tastes).
Contemporary expansions to Bourdieu’s framework include attention to gender (Skeggs), ethnicity, age, and sexuality as dimensions of distinction, challenging the universality of taste patterns across populations.
The GBCS and subsequent scholarship extend this work, highlighting that cultural capital can be a fluid, intersectional resource enabling or constraining social mobility in new ways.
Omnivorousness, Democratization and New Forms of Distinction
The omnivore debate suggests broad cultural participation may indicate a more democratic field, but some scholars caution that it can still function to reproduce privilege by presenting a wide repertoire while maintaining underlying hierarchies (e.g., authenticism and exoticism in foodie culture).
Johnston & Baumann (2007, 2010) argue that the discourse of “foodies” frames authentic and exotic foods in ways that preserve elite distinctions, despite outward appearances of democratization.
The concept of “food democracy” may obscure underlying privilege by focusing on discursive frames (authenticism and exoticism) rather than on access to resources that enable omnivorous consumption.
The notion of “brow spanning” or “cosmopolitanism” in food practices points to a more cosmopolitan repertoire among elites but does not erase class-based dynamics of access and influence.
Qualitative research is urged to better capture the meanings and practices behind omnivorous consumption, beyond crude genre-level categories.
The broader literature argues that omnivorousness is a variant of distinction, not a simple sign of democratic taste; taste remains structured by capital and field dynamics, even when forms of consumption appear mixed.
Methodologies and Methodological Pluralism for Studying Taste and Class
The classic Distinction relied on a mix of survey and ethnographic work; later research emphasizes multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to map patterns of taste across items (paintings, music, books, etc.).
Lamont (1992) and subsequent researchers used boundary analysis and MCA to identify homologies of taste across domains.
Contemporary calls emphasize methodological pluralism to capture the complexity of taste formation, acquisition, appropriation, and appreciation (Warde, Atkinson, Deeming, etc.).
Qualitative inquiry is urged to unpack the meanings of tastes, the specifics of boundary work, and the micro-dynamics of class-related distinctions in a rapidly changing cultural landscape.
The debate highlights the need to combine macro-scale class schemas with micro-scale cultural meanings, and to consider new forms of capital (e.g., digital, culinary, experiential) that shape contemporary distinction practices.
Emerging Debates: Democracy, Distinction and the Role of Cultural Capital
Are we witnessing a democracy of taste or a reinforcement of hierarchy under new guises?
The omnivore thesis remains contested: openness to a wide array of genres may coexist with selective practices that preserve social advantage.
The role of cuisine, food culture, and culinary cosmopolitanism as a site where new forms of cultural capital are built and displayed (e.g., authenticity, exoticism) is central to debates about modern distinction.
The literature emphasizes that taste hierarchies are not disappearing; they are being remade through new capitals, new boundaries, and new modes of expression (e.g., visual art consumption, gourmet food discourse).
The ethical and political implications: consumption-based distinctions can reproduce social inequalities; understanding these dynamics is essential to addressing broader social justice concerns.
Democracy or Distinction? Conclusions and Implications for Research
Core takeaway: Bourdieu’s framework remains influential for understanding how consumption patterns reflect and reproduce social differentiation, but contemporary Britain requires updated models that incorporate:
Interaction of economic, social, and cultural capitals in new class formations
Cross-cutting axes such as ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, and disability
Emerging forms of cultural capital (e.g., globalized food cultures, digital media, experiential consumption)
Debates about democratization of taste persist alongside recognition of persistent differentiation, especially in the domains of art consumption and cuisine.
A useful synthesis is to view today’s consumer culture as characterized by ongoing democratization of access to cultural goods, coupled with persistent or even intensified generic forms of distinction through the quality, context, and display of tastes.
Methodological pluralism is essential: combine quantitative approaches (e.g., NS-SEC, GBCS latent classes) with qualitative work (ethnography, interviews, discourse analysis) to uncover both the structure and the lived meanings of taste and class.
Future research directions include deeper investigations into:
How omnivorous practices function as social capital in different locales and over time
The role of new digital and media forms in shaping taste hierarchies
Cross-cultural comparisons beyond Britain to assess the universality or variability of Bourdieusian distinctions
The ethical implications of taste-based stratification in increasingly diverse societies
Key Concepts, Terms and Theoretical Tools (Glossary)
Habitus: deep-seated, durable dispositions shaped by social conditions that guide perception and action; a practical sense of what is reasonable in a given field.
Field: a structured network of social relations where actors pursue capital and compete for resources; bounded by shared rules and knowledge.
Capitals: resources that actors use to gain advantage within a field; types include:
Economic capital: money, property, income
Cultural capital: dispositions, know-how, education, cultural goods
Social capital: networks and social connections
Symbolic capital: recognized prestige and legitimacy
Symbolic capital: misrecognition or misattribution of value; status accrued through perception as worthy.
Distinction: the social function of taste in producing and legitimating social differences; taste marks one’s place in the social order.
Homologies of taste: cross-field correspondences showing linked dispositions that unite tastes within a given habitus across domains (e.g., food and home decor).
Omnivorousness: openness to both high- and low-cultural forms; debated as democratizing or as a refined strategy for prestige maintenance.
Boundary work: process by which individuals articulate and enforce boundaries around culture, economy, and morality to maintain social distinctions.
Great British Class Survey (GBCS): a 2011 survey using latent class analysis to map British class on a multi-capital basis, identifying new class groupings beyond NS-SEC.
Seven-class NS-SEC model: a traditional employment-based classification used to locate social actors within seven class groupings (exact labels vary by national implementation).
All Manners of Food (Mennell, 1985): historical perspective on how manners and culinary proprieties reflect class distinctions; later debates examine the persistence of variety and inclusive appetites.
Food authenticity and exoticism (Johnston & Baumann): frames used by food discourse to maintain status distinctions through discourses of authenticity and novelty.
Mathematical and methodological notes
NS-SEC:
The framework partitions individuals into based on employment position and role.
GBCS: uses latent class analysis to identify patterns of economic, social, and cultural capitals; results include an elite class and several intermediate groups with varying engagement with highbrow culture and emerging cultural capital.
Distinction studies often deploy Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to map associations among preferences across domains (e.g., painting, music, radio, books).
Empirical examples used in the debate include: in-depth interviews (Lamont, 1992; n ≈ 160), large-scale surveys (Distinction sample n ≈ 1217), cross-national data (DiMaggio & Mukhtar, 2004; Bryson, 1996).
References (selected for context)
Andersen, M. L. and Hill-Collins, P. (2015). Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology.
Appignanesi, L. and Bennington, G. (1989). Postmodernism.
Atkinson, W. (2011, 2016). Omnivorousness; Beyond Bourdieu.
Bauman, Z. (1988, 2009). Freedom; Memories of Class.
Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M., Wright, D. (2009). Culture, Class, Distinction.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction; (1986/2011) Forms of Capital; (1989) Social Space and Symbolic Power; (1990) The Logic of Practice; (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Johnston, J. and Baumann, S. (2007, 2010). Democracy versus Distinction; Foodies; The Gourmet Foodscape.
Lamont, M. (1992). Money, Morals, and Manners; Lamont & Molnár (2002). Boundaries in the Social Sciences.
Mennell, S. (1985). All Manners of Food.
Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption.
Peterson, R. and Kern, R. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore.
Paddock, J. (2015, 2016). Invoking simplicity in alternative food; Positioning food cultures.
Pahl, R. (1989). Is the emperor naked?
Saunder, P. (1990). Social Class and Stratification.
Savage, M. et al. (2013). A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey.
Warde, A. (1994, 1997, 2013, 2017). Consumption studies; Culinary antinomies; Cultural consumption; Consumption: A Sociological Analysis.
Williams, R. (1989); Wright, D. (2010).
Storey, J. (2015). Cultural Theory and Popular Culture.
Important note on scope: The notes reflect the chapter’s emphasis on Bourdieusian concepts and contemporary refinements in class perception through consumption, with attention to debates about omnivorousness, boundary work, and new forms of cultural capital and distinction in Britain. They intentionally integrate historical foundations, empirical studies, and methodological debates to provide a comprehensive study guide that can support exam preparation.