The slippery slope of cultural non-participation: Orientations of participation among the potentially passive

Abstract

Research on cultural practices has highlighted the rise of different cultural consumption patterns that challenge the classic theories on class-based hierarchies. However, most scholarly work has focused on active, rather than passive, cultural consumers. This article aims to fill that gap by exploring the orientations of cultural participation of hypothetically passive cultural consumers in contemporary Finland. Existing research proves that culturally non-active groups are difficult to reach through quantitative methods, so this project will draw on qualitative data: 40 individual interviews on everyday life, cultural taste, knowledge and participation with a theoretical sample of people whose background profiles statistically predict cultural non-participation. This article finds three main orientations of participation, expressed as attitudes on different kinds of cultural practices and symbolic boundaries drawn – these orientations of participation are the social-mundane, the cultural-legitimate and the introvert-hostile. It is argued that while none of the orientations equals to cultural non-participation, the latter orientation stands out from the other two as drawing symbolic boundaries upward, highlighting that cultural participation remains a highly stratified and polarized field, also in an egalitarian society.

Cultural reproduction in Finland: Symmetric intergenerational transmission of cultural orientations

“…While earlier research has studied the transmission of highbrow practices (Jaeger and Breen, 2016; Sullivan, 2011) and popular practices (Ter Bogt et al, 2011; Notten et al, 2012; Nagel and Lemel, 2019), this analysis adds a third dimension—mundane crafts. This broadens significantly the horizon of cultural reproduction analysis, because the importance of mundane culture has only recently gained attention in this field (Heikkilä, 2021; Leguina and Miles, 2017; Miles and Sullivan, 2012), and potential significance of parents’ mundane culture in encouraging offspring's overall cultural activity has escaped research attention to date. At general level, symmetricity of transmission underscores the need for research that analyses not only transmission of ‘high status cultural signals’ (Lamont and Lareau, 1988) but broader assemblages of practices and lifestyles.…”

“…Because recent literature has considered that the volume of cultural participation is another key contemporary dimension of social stratification of cultural practices (e.g. Heikkilä, 2021; Miles and Sullivan, 2012; see also Peterson, 1992) I include the overall participation and its intergenerational transmission in the analysis. Due to lack of space I do not discuss cultural ‘omnivores’ (Peterson, 1992) theoretically in this paper, but noteworthily the overall participation might be interpreted as a measure of omnivorousness in Finland (Purhonen et al, 2010).…”

Counter-talk as symbolic boundary drawing: Challenging legitimate cultural practices in individual and focus group interviews in the lower regions of social space

“…The interview data used in this article derive from a research project that aimed at understanding how and why the most unprivileged social classes withdraw from certain forms of cultural practices, especially participation (see Heikkilä, 2021). The data included 40 individual interviews and nine focus groups conducted in early 2018.…”

“…While such accounts are totally devoid of counter-talk, the latter examples of drawing symbolic boundaries downwards are practically full of it. The counter-talk that emerged while drawing symbolic boundaries downwards was typically mobilised by men that have previously been categorised as 'introvert-hostiles' (Heikkilä, 2021). These interviewees expressed in a multitude of ways that they were more or less reluctantly slipping out of reach of high or even mainstream culture.…”

“…The interview data used for this article were collected in a research project on cultural practices among the unprivileged classes in contemporary Finland (see Heikkilä, 2021). We will scrutinise and assess the types of counter-talk that emerged in our interviews with low-status interviewees.…”