Sociology of Cultural Practices and Social Stratification
Cultural Practices and Social Stratification: Theoretical Context
In contemporary Western societies, the orientation of cultural habits serves as more than just a focus for cultural professionals; it represents a fundamental aspect of social stratification. The study of these practices is essential for analyzing social inequalities and relationships. This stratification in turn fuels a recurring debate regarding the relevance of public cultural policies, questioning the specific types of inequalities they address and the theoretical foundations upon which they are built. Cultural preferences and aesthetic choices operate alongside the ownership and consumption of material goods as primary rituals of identification within modern social life. Pierre Bourdieu's sociology [] transformed the observation of lifestyle characteristics and social status into a comprehensive theory of class cultures. This theory posits that social relations are rooted not only in the relations of production but also in a significant symbolic dimension.
Pierre Bourdieu’s Model: Habitus and the Logic of Distinction
According to the theoretical framework in La Distinction [], an individual's lifestyle is the product of their habitus. Bourdieu [] defines habitus as the set of dispositions, schemes of perception, and actions incorporated during various stages of socialization, reflecting the social characteristics of one's environment. Social classes distinguish themselves through the sharing and transmission of specific cultural traits that condition individual behavior across diverse domains, including dietary habits, moral attitudes, political opinions, and cultural tastes. These class-based habitus assist in constructing symbolic boundaries between social groups and reinforcing internal cohesion. The effect of habitus is not a deliberate learning process but a mechanism of informal impregnation, similar to the process of language acquisition described by Basil Bernstein []. Consequently, social reproduction is achieved more effectively through the transmission of cultural capital than economic capital, as it relies less on conscious accumulation strategies [Lamont, ].
Distinction Versus Ostentation
Bourdieu's laws of distinction differ significantly from Thorstein Veblen's theory of ostentation detailed in The Theory of the Leisure Class []. Veblen argued that certain expenditures, particularly on luxury goods and art, are motivated by symbolic power rather than use-value. ‘Ostentatious expenditure’ is a method of affirming one's social rank, often manifesting as snobbery. However, in Bourdieu's model, individuals are ‘classified’ by their cultural attitudes in a way that largely escapes their control. While Veblen’s ‘leisure class’ remains accessible to ‘parvenus’ or ‘philistines,’ Bourdieu suggests that the transmission of cultural capital from early childhood creates endowment gaps that are difficult to compensate for because they are not immediately visible. This creates hermetic boundaries between social groups that are far more difficult to cross than those based purely on wealth.
Cultural Legitimacy, Symbolic Domination, and Social Reproduction
Alongside the habitus, the theory of cultural legitimacy is the second pillar of the model in La Distinction. Cultural tastes and habits are not only socialized but also hierarchically organized and marked by power dynamics. There is a relation of homology between cultural preferences and individual social positions within a unified, hierarchical space of lifestyles. Identity is defined both by positive adherence to the preferences of one’s group and by the expressed ‘disgust’ toward the preferences of other groups [Bourdieu, , p. ]. The social space is structured by the volume and nature of capital held by individuals: economic capital (income/assets) and cultural capital (primarily determined by academic degrees). The ‘dominant class’ and ‘dominated class’ are further divided into fractions. Within the dominant class, the ‘dominant fraction’ (industrialists, private sector executives) holds more economic capital and tends toward academic and conformist practices. The ‘dominated fraction’ (teachers, academics) holds more cultural capital and is more inclined toward aesthetic innovation and the cultural avant-garde. This hierarchy creates an atmosphere of ‘symbolic domination’ where a specific order of cultural legitimacy is internalized across society. The educational system reinforces this by granting academic legitimacy to the ‘cultural arbitrary’ of the dominant classes [Bourdieu and Passeron, ].
Critiques and Amendments to the Distinction Model
Since the early s, Bourdieu’s model has faced significant critiques. Some researchers, such as Michele Lamont [], argue that the model is historically specific to French society in the early s and does not translate well to other contexts, such as North America, where the relationship with ‘high culture’ plays a different role in stratification. Additionally, Grignon and Passeron [] suggest the theory underestimates the autonomy of working-class value systems, noting that these groups do not always feel the intense ‘cultural unworthiness’ attributed to them by Bourdieu. Bernard Lahire [, ] challenged the unity of the habitus, proposing that individuals engage in plural socialization spaces, leading to cultural tastes that are fragmented and plural rather than coherent. The most radical challenge comes from ‘postmodernity’ theorists who view lifestyles as sui generis realities used for self-definition [Harvey, ]. According to this view, cultural messages [Slater, ] allow for identification independent of class or wealth [Giddens, ]. These unstable lifestyles are chosen by individuals rather than assigned by class, gender, or ethnicity [Featherstone, ]. In this ‘risk society’ [Beck, ], inequalities become uncertain and contingent, though these postmodern theories are often criticized for lacking a solid empirical basis compared to the models they seek to replace.
Public Policy: Cultural Democratization Versus Cultural Democracy
Social differentiation in cultural practices directly informs the objectives of cultural policy. Two opposing logics exist: cultural democratization and cultural democracy. The philosophy of cultural democratization was central to the French model established under Andr Malraux in the s. The decree of July defined this mission as making the ‘capital works of humanity, and primarily of France, accessible to the greatest possible number of French people.’ This universalist, ‘legitimist’ approach aims to reduce inequalities in access to ‘high culture’ (culture savante). It utilizes ‘Jacobin’ inspired strategies like the creation of ‘Maisons de la culture’ and theatrical decentralization. This approach is criticized by the distinction theory for imposing a cultural arbitrary. In contrast, ‘cultural democracy,’ which gained traction after May , focuses on ‘cultural development’ rather than just ‘cultural action.’ It values regional identities, minority cultures, and popular traditions based on cultural relativism. In France, this view shaped sociocultural animation for youth and was codified in the decree of May , which tasked the state with enabling all citizens to cultivate their capacity to create and invent. While philosophically different, both approaches ultimately aim for the collective benefit and the preservation of cultural heritage.