Turner,
B and Edmonds, J (2002) ‘The Distaste of Taste:
Bourdieu, cultural capital, and the Australian postwar elite’, Journal of
Consumer Culture 2(2): 219-40.
Practice is defined as ‘notions of
accomplishment,
strategies and skill’ in structures (219).Cultural capital affects tastes rather than anything
innate.It involves ‘informal
understanding of
cultural artefacts and practices’ (220).Bourdieu identified three levels of taste: highbrow
culture, middlebrow,
as enjoyed by petty bourgeois groups, which ‘embraces
aspects of both high and low culture
but does not feel as at ease with high culture as the dominant class’
(220).The process of distinction arises
from
showing tastes usually in opposition to others.Discussed is a particular kind of ‘symbolic
violence’.Bourdieu’s work has led to
several other
studies (cited on page 221).The usual
criticisms are that it is over deterministic, based on structuralist
Marxism,
and failing to give account of non material factors in taste for.The analysis is also seen to be outdated,
because the boundaries between different tastes have been blurred in
postmodernism. It is also seen as exclusively French.Bourdieu’s response has been to say that
there is nothing inherently involved in good taste and the process of
defining
good taste and practice in distinction is what matters.However, it is possible to argue that
generation has been neglected in this analysis .
Bourdieu does discuss generation in
Sociology in Question,
and there are generational conflicts over the ownership of cultural
capital in
Homo Academicus.There seem to be
artistic generations too, mentioned in Reproduction.Generations are social, for Bourdieu, however,
and categories such as young and old are constructed in struggle,
reflecting
different aspirations and different experiences in educational systems.This is shown, for example in struggles over
what is in fashion.
This particular article reports an
Australian case study, of
that generation produced by a postwar baby boom, from the marriage
revolution,
and from new waves of immigration.Australian elites have been little studied, although
there has been a
Marxist analysis.This study looks at a
particular cohort born in 1945.They
enjoyed benefits of all kinds, and began youth cultures.The elite is defined by membership of Who’s Who
in Australia—the team admits this is an odd sample.1133 respondents were sent questionnaire, and
544 responded.Interviews were conducted
with a sample of those who had completed—16 men and 12 women.The interviews were semi-structured.They were about general lifestyles including
tastes.
The results show no particular taste
for highbrow culture
among this group, more a taste for middlebrow and lowbrow.They have eclectic interests, enjoying both
rock and classical music, and largely in mainstream cinema they pursued
cultural activities that lead to escape and diversion, rather than
those that
are ‘elevating and educational’ (227).For example, they read ‘for pleasure and enjoyment
rather than
intellectual engagement and distinction’ (227).Reading also tends to be work related.There is some strong dislike of ‘trash’, but no
contempt for popular
culture in general.This group do show
some signs of ‘critical’ reading and ‘sophisticated interpretation’
(228).There are some gender differences,
with women
doing more reading and enjoying more highbrow culture.There is some interest in feminist reading as
well. There is some evidence that women
did have an important role in raising the level of cultural capital of
the
family.
There is a
general
liking for rock and pop and the more popular operas such as Carmen.The group displays no serious knowledge of
classical music, however, and indeed it is common to deny any such
knowledge.There seems to be a definite
generational liking for 60s music.The
group have fairly conventional tastes in film, with a preference for
those
which explain the social world, which permits them to pursue
‘sophisticated
understanding’ [as in classical realist feelings that you’ve understood
something about the world?].There is no
embarrassment at enjoying lowbrow film and entertainment.Again there is some tendency for the women to
be more highbrow.
Eclectic tastes in cuisine partially
reflect recent ways of
Australian immigration from Europe and Asia.Tastes here can sometimes be highbrow, and there is
a disdain for
Australian food, but there are also widespread popular tastes, for
example in
eating pizza.The group did visit
museums and galleries, but showed no serious interests.
There was a ‘general unwillingness to
appear highbrow in
their eclectic tastes’ (233).There was
no wish to generate deference or to ‘assert symbolic power’ (233).
So a conventional connection between
cultural capital and
elite status does not seem to be supported.This group have no interest in using culture to do
distinction.They have eclectic tastes,
they resemble the
petty bourgeoisie.And they have no
clear specialist interest in any particular aspect of high culture.What is distinctive is ‘an understanding of a
plurality of cultural genres and strategic knowledge of the most
appropriate genre
to use in a given social setting’ (234).There is some evidence that they are omnivores.Apparently these trends are detectable in the
USA as well.
The ‘”collapse” of taste’ does have
particular features in
Australia though, because it is a decentralised society and there is no
agreed
regulator of taste – even the main cities see themselves as in
competition (235).There is no coherent
intelligentsia.There are populist themes,
such as a
widespread support for ‘larrikanism’ (235).There are no public displays of upper class tastes.Irony, especially as it affects masculinity,
is a common theme.There are general
features as well such as a mark to multiculturalism which has affected
cuisine
in particular, and a widespread tolerance of diversity.Politicians are also populist, and there is
‘considerable
cultural distaste for people “who are up themselves”’ (236).There is social mobility as well.The persistence of generational 1960s values
is also marked—this is been an unusually active generation in cultural
terms,
producing the ‘Sydney Push’ a collection of populist intellectuals and
anti
establishment figures.
So the specifics do not particularly
fit Bourdieu, but do
the processes?The study still shows
general connections between ‘social conditions, tastes, fields of
consumption
and social reproduction’ (237).However,
the Australian elite is unusually ironic, especially towards high
culture, and
celebrate the debunking style.This can
be seen as ‘a cultural strategy that we have called that distaste of
taste’
(237).
[A very interesting study that
predates Bennett et al, and
makes the point succinctly without pages of empirical findings!It is particularly interesting to note the
effects of generation and Australian irony as possible sources of
cultural
omnivorousness and also respect for popular culture.The final suggestion that this might be a
cultural strategy seems to have been largely overlooked by Bennett.So does the more general point towards the
end that the processes are important, rather than the specific
contents].