Sociologists traditionally focus on the power of socio-economic variables as drivers of attendance at museums. However, this research runs the risk of a certain socio-economic reductionism which fails to register the aesthetic dimensions of cultural consumption. To remedy this, I propose a new focus on cultural profiles beyond the prism of SES, which allows us to better interpret the role of the art museum visit in visitors' daily life. The cultural profile is defined as a set of cultural, creative and leisure preferences and activities, towards various forms of art, which classify and can be classified. I use multiple correspondence analysis to examine the nature of cultural profiles among visitors of six museums of modern and contemporary art in Belgium. Six different cultural profiles are defined, each a ‘bricolage’ of different classifying registers that structure and define practices and tastes. My approach allows us to reconcile and elaborate current interests in cultural sociology about the relationship between high versus low culture (Bourdieu), experimentation versus classicism, transgression versus conservatism and omnivores versus univores (Peterson).
AbbottA., (1988), ‘Transcending general linear reality’, Sociological Theory, 6 (2): 169–186.
2.
AtkinsonW., (2010), Class, Individualization and Late Modernity: In Search of the Reflexive Worker, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
BaugardD., (2000), ‘Que savons-nous, en Belgique, des publics de nos musées’, in JaumainS. (ed.), Les musées en mouvement. Nouvelles conceptions, nouveaux publics (Belgique, Canada), 103–117, Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.
4.
BaumanZ., (1988), Freedom, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5.
BellavanceG., (2008), ‘Where's high? Who's low? What's new? Classification and stratification inside cultural “Repertoires”’, Poetics, 36 (2–3): 189–216.
6.
BellavanceG.ValexM. and RattéM., (2004), ‘Le goÛt des autres: une analyse des répertoires culturelles des nouvelles élites omnivores’, Sociologie et sociétés, 36 (1): 27–57.
7.
BennettT.EmmisonM. and FrowJ., (1999), Accounting for Tastes: Australian Everyday Cultures, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BennettT.SavageM.SilvaE.WardeA.Gayo-CalM. and WrightD., (2009), Culture, Class, Distinction, London: Routledge.
9.
BourdieuP. and DarbelA., (1969), L'amour de l'art. Les musées d'art européens et leur public, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
10.
BourdieuP., (1979), La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
11.
BrysonB., (1996), ‘Anything but heavy metal’, American Sociological Review, 61 (5): 884–899.
12.
ChanT.W. and GoldthorpeJ.H., (2007), ‘Social stratification and cultural consumption: the visual arts in England’, Poetics, 35 (2–3): 168–190.
13.
CoulangeonP. and LemelY., (2007), ‘Is “distinction” really outdated? Questioning the meaning of the omnivorization of musical taste in contemporary France’, Poetics, 35 (2–3): 93–111.
14.
DaenenW., (2007), ‘S.M.A.K. uit de gratie bij museumbezoekers’, DeMorgen, 15 January: 2–3.
15.
DiMaggioP., (1996), ‘Are art-museum visitors different from other people? The relationship between attendance and social and political attitudes in the United States’, Poetics, 24 (2–4): 161–180.
16.
DiMaggioP. and MukhtarT., (2004), ‘Arts participation as cultural capital in the United States, 1982–2002: signs of decline?’Poetics, 32 (2): 169–194.
17.
DonnatO., (1993), ‘Les publics des musées en France’, Publics et Musées, 3: 29–46.
18.
DonnatO., (1994), Les Français face à la culture. De l'exclusion à l'éclectisme, Paris: La Découverte.
19.
DonnatO., (2009), Pratiques culturelles des Français à l'ère numérique, Paris: La Découverte/Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication.
20.
EmirbayerM., (1997), ‘Manifesto for a relational sociology’, The American Journal of Sociology, 103 (2): 281–317.
21.
FridmanV. and OllivierM., (2004), ‘Ouverture ostentatoire à la diversité et cosmopolitisme: vers une nouvelle configuration discursive’, Sociologie et sociétés, 36 (1): 105–126.
22.
FyfeG. and RossM., (1996), ‘Decoding the visitor's gaze: rethinking museum visiting’, in MacdonaldS. and GordonF. (eds), Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World, 127–150, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.
23.
GaavL.E. and PotapovaM.V., (1996), ‘New audiences for new art: the public at the avant-garde exhibitions at the State Russian Museum’, Poetics, 24 (2–4): 131–159.
24.
GiddensA., (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.
25.
GuérinM., (2009), ‘Pratiques et consommation culturelles en Communauté française’, Courrier du Crisp, 2031/2032.
26.
Katz-GerroT., (1999), ‘Cultural consumption and social stratification: leisure activities, musical tastes, and social location’, Sociological Perspectives, 42 (4): 627–646.
27.
Katz-GerroT., (2002), ‘Highbrow cultural consumption and class distinction in Italy, Israel, West Germany, Sweden and the United States’, Social Forces, 81 (1): 207–229.
28.
KirchbergV., (1996), ‘Museum visitors and non-visitors in Germany: a representative survey’, Poetics, 24 (2–4): 239–258.
29.
LahireB., (2006), La culture des individus. Dissonances culturelles et distinction de soi, Paris: Editions La Découverte.
30.
LamontM., (1992), Money, Morals and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LashS., (1994), ‘Reflexivity and its doubles: structure, aesthetics, community’, in BeckU.GiddensA. and LashS. (eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, 110–173, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
LashS. and UrryJ., (1994), Economies of Signs and Space, London: Sage.
Le RouxB. and RouanetH., (2004), Geometric Data Analysis, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35.
Le RouxB.RouanetH.SavageM. and WardeA., (2008), ‘Class and cultural division in the UK’, Sociology, 42: 1049–1071.
36.
Levi-StraussC., (1966), The Savage Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LievensJ.De MeulemeesterH. and WaegeH., (2005), ‘Naar een verklarinsmodel voor publieke kunstenparticipatie’, in LievensJ. and WaegeH. (eds), Cultuurkijker. Cultuurparticipatie in breedbeeld. Eerste analyses van de survey ‘Cultuurparticipatie in Vlaanderen 2003–2004’, 45–84, Antwerpen: De Boeck.
38.
LipovetskyG., (2006), Le bonheur paradoxal. Essai sur la société d'hyperconsommation, Paris: Gallimard.
39.
López SintasJ. and Garcia ÁlvarezE., (2002), ‘Omnivores show up again: the segmentation of cultural consumers in Spanish social space’, European Sociological Review, 18 (3): 353–368.
40.
López-SintasJ. and García-ÁlvarezE., (2004), ‘Omnivore versus univore consumption and its symbolic properties: evidence from Spaniards' performing arts attendance’, Poetics, 32 (6): 471–491.
41.
MacdonaldS., (1996), ‘Theorizing museums: an introduction’, in MacdonaldS. and GordonF. (eds), Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and Diversity in a Changing World, 1–18, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.
42.
MaffesoliM., (2000), Le temps des tribus. Le déclin de l'individualisme dans les sociétés postmodernes, 3rd edn, Paris: La Table Ronde.
43.
MajimaS. and SavageM., (2007), ‘Have there been culture shifts in Britain?’Cultural Sociology, 1 (3): 293–315.
44.
ManzoG., (2005), ‘Variables, mécanismes et simulations : une synthèse des trois méthodes est-elle possible?’Revue française de sociologie, 46 (1): 37–74.
45.
McClellanA., (2008), The Art Museum: From Boullée to Bilbao, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46.
MerrimanN., (1989), ‘Museum visiting as a cultural phenomenon’, in VergoP. (ed.), The New Museology, 149–171, London: Reaktion Books.
47.
MohrJ.W., (1998), ‘Measuring meaning structures’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 345–370.
48.
MohrJ.W., (2000), ‘Bourdieu's relational method in theory and practice’, American Sociological Association Meetings. Washington DC, 10–12 August 2000. Available at: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/ct/pages/JWM/Papers/Bourdieu.pdf (accessed 21 June 2008).
49.
PetersonR., (2005), ‘Problems in comparative research: the example of omnivorousness’, Poetics, 33 (5–6): 257–282.
50.
PetersonR. and SimkusA., (1992), ‘How musical tastes mark occupational status groups’, in LamontM. and FournierM. (eds), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, 152–186, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
PetersonR. and KernR., (1996), ‘Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore’, American Sociological Review, 61 (5): 900–907.
52.
PetersonR. and RossmanG., (2008), ‘Changing arts audience: capitalizing on omnivorousness’, in IveyW. and TepperS. (eds), Engaging Art, 363–385, New York: Routledge.
53.
PrieurA.RosenlundL. and Skjott-LarsonJ., (2008), ‘Cultural capital today: a case study from Denmark’, Poetics, 36 (1): 45–71.
54.
RanshuysenL., (2001), 8 publieksonderzoek in de Vlaamse musea 2001, Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
55.
RossM., (2004), ‘Interpreting the new museology’, Museum and Society, 2 (2): 84–103.
SavageM.Gayo-CalM.WardeA. and TampubolonG., (2005), ‘Cultural capital in the UK: a preliminary report using correspondence analysis’, Working Paper No. 4, Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, The Open University and the University of Manchester.
58.
SmithJ.K. and WolfL.F., (1996), ‘Museum visitor preferences and intentions in constructing aesthetic experience’, Poetics, 24 (2–4): 219–238.
59.
SullivanO. and Katz-GerroT., (2007), ‘The omnivore thesis revisited: voracious cultural consumers’, European Sociological Review, 23 (2): 123–137.
60.
SwidlerA., (1986), ‘Culture in action: symbols and strategies’, American Sociological Review, 51 (2): 273–286.
61.
SwidlerA., (2001), Talk of Love: How Culture Matters, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62.
TomlinsonM., (2003), ‘Lifestyle and social class’, European Sociological Review, 19 (1): 97–111.
63.
Van AalstI. and BoogaartsI., (2002), ‘From museum to mass entertainment: the evolution of the role of museums in cities’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 9 (3): 195–209.
64.
GuchtD. Vander, (1998), L'Art Contemporain au Miroir du Musée, Brussels: La Lettre Volée.
65.
SticheleA. Vander and LaermansR., (2006), ‘Cultural participation in Flanders: testing the cultural omnivore thesis with population data’, Poetics, 34 (1): 45–64.
66.
van EijckK. and BargemanB., (2004), ‘The changing impact of social background on lifestyle: “culturalization” instead of individualization?’Poetics, 32 (6): 439–461.
67.
van ReesK.VermuntJ. and VerboordM., (1999), ‘Cultural classifications under discussion: latent class analysis of highbrow and lowbrow reading’, Poetics, 26 (5–6): 349–365.
68.
VerdaasdonkH.van ReesC.J.StokmansM.van EijckK. and VerboordM., (1996), ‘The impact of experiential variables on patterns of museum attendance: the case of the Noord-Brabant museum’, Poetics, 24 (2–4): 181–202.
69.
WardeA.WrightD. and Gayo-CalM., (2008), ‘The omnivorousness orientation in the UK’, Poetics, 36 (2): 148–165.
70.
WardeA. and Gayo-CalM., (2009), ‘The anatomy of cultural omnivorousness: the case of the United Kingdom’, Poetics, 37 (2): 119–145.
71.
WuggenigU., (2007), ‘Comments on Chan and Goldthorpe: Pitfalls in testing Bourdieu's homology assumptions using mainstream social science methodology: Social stratification and cultural consumption: the visual arts in England’, Poetics, 35 (4–5): 306–316.
