![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a logic of distinction?
Sep. 4th, 2004 01:14 pmSo 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????
