You are on page 1of 5

Timetable: Understanding arts audience segmentation

Understanding Arts Audience Segmentation

In this seminar, we will follow art sociologists in their attempts to decipher audience segmentation in the arts and its
meaning in terms of social inequality. We will address cornerstone questions such as: Do even “non-publics” look up
to the high arts? Does the segmentation of art consumption reflect and legitimize social segregation? How far does
social mobility affect taste? Does Postmodernism and the eclectic consumption of Culture mean the end of the
distinction between high and low art? How far can an individual be dissonant from himself, in his consumption of
Culture, and what does this mean for social distinctions? Through these interrogations, a better understanding of the
social meaning of the consumption of he arts will rise.

By the end of this seminar, students will have gained an understanding of arts segmentation with insights at different
levels of our socially constructed reality, from the individual experience process (Dewey) to grand-historical narratives
of distinction (Elias, Veblen), from Distinction (Bourdieu) to Nobrow (Seabrook), from institutions (Lamont &
Fournier) to the multiple dispositions of the individual (Lahire).


We will first review sociological analyses of symbolic barriers and social segmentations:
- first reminding some classics of Sociology: Veblen’s conspicuous consumption, Elias’ civilizing process
and its relevance nowadays, Bourdieu’s distinction and some of his critiques…
- then moving on to the new institutionalists around Lamont & Fournier,
- and devoting another session to some precise topics: geographic segregations, social mobility and art

In a second step, we will point at the tensions between the discourse on the democratization of access to the “high” arts
and the recognition of Popular Culture; and we will look into the arguments of some critics from the USA who are
questioning the reality of symbolic barriers nowadays (claiming there’s no more highbrow vs. lowbrow but a common

The third movement of this seminar will start with a reconsideration of cultural classifications (in terms of high and
low), and will move on to an analysis of eclectic taste (following Peterson’s articles on the cultural omnivores vs. the
univores), to finally approach Bernard Lahire, a French sociologist who tells us a new story about art consumption: the
story of individuals bounded by multiple and often contradictory dispositions and striving for distinction from…

In the last session, we will look into some of the latest sociological research from the ESA conference of September

The main course material will be in english. For those interested, some further reading will be available in French.
Books, book extracts and articles will be available at the library reserve and/or in MyStudy.
All course communication will be in English.

Robinson and Filicko 2000. Van Eijck 1999. Strinati 2000 . 24) 11. Further reading : Chaney 2002 . Passeron 2003 (French) . Kassarjian and Sheffet 1991. Timetable: Understanding arts audience segmentation 1. Lopes Sintaz and Garcia Alvarez 2002 Further reading: Van der Stichele and Laermans 2001 13. Hebdige 1979. Veblen’s Leisure Class and conspicuous consumption Veblen 1961 (1899). Himmelfarb 2001 Further reading: Jensen 2002. Coleman 1991. ed. Chaney 1996 6. “High Culture and Exclusion” Ed. Peterson 1996 . Geographic segregation + social mobility and taste + school art education Dear and Flusty 1999. Lifestyle and social class DiMaggio and Useem 1978. Gans 1999 Further reading: DiMaggio 1987 12. Grignon et Passeron 1989 (French). Van Venrooij 2004(?). Lamont and Fournier 1992 (intro and part one) 7. Omnivores vs. Myers and Gutman 1974. Latest sociological research on arts audiences Selected papers from the September 2005 ESA Conference in Torun (will be handed in the course of the seminar) . Holt 1997 5. Bryson 1996 . Rojek 2000. 2. American critics on social segmentation of arts audiences Seabrook 2001(2000). “The Institutionalization of Cultural Categories” Ed. Coulangeon 2003 (French) Further reading: Van Eijck 1997 9. Wouters 1999 4. Chaney 1994. Bryson 1997 . Lamont and Lareau 1988. Campbell 1994 Further reading: Mc Cracken 1991 3. Lahire 2004 (French) Further reading : Lahire 1998 (French) 14. Further reading: To introduce lifestyle read Lazer 1963. Epstein 2002 (chap. 8. Wouters 1986. Popular Culture + the "democratisation" of culture Hoggart 1966 (1957). Lamont and Fournier 1992 (part two) 8. Morisson and West 1986. of participants and course organization Students will be asked to state their preferences for the topic of their presentation (every student will be required to participate in one presentation). Repertoires of dispositions Lahire 2003. Peterson 1997 . Lewis 1992 10. Weels 1974. Introductory session: Presentation of topics. Gartman 1991. Elias’ Civilizing Process in the 20th century Elias 2000 (1938). Univores Peterson 1992 . Ewen 2001(1976). Bourdieu’s Distinction and its critics Bourdieu 1979. High and Low reconsidered Levine 1994 (1988).

97. NEA Research Division Report 25. SPPA studies (NEA RD report 25: DiMaggio and Ostrower 1992).S. PrenticeHall. 884-899). Sage. La Distinction. 1999 (p. 2. Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of Consumer Culture. “The continuing significance of Social Class to Marketing” in eds H. Kolb 2002b. American Sociological Review. P. Donnat and P. Esthétique relationnelle. Le(s) Public(s) de la Culture. Bourriaud 2001 (French) Bibliography Pierre Bourdieu. B. Dear & S. Lash. Race. Blackwell Publishers. The Civilizing Process.H. Les presses du réel. Critique sociale du jugement. “The post-modern urban condition”.How relevant are the categories “gender” and “ethnicity” for arts audience segmentation? Sources: part three in Ed. “Culture as class socialization or mass reification : A critique of Bourdieu’s Distinction”. Joseph Epstein. Houghton Mifflin Company. David Chaney. Philippe Coulangeon. M. Basic Books. Paul DiMaggio and Francie Ostrower. and Arts Participation. 1978.Art as experiential process Sources: Dewey 1980. Nicolas Bourriaud. The American Version. “Classification in Art”. The cultural turn. Cultural Change and Everyday Life. 61. 1992. 141-156). 2003 (p. Stuart Ewen. World. Poetics. in eds O. Presses de Sciences Po. David Chaney. Gartman. DiMaggio and M. Ethnicity. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Colin Campbell. 2001. Nation. D. B. “What about the univores? Music dislikes and group-based identity construction among Americans with low levels of education”. 1996 (p. “The Desire for the New: Its Nature and Social Location as presented in Theories of Fashion and Modern Consumerism”. 1996. Roger Silverstone and Eric Hirsch. Basic Books. 1989). American Sociological Review. 2002. Herbert J. 1994. 1980. Bryson. Eds. Flusty. 440-455). Snobbery. Palgrave Macmillan. Gans. Theory and Society. 1991. Kolb 2003. in M. 5. Popular culture and high culture : an analysis and evaluation of taste. Lamont and Fournier 1992. Bryson. Coleman. Kassarjian and T. Useem. 2000. 245-265). Richard P. 2002. “‘Anything but heavy metal’: Symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes”. 2. Timetable: Understanding arts audience segmentation Additional themes (for an essay): . David Chaney Lifestyles. 421-447). Minuit 1979 (or english translation : Routledge. 1991 (p. Featherstone & S. “Social class and arts consumption: The origins and consequences of class differences in exposure to the arts in America”. Perigee Books. . Spaces of Cultures: City. 64-85). American Journal of Sociology. Kolb 2002a. 1997 (p. in Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Space. Robertson. Tolila. Routledge. 1994. Paul DiMaggio. 25. Routledge. 1987 (p. John Dewey. Holbrook and Hirschman 1991. Norbert Elias. 1999. Art as experience. Routledge. . “Quel est le rôle de l’école dans la démocratisation de l’accès aux équipements culturels”. 52. 2001.

Bernard Lahire. 1998. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Towards a sociology at the level of the individual”. lowbrow : the emergence of cultural hierarchy in America. 31. 3. L’homme pluriel. Hirschman. 6. Lisa A. Lareau. 1997 (p. PrenticeHall.B. Ed. in eds H. “Ethnic preference for the arts: the role of the social experience as attendance motivation”. 1991. Sociological Theory.S. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. 1966.H. 2001. Richard Hoggart. Les ressorts de l’action. paper presented at the 2002 ACEI Conference in Rotterdam. Dick Hebdige. Poetics. Timetable: Understanding arts audience segmentation Claude Grignon et Jean-Claude Passeron. 1989. September 2003 (p. Ed. Le Savant et le populaire.H. H. 2. Kassarjian and T. Garcia Alvarez. “The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer Fantasies. University of Chicago Press. “Ethnic Attendance at the Arts versus Ethnic Experience of the Arts: Adjusting to a Changing Cultural Reality”. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. . Arts Reach. Lawrence W. Lamont and Fournier. Kassarjian and T. M. Harvard University Press. 2002 (p. Bernard Lahire. 1992.B. 1963 (reprint 1965). 2002a. 18. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter conference. 329-355). April 2003. Robertson. Sheffet: “Personality and Consumer Behavior: an update”.J. Bonita Kolb. The segmentation of cultural consumers in Spanish social space”. “Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods” in eds H. Routledge. Gallimard / Seuil.H. Joli Jensen. Lamont and A. 1988 (p. 1991. “Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from its critics”. PrenticeHall. One Nation. Elsevier Science. the Media and the Arts. Holbrook and E. Highbrow. “Omnivores show up again. Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. 25. “Ethnic Attendance at the Arts: Adjusting to a Changing Cultural Reality”. Kassarjian and M. Feelings.S. 153-168). 1979. 7. Misérabilisme et populisme en sociologie et en littérature. 1992. 2. Bonita Kolb. La Découverte. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. “Cultural capital: allusions. PrenticeHall. Levine. 2002. Robertson. Journal of Empirical Research on Culture. “From the habitus to an individual heritage of dispositions. and Fun” in eds H. 353-368). Grant McCracken. Robertson. Is Art Good for Us?: Beliefs about High Culture in American Life. Lopes Sintaz and E. D. The uses of literacy : Aspects of working-class life with special reference to publications and entertainments. William Lazer: “Life Style concepts and marketing: Toward Scientific Marketing”. 93-120). 2004. Bonita Kolb. Gertrude Himmelfarb. European sociological review. Nathan. Bernard Lahire. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. Vintage Books USA. 1994. Two Cultures: A Searching Examination of American Society in the Aftermath of Our Cultural Revolution. gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments”. J. M.S. The adoring audience : fan culture and popular media. Kassarjian and T. 1991. Penguin. La culture des individus.H. Holt. 2002b. Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Poetics. Lewis.C. Routledge.

R. « Consommation et réception de la culture : La démocratisation des publics ». 1997 (p. 1. Van Eijck. “Child exposure to the performing arts: The implication for adult demand”.H.A. “Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore”. the Marketing of Culture. “Socialization. Poetics. Cas Wouters. in eds O. Van Eijck. Germany. education and lifestyle: How social mobility increases the social heterogeneity of status groups”.. The Unceasing War with Philistia”. 1996. W. R. 21. 361-390). Peterson. Westdeutschen Verlag. K. Tolila. in eds Joni M. Timetable: Understanding arts audience segmentation W. Alexander Van der Stichele and Rudi Laermans. Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing. 10. Journal of Cultural Economics. In search of the Flemish omnivore”. 2003 (p. Robinson and Therese Filicko. 17-25). 1997 (p. 108-137). Presses de Sciences Po. Weels. 195-224). Poetics. Chicago. 2000 (p.A. 5th Conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA) in Helsinki. John Seabrook. Routledge. . Leisure Studies. Le(s) Public(s) de la Culture. Life Style and Psychographics. American Marketing Association. Thorstein Veblen. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. the Netherlands and the United States. “Classifications in Music -The Valuation of Popular Music in France. The theory of the leisure class : an economic study of institutions. C. 1955-2005”. 1986 (p. uses and problems”. 1992 (p. Jean-Claude Passeron.A. 1.G. Life Style and Psychographics. Morisson & E. 2001. Dominic Strinati. Routledge. 2001. Gutman. 25. Vintage Books USA. “The rise and fall of high-brow snobbery as a status marker”. 1974. 1-18). 2000 (p. 1961. in ed. American sociological review. Cas Wouters. Visions and Divisions . 1986 (p. 75-92). “Beyond Bourdieu. Informalisierung : Norbert Elias'Zivilisationstheorie und Zivilisationsprozesse im 20. 1-15). Myers and J. Peterson. Peterson. Rutgers University Press.G. American Marketing Association. 309-328). Rojek. Poetics. 1974. Alex Van Venrooij. Chicago. The public life of the arts in America. Wyszomirski. J. “Formalization and Informalization: Changing Tension Balances in Civilizing Processes”. “Life Style: The Essence of Social Class”. Cherbo and Margaret J. 25.Challenges to European Sociology. Jahrhundert. in ed. An introduction to theories of popular culture. Poetics. 2004(?). ‘Cultural Classification Systems in Transition’ Research Proposal Project 3. K. 19. R. “The impact of family background and educational attainment on cultural consumption: A sibling analysis”. Weels. 2. 243-258). “American Public Opinion about the Arts and Culture. Weels: “Life Style and psychographics: Definitions. Culture and Society. 2000. “Leisure and the rich today: Veblen' s thesis after a century”. 1999 (p. Random House. 3. 61. 1999. 26. West. Donnat and P.D. John P. “Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and Mass to Omnivore and Univore”. Theory.