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}
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!