Disputing about taste: Practices and perceptions of cultural hierarchy in the Netherlands - Thesis

Disputing about taste: Practices and perceptions of cultural hierarchy in the

Netherlands

van den Haak, M.A.

Publication date

2014

Document Version

Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

van den Haak, M. A. (2014). Disputing about taste: Practices and perceptions of cultural

hierarchy in the Netherlands.

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Disputing

about taste

Practices and perceptions of cultural hierarchy

in the Netherlands

Disputing

about taste

Marcel van den Haak

Disputing about taste

Practices and perceptions of

cultural hierarchy in the Netherlands

© 2014, Marcel van den Haak

This research project has been financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), through the ‘Open Competition’ programme.

Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers

Cover design by Esther Beekman (www.estherontwerpt.nl) ₃ 

Disputing about taste

Practices and perceptions of

cultural hierarchy in the Netherlands

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus

prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom

ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie,

in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op dinsdag 27 mei 2014, te 10:00 uur

          door

Marcel André van den Haak

© 2014, Marcel van den Haak

This research project has been financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), through the ‘Open Competition’ programme.

Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers

Cover design by Esther Beekman (www.estherontwerpt.nl) ₃ 

Disputing about taste

Practices and perceptions of

cultural hierarchy in the Netherlands

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus

prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom

ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie,

in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op dinsdag 27 mei 2014, te 10:00 uur

          door

Marcel André van den Haak

Promotiecommissie

Promotores: Prof. dr. N.A. Wilterdink Prof. dr. G.M.M. Kuipers  

Overige leden: Prof. dr. C.J.M. van Eijck Prof. dr. B. Kempers Dr. J. Lievens Dr. O.J.M. Velthuis Prof. dr. A. Warde    

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

7DEOHRIFRQWHQWV

Promotiecommissie

Promotores: Prof. dr. N.A. Wilterdink Prof. dr. G.M.M. Kuipers  

Overige leden: Prof. dr. C.J.M. van Eijck Prof. dr. B. Kempers Dr. J. Lievens Dr. O.J.M. Velthuis Prof. dr. A. Warde    

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

7DEOHRIFRQWHQWV

The scope of research: Five cultural disciplines 68 The dynamic aspects of taste: Taste biographies 71 The social aspects of taste: Comparisons with others 71

Specific questions on hierarchies and policies 72

Ranking the cards: Unravelling tastes and hierarchies 73

The selection of items 74

Which respondents to search, and how: Questions of sampling 78

Comparing status and age groups: Defining the quotas 78

The sampling procedure: Randomly filling the quotas 80

The increased role of education: Some consequences for the research 84

On the practice of interviewing 88

The presentation of self 89

Perceptions of the interviewer 90

Constructing an answer 92

Diverging interpretations of used concepts 94

Chapter 3

The relation between hierarchy and taste: The ranking of items 99

Puzzles, negotiations, and refusals: The ranking in practice 100 Ignorance and faking: The knowledge of items 104 Consensus on high and low culture: Hierarchy and taste compared 107 Outliers and dispersion: Variations in the hierarchy 112

High and low reversed: Deviant cases discussed 112

Is André Rieu high or low? High dispersion on specific items 113

The consecration of Bach: The role of educational level 115

The canonisation of classical rock: The role of age 118

The irrelevance of gender 123

High culture as the old higher educated’s taste 123 Conclusion: A persisting but changing cultural hierarchy 125

Chapter 4

Distinction or not? Hierarchical versus egalitarian narratives 127

Looking down and up: Hierarchical narratives 129

‘I’m not culturally literate’: The case of Ria 129

‘Everyone watches pulp’: Exploring cultural distinction 131

‘I feel like an inferior person’: Looking up to others and down on oneself 136

Frequency, knowledge and attitude: Specific hierarchical practices 140

Egalitarianism, individualism and anti-elitism: Anti-hierarchical narratives 148

‘We’re all the same’: The case of Nel 148

‘There is no disputing about taste’: Individualist views 150

‘Hazes can be high culture too’: Opposing the high–low distinction 152

Resisting fakeness and snobbery: Anti-elitism as a form of egalitarianism 155

Authentic tastes and moral boundaries: Egalitarianism as alternative distinction 160

Conclusion: The coexistence of opposite narratives 164

Chapter 5

Combining and ignoring repertoires: Ambivalences and neutrality 167

The case of Cultuurshake: Ambivalence and neutrality about hierarchies in a television

show 168

Cross-tabulating cultural repertoires: Developing a typology of respondents 171 Switching between repertoires: The ambivalent type 175

‘I don’t mean it in a derogatory way’: The case of Inge 175

Distinctive or not? Being inconsistent 178

‘That’s not a value judgement’: Downplaying statements 180

‘I don’t dare to say it’s kitsch’: The bad tastes of proximate others 183

‘It’s just not their world’: The unease of upwardly mobile people 185

To conclude 189

Not engaging in the hierarchy debate: The neutral type 190

‘It doesn’t appeal to me’: The case of Arie 191

Exploring and extending the neutral type 193

Taking serious non-hierarchical narratives 194

Conclusion: Uneasiness about cultural distinction 196

Chapter 6

Taste biographies and classifications: How people explain their own and others’

tastes 199

Porridge spoons and planting seeds: Perceptions of the origins of taste 201

‘Brought up with culture’: The importance of parental socialisation 201

Opening windows: Different sources of secondary socialisation 205

Turning Orfeo into a fairytale: Passing culture on to one’s children 208

Understanding Jimi Hendrix: Parental influences in pop music 211

‘They are too simple for that’: How people explain taste differences 214

Youth culture and conservatism: The interrelatedness of age and birth cohort 216

Chick flicks and macho shows: Perceptions of gendered tastes 221

The scope of research: Five cultural disciplines 68 The dynamic aspects of taste: Taste biographies 71 The social aspects of taste: Comparisons with others 71

Specific questions on hierarchies and policies 72

Ranking the cards: Unravelling tastes and hierarchies 73

The selection of items 74

Which respondents to search, and how: Questions of sampling 78

Comparing status and age groups: Defining the quotas 78

The sampling procedure: Randomly filling the quotas 80

The increased role of education: Some consequences for the research 84

On the practice of interviewing 88

The presentation of self 89

Perceptions of the interviewer 90

Constructing an answer 92

Diverging interpretations of used concepts 94

Chapter 3

The relation between hierarchy and taste: The ranking of items 99

Puzzles, negotiations, and refusals: The ranking in practice 100 Ignorance and faking: The knowledge of items 104 Consensus on high and low culture: Hierarchy and taste compared 107 Outliers and dispersion: Variations in the hierarchy 112

High and low reversed: Deviant cases discussed 112

Is André Rieu high or low? High dispersion on specific items 113

The consecration of Bach: The role of educational level 115

The canonisation of classical rock: The role of age 118

The irrelevance of gender 123

High culture as the old higher educated’s taste 123 Conclusion: A persisting but changing cultural hierarchy 125

Chapter 4

Distinction or not? Hierarchical versus egalitarian narratives 127

Looking down and up: Hierarchical narratives 129

‘I’m not culturally literate’: The case of Ria 129

‘Everyone watches pulp’: Exploring cultural distinction 131

‘I feel like an inferior person’: Looking up to others and down on oneself 136

Frequency, knowledge and attitude: Specific hierarchical practices 140

Egalitarianism, individualism and anti-elitism: Anti-hierarchical narratives 148

‘We’re all the same’: The case of Nel 148

‘There is no disputing about taste’: Individualist views 150

‘Hazes can be high culture too’: Opposing the high–low distinction 152

Resisting fakeness and snobbery: Anti-elitism as a form of egalitarianism 155

Authentic tastes and moral boundaries: Egalitarianism as alternative distinction 160

Conclusion: The coexistence of opposite narratives 164

Chapter 5

Combining and ignoring repertoires: Ambivalences and neutrality 167

The case of Cultuurshake: Ambivalence and neutrality about hierarchies in a television

show 168

Cross-tabulating cultural repertoires: Developing a typology of respondents 171 Switching between repertoires: The ambivalent type 175

‘I don’t mean it in a derogatory way’: The case of Inge 175

Distinctive or not? Being inconsistent 178

‘That’s not a value judgement’: Downplaying statements 180

‘I don’t dare to say it’s kitsch’: The bad tastes of proximate others 183

‘It’s just not their world’: The unease of upwardly mobile people 185

To conclude 189

Not engaging in the hierarchy debate: The neutral type 190

‘It doesn’t appeal to me’: The case of Arie 191

Exploring and extending the neutral type 193

Taking serious non-hierarchical narratives 194

Conclusion: Uneasiness about cultural distinction 196

Chapter 6

Taste biographies and classifications: How people explain their own and others’

tastes 199

Porridge spoons and planting seeds: Perceptions of the origins of taste 201

‘Brought up with culture’: The importance of parental socialisation 201

Opening windows: Different sources of secondary socialisation 205

Turning Orfeo into a fairytale: Passing culture on to one’s children 208

Understanding Jimi Hendrix: Parental influences in pop music 211

‘They are too simple for that’: How people explain taste differences 214

Youth culture and conservatism: The interrelatedness of age and birth cohort 216

Chick flicks and macho shows: Perceptions of gendered tastes 221

‘Grachtengordel’ and mobility: Place as a metaphor for class 226

Nouveaux riches and snobbery: Cultural versus economic capital 228

The bicycle repairman from Delft: Perceptions of type of occupation 229

Conclusion: Ambivalent perceptions of agency and structure 230

Chapter 7

How to value art? On the criteria for good art and high culture 233

A quantitative account of criteria 235 Popular aesthetics 239

From sentiment to enthralment: Valuations of emotions 239

From substance to interpretation: Valuations of content 241

Classic criteria for high culture 244

‘I don’t want to be shocked’: Valuations of morality 244

On nonsense and naturalness: Valuations of realism 247

On skills and virtuosity: Valuations of craftsmanship 249

When contrasting criteria collide: An intermezzo on abstract art 251 An overarching criterion: Valuations of complexity 256 Pure aesthetics and modern criteria for high culture 260

‘There’s a tension between the pots’: Valuations of form over function 260

Seniority versus experiments: Valuations of originality 262

‘It feels plastic to me’: Valuations of authenticity 266

Social criteria 268

Mainstream versus underground: Perceived relations between popularity and quality 268

High culture for elites: Valuations of social status 272

Conclusion 274

The application of criteria in general 274

The perceived characteristics of high culture 276

Discussion: Possible opinions on a ‘new’ hierarchy 278

Conclusion 281

Research questions and methods 282 Hierarchical practices, perceptions and opinions 283

Practising cultural hierarchy 283

Defining cultural hierarchy 285

Valuing cultural hierarchy 286

Analysing contradictions and tensions 287

Practising and opposing cultural hierarchy 287

Practising and defining cultural hierarchy 287

Differences between research groups 290 Discussion and suggestions for further research 292

Limitations of this research 292

The relative role of cultural taste in hierarchical practices: Some afterthoughts 294

Appendix 1. Glossary of Dutch examples 297 Appendix 2. Overview of respondents 311

Appendix 3. Descriptions of criteria in table 7.1 319 Bibliography 321 Summary 335 Samenvatting 341      

‘Grachtengordel’ and mobility: Place as a metaphor for class 226

Nouveaux riches and snobbery: Cultural versus economic capital 228

The bicycle repairman from Delft: Perceptions of type of occupation 229

Conclusion: Ambivalent perceptions of agency and structure 230

Chapter 7

How to value art? On the criteria for good art and high culture 233

A quantitative account of criteria 235 Popular aesthetics 239

From sentiment to enthralment: Valuations of emotions 239

From substance to interpretation: Valuations of content 241

Classic criteria for high culture 244

‘I don’t want to be shocked’: Valuations of morality 244

On nonsense and naturalness: Valuations of realism 247

On skills and virtuosity: Valuations of craftsmanship 249

When contrasting criteria collide: An intermezzo on abstract art 251 An overarching criterion: Valuations of complexity 256 Pure aesthetics and modern criteria for high culture 260

‘There’s a tension between the pots’: Valuations of form over function 260

Seniority versus experiments: Valuations of originality 262

‘It feels plastic to me’: Valuations of authenticity 266

Social criteria 268

Mainstream versus underground: Perceived relations between popularity and quality 268

High culture for elites: Valuations of social status 272

Conclusion 274

The application of criteria in general 274

The perceived characteristics of high culture 276

Discussion: Possible opinions on a ‘new’ hierarchy 278

Conclusion 281

Research questions and methods 282 Hierarchical practices, perceptions and opinions 283

Practising cultural hierarchy 283

Defining cultural hierarchy 285

Valuing cultural hierarchy 286

Analysing contradictions and tensions 287

Practising and opposing cultural hierarchy 287

Practising and defining cultural hierarchy 287

Differences between research groups 290 Discussion and suggestions for further research 292

Limitations of this research 292

The relative role of cultural taste in hierarchical practices: Some afterthoughts 294

Appendix 1. Glossary of Dutch examples 297 Appendix 2. Overview of respondents 311

Appendix 3. Descriptions of criteria in table 7.1 319 Bibliography 321 Summary 335 Samenvatting 341      

Acknowledgements

During the early stages of studying at the University of Amsterdam, I already became interested in the sociology of cultural taste, embodied by Pierre Bourdieu. Although I do not remember exactly what sparked this interest, it were certainly the lectures by Nico Wilterdink that I attended during my third year that greatly enlarged it and that made me switch from Urban to Cultural Sociology. Eventually, Nico would act as the supervisor of my Master’s thesis on film education for secondary school pupils. I was delighted when, a few years later, he agreed to help me with my application for a PhD position. We asked Giselinde Kuipers, at the time working at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, to join the team, and she happily accepted. We submitted the research proposal to NWO late 2005.

Nico and Giselinde formed an excellent supervision couple during all stages of my research. Their encouragements and patience made me persevere with the highly structured sample when response rates were low, and their critical feedback significantly improved the manuscript. They both took the time to read my draft chapters very carefully and to discuss them at great length, which is not self-evident. During our – always pleasant – conversations, they complemented each other perfectly. Nico excelled in close reading, which resulted in many detailed comments on specific sentences or on the exact meaning of Bourdieu. I am grateful that he continued his supervision after his retirement. Giselinde focused more on the nature and structure of the main argument and on the broader interpretations of empirical findings. Furthermore, she actively encouraged me in broadening my academic network. I hope to keep benefiting from their knowledge and ideas in future projects.

While working on my PhD proposal in my spare time and awaiting the result of my grant application, I had some wonderful years working part-time at the secretariat of the Walborg (GGZ Buitenamstel). I want to honour my former colleagues by using their first names as the pseudonyms for my respondents. Naturally, any resemblance between respondents and ex-colleagues is purely coincidental.

I sincerely want to thank the ninety anonymous respondents. I am very grateful to everyone who was willing to receive me in their homes (or, in some cases, to meet at other places) for one or two hours and to tell me all about their cultural taste. With all of them, I had enjoyable conversations. I regret that those who indicated that they wanted to hear about the results had to wait for a much longer time than I estimated. I would also like to thank the five acquaintances with whom I conducted pilot interviews to test the questionnaire. Furthermore, I want to thank all my relatives, friends and colleagues who helped me find respondents in the final stage of the data collection, when I had to fill in the last empty spaces in the quota sample.

Acknowledgements

During the early stages of studying at the University of Amsterdam, I already became interested in the sociology of cultural taste, embodied by Pierre Bourdieu. Although I do not remember exactly what sparked this interest, it were certainly the lectures by Nico Wilterdink that I attended during my third year that greatly enlarged it and that made me switch from Urban to Cultural Sociology. Eventually, Nico would act as the supervisor of my Master’s thesis on film education for secondary school pupils. I was delighted when, a few years later, he agreed to help me with my application for a PhD position. We asked Giselinde Kuipers, at the time working at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, to join the team, and she happily accepted. We submitted the research proposal to NWO late 2005.

Nico and Giselinde formed an excellent supervision couple during all stages of my research. Their encouragements and patience made me persevere with the highly structured sample when response rates were low, and their critical feedback significantly improved the manuscript. They both took the time to read my draft chapters very carefully and to discuss them at great length, which is not self-evident. During our – always pleasant – conversations, they complemented each other perfectly. Nico excelled in close reading, which resulted in many detailed comments on specific sentences or on the exact meaning of Bourdieu. I am grateful that he continued his supervision after his retirement. Giselinde focused more on the nature and structure of the main argument and on the broader interpretations of empirical findings. Furthermore, she actively encouraged me in broadening my academic network. I hope to keep benefiting from their knowledge and ideas in future projects.

While working on my PhD proposal in my spare time and awaiting the result of my grant application, I had some wonderful years working part-time at the secretariat of the Walborg (GGZ Buitenamstel). I want to honour my former colleagues by using their first names as the pseudonyms for my respondents. Naturally, any resemblance between respondents and ex-colleagues is purely coincidental.

I sincerely want to thank the ninety anonymous respondents. I am very grateful to everyone who was willing to receive me in their homes (or, in some cases, to meet at other places) for one or two hours and to tell me all about their cultural taste. With all of them, I had enjoyable conversations. I regret that those who indicated that they wanted to hear about the results had to wait for a much longer time than I estimated. I would also like to thank the five acquaintances with whom I conducted pilot interviews to test the questionnaire. Furthermore, I want to thank all my relatives, friends and colleagues who helped me find respondents in the final stage of the data collection, when I had to fill in the last empty spaces in the quota sample.

Where would I have been without Willemijn Rijper? She transcribed more than half of the interviews, which was complemented by Laura Vermeulen (nine interviews), Martine Buijs (four) and myself. She was not only fast and punctual, but also very precise and accurate. Furthermore, she gave the impression that she actually liked the job. Her comments between brackets often made me smile. When I announced that I would mention her in the acknowledgements, she said that that was not necessary. Well, it is. Willemijn deserves an entire paragraph.

Laura Vermeulen, mentioned above, did her ‘internship’ within my project, in combination with her Bachelor’s thesis. I want to thank her for her wonderful research on contemporary classical music lovers and for the article that we wrote about it together, as well as for our many pleasant conversations.

I am also very much indebted to Mariëlle Smith, who edited the entire manuscript (except for this paragraph!) in the space of a few weeks. The quality of the English prose has been significantly enhanced through her meticulous work. Furthermore, as a native Dutch speaker, she found many great solutions for translations of my respondents’ often idiosyncratic phrasing.

The ‘Culture Club’, founded by Giselinde late 2012 and formalised when the cultural sociologists formed a separate programme group within the AISSR, provided an excellent opportunity to discuss work in progress. I wish to thank in particular Alex van Venrooij (who also helped me with advanced statistical techniques), Hans Abbing and Olav Velthuis for their helpful comments on provisional chapters. I would also like to thank the members of the previous programme group in which I participated, ‘Dynamics of citizenship and culture’. In the first stage of my PhD trajectory, Koen van Eijck of Erasmus University acted as the ‘third reader’ of my progress papers. I want to thank him for that, as well as for his helpful feedback on a previous version of the quantitative chapter.

In the fall of 2009, Marieke van Eijk and Sanneke Kloppenburg had the wonderful idea to start an informal post-fieldwork discussion group, which resulted in the AA (Aio’s Anonymous). With them, Frank van As, Marten Boekelo, Anick Vollebergh and – for a shorter time period – Eline van Haastrecht, Ana Miškovska Kajevska, Naomi van Stapele and Marloes van Westrienen, I discussed many draft papers, articles, chapters and specific issues. Together we went through the ups and downs of doing a PhD. By coincidence, most of them are – more or less – cultural anthropologists. This not only means that they were often surprised by the high degree of structuration of my research and by my enthusiasm for the quantitative part, but also that they positively influenced my analysis of interview material and my writing style. Moreover, they became good friends, with whom I shared – and hopefully will continue to share – lunches, dinners, drinks and occasional hiking tours.

They were not the only colleagues, though, who made the six years at the AISSR more than worthwhile. I want to thank in particular Ay Mey Lie, Jill Alpes, Erica van der Sijpt, Elise van der Laan, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker, Bouchra Arbaoui, Chip Huisman, Svetlana Kharchenkova, Nataliya Komarova, Judith Elshout, Döske van der Wilk and Matthijs Rooduijn. I enjoyed sharing an office – for longer or shorter time periods – with Agnes Kotoh, Wan Fairuz, Jasper Blom, Paul Mepschen, Thomas Franssen and Mandy de Wilde respectively, as well as with some of the people I already mentioned. There were many other nice colleagues whom I met during the (long gone) AISSR lunches, the defence parties and the yearly PhD weekends, but of course I cannot mention everyone. I thank the members of the secretariat for their support throughout the years.

Although rarely mentioned in acknowledgements, a large part of the PhD work is devoted to teaching. I enjoyed collaborating with people such as Bart van Heerikhuizen, Ineke Teijmant, Carolien Bouw, Michaël Deinema and – again – Giselinde Kuipers. Most of all, I am indebted to Gerben Moerman, who taught me a lot about teaching, although I come not even close to his prodigious enthusiasm. I also want to thank the students I worked with, particularly those whose often inspiring Bachelor’s and Master’s theses I supervised.

Outside the university, I was happy to always feel supported by my parents, Frank and Suke, and my sister, Samanthika. Furthermore, it was great to often be distracted by some good friends, particularly Marc Hogchem, with whom I shared many films, concerts, dinners and telephone calls.

Lately, a newspaper quoted a PhD who recently obtained his doctorate, who could not imagine writing a dissertation while being single, without anyone to comfort you or to listen to your angry fits about academic practices. Well, I can tell you. That is what office mates are for! For a long time, I was lucky to share an office with Ana Miškovska Kajevska and Anick Vollebergh. I not only shared the hard times with them, but also – mostly – a lot of fun. Ana, thank you for your often explicit love, wisdom, enthusiasm and, of course, your humour and (loud) laughs. Anick, I still miss our daily conversations on whichever subject and our brainstorms on each other’s findings. I hope to continue seeing both of you in the future, wherever in the world you are. I am very grateful you want to act as paranymphs at my defence.

Where would I have been without Willemijn Rijper? She transcribed more than half of the interviews, which was complemented by Laura Vermeulen (nine interviews), Martine Buijs (four) and myself. She was not only fast and punctual, but also very precise and accurate. Furthermore, she gave the impression that she actually liked the job. Her comments between brackets often made me smile. When I announced that I would mention her in the acknowledgements, she said that that was not necessary. Well, it is. Willemijn deserves an entire paragraph.

Laura Vermeulen, mentioned above, did her ‘internship’ within my project, in combination with her Bachelor’s thesis. I want to thank her for her wonderful research on contemporary classical music lovers and for the article that we wrote about it together, as well as for our many pleasant conversations.

I am also very much indebted to Mariëlle Smith, who edited the entire manuscript (except for this paragraph!) in the space of a few weeks. The quality of the English prose has been significantly enhanced through her meticulous work. Furthermore, as a native Dutch speaker, she found many great solutions for translations of my respondents’ often idiosyncratic phrasing.

The ‘Culture Club’, founded by Giselinde late 2012 and formalised when the cultural sociologists formed a separate programme group within the AISSR, provided an excellent opportunity to discuss work in progress. I wish to thank in particular Alex van Venrooij (who also helped me with advanced statistical techniques), Hans Abbing and Olav Velthuis for their helpful comments on provisional chapters. I would also like to thank the members of the previous programme group in which I participated, ‘Dynamics of citizenship and culture’. In the first stage of my PhD trajectory, Koen van Eijck of Erasmus University acted as the ‘third reader’ of my progress papers. I want to thank him for that, as well as for his helpful feedback on a previous version of the quantitative chapter.

In the fall of 2009, Marieke van Eijk and Sanneke Kloppenburg had the wonderful idea to start an informal post-fieldwork discussion group, which resulted in the AA (Aio’s Anonymous). With them, Frank van As, Marten Boekelo, Anick Vollebergh and – for a shorter time period – Eline van Haastrecht, Ana Miškovska Kajevska, Naomi van Stapele and Marloes van Westrienen, I discussed many draft papers, articles, chapters and specific issues. Together we went through the ups and downs of doing a PhD. By coincidence, most of them are – more or less – cultural anthropologists. This not only means that they were often surprised by the high degree of structuration of my research and by my enthusiasm for the quantitative part, but also that they positively influenced my analysis of interview material and my writing style. Moreover, they became good friends, with whom I shared – and hopefully will continue to share – lunches, dinners, drinks and occasional hiking tours.

They were not the only colleagues, though, who made the six years at the AISSR more than worthwhile. I want to thank in particular Ay Mey Lie, Jill Alpes, Erica van der Sijpt, Elise van der Laan, Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker, Bouchra Arbaoui, Chip Huisman, Svetlana Kharchenkova, Nataliya Komarova, Judith Elshout, Döske van der Wilk and Matthijs Rooduijn. I enjoyed sharing an office – for longer or shorter time periods – with Agnes Kotoh, Wan Fairuz, Jasper Blom, Paul Mepschen, Thomas Franssen and Mandy de Wilde respectively, as well as with some of the people I already mentioned. There were many other nice colleagues whom I met during the (long gone) AISSR lunches, the defence parties and the yearly PhD weekends, but of course I cannot mention everyone. I thank the members of the secretariat for their support throughout the years.

Although rarely mentioned in acknowledgements, a large part of the PhD work is devoted to teaching. I enjoyed collaborating with people such as Bart van Heerikhuizen, Ineke Teijmant, Carolien Bouw, Michaël Deinema and – again – Giselinde Kuipers. Most of all, I am indebted to Gerben Moerman, who taught me a lot about teaching, although I come not even close to his prodigious enthusiasm. I also want to thank the students I worked with, particularly those whose often inspiring Bachelor’s and Master’s theses I supervised.

Outside the university, I was happy to always feel supported by my parents, Frank and Suke, and my sister, Samanthika. Furthermore, it was great to often be distracted by some good friends, particularly Marc Hogchem, with whom I shared many films, concerts, dinners and telephone calls.

Lately, a newspaper quoted a PhD who recently obtained his doctorate, who could not imagine writing a dissertation while being single, without anyone to comfort you or to listen to your angry fits about academic practices. Well, I can tell you. That is what office mates are for! For a long time, I was lucky to share an office with Ana Miškovska Kajevska and Anick Vollebergh. I not only shared the hard times with them, but also – mostly – a lot of fun. Ana, thank you for your often explicit love, wisdom, enthusiasm and, of course, your humour and (loud) laughs. Anick, I still miss our daily conversations on whichever subject and our brainstorms on each other’s findings. I hope to continue seeing both of you in the future, wherever in the world you are. I am very grateful you want to act as paranymphs at my defence.

Introduction

‘Highbrow’ or ‘nobrow’?

The study of cultural hierarchy

The concepts ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ are often used in the cultural field and in the media, as well as by cultural sociologists. They indicate a hierarchical relation between cultural artefacts, and, implicitly, between their audiences. Most users share a common sense knowledge of their meanings. However, definitions of these categories cannot be objectively determined, and it is often suggested that the boundaries between them have blurred. A quick search in the archives of Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in a time span of six months1 _{gives several results, which do not seem to question the classification.}

Below are just three examples:

For high culture one can go to the hotel Bellagio [in Las Vegas]. In order to reach the entrance of ‘The Gallery of Fine Art’, one should first find a way along roulette tables and gambling machines. In two small rooms, there are 25 paintings by the French impressionist master Claude Monet. Every six months there is a different overview exhibition. Previously, the hotel displayed paintings by Chagall, Picasso and Hockney. (6-10-2012)

[Television and musical theatre entrepreneur Joop van den Ende is] the fatherly figure, the well-respected businessman , the patron who, with his foundation, pumps millions of private money into high culture (…). (9-11-2012)

[Street artist Banksy’s] imagery often refers to forms of low culture, such as cartoons, comic books and advertisement. (10-8-2012)

These quotes do no express doubts on the existence and the nature of high (Monet paintings) and low culture (cartoons). Strikingly, most of the times the concepts are not used in an isolated way, but are (implicitly) contrasted to an antipode: casinos and entertainment moguls are generally not perceived as high culture. The quotes present surprising combinations; a crossing of borders even.

In the NRC quotes, both concepts are more often mentioned in one phrase. Dutch Poet Laureate Ramsey Nasr provides a ‘meeting (…) between high and low culture’ (1-2-2013), David Foster Wallace’s books contain ‘a hybrid of high and low culture, the colloquium of the gutter and the academic discourse’ (14-12-2012), fantasy series Game of

1 _{A search for both the Dutch terms ‘hoge cultuur’ en ‘lage cultuur’ and the surprisingly often used English}

equivalents ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’, ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’, between August 2012 and early February 2013. Translations are mine.

Introduction

‘Highbrow’ or ‘nobrow’?

The study of cultural hierarchy

The concepts ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ are often used in the cultural field and in the media, as well as by cultural sociologists. They indicate a hierarchical relation between cultural artefacts, and, implicitly, between their audiences. Most users share a common sense knowledge of their meanings. However, definitions of these categories cannot be objectively determined, and it is often suggested that the boundaries between them have blurred. A quick search in the archives of Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad in a time span of six months1 _{gives several results, which do not seem to question the classification.}

Below are just three examples:

For high culture one can go to the hotel Bellagio [in Las Vegas]. In order to reach the entrance of ‘The Gallery of Fine Art’, one should first find a way along roulette tables and gambling machines. In two small rooms, there are 25 paintings by the French impressionist master Claude Monet. Every six months there is a different overview exhibition. Previously, the hotel displayed paintings by Chagall, Picasso and Hockney. (6-10-2012)

[Television and musical theatre entrepreneur Joop van den Ende is] the fatherly figure, the well-respected businessman , the patron who, with his foundation, pumps millions of private money into high culture (…). (9-11-2012)

[Street artist Banksy’s] imagery often refers to forms of low culture, such as cartoons, comic books and advertisement. (10-8-2012)

These quotes do no express doubts on the existence and the nature of high (Monet paintings) and low culture (cartoons). Strikingly, most of the times the concepts are not used in an isolated way, but are (implicitly) contrasted to an antipode: casinos and entertainment moguls are generally not perceived as high culture. The quotes present surprising combinations; a crossing of borders even.

In the NRC quotes, both concepts are more often mentioned in one phrase. Dutch Poet Laureate Ramsey Nasr provides a ‘meeting (…) between high and low culture’ (1-2-2013), David Foster Wallace’s books contain ‘a hybrid of high and low culture, the colloquium of the gutter and the academic discourse’ (14-12-2012), fantasy series Game of

1 _{A search for both the Dutch terms ‘hoge cultuur’ en ‘lage cultuur’ and the surprisingly often used English}

equivalents ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’, ‘highbrow’ and ‘lowbrow’, between August 2012 and early February 2013. Translations are mine.

Thrones and The Walking Dead ‘connect low with high culture by integrating human

drama’ (17-11-2012), TV quiz De Slimste Mens ‘takes high and low culture equally seriously’ (27-8-2012), and former prime minister Balkenende even ‘canonised the mixture of high and low culture in Dutch media’ by commenting on the breakup of a celebrity couple (4-1-2013). Statements on contrasts between high and low culture are much rarer than those on the combination of the two. It seems as if the terms ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ are not worthy of existing by themselves, without being combined. Again, the existence and meaning of the concepts as such are not questioned.

However, it has often been put forward that the erosion of boundaries between high and low culture makes the concepts less significant. They are seen as remnants of a lost age, when cultural and social hierarchies were more important in daily life, while today more egalitarian and meritocratic ideals are cherished. Scholars in cultural studies, such as John Fiske in the US and Maarten Reesink in the Netherlands, criticise the elite audience of high culture and their distinctive goals, and they propagate the value of (the academic study of) low and popular culture. In a public lecture, Dutch graphic novelist Dick Matena2 _{hyperbolically compared cultural hierarchy with Nazist categorisations:}

To just plunge into the matter: I think the terms ‘high’ and ‘low culture’ are objectionable. They remind me too much of the classifications Übermensch and Untermensch, with which – in a dark past – Adolf Hitler and his gang liked to flirt. Goebbels, the brilliant brain of propaganda with the Nazis, could have invented these terms high and low culture. (…) I presume that the ‘genius’ who burdened us with these humiliating and discriminating concepts meant: (…) culture for Average Joe versus culture for White-Collar Joe. (Matena 2008, my translation)

Besides such strong anti-hierarchical opinions, others argue that cultural tastes in reality are no longer ranked hierarchically. American journalist John Seabrook (2000) does not think that pop music today is positioned lower on the ladder than classical music. In his view, the ‘highbrow–lowbrow’ distinction has been replaced by ‘nobrow’: culture is nowadays perceived more individually. High culture has lost its status and has ‘become just another subculture’ next to other subcultures (ibid.: 66). Although Seabrook values this shift less positively as his essay progresses, his initial rejection of cultural hierarchy is often shared. Seabrook, Matena and others deny or contest the superiority of high culture. They do not perceive (or desire) a reverse cultural hierarchy, with low or popular culture on top, but rather no cultural hierarchy at all.

This is a frequently discussed matter: the alleged waning of the distinction between high and low culture, and how to value this process. Two issues are at stake here: first, can high and low culture actually be defined, and if so, how; and second, how strict and static

2 _{Matena is known for turning ‘serious’ literature by classic Dutch writers into – highly praised – comic}

books.

are the boundaries between them? When artists such as Andy Warhol mix art and advertisements, or when the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra performs with trance DJ Armin van Buuren, does this mean that cultural hierarchy is fading? Or do high and low culture remain significant, yet with shifting meanings? This study does not aim to ‘objectively’ answer these questions, but will look at people’s perceptions of and opinions on this matter: do people actually recognise concepts such as high and low culture, and if so, how do they define them? Scholars often define them a priori in order to measure tastes and participation rates, without questioning the meanings attached to them, and without considering possible shifting classifications.

Another important question is what these shifts in tastes and in perceptions of hierarchy mean for hierarchical practices: when so-called ‘cultural omnivores’ increasingly listen to both high and low music genres, or when they alternate ‘serious’ literature with ‘easy’ romance novels, do they no longer look down on others’ tastes? Or do they do this differently? On a more general level, I ask the question whether and how cultural taste plays a role in people’s classifications and judgements of others, even when they are hesitant to judge people on the basis of class. In other words: does (cultural) distinction occur in an allegedly individualist and egalitarian society, such as the Netherlands in the early 21st _{century, and if so, how?}

These questions are the central issue of this dissertation. In this book, I aim to unravel the perceptions present-day people in the Netherlands have of cultural hierarchy, what their opinions are on this hierarchy, and in what ways these perceptions and opinions are linked to their own cultural tastes and distinctive practices. Do they look down on others or not, and how is this related to their classifications of taste and to their ideas of high and low culture? Hence, this study aims to contribute to our understanding of the possible persistence of hierarchical practices and perceptions in a relatively egalitarian and individualist society. Also, it explores people’s – sometimes inconsistent and ambivalent – classification practices, both regarding objects (cultural items) and people (those who like or dislike these items).

I will continue this introduction with an overview of the research questions and the methodology. Subsequently, I sketch the rationale behind several aspects of these questions: 1) the sociological relevance of studying perceptions of and opinions on cultural hierarchy in a relatively egalitarian society; 2) the reason for scrutinising the logics behind cultural hierarchy and the definitions of high and low culture; 3) the choice for specific research groups, as defined by education, parents’ education, age and gender; and 4) the Netherlands as a research site. I conclude the introduction with an overview of the organisation of the book and with some notes to the reader.

Thrones and The Walking Dead ‘connect low with high culture by integrating human

drama’ (17-11-2012), TV quiz De Slimste Mens ‘takes high and low culture equally seriously’ (27-8-2012), and former prime minister Balkenende even ‘canonised the mixture of high and low culture in Dutch media’ by commenting on the breakup of a celebrity couple (4-1-2013). Statements on contrasts between high and low culture are much rarer than those on the combination of the two. It seems as if the terms ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ are not worthy of existing by themselves, without being combined. Again, the existence and meaning of the concepts as such are not questioned.

However, it has often been put forward that the erosion of boundaries between high and low culture makes the concepts less significant. They are seen as remnants of a lost age, when cultural and social hierarchies were more important in daily life, while today more egalitarian and meritocratic ideals are cherished. Scholars in cultural studies, such as John Fiske in the US and Maarten Reesink in the Netherlands, criticise the elite audience of high culture and their distinctive goals, and they propagate the value of (the academic study of) low and popular culture. In a public lecture, Dutch graphic novelist Dick Matena2 _{hyperbolically compared cultural hierarchy with Nazist categorisations:}

To just plunge into the matter: I think the terms ‘high’ and ‘low culture’ are objectionable. They remind me too much of the classifications Übermensch and Untermensch, with which – in a dark past – Adolf Hitler and his gang liked to flirt. Goebbels, the brilliant brain of propaganda with the Nazis, could have invented these terms high and low culture. (…) I presume that the ‘genius’ who burdened us with these humiliating and discriminating concepts meant: (…) culture for Average Joe versus culture for White-Collar Joe. (Matena 2008, my translation)

Besides such strong anti-hierarchical opinions, others argue that cultural tastes in reality are no longer ranked hierarchically. American journalist John Seabrook (2000) does not think that pop music today is positioned lower on the ladder than classical music. In his view, the ‘highbrow–lowbrow’ distinction has been replaced by ‘nobrow’: culture is nowadays perceived more individually. High culture has lost its status and has ‘become just another subculture’ next to other subcultures (ibid.: 66). Although Seabrook values this shift less positively as his essay progresses, his initial rejection of cultural hierarchy is often shared. Seabrook, Matena and others deny or contest the superiority of high culture. They do not perceive (or desire) a reverse cultural hierarchy, with low or popular culture on top, but rather no cultural hierarchy at all.

This is a frequently discussed matter: the alleged waning of the distinction between high and low culture, and how to value this process. Two issues are at stake here: first, can high and low culture actually be defined, and if so, how; and second, how strict and static

2 _{Matena is known for turning ‘serious’ literature by classic Dutch writers into – highly praised – comic}

books.

are the boundaries between them? When artists such as Andy Warhol mix art and advertisements, or when the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra performs with trance DJ Armin van Buuren, does this mean that cultural hierarchy is fading? Or do high and low culture remain significant, yet with shifting meanings? This study does not aim to ‘objectively’ answer these questions, but will look at people’s perceptions of and opinions on this matter: do people actually recognise concepts such as high and low culture, and if so, how do they define them? Scholars often define them a priori in order to measure tastes and participation rates, without questioning the meanings attached to them, and without considering possible shifting classifications.

Another important question is what these shifts in tastes and in perceptions of hierarchy mean for hierarchical practices: when so-called ‘cultural omnivores’ increasingly listen to both high and low music genres, or when they alternate ‘serious’ literature with ‘easy’ romance novels, do they no longer look down on others’ tastes? Or do they do this differently? On a more general level, I ask the question whether and how cultural taste plays a role in people’s classifications and judgements of others, even when they are hesitant to judge people on the basis of class. In other words: does (cultural) distinction occur in an allegedly individualist and egalitarian society, such as the Netherlands in the early 21st _{century, and if so, how?}

These questions are the central issue of this dissertation. In this book, I aim to unravel the perceptions present-day people in the Netherlands have of cultural hierarchy, what their opinions are on this hierarchy, and in what ways these perceptions and opinions are linked to their own cultural tastes and distinctive practices. Do they look down on others or not, and how is this related to their classifications of taste and to their ideas of high and low culture? Hence, this study aims to contribute to our understanding of the possible persistence of hierarchical practices and perceptions in a relatively egalitarian and individualist society. Also, it explores people’s – sometimes inconsistent and ambivalent – classification practices, both regarding objects (cultural items) and people (those who like or dislike these items).

I will continue this introduction with an overview of the research questions and the methodology. Subsequently, I sketch the rationale behind several aspects of these questions: 1) the sociological relevance of studying perceptions of and opinions on cultural hierarchy in a relatively egalitarian society; 2) the reason for scrutinising the logics behind cultural hierarchy and the definitions of high and low culture; 3) the choice for specific research groups, as defined by education, parents’ education, age and gender; and 4) the Netherlands as a research site. I conclude the introduction with an overview of the organisation of the book and with some notes to the reader.

Introduction   

Practising, perceiving and valuing hierarchy: On research questions and

methods

In this dissertation I study cultural hierarchy by concentrating on three different aspects. First, I look at the actual practices of hierarchy, by which I mean explicitly distinguishing oneself with one’s taste, looking down on people with ‘lower’ tastes, as well as looking up to people with ‘higher’ tastes. I study if and how people from different backgrounds speak about their and others’ cultural taste in such hierarchical ways, or whether they use egalitarian (‘one cannot dispute about taste’) or perhaps more neutral narratives. Second, I study people’s perceptions, definitions and classifications of cultural hierarchy. Do they rank cultural items in a hierarchical order and do they recognise specific concepts such as ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’? If so, how do they define such concepts and how exactly do they classify and rank cultural items? I aim to find out whether there is a consensus on these definitions and rankings, or whether people perceive and define contradicting hierarchies. Third, I examine people’s opinions on cultural hierarchy. After all, perception and opinion are two different things: one can perceive a social phenomenon as existent and even define it, but nevertheless reject it. This question is particularly salient because of the potential contradiction described above between distinctive practices and egalitarian ideals. These three aspects of cultural hierarchy will be related to people’s accounts of their cultural preferences and dislikes.

Furthermore, I unravel the possible tensions within and between these three aspects and taste. For instance, does a preference for classical music (taste) automatically lead to social distinction from those who do not like this music (hierarchical practice)? If so, do they describe classical music as ‘high culture’ (perception), and do they agree with such a hierarchical classification (opinion)? Or might it also be possible to perceive one’s taste as high culture, without personally feeling the need to look down on those who prefer ‘low culture’? In short, how are culturally hierarchical practices, perceptions and opinions related?

An overarching question is how the findings on the above issues are distributed over society. The educated might be more hierarchically oriented, as they are likely to locate themselves in the upper half of the hierarchy, whereas people with less education probably more often share egalitarian ideas. We might also observe a generational shift in this matter, corresponding with theses of the gradual blurring of boundaries and decrease of distinction. Furthermore, I wonder to what extent there is a consensus on the nature of cultural hierarchy, and if not, whether deviations can be explained with background variables such as level of education, social origin (i.e., parents’ education), age and gender.

These issues result in the following research questions:

18 

How do people in the Netherlands practise, perceive and value cultural hierarchy, and how is this related to their own taste preferences?

To what extent are people consistent in their narrative, and if not, how can contradictions and tensions be explained?

How are these practices, perceptions and opinions related to people’s social position, as indicated by education, social origin (i.e., parents’ education), age and gender?

I studied these issues by conducting interviews with a sample of ninety Dutch people, distributed over three status groups (based on education and parents’ education), three age groups, and an equal number of men and women.3 _{The range of cultural domains}

in the interviews was broad: music, film, television fiction, theatre and the visual arts. The interviews consisted of three parts, which shed light on different aspects of the research questions. The first part concerned semi-structured, open questions, in order to retrieve people’s perceptions of (the relation between) their own and others’ taste, and thus to explore their possible hierarchical practices. By letting people speak in their own words about cultural taste, whether or not in a distinctive way, I was able to study people’s interpretations and valuations of taste differences. The second part consisted of relatively more structured questions on concepts such as ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’, in order to specifically study people’s perceptions and definitions of (and often opinions on) cultural hierarchy. The final part was a ranking task, in which respondents were asked to rank thirty items from the field of music, both according to their personal taste and to their perception of high and low culture. This part of the research, analysed in a quantitative way, enabled me to scrutinise the exact hierarchical rankings and the logics behind these rankings, as well as the differences and similarities between taste preferences and hierarchical perception.

By combining two methods – open interviews and card ranking – I was also able to unravel possible contradictions and tensions, such as perceiving a cultural hierarchy and uttering egalitarian views at the same time. With this mixing or triangulation of methods to study several aspects of cultural hierarchy, I aim to deliver an important contribution to the sociology of cultural taste and distinction. Chapter 2 will give a more detailed account of both methods. This introduction will continue with a more elaborate account of the theoretical rationale behind the different (elements of the) research questions.

3 _{The respondents were largely randomly selected, after defining eighteen quotas, based on the mentioned}

‘Highbrow’ or ‘nobrow’? The study of cultural hierarchy  

Practising, perceiving and valuing hierarchy: On research questions and

methods

In this dissertation I study cultural hierarchy by concentrating on three different aspects. First, I look at the actual practices of hierarchy, by which I mean explicitly distinguishing oneself with one’s taste, looking down on people with ‘lower’ tastes, as well as looking up to people with ‘higher’ tastes. I study if and how people from different backgrounds speak about their and others’ cultural taste in such hierarchical ways, or whether they use egalitarian (‘one cannot dispute about taste’) or perhaps more neutral narratives. Second, I study people’s perceptions, definitions and classifications of cultural hierarchy. Do they rank cultural items in a hierarchical order and do they recognise specific concepts such as ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’? If so, how do they define such concepts and how exactly do they classify and rank cultural items? I aim to find out whether there is a consensus on these definitions and rankings, or whether people perceive and define contradicting hierarchies. Third, I examine people’s opinions on cultural hierarchy. After all, perception and opinion are two different things: one can perceive a social phenomenon as existent and even define it, but nevertheless reject it. This question is particularly salient because of the potential contradiction described above between distinctive practices and egalitarian ideals. These three aspects of cultural hierarchy will be related to people’s accounts of their cultural preferences and dislikes.

Furthermore, I unravel the possible tensions within and between these three aspects and taste. For instance, does a preference for classical music (taste) automatically lead to social distinction from those who do not like this music (hierarchical practice)? If so, do they describe classical music as ‘high culture’ (perception), and do they agree with such a hierarchical classification (opinion)? Or might it also be possible to perceive one’s taste as high culture, without personally feeling the need to look down on those who prefer ‘low culture’? In short, how are culturally hierarchical practices, perceptions and opinions related?

An overarching question is how the findings on the above issues are distributed over society. The educated might be more hierarchically oriented, as they are likely to locate themselves in the upper half of the hierarchy, whereas people with less education probably more often share egalitarian ideas. We might also observe a generational shift in this matter, corresponding with theses of the gradual blurring of boundaries and decrease of distinction. Furthermore, I wonder to what extent there is a consensus on the nature of cultural hierarchy, and if not, whether deviations can be explained with background variables such as level of education, social origin (i.e., parents’ education), age and gender.

These issues result in the following research questions:

18 

How do people in the Netherlands practise, perceive and value cultural hierarchy, and how is this related to their own taste preferences?

To what extent are people consistent in their narrative, and if not, how can contradictions and tensions be explained?

How are these practices, perceptions and opinions related to people’s social position, as indicated by education, social origin (i.e., parents’ education), age and gender?

I studied these issues by conducting interviews with a sample of ninety Dutch people, distributed over three status groups (based on education and parents’ education), three age groups, and an equal number of men and women.3 _{The range of cultural domains}

in the interviews was broad: music, film, television fiction, theatre and the visual arts. The interviews consisted of three parts, which shed light on different aspects of the research questions. The first part concerned semi-structured, open questions, in order to retrieve people’s perceptions of (the relation between) their own and others’ taste, and thus to explore their possible hierarchical practices. By letting people speak in their own words about cultural taste, whether or not in a distinctive way, I was able to study people’s interpretations and valuations of taste differences. The second part consisted of relatively more structured questions on concepts such as ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’, in order to specifically study people’s perceptions and definitions of (and often opinions on) cultural hierarchy. The final part was a ranking task, in which respondents were asked to rank thirty items from the field of music, both according to their personal taste and to their perception of high and low culture. This part of the research, analysed in a quantitative way, enabled me to scrutinise the exact hierarchical rankings and the logics behind these rankings, as well as the differences and similarities between taste preferences and hierarchical perception.

By combining two methods – open interviews and card ranking – I was also able to unravel possible contradictions and tensions, such as perceiving a cultural hierarchy and uttering egalitarian views at the same time. With this mixing or triangulation of methods to study several aspects of cultural hierarchy, I aim to deliver an important contribution to the sociology of cultural taste and distinction. Chapter 2 will give a more detailed account of both methods. This introduction will continue with a more elaborate account of the theoretical rationale behind the different (elements of the) research questions.

3 _{The respondents were largely randomly selected, after defining eighteen quotas, based on the mentioned}