You are on page 1of 9

Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore

Author(s): Richard A. Peterson and Roger M. Kern


Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 900-907
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096460
Accessed: 02/09/2010 14:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://links.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you
have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may
use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://links.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.

http://links.jstor.org
CHANGING HIGHBROW TASTE: FROM SNOB TO OMNIVORE*

RichardA. Peterson Roger M. Kern


VanderbiltUniversity VanderbiltUniversity
Appreciationoffine arts became a markof high status in the late nineteenth
century as part of an attempt to distinguish "highbrowed"Anglo Saxons
from the new "lowbrowed"immigrants,whose popular entertainmentswere
said to corruptmorals and thus were to be shunned (Levine 1988; DiMaggio
1991). In recent years, however,many high-status persons are far from be-
ing snobs and are eclectic, even "omnivorous,"in their tastes (Peterson and
Simkus1992). This suggests a qualitative shift in the basis for markingelite
status-from snobbish exclusion to omnivorous appropriation. Using com-
parable 1982 and 1992 surveys, we test for this hypothesized change in
tastes. Weconfirm that highbrowsare more omnivorousthan others and that
they have become increasingly omnivorous over time. Regression analyses
reveal that increasing "omnivorousness"is due both to cohort replacement
and to changes over the 1980s among highbrows of all ages. Wespeculate
that this shift from snob to omnivore relates to status-group politics influ-
enced by changes in social structure, values, art-world dynamics, and gen-
erational conflict.

]\Not only are high-status Americans far (1992) suggest that a historical shift from
more likely than others to consume the highbrow snob to omnivore is taking place.
fine arts but, according to Peterson and
Simkus (1992), they are also more likely to
MEASURES
be involved in a wide range of low-status ac-
tivities. This finding confirms the observa- The 1982 national survey on which Peterson
tions of DiMaggio (1987) and Lamont and Simkus (1992) base their findings was
(1992), but it flies in the face of years of his- replicated in 1992, so it is now possible to
torical research showing that high-status per- test for the changes in highbrow taste that
sons shun cultural expressions that are not they posit.' Both surveys ask respondents to
seen as elevated (Lynes 1954; Levine 1988; select the music genres they like from a list
Murphy 1988; Beisel 1990). In making sense of alternatives ranging across the aesthetic
of this contradiction, Peterson and Simkus spectrum, and then to pick the one kind of
* music they like the best. We focus on musi-
Direct correspondence to Richard A. Peter- cal taste, ratherthan taste for other types of
son, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt Uni- art because only for music were respondents
versity, Nashville, TN 37235. We thank Nara-
asked to choose from such a list of contrast-
simhan Anand, Bethany Bryson, Paul DiMaggio,
Michael Epelbaum, Larry Griffin, Michael ing alternatives.
Hughes, Guillermina Jasso, Barbara Kilbourne, Highbrow is operationalized as liking both
Michele Lamont, Holly McCammon, Claire classical music and opera, and choosing one
Peterson, and Darren Sherkat for comments on of these forms as best-liked from among all
the methodology or on an earlier draft of this pa-
I The data come from the Survey of Public Par-
per. Early versions were presented at the 1994
annual meeting of the American Sociological As- ticipation in the Arts, which polled two national-
sociation in Los Angeles, at Princeton and area probability samples of persons over age 18,
Harvard Universities, and at the New School for one in 1982 and the other in 1992. The surveys
Social Research. Finally, we gratefully acknowl- were conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
edge the support of the National Endowment for for the National Endowment of the Arts. For a
the Arts and of its Director of Research, Thomas detailed description of these data sets see
Bradshaw. Robinson et al. (1985) and Robinson (1993).

900 AmericanSociological Review, 1996, Vol. 61 (October:900-907)


CHANGING HIGHBROW TASTE 901

kinds of music. This measure appears to be a sure can range from 0 to 3. Omnivorousness
valid index of being highbrow because those can range from 0 to 8.
respondents we labeled highbrow attended In both years (1982 and 1992) highbrows,
performances of plays, ballet, classical mu- on average, have about two years more edu-
sic, musicals, visited art galleries, and at- cation, earn about five thousand dollars more
tended opera significantly more often than annual family income, are about 10 years
did others in the sample. older, are more likely to be White, and are
Among highbrows, the snob is one who more likely to be female than are others in
does not participate in any lowbrow or mid- the sample.3 All of these differences are sta-
dlebrow activity (Levine 1988), while the tistically significant. Neither highbrows nor
omnivore is at least open to appreciating others, however, are more likely to be cur-
them all. Perfect snobs are now rare in the rently married.4
United States. Indeed, in the 1960s Wilensky
(1964:194) "could not find one [Detroit area
resident] in 1,354 who was not in some area FINDINGS
exposed to middle- or low-brow material," The top row of Table 1 shows that, on aver-
and in our national sample of 11,321 we age, highbrows chose 1.74 lowbrow genres
found just 10 highbrow respondents in 1982 of 5 possible in 1982 and 2.23 in 1992, a sta-
and 3 in 1992 who said they did not like a tistically significant increase of nearly half a
single form of low- or middlebrow music. genre per person in just one decade. This
We operationalize omnivorousness as a finding is in line with the prediction of in-
variable that can be measured as the number creasing highbrow omnivorousness. The first
of middle- and lowbrow forms respondents row also shows that others increased their
choose. Following Wilensky (1964) and number of lowbrow choices as well, but the
Rubin (1992), we differentiate between rate of change for highbrows is significantly
middlebrow and lowbrow because they are greater than for non-highbrows (p < .05, dif-
distinctly different and because critical ob- ference of proportions test). Also, in the
servers have suggested that when highbrows 1982-1992 decade, highbrows overtook oth-
are open to non-highbrowartforms, they seek ers in the numberof lowbrow genres chosen.
out lowbrow forms created by socially mar- In the second row of Table 1 we see that in
ginal groups (Blacks, youth, isolated rural 1982 highbrows,on average, liked almost two
folks) while still holding commercial middle- of the three middlebrow music genres. This
brow forms in contempt (Lynes 1954; Sontag sharply contradicts the expectations of Lynes
1966). (1954) and Sontag (1966) that highbrows will
Five music genres are considered lowbrow: shun middlebrow forms, but is congruent
country music, bluegrass, gospel, rock, and
blues. Each of these genres is rooted in a spe- parable from one survey year to the next. Jazz
cific "marginal"ethnic, regional, age, or re- was included on both years, but it was not put in
ligious experience (Malone 1979; Lipsitz either of the scales because, while its roots are
1990; Ennis 1992). There are three middle- clearly lowbrow, it is now taught in conservato-
ries of music as highbrow and largely consumed
brow music genres-including mood/easy- as middlebrow (Leonard 1962; Nanry 1972;
listening music, Broadway musicals, and big Ennis 1992), and survey data has clearly shown
band music. These forms have been in the an unusually diffuse evaluation of what is called
mainstreamof commercial music throughout "jazz" by different people (DiMaggio and Ostro-
the twentieth century (Goldberg 1961; Nanry wer 1990; Peterson and Simkus 1992).
1972; Ennis 1992).2 The lowbrow measure 3 Unfortunately respondents to the 1992 survey
can range from 0 to 5; the middlebrow mea- were not asked their occupation, so we cannot as-
sess this importantcomponent of social class po-
2 Both the 1982 and 1992 surveys asked about sition as Peterson and Simkus (1992) did using
other musical forms as well. Barbershop, rap, the 1982 data.
reggae, New Age, and marching band music, for 4 Currently married respondents were distin-
example, were included in one survey year but guished from all others because, on average, they
not the other, so they could not be included ex- attend arts performances less often than do those
cept as noted below. In addition the category who are single, divorced, and widowed (Di-
"folk" was reworded in a way that made it incom- Maggio and Ostrower 1990).
902 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Table 1. Univariate Statistics for Highbrows and Others, 1982 and 1992
Highbrows Others
Variable 1982 1992 Difference 1982 1992 Difference
Number of lowbrow 1.74 2.23 .49** 1.80 2.07 .27**
music genres liked
(max. = 5)
Number of middlebrow 1.98 2.12 .14 1.01 1.12 I **
music genres liked
(max. = 3)
Percent male 44 35 -9 46 46 -2**
Age in years 54.19 56.18 1.99 42.98 46.59 3.61**
Family income $26,360 $33,304 $6,945** $20,614 $28,301 $7,686**
Percent married 66 63 -3 64 64 0
Percent White 96 96 0 88 86 -2
Education in years 14.57 14.33 -.24 12.19 12.67 .48**
<.05 level p < .10 level (one-tailed tests)
Note: A highbrow is defined as a respondent who likes both opera and classical music and chooses one of
these forms as the music genre he or she likes best.

with Peterson and Simkus's (1992) ideas To answer these questions, we pool the two
about omnivorousnessbecause highbrowsare years of data and employ four OLS regres-
found to like more middlebrow forms than sion analyses. The dependent variable in
others and because this difference increases each analysis is the number of middlebrow
(although not significantly statistically) from or lowbrow genres chosen by highbrows and
1982 to 1992. by others, analyzed separately. The indepen-
Taken together, these findings suggest that dent variables of interest in each of the
in 1992 highbrows, on average, are more analyses are the birth year of the respondent
omnivorous than they were in 1982 and have (measured by subtracting the respondent's
become more omnivorous than others. At the age from the year of the interview) and the
same time, non-highbrows are increasing year of the interview (measured as a dummy
their number of musical preferences as well. variable; 1 = 1992).
With just these two data points it is not pos- A number of variables have been shown to
sible to say definitely whetherthere is a long- influence arts participation independent of
term secular trend towardomnivorousness or age.5 These include education, gender, race,
whether the change is due to forces just af- (measured here as Whites versus others), ad-
fecting the decade under study. We returnto justed family income,6 and the size of the res-
these questions below. pondent's residential community7 (DiMaggio
Did all highbrows tend to become more and Useem 1978; Blau 1989; DiMaggio and
omnivorous between 1982 and 1992-in
5 Each control variable was tested for interac-
other words, could the difference be called a
tions with both birth year and year of interview,
period effect (Rogers 1982)? Alternatively, and no significant interactions were found.
did individual highbrows retain their tastes 6 Because family income was reported in cat-
unchanged, with the observed difference re- egories, the midpoint of the respondent's income
sulting from older cohorts of highbrows category was subtractedfrom the mean of the in-
with more snob-like tastes being displaced come midpoints for the year in which the inter-
by younger, more omnivorous cohorts? view took place. This transformationmeans that
Abramson and Inglehart (1993), for ex- the income distributions for each year were set to
a mean of zero, nullifying any effect of inflation
ample, show that cohort replacement has while retaining the effect of changing distribu-
dramatically changed values in eight West- tions of income across years.
ern nations. Cohort is here measured as year 7 This was measured in 12 categories ranked
of birth (Rogers 1982). from small to large.
CHANGING HIGHBROW TASTE 903

Table 2. OLS Coefficients from the Regression of Number of Lowbrow and Middlebrow Musical
Genres Liked on Birth Year, Year of Interview, and Selected Control Variables

Highbrows Others
(Model 1) (Model 2) (Model 3) (Model 4)
Number of Number of Number of Number of
Lowbrow Middlebrow Lowbrow Middlebrow
Genres Liked Genres Liked Genres Liked Genres Liked
Variables b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta

Birth year .02 .16++ -.01 -.07 .01 .12++ -.01 -.23++
Year of interview .44 .15+ .25 .13+ .20 .07++ .15 .07++
(1 = 1992)
Control Variables
Male -.07 -.02 -.20 -.10 .01 .01 -.20 -.09**
Adjusted family .00 -.1 1 .01 .04 .00 .01 .00 .12**
income
White -.92 -.13 .60 .13* .18 .05** .38 .12**
Education in years .05 .10 .00 .01 .05 .11 .10 .28**
Size of community -.01 -.04 .00 .02 -.02 -.08** .02 .08**
Constant -27.45* 9.25 -16.61 ** 26.20**

Significance of F .00 .12 .00 .00


Adjusted R2 .06 .02 .06 .16
Number of 354 354 10,967 10,967
respondents
+p < .05 ++p< .01 (one-tailed tests)
*p < .05 **p < .01 (two-tailed tests)

Ostrower 1990; Robinson 1993). Each of dlebrow music taste, but highbrows inter-
these could conceivably influence the degree viewed in 1992 did like significantly more
of omnivorousness, so they are included as middlebrow genres than did those inter-
control variables. Marital status was not in- viewed a decade earlier, an increase of .25
cluded as a control variable because it was genres. Taken together, these results show
not significantly linked with the number of that both cohort replacement and period ef-
music genres chosen. fects increase highbrows' tastes for lowbrow
The results of the four OLS regression music, while only period effects increase
analyses are presented in Table 2. The posi- their taste for middlebrow music.
tive coefficient for birth year in Model I The results of the OLS regression analyses
shows that, controlling for the year of the in- for non-highbrows are shown in Models 3
terview and the other variables, highbrows in and 4 of Table 2. We see a pattern similar to
later cohorts like significantly more lowbrow that for highbrows: Controlling for the other
forms than do older highbrows. The size of variables in the model, in 1992 non-high-
the effect is such that two people born 20 brows liked more low- and middlebrow mu-
years apart differ by .40 (20 x .02 =.40) mu- sic genres than they had in 1982, and youn-
sic genres chosen. The positive effect of ger cohorts of non-highbrows liked more
1992 interview year shows that, net of the lowbrow genres and fewer middlebrow gen-
controls, highbrows interviewed in 1992 res than did older cohorts.
liked significantly more lowbrow music gen-
res than highbrows did a decade earlier, indi-
DISCUSSION
cating an increase of .44 forms chosen.
Turning to the number of middlebrow mu- Taken together, the findings of this study
sic genres liked by highbrows, Model 2 support the assertion that omnivorousness is
shows that birth year has no effect on mid- replacing snobbishness among Americans of
904 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

highbrow status. The change is due in partto an indifference to distinctions. Rather its
cohort displacement, but has occurred mostly emergence may suggest the formulation of
because highbrows of all ages are becoming new rules governing symbolic boundaries
more omnivorous. This is not to say that (Lamont and Fournier 1992).
most highbrows have become perfect omni- Several studies have shown that criteria of
vores. (In 1982 only eight and in 1992 only distinction, of which omnivorousness is one
seven highbrows said that they liked all other expression, must center not on what one con-
types of music.) The point is that in 1992 sumes but on the way items of consumption
highbrows, on average, reported liking sig- are understood. Bourdieu ([1979] 1984,
nificantly more kinds of nonelite music of all [1965] 1990), for example, contrasts unre-
genres than did highbrows a decade earlier flective consumption for personal enjoyment
and also that in 1992 highbrows are more with intellectualized appreciation. He identi-
omnivorous than non-highbrows. This latter fies intellectualized appreciationin ways that
finding is strengthenedby using the informa- most easily fit a monolithic symbolic land-
tion on all 17 nonelite genres of music in- scape appropriate to the era of the elitist
cluded in the 1992 survey. Highbrows report snob. Nonetheless, the culture of critical dis-
liking 7.49 of the 17 genres of music in- course (Gouldner 1979) central to Bourdieu's
cluded in 1992 versus 4.84 genres, on aver- view is also amenable to a discriminating
age, for the non-highbrows, and this differ- omnivorousness if the ethnocentrism central
ence is significant.8 In addition, the findings to snobbish elitism is replaced by cultural
for non-highbrows show that the increase be- relativism. Under these conditions, cultural
tween 1982 and 1992 in the number of mu- expressions of all sorts are understood in
sic genres liked, while greatest among high- what relativists call their own terms.9
brows, is a society-wide trend. If this indeed is the way omnivores mark
symbolic boundaries, they do not embrace
contemporarycountry music, for example, as
Theorizing on Omnivorousness representinghow they identify themselves as
The omnivorousness of high-status persons, do hard-core country music fans (Peterson
as reported by Peterson and Simkus (1992), and Kern 1995). Rather, they appreciate and
is an empirical generalization and does not critique it in the light of some knowledge of
provide an explanation for why there has the genre, its great performers, and links to
been such a profound shift in the way high other culturalforms, lowbrow and highbrow.
status is designated. Having found strong Intellectuals have long provided the grounds
support for the shift from snobbishness to for an aesthetic understandingof jazz, blues,
omnivorousness, we now focus briefly on the rock, and bluegrass music. More recently
omnivore concept and suggest a number of country music has begun to be taken seri-
factors that contribute to this shift. ously as magazine articles in elite cultural
As we understandthe meaning of omnivo- periodicals such as American Heritage
rous taste, it does not signify that the omni- (Scherman 1994) and books by humanist
vore likes everything indiscriminantly. scholars (Tichi 1994) begin to provide omni-
Rather, it signifies an openness to appreciat- vores with the tools they need to develop an
ing everything. In this sense it is antithetical aesthetic understandingof country music.
to snobbishness, which is based fundamen-
tally on rigid rules of exclusion (Bourdieu
Why the Historic Shift from Snobbishness
[1979] 1984; Murphy 1988) such as: "It is
to Omnivorousness?
de rigueur to like opera, and country music
is an anathema to be shunned." While by Changes in fashion are often ephemeral
definition hostile to snobbish closure (Mur- (Davis 1992), but a shift in the basis of taste
phy 1988), omnivorousness does not imply from snobbishness to omnivorousness sug-
8 The significance of the difference between 9 As critical thinking within anthropology has
these two means is inferred from a test of the dif- made clear, the idea of "culturalrelativism" itself
ference of proportions of the number of music is a form of hubris because it is impossible for an
genres liked by highbrows and others, which is outsider to experience another's culture as a na-
significant at the p < .01 level (one-tailed test). tive does (Clifford and Marcus 1986).
CHANGING HIGHBROW TASTE 905

gests that significant alterations in social brow into snob and more recently provided
power relationships are involved (Williams the rationale for the omnivore. The elitist
1961). In concluding we speculatively sug- theorists of the early nineteenth century Eu-
gest five linked factors that may contribute ropean Royal Academies of music, painting,
to the shifting grounds of status-group poli- drama, and dance argued among themselves,
tics (Shiach 1989). but they stood united in their belief that there
Structural change. A number of social was one standard and that all other expres-
processes at work over the past century make sions were vulgarities (White and White
exclusion increasingly difficult. Rising lev- 1965). Thus they created an aesthetic and
els of living, broadereducation, and presen- moral environment in which highbrow snob-
tation of the arts via the media have made bery flourished (Arnold 1875:44-47; Levine
elite aesthetic taste more accessible to wider 1988:171-241).
segments of the population, devaluing the The market forces that swept through all
arts as markersof exclusion. the arts brought in their wake new aesthetic
At the same time, geographic migration entrepreneurs who propounded avant-
and social class mobility have mixed people guardist theories that placed positive value
holding different tastes. And the increasingly on seeking new and ever more exotic modes
ubiquitous mass media have introduced the of expression, but in the latter half of the
aesthetic tastes of different segments of the twentieth century the candidates being cham-
population to each other. Thus the diverse pioned for inclusion were so numerous and
folkways of the rest of the world's popula- their aesthetic range so great that the old cri-
tion are ever more difficult to exclude, and at terion of a single standardbecame stretched
the same time, they are increasingly available beyond the point of credibility. It became in-
for appropriationby elite taste-makers (Lip- creasingly obvious that the quality of art did
sitz 1990). not inhere in the work itself, but in the evalu-
Value change. If structuralchanges shape ations made by the art world (Zolberg 1990:
the opportunity, value changes concerning 53-106), and that expressions of all sorts
gender, ethnic, religious, and racial differ- from around the world are open to aesthetic
ences rationalize the change from snob to appropriation(Becker 1982). This is the aes-
omnivore. In the nineteenth century group thetic basis of the shift from the elitist exclu-
prejudice was widely sanctified by scientific sive snob to the elitist inclusive omnivore.
theory and expressed society-wide in laws of Generational politics. Before the third
exclusion. This changed gradually, and the quarter of the twentieth century youngsters
Nazi brutalities of World War II gave "rac- were expected to like pop music and pop
ism" of all sorts such a bad name that most culture generally but to move on to more
discriminatory laws in this country have "serious" fare as they matured.Beginning in
since been abolished. It is now increasingly the 1950s, however, young White people of
rare for persons in authority publicly to es- all classes embraced popular African Ameri-
pouse theories of essential ethic and racial can dance music styles as their own under
group differences (Takaki 1993).10 The the rubric of rock'n'roll (Ennis 1992), and
change from exclusionist snob to inclusionist by the late 1960s what was identified as the
omnivore can thus be seen as a part of the "Woodstock Nation" saw its own variegated
historical trend toward greater tolerance of youth culture not so much as a "stage" to go
those holding different values (Inglehart through in growing up but as a viable alter-
1990; Abramson and Inglehart 1993). native to established elite culture (Lipsitz
Art-World change. Developments in the 1990; Aronowitz 1993), thus, in effect, dis-
fine art worlds over the past one and one-half crediting highbrow exclusion and valorizing
centuries first provided the theories and the inclusion. One of the lasting impacts of this
modes of display for the making of the high- view is that not as many well-educated and
10 Essentialist arguments are still often made well-to-do Americans born since World War
concerning certain behavioral differences be- II patronize the elite arts as did their elders
tween the sexes and as explanations for sexual (Robinson 1993; Peterson and Sherkat
orientation (the latter are made both by advocates 1995), and many say they like a wide array
for and opponents of gay men and lesbians). of musical forms (Schaefer 1987; Peterson
906 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

and Sherkat 1995). REFERENCES


Status-group Dominant status
politics.
groups have regularly defined popular cul- Abramson, Paul R. and Ronald Inglehart. 1993.
ture in ways that fit their own interests and "GenerationalReplacement and Value Change
in Eight West European Countries." British
have worked to render harmless subordinate
Journal of Politics 22:183-228.
status-group cultures (Sennett and Cobb Aronowitz, Stanley. 1993. Roll over Beethoven:
1972; Shiach 1989). One recurrent strategy The Return of Cultural Strife. Hanover, MA:
is to define popular culture as brutish and Wesleyan University Press.
something to be suppressed or avoided (Ar- Arnold, Matthew. 1875. Culture and Anarchy.
nold 1875; Elliot 1949; Bloom 1987); an- New York: Smith, Elder.
other is to gentrify elements of popular cul- Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley,
ture and incorporate them into the dominant CA: University of California Press.
status-group culture (Leonard 1962; Tichi Beisel, Nicola. 1990. "Class, Culture, and Cam-
paigns against Vice in Three American Cities,
1994). Our data suggest a major shift from
1872-1892." American Sociological Review
the former strategy to the latter strategy of 55:44-62.
status group politics. Blau, Judith. 1989. The Shape of Culture:A Study
While snobbish exclusion was an effective of Contemporary Cultural Patterns in the
markerof status in a relatively homogeneous United States. New York: Cambridge Univer-
and circumscribed WASP-ish world that sity Press.
could enforce its dominance over all others Bloom, Allan. 1987. The Closing of the Ameri-
by force if necessary, omnivorous inclusion can Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
seems better adapted to an increasingly glo- Bourdieu, Pierre. [ 1979] 1984. Distinction: A So-
cial Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Re-
bal world managed by those who make their
print, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
way, in part, by showing respect for the cul- Press.
tural expressions of others. As highbrow . [1965] 1990. Photography: A Middle-
snobbishness fit the needs of the earlier en- Brow Art. Reprint, Stanford,CA: Stanford Uni-
trepreneurial upper-middle class, there also versity Press.
seems to be an elective affinity between Clifford, James and George E. Marcus. 1986.
today's new business-administrative class Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of
and omnivorousness. Ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Richard A. Peterson is Professor of Sociology at Davis, Fred. 1992. Fashion, Culture, and Iden-
Vanderbilt University. WithRoger Kern, Michael tity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hughes and others, he is exploring the changing DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. "Classification in Art."
ways that tastes are used in signalling status dif- American Sociological Review 52: 440-55.
ferences. In connection he is editing a forthcom- . 1991. "Social Structure, Institutions and
ing special issue of Poetics: Journal of Empirical Cultural Goods: The Case of The United
Research on Literature, the Media and the Arts. States." Pp. 133-55 in Social Theory for a
With Narasimhan Anand, he is researching the Changing Society, edited by P. Bourdieu and
role of information in structuring industrial J. Coleman. New York: Russell Sage Founda-
fields. In addition, he is completing a monograph tion.
for the University of Chicago Press on the fabri- DiMaggio, Paul and Francie Ostrower. 1990.
cation of authenticity and the institutionalization "Participationin the Arts by Black and White
of the field of "countrymusic." Americans." Social Forces 63:753-78.
DiMaggio, Paul and Michael Useem. 1978. "So-
Roger M. Kern is a Ph.D. student in Sociology at cial Class and Arts Consumption in America."
Vanderbilt University. He is currently completing Theory and Society 5:109-32
his dissertation, which explores the relationships Elliot, T.S. 1949. Notes toward the Definition of
between cultural capital and social stigma ac- Culture. New York: Harcourt,Brace.
quired in adolescence and the attainment of so- Ennis, Philip H. 1992. The Seventh Stream: The
cial status as an adult. Other projects include an Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular
analysis of countervailing relationships between Music. Hanover, MA: Wesleyan University
parental social class and juvenile delinquency Press.
(with Gary Jensen ), and a content analysis of the Goldberg, Isaac. 1961. Tin Pan Alley: A
use of personal resources by upper-middle-class Chronicle of American Popular Music. New
elites in personal advertisementsappearing in the York: Ungar.
New York Review of Books. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1979. The Future of Intellec-
CHANGING HIGHBROW TASTE 907

tuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: M. Fournier. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
Seabury. cago Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Ad- Robinson, John P. 1993. Arts Participation in
vanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: America: 1982-1992. Washington, DC: Na-
Princeton University Press. tional Endowment for the Arts.
Lamont, Michele. 1992. Money, Morals, and Robinson, John P., Carol A. Keegan, Terry Han-
Manners: The Culture of the French and the ford, and Timothy A. Triplett. 1985. Public
American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: Participation in the Arts: Final Report on the
University of Chicago Press. 1982 Survey. College Park, MD: University of
Lamont, Michele and Marcel Fournier,eds. 1992. Maryland.
Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries Rogers, Willard L. 1982. "Estimable Functions of
and the Making of Inequality. Chicago, IL: Age, Period, and Cohort Effects." American
University of Chicago Press. Sociological Review 47:774-87.
Leonard, Neil. 1962. Jazz and the White Ameri- Rubin, Joan Shelley. 1992. The Making of
cans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Middlebrow Culture. Chapel Hill, NC: Univer-
Press. sity of North Carolina Press.
Levine, Lawrence W. 1988. Highbrow/Lowbrow: Schaefer, John. 1987. New Sounds: A Listener's
The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in Guide to New Music. New York: Harper and
America. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Row.
Press. Scherman, Tony. 1994. "CountryMusic: Its Rise
Lipsitz, George. 1990. Time Passages: Collective and Fall." American Heritage 45(7):38-51.
Memory and American Popular Culture. Min- Sennett, Richard and Jonathan Cobb. 1972. The
neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Knopf.
Lynes, Russell. 1954. The Tastemakers. New Shiach, Morag. 1989. Discourse on Popular Cul-
York: Harper. ture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Malone, Bill C. 1979. Southern Music/American Sontag, Susan. 1966. Against Interpretation and
Music. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Other Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Press. Giroux.
Murphy, Raymond. 1988. Social Closure: The Takaki, Ronald. 1993. A Different Mirror: A His-
Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion. Ox- tory of Multiculturalism in America. Boston,
ford, England: Clarendon. MA: Little, Brown.
Nanry, Charles. 1972. American Music. New Tichi, Cecelia. 1994. High Lonesome: The Ameri-
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. can Culture of Country Music. Durham, NC:
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger M. Kern. 1995. Duke University Press.
"Hard-Core and Soft-Shell Country Music White, Harrison C. and Cynthia White. 1965.
Fans." Journal of Country Music 17(3):3-6. Canvasses and Careers. New York: Wiley.
Peterson, Richard A. and Darren E. Sherkat. Wilensky, Harold L. 1964. "Mass Media and
1995. Age Factors in Arts Participation: 1982- Mass Culture: Interdependence or Indepen-
1992. Research Monograph, January, National dence?" American Sociological Review 29:
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC. 173-97.
Peterson, Richard A. and Albert Simkus. 1992. Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution.
"How Musical Taste Groups Mark Occupa- London, England: Chatto and Windus.
tional Status Groups." Pp. 152-68 in Cultivat- Zolberg, Vera. 1990. Constructing a Sociology of
ing Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the the Arts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
Making of Inequality, edited by M. Lamont and versity Press.

You might also like