a logic of distinction?
Sep. 4th, 2004 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcSo what constitutes significant, important, or even really good art? Are there some works that wholly stand out, regardless of cultural context and time? Or is “art” wholly subjective?
According to Pierre Bourdieu, very specific sensibilities are developed with respect to fine arts discernment, which he calls “a logic of distinction.” Logic of distinction isn’t merely “taste” however; it’s a particular, shared taste for what is considered significant, importnat and really good. It’s a logic possessed and regulated by an elite. And even in democratic, pluralistic societies, logics of distinction exert remarkable influence.
Bourdieu was a French sociologist who was interested in why family income didn’t seem to predict school success among secondary students in post World War II Paris. He theorized that a family’s economic capital, while important, wasn’t a great predictor of how children engaged in school-based learning. He posited that two other forms of capital--social capital and cultural capital, neither of which were ever abundant in families wholly lacking economic capital--gave a better (if complex) explanation. I’m doing some pre-writing (da brain part) on the social capital idea, an idea that is bandied about frequently in community development discourses, though in ways that defy Bourdieu’s work; I hope to send an article out about that by end of 2004. Hope.
But the cultural capital idea both fascinates and perplexes me: most likely because I didn’t get the gay “colour/style/design” gene [I got double the sex and bitchiness genes]. My relationship with the fine arts--particularly dance and visual arts, but even a fair bit of classical music--is tenuous. At best. Is this because I essentially lack an appreciation for such things? Bourdieu would argue no. Under cultural capital theory, an appreciation for the fine arts is learned. For Bourdieu, acquiring cultural capital is like “the acquisition of a muscular physique or a suntan, it cannot be done second hand.” (p. 48) Acquiring cultural capital is mediated by economic and social constraints: most in society do not have the economic means to spend time acquiring cultural capital--richer folks have more time for such activities. So there’s arguably a strong correlation between economic struggles, social connections and opportunity to encounter the fine arts first hand. So taking art history in high school is good, but experience the “important” works of fine art first-hand is integrally important.
So where does that leave the several trips we took in high school to places like the Guggenheim? They’re OK, but most of us were just visitors rather than genuine consumers. Few of us ever went back; most likely none of us grew up in families where accessing the fine arts were even on the radar.
The commodification of the fine arts--initially for rarified, but later mass, consumption is also important. Bourdieu “the specifically symbolic logic of distinction additionally secures material and symbolic profits for the possessors of a large cultural capital.” (p. 49). For the wealthy, accumulating collections of art and being patrons of performers of dance and music, is compulsory to maintain social status. It also gives the wealthy a gatekeeping role in terms of which artists are supported, validated, celebrated. With few exceptions (jazz comes to mind for music), cultural development is evolutionary rather than revoluationary in the fine arts. But having one’s work benedicted by these cultural elite can make a name for someone; losing it the opposite effect.
On a personal level, I’ve experienced how a logic of distinction is inculcated. My graduate work was in education (a social science), an applied field. My research has always integrated first-person accounts, and often focusses on matters of educational practice. Yet during my doctoral studies (in particular), as I was exposed to more classical social theory, I found myself experiencing culture in new ways. I rather shocked an acquaintance when I offered a range of insights into the libretto of his oper, my first. I went to Paris and the Louvre, and was able to situate much of the work in socio-cultural terms that revealed messages and meanings I’d not have been aware of (let alone be able to see) even a few years earlier. And living with a classical music afficionado, I could identify a fair number of composers by ear (or at least their contemporaries). All without any overt effort on my part to acquire any of it.
To be frank, it both fascinates and repulses me. Cranky crabby activist Jawn feels like he’s perhaps been brainwashed. Geeky pensive Jawn is in awe of how his mind works in complex and sophisticated ways--ways well beyond what he can understand.
But the bigger question for me is, if one logic of distinction asserts itself (quietly) over other forms of cultural expression, why arent’ we teaching the fine arts to everyone’s kids in public school? One way to assuage this inequity would be to bring this disciplines to the fore of public education, instead of the “if we have the $$ left over” section.
Hey....wait a second...maybe that’s not a coincidence at all????
According to Pierre Bourdieu, very specific sensibilities are developed with respect to fine arts discernment, which he calls “a logic of distinction.” Logic of distinction isn’t merely “taste” however; it’s a particular, shared taste for what is considered significant, importnat and really good. It’s a logic possessed and regulated by an elite. And even in democratic, pluralistic societies, logics of distinction exert remarkable influence.
Bourdieu was a French sociologist who was interested in why family income didn’t seem to predict school success among secondary students in post World War II Paris. He theorized that a family’s economic capital, while important, wasn’t a great predictor of how children engaged in school-based learning. He posited that two other forms of capital--social capital and cultural capital, neither of which were ever abundant in families wholly lacking economic capital--gave a better (if complex) explanation. I’m doing some pre-writing (da brain part) on the social capital idea, an idea that is bandied about frequently in community development discourses, though in ways that defy Bourdieu’s work; I hope to send an article out about that by end of 2004. Hope.
But the cultural capital idea both fascinates and perplexes me: most likely because I didn’t get the gay “colour/style/design” gene [I got double the sex and bitchiness genes]. My relationship with the fine arts--particularly dance and visual arts, but even a fair bit of classical music--is tenuous. At best. Is this because I essentially lack an appreciation for such things? Bourdieu would argue no. Under cultural capital theory, an appreciation for the fine arts is learned. For Bourdieu, acquiring cultural capital is like “the acquisition of a muscular physique or a suntan, it cannot be done second hand.” (p. 48) Acquiring cultural capital is mediated by economic and social constraints: most in society do not have the economic means to spend time acquiring cultural capital--richer folks have more time for such activities. So there’s arguably a strong correlation between economic struggles, social connections and opportunity to encounter the fine arts first hand. So taking art history in high school is good, but experience the “important” works of fine art first-hand is integrally important.
So where does that leave the several trips we took in high school to places like the Guggenheim? They’re OK, but most of us were just visitors rather than genuine consumers. Few of us ever went back; most likely none of us grew up in families where accessing the fine arts were even on the radar.
The commodification of the fine arts--initially for rarified, but later mass, consumption is also important. Bourdieu “the specifically symbolic logic of distinction additionally secures material and symbolic profits for the possessors of a large cultural capital.” (p. 49). For the wealthy, accumulating collections of art and being patrons of performers of dance and music, is compulsory to maintain social status. It also gives the wealthy a gatekeeping role in terms of which artists are supported, validated, celebrated. With few exceptions (jazz comes to mind for music), cultural development is evolutionary rather than revoluationary in the fine arts. But having one’s work benedicted by these cultural elite can make a name for someone; losing it the opposite effect.
On a personal level, I’ve experienced how a logic of distinction is inculcated. My graduate work was in education (a social science), an applied field. My research has always integrated first-person accounts, and often focusses on matters of educational practice. Yet during my doctoral studies (in particular), as I was exposed to more classical social theory, I found myself experiencing culture in new ways. I rather shocked an acquaintance when I offered a range of insights into the libretto of his oper, my first. I went to Paris and the Louvre, and was able to situate much of the work in socio-cultural terms that revealed messages and meanings I’d not have been aware of (let alone be able to see) even a few years earlier. And living with a classical music afficionado, I could identify a fair number of composers by ear (or at least their contemporaries). All without any overt effort on my part to acquire any of it.
To be frank, it both fascinates and repulses me. Cranky crabby activist Jawn feels like he’s perhaps been brainwashed. Geeky pensive Jawn is in awe of how his mind works in complex and sophisticated ways--ways well beyond what he can understand.
But the bigger question for me is, if one logic of distinction asserts itself (quietly) over other forms of cultural expression, why arent’ we teaching the fine arts to everyone’s kids in public school? One way to assuage this inequity would be to bring this disciplines to the fore of public education, instead of the “if we have the $$ left over” section.
Hey....wait a second...maybe that’s not a coincidence at all????
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Interesting
Date: 2004-09-03 09:58 pm (UTC)When you instill in a person a sense of taste, it implies the development of discretion, which further implies consideration and thinking about choices, and the questioning of non-obvious issues of style, content, meaning. Art teaches awareness: see, listen, feel, examine; what I can find to inspire my own creativity? It also allows/encourages individual choice, a recognition that my aesthetic value system can be, and probably should be, different to my classmate, because I am different to my classmate. Yet, art is the expression of powerful emotions, it expands our sense of empathy and connection with the art's creator and each other. From just one colour in the spectrum of artistic expression... I know how much classical music makes me FEEL. I get it. I get the anger, the terror, the love, the desperation, the grief, the yearning, the joy, the exhilaration, the ecstasy that composers have forged into art.
Art is a dangerous threat to the status quo... best do as you're told, child: keep quiet, don't cry, do your math, wear what everyone else is wearing, listen to what everyone else is listening to, it makes it easier if you're all the same.
Re: Interesting
Date: 2004-09-04 06:33 pm (UTC)That's not to take away from the beauty of (often) what is created. But what are we missing? Who are we missing? I'm thinking vis à vis "A Room of One's Own" by Woolf, except broader than women.
And, are all sameness's created equal?
BTW you're thinking and articulation are already leaping ahead since you started grad skool part deux! Awesome!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 07:53 am (UTC)At my school, kids are required to take a few cedits in fine arts (band/choir/art). Many kids seek out more than the required credits. Of course the practice of those arts - concerts and, in my field, play productions and rehearsals - always compete with athletics. (I'm alsways having to escuse participants becasue of a game or practice they have to attend, and my rehearsals always have to be later in the evening after athletics practices.) Luckily, we don't feel as much of a pinch, or competition, in funding our endeavors. In my district, fine arts have always been prized. Maybe not quite as much as football or whatnot, but definitely moreso than in many other districts across the country. (For instance, I taught for one year in a Chicago suburb where the football bonfire needed more fuel, and the team was told by the coaches to just take the set pieces from the theater. Yeah. That's a real literal example, though.)
My district is also a bit of an anomoly in that theater/music kids are also athletes, and equally talented in both respects. Last year, my Jesus and Judas in Godspell were also footbal and wrestling jocks.
Fine Arts education is always one of those things that everyone knows is important and should be taught to every kid, and there are many great pushes for funding to do that, but everyone also knows that, let's face it, you're going to get more people in the stadium stands than you will to a concert or production.
Regarding issues raised by you from Bourdieu, tell me if I'm reading your interpretation right...what I'm getting from what you said is that to be proper cultural consumers, this lies in the aquisition of the arts? The buying of paintings, the purchase of season tickets, etc? And that if you are not aquiring, but merely visiting and viewing, than you are not as fully imbued with cultural capital? If that's the correct interpretation (and tell me if I got that wrong), than does Bourdieu discuss at all the negative elitism of such a system? It seems interesting that the vreation of art is a work of the poor, but the ingesting of such art is the work of the rich. That's always been such a strange set of bedfellows over the centuries.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 08:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 06:41 pm (UTC)Regarding your last paragraph: yeah that's about right. What I didn't get into was that Bourdieu thinks that the elite use their notion of cultural capital to differentiate between "their kind" and "posers". If they don't see you at the Opera (in the right section, with the right people), they keep you at arm's length. Bourdieu argues--and I agree--that until we start giving middle-class and working class kids sustained and in-depth exposure to cultural capital (in the "fine arts" not popular music or hip hop), they'll always have somewhat limited opportunities in life.
But really the creations been of the middle class--literature is the big exception, being mostly of the rich until the 20th century--since the really poor were illiterate.
Ta Karl!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 07:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-05 06:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 09:22 am (UTC)The one thing I can comment on briefly: I'm not at all convinced that there is much of a gay style gene. My feeling is that there might be a very *rough* correlation between artistic sensibility and queerness, but that the statistical significance of it would be difficult to pin down. One of my straight brothers is a much finer visual artist than I'll ever be, as is my straight father. I suspect I might possibly be a better musician than either of my brothers, but my father was reportedly quite musical as a child.
Over and over, however, I hear stories about how young gay men (etc among LGBTs) had formative "mentoring" relationships with older gay men who brought them into a "lifestyle" which included a primer in all kinds of artistic appreciation. Sometimes including a primer in certain kinds of snobbery. I would hypothesize that such relationships functioned as a form of cultural-capital transfer.
I think networks of gay agemates often inculcate similar logics of distinction. There are still all kinds of "signposts" of gay culture that I just don't know, that many of my agemates presume we "all" know. The age at which I came out, the circumstances in which I came out, the communities I came out into, all play a clear role in my spotty connection to what we think of as "gay culture."
I would hypothesize a few further things:
1. The expansion of queer communities is likely to (have already begun to) dilute the opportunities for that kind of inculcation in particular aesthetic norms. The number of true gay aesthetes may be constant, or maybe not, but as so many more people feel able to come out, time and social spaces in which to have those mentoring relationships may become less available.
To put that another way: the tendency of queer communities to look more and more "mainstream" as time goes on may not be *simply* about a desire for "assimilation." It may also be that more and more of us come out as "regular" people who scratch our butts and don't know squat about Opera, and meet relatively more queers socially who are like us, and relatively fewer of the aesthetes.
2. I suspect we can't underestimate the impact of AIDS on removing many of those aesthetic mentors from the society that men of your and my age now inhabit. I'm sure you've heard that point (where are our role models?) before, but I think it bears on topics like this as well.
3. If we're going to pick up Bourdieu's point about richer folks have more time for such activities. So there’s arguably a strong correlation between economic struggles, social connections and opportunity to encounter the fine arts first hand, it's always seemed clear to me that the tendency for most queers not to have been heavily involved in child-rearing was a form of "wealth," at least in ability to commit time to other things.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 07:36 pm (UTC)me. . . yay!1. I didn't get the sort of mentoring you described, but I did get it via osmosis. Though I think a lot of gays do, particularly if they work in realms with an artistic aspect. I've been exposed to a gazillion more in academe then I ever was as a travel agent.
2. Fran Lebowitz wrote an interesting essay "the impact of AIDS on the artistic community" in the late 80s. It addressed your comment here directly--and eloquently. Was in the NY Times Magazine. Can't find it online though . . .
3. This also makes sense, when child rearing among the uber wealthy is usually done by staff rather than parents. Hence more time there as well. Excellent point!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 07:37 pm (UTC)