‘colourful’ distinction: the role of ethnicity and ethnic orientation in cultural consumption

‘Colourful’ distinction: the role of ethnicity andethnic orientation in cultural consumption

Sandra Trienekens*

Tilburg University, Department of Leisure Studies, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE,

Tilburg, The Netherlands

Abstract

Changes in the cultural field and in the ethnic make-up of Western societies render therelation between class distinctions and cultural consumption problematic. In multi-ethnic

societies, ethnicity is expected to become increasingly important as a mechanism for culturaldistinction. This article studies the relation between conventional class indicators of culturalconsumption and ethnicity. This is done by taking three kinds of cultural capital into account,

i.e., highbrow, popular and community-based cultural capital, and two dimensions of ethni-city, i.e., country of origin and ethnic orientation. Ethnic orientation is an indicator built forthis purpose on Homi Bhabha’s notion of hybrid identity to move beyond monolithic classi-

fications such as country of origin. It becomes clear that, particularly with regard to highbrowculture, ethnic orientation surpasses conventional class indicators of distinction in culturalconsumption such as educational attainment and age. Ethnicity as ethnic orientation also hasa stronger effect than country of origin on the consumption of highbrow and popular culture.

Additionally, it is shown that a strong orientation on the Western society leads to a highernumber of visits not only to highbrow culture, but also to popular and community-basedculture. The analyses are based on empirical data on cultural consumption in Rotterdam, the

Netherlands.# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many studies on cultural consumption patterns have been closely related toBourdieu’s notion of class hierarchies and cultural capital. However, the dynamicsin both the cultural field and in the ethnic make-up of society render the relation

Poetics 30 (2002) 281–298

www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

0304-422X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0304-422X(02 )00025 -6

* Tel.: +31-13-466-2208.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Trienekens).

between class distinctions and cultural consumption problematic. The art forms thatminority-ethnic groups have introduced into the Western cultural field and theunconventional locations for their arts (Arts Council of England, 1997) add tothe complexity of the cultural field. This complexity was already increased bythe collapse of boundaries between popular and highbrow art forms and by thecultural audiences’ increasingly broad consumption patterns. This indicates botha trend towards a ‘horizontalisation’ of the cultural field (e.g. Schulze, 1993) aswell as a need for an alternative theorisation of ‘cultural structuralism’ (Hall,1992).

If class distinctions indeed cease to be the dominant modes of distinction, thenother mechanisms of distinction will become more pronounced. In multi-ethnicsocieties, ethnicity is expected to play a role. This article addresses the relationbetween ethnicity and the conventional class indicators of cultural distinction suchas social mobility, level of education, age, and gender. Class distinctions havealways been connected to a specific notion of cultural capital, namely highbrowcultural capital. The introduction of ethnicity in the study of cultural consumptionrequires a discussion of the concept of cultural capital. In this article, it is arguedthat this concept should acknowledge not only highbrow but also popular andcommunity-based cultural capital. As a consequence, also cultural consumptionshould be measured in all three related cultural domains. Furthermore, thisarticle takes two dimensions of ethnicity into account. The first dimension isethnicity as ‘country of origin’ or ‘race’, as it has been applied in empiricalstudies of cultural consumption so far. ‘Country of origin’ and ‘race’ are, how-ever, monolithic classifications that may fail to express the real and imaginedcomplexity of the urban environment and its ethnic communities (see Soja,1996). Secondly, ethnicity is understood as ‘ethnic orientation’ to move beyondcontainer definitions such as race. For this purpose, a scale is built that runsfrom an orientation in everyday life on the minority-ethnic heritage to anorientation on the Dutch-general heritage.1

The relation between ethnicity and class in cultural consumption is addressed bymeans of an empirical exploration of diversity in cultural consumption in Rotter-dam, the Netherlands. This article is a reflection on the more quantitative elementsof a wider research project dealing with multicultural citizenship and cultural parti-cipation and the implications for the public sphere.

1 The definition of ‘heritage’ (Hall, 1999) refers to the whole complex of organisations, institutions and

practices devoted to the preservation and presentation of culture, as well as the active production of cul-

ture as a living activity. Culture is understood by Hall not only as the arts, but also as a system of specific

‘ethnic’ or cultural meanings (i.e. national identity). What the minority-ethnic and the Dutch-general

cultural heritages encompass is impossible to define exactly: by being exposed to one another in the

Western setting, mutual exchange and subsequent change will take place similar to Ulf Hannerz’s (1990)

illustration of the process of creolisation in Sweden. The reference to ‘minority-ethnic heritage’ applies to

ethnic heritages that are percentage-wise a minority within the Dutch ethnic context (e.g. Surinamese,

Turkish and Moroccan heritages). The suffix ‘general’ is added to the term ‘Dutch-general heritage’ to

indicate that basically the white-Dutch heritage is meant, but to acknowledge simultaneously its ties to the

wider Western tradition and the new cultural influences within the Dutch borders.

282 S. Trienekens / Poetics 30 (2002) 281–298

2. Cultural distinction in multi-ethnic societies

2.1. Multiple-cultural capital

Class distinctions, according to Bourdieu, are linked to capital and are determinedby the volume and composition of capital, and the change in these two propertiesover time. The composition of capital is understood as the distribution of the overallvolume of capital among the different kinds of capital, i.e., economic, social andcultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984: 114). Although cultural capital is never explicitlydefined, in Bourdieu’s analyses of the 1968 survey data it tends to boil down tofamiliarity with and appreciation of high-cultural art forms (Bourdieu, 1984; seealso DiMaggio, 1996). Rich in cultural capital, therefore, are those groups whosesocial origin and educational capital led to an early socialisation with and appre-ciation of highbrow art forms. This implies that those with little knowledge of thesespecific forms are poor in cultural capital. This, however, is difficult to maintain incontemporary Western societies in which the study of the consumption of popularculture is no longer regarded with disdain and popular culture is no longer seen as‘vulgar’. This is evident from the numerous studies on youth culture as well as thoseon cultural omnivores (Peterson, e.g. 1992, 1997, Peterson and Kern 1996) and thenew middle class (e.g. Featherstone, 1991; Savage, 1992). Popular culture hasbecome a means of distinction in its own right, granting prestige within some circlesjust like highbrow culture does within others. Therefore, a contemporary definitionof cultural capital should acknowledge a broader cultural field and should embracehighbrow art forms just as much as any other form of art and culture.

Such a contemporary definition should also deal with the cultural capital of min-ority-ethnic groups, because ‘‘(. . .) ethnic groups may use one form of culturalcapital with a currency in the wider world, while a separate kind of cultural capitalestablishes status within the group itself. Thus, ethnic cultural capital does notalways reduce to class cultural capital by any straightforward ‘currency exchange’’’(Hall, 1992: 270–271). This implies that the composition of minority-ethnic culturalcapital differs partly from that of the overall cultural capital present in Westernsocieties. This is due to the holistic nature of minority-ethnic cultural capital as itencompasses the appreciation of more ‘traditional’ and ‘roots’, as well as a variety ofhybrid, contemporary, and mainstream cultural forms. Some of these forms mayhave already gained a wider currency, but those still alien to the established Westerncultural field are likely to be organised and consumed within the minority-ethnicgroups. Lacking a mainstream stage and audience, these cultural activities areunderstood in this article as community-based.2

This study, thus, acknowledges three kinds of cultural capital, namely capitalrelated to highbrow, popular, and community-based culture. Note, however, thatthe societal impact or the ‘currency exchange rate’ is not the same for these forms.Bourdieu saw the possession of highbrow cultural capital as indicative of one’s

2 Community-based culture should not be confused with the distinct tradition of community arts, but

should be understood as referring to the location of this type of cultural activity.

S. Trienekens / Poetics 30 (2002) 281–298 283

position in the broader societal power structures. Although the societal positions ofpersons possessing the three kinds of cultural capital to varying degrees may indeeddiffer, these positions are not subject to a static ordering. With increasing cultural‘bargaining power’ of minority-ethnic groups, diminishing public resources forhighbrow arts, and more public-private partnerships, these power relations betweenthe three cultural spheres are in flux. Therefore, focusing on highbrow culturalcapital and leaving other forms of cultural capital out of the equation, because theyhave a different position in the cultural ordering, would mean the reinforcement ofthe idea of static power structures whilst ignoring the majority of the cultural con-sumers’ means of distinction.

2.2. Ethnicity

Minority-ethnic cultural capital cannot always be reduced to class cultural capitalby any straightforward ‘currency exchange’, as Hall suggested. This implies that theconcept of class itself has become less straightforward,3 but also that there will beadditional driving forces behind cultural consumption besides class-related issues. Inmulti-ethnic societies, ethnicity is likely to play a role.

The concept of class distinction is related to the process of capital acquisition,which, to Bourdieu, is based on a mixture of socialisation and education. For min-ority-ethnic groups it can be expected that this process took place, at least partly, ina different tradition. To the extent that the artistic expressions of minority-ethnicgroups are not yet accepted outside the group, they possess a ‘decontextualised’ or‘dislocated’ cultural capital in the wider Western context. For cultural events locatedin minority-ethnic circles, the shared cultural tradition is expected to prevail overclass distinctions as a determinant of cultural consumption. This expectation isbased on research indicating that members of minority-ethnic groups value thesecultural events for their ability to draw in the wider community as well as the dif-ferent generations (see e.g. Jermyn and Desai, 2000). Ethnicity, more than status oreducational attainment, is then the incentive to take part in these cultural activities.

Critics have already suggested a more rigorous consideration of ethnicity, as wellas of indicators such as gender, age, and religious distinctions, in (survey-based)research of cultural consumption (e.g. Hall, 1992; Lamont and Lareau, 1988; Zol-berg, 2000). The few attempts that have been made, however, show limitations in the

3 In Marx’s class theory, the distinction between classes is one based on economic resources: those in

possession of the means of production and those without, or in other words, a dichotomy between the

capitalists and the proletariat. For Veblen the class struggle was not only an economic struggle, but one

that also had to do with dignity and honour expressed through one’s knowledge, taste and consumption

(Mommaas, 1993, 55). Weber employs a broader conception of honour: prestige and honour are under-

stood as a certain kind of power assets and in that sense as a basis for exclusion and exclusiveness. Weber

distinguishes between the economic domain and the socio-cultural domain, in the latter it is not so much

‘class’ but ‘estate’ (i.e. one’s social and cultural position in society) by which means distinction, and in that

respect also exclusion, is expressed (ibid. 56–61). In Simmel’s perception of distinction, class- or estate

relations (he uses class and estate for that matter as almost interchangeable) produce the social dynamics

of (life-)styles (ibid. 65). In contemporary studies on social distinction, the concept of class seems to be

used far more carelessly, without explicit definition and as if there were no history to it.


conceptualisation of ethnicity (see also Trienekens, 1999). In the continental-Eur-opean context, ethnicity is often reduced to ethnic background, i.e., country of birth(e.g., Van Wel, 1993; Van der Hoogen and Van der Berg, 1997), whereas in theAnglo-Saxon context ethnicity mainly appears in terms of race (e.g. DiMaggio andOstrower, 1990; Bryson, 1996). But country of origin and race are container defini-tions that fail to reflect the real and imagined complexity of minority-ethnic groupsand restrict the individual and community’s self-definition. Conclusions suggesting‘‘differentiation and stratification of taste within the black population’’ (DiMaggioand Ostrower, 1990: 771) should really be taken as points of departure. On the otherhand, the studies on cultural consumption that did acknowledge other dimensions ofethnicity such as ethnic and cultural identity focused predominantly on popularculture, above all on media (e.g., Davis and Gandy, 1999; Jacobs, 1999), and audio-visual culture (e.g., Gillispie, 1989; Milikowski, 1999). In the analysis at hand, allthree cultural domains as discerned above are studied while simultaneously takinginto consideration two dimensions of ethnicity: country of origin and ethnicorientation.

Country of origin is the demographic reference to the nation(s) of birth of therespondent and his/her parents. This dimension of ethnicity does not distinguishbetween individuals grouped together under the same country of origin. The seconddimension is a ‘‘thick description’’ (Geertz, 1973) of ethnicity and is labelled ‘ethnicorientation’. This dimension acknowledges the difference between the demographic‘‘observation’’ and the ‘‘experience’’ of ethnicity as it constitutes part of one’s iden-tity. Bhabha as well as Stuart Hall (e.g., Hall and Jefferson, 1976; Hall, 1992;Bhabha, 1996) conceptualise ethnicity in relation to identity. This identity, however,may have a hybrid character (Bhabha, 1996), because living with different roots in aWestern country means that there are at least two sets of meaning and culture todraw upon (see also Hannerz, 1990). Members of minority-ethnic groups will besocialised and educated to different degrees in these two traditions and they willdiffer in the extent to which they identify with either one of these two ethnic back-grounds. Moreover, new positions will emerge that spark off from the differencesbetween cultures as they can be experienced in Western societies. ‘Ethnic orienta-tion’ reflects, therefore, the position of members of minority-ethnic groups on a scalerunning from an orientation in everyday life on the minority-ethnic heritage to anorientation on the Dutch-general heritage.

2.3. Hypotheses

From the above reflections on class and the assessment of the various dimensionsof ethnicity in a cultural sphere that is inclusive of minority-ethnic cultural expres-sions, seven hypotheses can be deduced that give insight in how ethnicity affectscultural consumption in comparison to conventional class indicators such as level ofeducation, age, and gender. This will be analysed by addressing the three culturaldomains separately.

In studies of cultural consumption, educational attainment has a particularlystrong influence on the consumption of highbrow culture (see e.g. De Haan and


Knulst, 2000). Given the often intellectually demanding nature of highbrow culture,its Western character, and the individuality of the audience experience, it is expectedthat class plays a stronger role in the consumption of highbrow culture by minority-ethnic groups than ethnicity.

Hypothesis 1a. Class has a stronger effect on the consumption of highbrow cultureby minority-ethnic groups than ethnicity.

Popular culture is characterised by a strong influence of (American) mass con-sumer culture and its ‘worldwide’ availability. In general, it might be less compli-cated to acquire the cultural capital required for the consumption of popularculture. Furthermore, especially within popular music culture there is a high level ofcross-over of styles representing a variety of ethnic-cultural backgrounds, whereasthe domain of highbrow cultural production is still predominantly white. It can evenbe argued that Afro-Americans, and increasingly Black- and Asian-Europeans,dominate broad sectors within popular music of which R&B, rap, and hip hop, areonly the most obvious examples. These music styles are appropriated by white andother musicians and also the audiences show a mixture of ethnic backgrounds.There seems, therefore, to be a less clear-cut division along ethnic lines in the pro-duction or consumption of this type of culture.

Hypothesis 1b. In the consumption of popular culture, the effect of ethnicity issimilar in magnitude to the effect of class indicators.

The appreciation of meeting people from the same ethnic background, as expres-sed by members of minority-ethnic groups, leads to the expectation that the sharedcultural heritage prevails over class distinctions in the explanation of cultural con-sumption within the community-based cultural sphere.

Hypothesis 1c. Ethnicity is a stronger predictor of participation in community-basedculture than class.

The effect of ethnicity may however depend on the way ethnicity is conceptualised.It has been argued above, that ‘ethnic orientation’ is a more elaborate concept than‘country of origin’, because it distinguishes between respondents who otherwise areassigned to the same category. It is, therefore, expected that ‘ethnic orientation’accounts for differences in cultural consumption better than ‘country of origin’(when controlled for age, gender and educational attainment).

Hypothesis 2. Ethnicity in the dimension of ‘ethnic orientation’ accounts better fordistinctions in cultural consumption by minority-ethnic groups in the three culturaldomains than in the dimension of ‘country of origin’.

Nevertheless, the direction of the effect of ethnic orientation is expected to varyin the three cultural domains as discerned above. According to Bourdieu, partici-


pation in highbrow culture requires socialisation in and familiarity of culturalexpressions in this domain. With regard to minority-ethnic groups it can beexpected that those with a strong orientation in everyday life on the Dutch-generalheritage are most likely to be familiar with highbrow culture and participate moreoften in this domain than those with a strong orientation on the minority-ethnicheritage.

Hypothesis 3a. Members of minority-ethnic groups with a strong Dutch-generalorientation participate more in highbrow culture than those with an orientation onthe minority-ethnic heritage.

Ethnicity is not expected to play a great role in the consumption of popular cul-ture due to the diversity in cultural styles and ethnic influences in this culturaldomain. Therefore, the direction of the effect of ethnicity may also be less straight-forward and respondents from all ethnic orientations are expected to constitute partof the consumers of this kind of culture.

Hypothesis 3b. Members of minority ethnic groups participate to the same extent inpopular culture irrespective of their ethnic orientations.

For cultural events located in minority-ethnic circles, it is expected that membersof minority-ethnic groups with a strong orientation on the minority-ethnic heritagewill participate more in community-based culture than members with an orientationon the Dutch-general heritage. Moreover, a strong focus on the own group andbackground may lead to less information on ‘what’s on’ in the field of popular andhighbrow culture and this group is therefore expected to participate more in com-munity-based culture than in highbrow or popular culture.

Hypothesis 3c. Members of minority-ethnic groups with a strong orientation on theminority-ethnic heritage participate more in community-based cultural activitiesthan in highbrow and popular culture, and more so than members of minority-eth-nic groups with a strong Dutch-general orientation.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample: survey on cultural diversity in Rotterdam

The data set for testing the hypotheses is a leisure and cultural participation sur-vey4 conducted in 1999 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The city of Rotterdam pro-vides an appropriate setting for the study of ethnicity, because 44 percent of the total

4 Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek, Rotterdam, 1999: Vrijtijdsomnibus Allochtonen. Wonen,

recreeren en uitgaan in Rotterdam (Centre for Research and Statistics, Rotterdam, 1999: Leisure Omni-

bus Minority-ethnic groups. Living, recreation and going out in Rotterdam).


population is of dual or non-Western cultural heritage. Half of this minority-ethnicpopulation is of Surinamese, Turkish, or Moroccan cultural heritage and these threegroups are the subject of the analyses at hand. Of these groups, the Surinamese aremore familiar with Dutch culture and language than the Turkish and Moroccans.This is due to the nature of migration to the Netherlands, which is characterisedboth by (de)colonisation and labour migration. The immigration wave from theformer colony Surinam reached its height shortly before independence in 1975. Thefirst migrants from Turkey and Morocco were recruited as manual labourers duringthe economic boom in the 60s and 70s.

The underlying rationale for this survey was the question of the applicability ofthe criteria for measuring cultural participation, as used by a Dutch national sur-vey,5 to the changed cultural field and ethnic make-up of society (COS, 2000, 7). TheRotterdam survey is the first Dutch survey that allows for a broader study ofcultural consumption and ethnicity, firstly, because the sample included variousminority-ethnic groups as well as a ‘Dutch’ comparison group. Secondly, the ques-tionnaire covered highbrow art forms, popular culture and community-based cul-tural activities.

The Rotterdam survey is based on a stratified sample. The random sample con-tained 500 Surinamese of the first and 500 of the second generation, 440 of each ofthe Turkish and Moroccan generations and 887 of the Dutch comparison group.The questionnaire was in the Dutch language and sent to the respondents by mail.The total overall response was 1733, of which 55% were female respondents. Theresponse is higher than the general response of minority-ethnic groups in Rotterdam(COS, 2000, 5), due to the Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese interviewers whowere sent to respondents, who had not returned the questionnaire, to assist them intheir own language if required. This way, a self-selection among members of min-ority-ethnic groups on the basis of language skills was prevented, and a minimumresponse of 170 per generation was achieved.

The sample of the comparison group was not random, but drawn age-specific toguarantee a comparable age distribution to that of the Surinamese, Turkish andMoroccan groups. Because most labour migrants were young adolescents when theyfirst moved to the Netherlands there were hardly any respondents over the age of 65 inthe sample. Also those of Surinamese heritage turned out to be extremely young:around 70% of the respondents of all three minority-ethnic groups were younger than45. The adjustment of the age structure of the Dutch comparison group means how-ever that this group consists relatively of too many youngsters and too few elderlypeople. This lack of representativeness in age structure of the Dutch comparisongroup, as well as the overrepresentation of the minority-ethnic groups, indicate thelimited possibility to generalise the results to both the local and the national level.

A distinction is made in the sample design between the first and second genera-tion. The first generation is defined as persons who are born in Surinam, Turkey, orMorocco. The second generation consists of persons born in the Netherlands with at

5 Algemeen Voorzieningen Onderzoek—General Services Survey—which has been conducted every 4

years since 1979.


least one parent born in one of these three countries. A Dutch comparison groupwas included in the sample to analyse the extent to which the three minority-ethnicgroups differ from the average cultural consumption patterns in Rotterdam. TheDutch comparison group contains persons born in the Netherlands whose parentswere both born in the Netherlands as well. Those of white-Dutch heritage will makeup the majority of this group. Note however, that the definition encompasses allcultural heritages as long as the selection criteria are met. Therefore, a part of thethird generation of the three (and other) minority-ethnic groups belongs to thiscategory too.6

3.2. Operationalisation: ethnic orientation

Ethnicity is measured by two of its dimensions. Firstly, as country of origin. Forthis purpose, the categories to which the survey sample ascribed the respondents areused. That is, the first and second generation Surinamese, Turkish, and Moroccans,and a Dutch comparison group. Secondly, as ethnic orientation. Unfortunately, thesurvey did not give the respondents the option for self-definition of their ethnicidentity. Therefore, to measure ethnic orientation, a scale is built on survey ques-tions that represent ways in which identity is expressed in everyday life. First of all,media preferences are considered as expressed in questions on the newspapers, radiostations, and television channels most often read, listened to or watched. The answercategories included Dutch public and commercial media, Surinamese, Turkish, andMoroccan media directly or via satellite available in the Netherlands, as well asmedia produced for and/or by minority-ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Further-more, the language most frequently used for reading books is taken into account.The variety of languages of the minority-ethnic groups were provided as possibleanswers. Language proficiency is not only related to the choice one makes in readingbooks, but also directs the choice of media. For instance, if a Turkish respondentwith a minimal level of Dutch language skills reads newspapers, then this is likely tobe a Turkish newspaper. Language is also an indicator of ethnic orientation becauseDutch language skills are an important prerequisite for social (and cultural) parti-cipation outside the own minority-ethnic group. The extent to which respondentsengage in the wider Dutch society is also measured by the ethnic composition of thesocial network. From other studies on cultural consumption (e.g. Ganzeboom,1988) it is apparent that networks have a strong influence on what is consumed. Forsome members of minority-ethnic groups, identity as well as networks are definedthrough the religious communities they belong to. Therefore, the questions whetherone has a religion and whether one practices this religion, with all religions of thethree minority-ethnic groups reflected in the answer categories, are considered asindications of ethnic orientation as well. Moreover, because certain cultural expres-sions may not be approved of by certain religious groups, 7 it is expected that reli-gious preference affects cultural consumption too.

6 Yet another illustration of how the categorisation on the basis of country of origin is problematic.7 This applies to all religions, not only those of minority-ethnic groups.


Studies of cultural consumption often take reading books or watching televisionas dependent variables rather than as (part of) an independent variable. In thisstudy, however, this kind of ’consumption’ is understood as representative of theethnic orientation in everyday life as it takes place in the private sphere togetherwith family and friends. The questions on television, radio, newspapers, and lan-guage for reading, did not focus on how often the respondents engaged in watching,listening or reading, but on which channels, stations and languages respondentspreferred. Therefore, rather than indicating the intensity of consumption, the ques-tions are indicative of the ethnic orientation of the vast majority of the respondents.Furthermore, there is barely any pre-selection of respondents due to their non-par-ticipation, since only five percent of the respondents indicated that they never watchtelevision. Although not all respondents engaged in reading newspapers and listen-ing to the radio, the majority made use of either one of the two.8 Additionally, allrespondents indicated the composition of their network and their religious pref-erence. Hence, the risk of tautological reasoning, i.e., to take cultural consumptionas a predictor of cultural consumption, is diminished by considering the relationbetween two separate spheres: the relation between the ethnic orientation in the pri-vate sphere in which everybody participates without measuring the frequency of con-sumption, and the intensity of consumption in the cultural sphere outside the home.

Since all the answer categories covered the range from minority-ethnic to Dutch-general, it was possible to transform the separate questions into scales representingan ethnic orientation ranging from the minority-ethnic heritage to an orientation onthe Dutch-general heritage. A mixed orientation, i.e., engaging in both minority-ethnic and Dutch-general heritage, is possible as well. It is vitally important to notethat a mixed ethnic orientation is not the equivalent of a mixed or omnivorousconsumption pattern, because ethnic orientation in this analysis is an indicator ofethnicity, whereas cultural consumption will be measured as the attendance of cul-tural events. To verify that the separate scales indeed refer to one and the sameindicator, i.e. ‘ethnic orientation’, a factor analysis was conducted. The scales9

indeed load heavily on just one factor, with a ‘total variance explained’’ of 43%.Ethnic orientation was constructed by adding up the separate scales multiplied bytheir respective factor loadings. The lowest scores on ‘ethnic orientation’ representan orientation on the minority-ethnic heritage, and the highest scores an orientationon the Dutch-general heritage.

The two dimensions of ethnicity are compared to the conventional class indicatorsof cultural consumption, i.e. age, gender and educational attainment. Age is pre-sented in the analyses in four cohorts: respondents of 24 years old or younger,

8 To avoid missing cases, the questions on reading newspapers and reading literature were merged and

also listening to the radio and watching television were considered together in the construction of ethnic

orientation.9 There are four scales: (a) preference regarding radio and television, (b) preference regarding news-

papers and books, (c) preference in social network, and (d) religious preference. The respondents score on

each scale either value 1: minority ethnic heritage, value 2: a mix of minority-ethnic and Dutch heritage,

or value 3: Dutch-general heritage. Since the same scales are used for all minority-ethnic respondents, the

differences between the Surinamese, Turkish and Moroccan groups have disappeared.


between 25 and 44 years old, between 45 and 64 years old, and finally, those of 65years or older. Gender distinguishes between male and female. Educational attain-ment, measured by the highest educational degree obtained, is divided into fiveclasses: (a) no education or only primary school, (b) lower level vocational training/secondary school, (c) middle level vocational training/secondary school, (d) higherlevel secondary school, and (e) polytechnic or university degree.

3.3. Operationalisation: cultural consumption

Ethnic orientation is used as a predictor of cultural consumption. Cultural con-sumption is divided into three dependent variables: highbrow, popular and com-munity-based culture. Highbrow culture, in this context, is a category based on fivequestions on the attendance of the performing arts: theatre plays; concerts ofclassical music; opera or operetta; ballet performances; and jazz concerts (i.e.performances in ‘proper’ cultural locations). The category of popular culture isbased on five questions on the attendance of pop concerts; house and danceparties; cabaret; musical; and cinema. This comes close to what could be calledyouth culture. Community-based cultural activity was captured in the question:‘Do you ever visit parties with live performances?’ If the answer was affirmativethe respondents were directed towards the next question: ‘How often did youvisit such a party in the last twelve months?’ The frequency had to be indicatedseparately for parties with dance performances, parties with live music, andparties with theatre plays. The individual art forms are reduced to three depen-dent variables because as such they relate to the three kinds of cultural capitalas considered in this analysis.

‘Lacking currency in the wider world’, these community-based events are under-stood as being staged outside the conventional and institutional cultural circuits.10

The control question ‘where did these parties take place’ showed that this wasindeed the case. Instead of in theatres or concert halls, these events happened incommunity centres, function rooms or multi-purpose halls. The question on partieswith live performances was supposed to capture the inescapable informal localityof community-based culture due to the problematic access to the conventional cul-tural field. However, using the term parties may have had an effect on the percep-tion of the kind of activities that take place in this cultural domain. The word partyhas a strong informal connotation of festivities shaped, for instance, around wed-dings, anniversaries or religious holidays. In other words, the question now runs therisk of degrading the cultural activity itself, which really can be anything from

10 Although the question on attendance of parties with live performances was meant to capture the

non-institutional minority-ethnic cultural activity, this is not to ignore cultural diversity in the pro-

gramming of some established cultural venues. Unfortunately, this kind of information is not avail-

able from the questionnaire. Additionally, the question is formulated in such a way that it mirrors

cultural activities that take place within any group or community. Therefore, a culture-relativist

approach, in which every cultural event organised by minority-ethnic groups is by definition under-

stood as art/culture whilst ignoring the existence of comparable cultural activities within other soci-

etal groups, should be avoided.


classical to contemporary theatre, dance and music, but also oral history, poetryreading, comedy, or most likely, a combination of or several of these art forms per-formed during the same party. Note that due to the general formulation of thequestion on community-based culture, not only minority-ethnic culture is capturedbut also any kind of cultural activities of the Dutch comparison group that fits thedescription.

4. Results

4.1. Colourful distinction in a broad cultural field

Before addressing the hypotheses, Table 1 gives an overview of cultural con-sumption in the three cultural domains by minority-ethnic groups in comparison tothe Dutch comparison group. Note first of all that only the older part of the Dutchcomparison group attended highbrow culture regularly. The Dutch national survey,with its strong focus on highbrow art forms, thus captures mainly the cultural par-ticipation of this group. When the broader cultural field is taken into account, bymeasuring the total number of visits in all three cultural domains (last column ofTable 1), it becomes apparent that this Dutch comparison group did not participatemore than the other groups. The second generation Surinamese and the youngstersof the Dutch comparison group participated even more in culture, and the firstgeneration of the Surinamese and the second generation of the Moroccans werealmost as active. However, participation clearly took place in different culturalspheres. Adaptation of the national questionnaire is therefore necessary to avoid anunder-representation of cultural activity by minority-ethnic groups and young peo-ple in general. Note secondly, that all groups have the highest number of annualvisits in the domain of popular culture, but that the second generation Surinamesewas particularly active. Thirdly, the second generation Surinamese also participated

Table 1

Mean number of visitsa to cultural events and performances in last 12 months by country of originb

Country of origin n Highbrow

culture

Popular

culture

Community-

based culture

Total—all

cultural

domains

Surinamese first generation 176 1.0 5.4 2.1 10.5

Surinamese second 212 0.8 8.6 5.2 16.7

Turkish first 159 0.6 3.6 1.6 7.4

Turkish second 312 0.8 5.6 1.2 9.6

Moroccan first 108 0.7 4.8 1.1 8.1

Moroccan second 234 0.7 6.9 1.6 11.3

Dutch comparison group ‘first’ 222 2.2 6.0 1.2 11.2

Dutch comparison group ‘second’ 221 1.3 6.6 2.4 13.9

a Adjusted means of analysis of variance (see for significance and beta’s Table 2).b Controlled for gender, age and level of education.


more in community-based culture, whereas both generations of the Turks andMoroccans participated less in this cultural domain, than the rest of the groups.Finally, participation in community-based culture is not unique to minority-ethnicgroups, also the younger segment of the Dutch comparison group participated inthis cultural sphere regularly.

The central question in this article addresses the effect of ethnicity on culturalconsumption in comparison to conventional class indicators of cultural distinction.A class analysis like Bourdieu’s (1984) tracing of social origin is unfortunately notpossible, because the survey holds no information on the occupational status of therespondent nor of the father. However, because of the strong correlation betweenoccupation and level of education, it may suffice to consider educational attainmentin an explorative analysis as the one at hand. Therefore, the conventional culturalindicators considered here are educational attainment, age and gender. Table 2

Table 2

Analysis of variance—the impact of gender, age, level of education, and ethnicity (as country of origin

and as ethnic orientation) on cultural consumption by minority-ethnic groupsa

Country of origin Ethnic orientation

Eta Betab Eta Betab

Highbrow culture Gender 0.050 0.045 0.059 0.060

Age 0.025 0.080 0.040 0.109

Education 0.120*** 0.140*** 0.101** 0.090**

Country of origin 0.066 0.029 0.079 0.059

Ethnic orientation 0.118* 0.116*

R2=0.022 R2=0.030

Popular culture Gender 0.005 0.072 0.000 0.069

Age 0.348*** 0.171*** 0.317*** 0.121***

Education 0.320* 0.183*** 0.290*** 0.122***

Country of origin 0.386*** 0.219*** 0.367*** 0.187***

Ethnic orientation 0.312*** 0.193***

R2=0.196 R2=0.196

Community-based culture Gender 0.020 0.023 0.010 0.033

Age 0.163*** 0.068*** 0.142*** 0.056***

Education 0.200*** 0.117*** 0.185*** 0.083***

Country of origin 0.291*** 0.245*** 0.275*** 0.209***

Ethnic orientation 0.225*** 0.143***

R2=0.102 R2=0.106

a n=1201.b Beta=standardised effects, i.e., impact of each variable when controlled for the other variables.

* P40.05.

** P40.01.

*** P40.001.


shows the impact of these indicators on cultural consumption. Note that these fig-ures apply solely to minority-ethnic groups.11

Table 2, under ‘county of origin’, shows that hypotheses 1a through 1c are confirmed.In the domain of highbrow culture, educational attainment as a class indicator is theonly significant predictor of consumption. Class characteristics, as expected inhypothesis 1a, have indeed a stronger effect than ethnicity. In the sphere of popularculture, age, educational attainment, and country of origin all have a strong effecton cultural consumption. Country of origin is an only slightly stronger predictor,therefore, class indicators and ethnicity have an effect that is comparable in magni-tude (hypothesis 1b). Within the community-based cultural domain, ethnicity in thedimension of country of origin turns out to be a far stronger predictor of con-sumption than the class indicators age and educational attainment, as hypothesis 1cput forward.

Note that gender has no significant effect in any of the three cultural domains.Dutch national survey data show that women participate more often than men do,both in active and receptive cultural participation (De Haan and Knulst, 2000: 30).Apparently, a disparate consumption pattern applies to the minority-ethnic groupsin this survey. The difference between the two surveys may stem from the fact that ahigh percentage of the minority-ethnic groups stated that cultural consumptiontakes place in the company of family members, making it more likely that both sexesare present.

Hypothesis 2 addresses the conceptualisation of ethnicity: ethnicity in thedimension of ‘ethnic orientation’ accounts better for distinctions in cultural con-sumption by minority-ethnic groups in the three cultural domains than ‘country oforigin’’. The last column of Table 2 (ethnic orientation—beta) shows that this isindeed the case, when controlled for educational attainment, age, and gender.Whereas country of origin had no significant effect on the consumption of high-brow culture, ethnic orientation becomes more important than educational attain-ment. The introduction of ethnic orientation contradicts the general notion, basedon Dutch national surveys, that highbrow culture attracts a higher-educated andmiddle-aged audience (De Haan and Knulst, 2000: 83). The explanation of theconsumption of popular culture is not greatly altered by the introduction of ethnicorientation: country of origin continues to have a strong effect on consumptionand ethnic orientation is slightly stronger. In the domain of community-based cul-ture, country of origin remains a stronger influence on consumption than ethnicorientation.

Hence, ethnicity in the dimension of ethnic orientation affects cultural consump-tion in all three cultural domains more than class indicators. Furthermore, ethnicity

11 These figures apply solely to minority-ethnic groups because there are not enough respondents in the

Dutch comparison group that read Turkish, Surinamese or Moroccan newspapers or watch satellite TV

regularly. That there is no indicator constructed for the ethnic orientation of the general Dutch popula-

tion, is not to deny white people’s ethnicity, but there is a lack of questions in the survey from which to

gain insight into the Dutch ethnic orientation. The way ethnic orientation is conceptualised here, the

Dutch comparison group would turn out entirely as ‘strong orientation on Dutch-heritage’, which would

not enhance the findings.


in the dimension of ‘ethnic orientation’ indeed accounts better for distinctions incultural consumption of highbrow and popular culture by minority-ethnic groupsthan in the dimension of ‘country of origin’. This is an important conclusionregarding the domain of highbrow culture, because conventional analyses of culturalconsumption are often confined to this domain, and when ethnicity is considered,country of origin is taken as an indicator. As a consequence, these analyses ignore,first of all, cultural participation outside the domain of highbrow culture. Secondly,within the domain of highbrow culture, they ignore the strong influence of otherdimensions of ethnicity on cultural consumption. This leads to an underrepresentationof both minority-ethnic groups and young people. That country of origin remains thestrongest predictor of the consumption of community-based culture reinforces theidea that the incentive for participation in this domain lies in the shared roots andthe appreciation of meeting people from the wider ethnic community, irrespective oftheir age, gender, level of education, and regardless of their ethnic orientation.

Ethnic orientation captures ethnicity better than country of origin in the majorityof the cultural field, but what is the direction of the effect of ethnic orientation oncultural consumption? From Table 3 it becomes apparent that a stronger Dutch-general orientation leads to a higher number of visits in all three cultural domains.This is in accordance with hypothesis 3a: those respondents with a strong Dutch-general orientation are more active in highbrow culture than those with a strongminority-ethnic heritage orientation. Hypothesis 3b, expecting respondents irre-spective of their ethnic orientation to consume popular culture, is not confirmed,because respondents with a strong minority-ethnic orientation did participate inpopular culture, but paid only half or less than half the number of visits of themixed- and Dutch-general oriented respondents. That a strong Dutch-generalorientation is dominant in the consumption of popular culture may indicate thatpopular culture remains very much a Western cultural expression, despite its mis-cellaneous character. More surprising is the outcome with regard to community-based culture. Hypothesis 3c is negated with a double ‘no’: members of minority-ethnic groups with a strong orientation on the minority-ethnic heritage participateneither more in community-based cultural activities than in highbrow and popular

Table 3

Mean number of visitsa to cultural events and performances in last 12 months by ethnic orientation (fig-

ures apply to minority-ethnic groups onlyb

Ethnic orientation n Highbrow

culture

Popular

culture

Community-

based culture

Total—all

cultural

domains

Minority-ethnic heritage 235 0.2 3.5 2.3 6.4

Mixed heritage 608 0.7 6.7 4.3 11.9

Dutch-general heritage 245 1.0 7.8 5.7 13.6

a Adjusted means of analysis of variance (see for significance and beta’s Table 2).b Controlled for gender, age and level of education.


culture, nor more so than members of minority-ethnic groups with a strong Dutch-general orientation. It seems that a strong orientation on the wider Dutch society ineveryday life, which might also encompass the work sphere, is complemented byseeking out one’s roots when going out, but not at the expense of highbrow orpopular culture. In other words, members of minority-ethnic groups with knowledgeof the ‘other’ (i.e. the West) have simultaneously a greater appreciation of the ‘self’in cultural consumption.

That an orientation on the minority-ethnic heritage does not lead to participationin community-based culture may be explained by the setting in which culturalsocialisation took place. Labour recruitment focused predominantly on rural agri-cultural areas in Turkey and Morocco, areas with high percentages of lower anduneducated inhabitants, and the cultural socialisation of the first generations maytherefore have been less profound. Moreover, these groups may not have identifiedwith the questions in the survey, because they may perceive their cultural traditionas an intrinsic part of everyday life that takes place in the private sphere of the homerather than as a ‘party’ to which one goes for a night out.

5. Concluding remarks

Ethnicity, thus, questions the assumptions related to class distinctions and culturalconsumption. Ethnicity in the dimension of ethnic orientation affects cultural con-sumption in all three cultural domains more than class indicators. Furthermore,ethnicity in the dimension of ‘ethnic orientation’ indeed accounts better for distinc-tions in consumption of highbrow and popular culture by minority-ethnic groupsthan in the dimension of ‘country of origin’. Even the more general concept of eth-nicity, as country of origin, has a stronger effect in the domains of popular cultureand community-based culture than the conventional class predictors. With increas-ing numbers of people from dual or non-Western cultural heritage in contemporaryurban contexts, ethnicity can be expected to become only more dominant in the nearfuture. It is therefore necessary to integrate indicators of ethnicity consistently indata-analysis of cultural consumption and to continue the search for more optimaloperationalisations of ethnicity and of cultural capital. To avoid an under-representation of minority-ethnic groups and young people in empirical data, thisrequires, simultaneously, a coverage of minority-ethnic and popular cultural activ-ities and cultural expressions in questionnaires.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Koen van Eijck, Hans Mommaas, two anonymous reviewersand the editor, Kees van Rees, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of thisarticle.


References

Arts Council of England, 1997. The landscape of fact. Towards a policy for cultural diversity for the

English funding system: African, Caribbean, Asian and Chinese Arts. Consultative Green Paper, Feb-

ruary 1997.

Bhabha, Homi, 1996. Culture’s in-between. In: Hall, S., du Gay, P. (Eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity.

Sage, London, pp. 53–60.

Bourdieu, Pierre, 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge, London.

Bryson, Bethany, 1996. ‘‘Anything but heavy metal’: symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. American

Sociological Review 61 (October), 884–899.

COS, 1999. Vrijetijdsomnibus Allochtonen. Wonen, recreeren en uitgaan in Rotterdam. Rechte tellingen.

Rotterdam: Centrum Onderzoek en Statistiek. (Leisure Omnibus Minority-ethnic groups. Living,

recreation and going out in Rotterdam).

COS, 2000. Diversiteit in vrijetijdsbesteding. Een onderzoek onder Marokkaanse, Turkse en Surinaamse

Rotterdammers. Rotterdam: Centrum Onderzoek en Statistiek. (Diversity in Leisure: a research on

Moroccans, Turks and Surinamese in Rotterdam).

Davis, Jessica, Oscar, Gandy, 1999. Racial identity and media orientation. Exploring the nature of con-

straint. Journal of Black Studies 29 (3), 367–397.

De Haan, Jos, Knulst, Wim, 2000. Het bereik van de kunsten. Den Haag: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.

(The reach of the arts).

DiMaggio, Paul, 1996. Are art-museum visitors different from other people? The relationship between

attendance and social and political attitudes in the United States. Poetics 24, 161–180.

DiMaggio, Paul, Ostrower, Francie, 1990. Participation in the arts by black and white Americans. Social

Forces 68 (3), 753–778.

Featherstone, Mike, 1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. Sage, London.

Ganzeboom, Harry, 1988, Leefstijlen in Nederland: een verkennende studie. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson

Uitgeverij (Lifestyles in the Netherlands: an explorative study).

Geertz, Clifford, 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture. In: Geertz, C. (Ed.),

The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.

Gillespie, Marie, 1989. Technology and tradition—audio-visual culture among South-Asian families in

West London. Cultural Studies 3 (2), 147–160.

Hall, John, 1992. The capital(s) of cultures: a nonholistic approach to status situations, class, gender, and

ethnicity. In: Lamont, M., Fournier, M. (Eds.), Cultivating Differences. Symbolic Boundaries and the

Making of Inequality. University of Chicago Press.

Hall, Stuart, 1999. Un-settling ‘the heritage’: re-imagining the post-nation. In: Arts Council of England/

North West Arts Board (1999) Whose Heritage? The Impact of Cultural Diversity on Britain’s Living

Heritage. National Conference, Manchester, 1–3 November 1999.

Hall, Stuart, Jefferson, Tony, 1976. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-War Britain.

Hutchinson, London.

Hannerz, Ulf, 1990. Stockholm: Doubly creolizing. Conference The Organization of Diversity, Botkyrka,

Sweden, 13–16June.

Jacobs, Ronald, 1999. Race, media and civil society. International Sociology 14 (3), 355–372.

Jermyn, Helen, Desai, Philly 2000. Arts—what’s in a word? Ethnic minorities and the arts. Arts Council

of England, Research Report No. 20. August 2000.

Lamont, M., Lareau, A., 1988. Cultural capital: allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical

developments. Sociological Theory 6, 153–168.

Milikowski, Marisca, 1999. Stoorzender of katalysator? Turkse satelliet TV in Nederland. Migranten-

studies 3, 170–190. [Jammer or catalyst? Turkish satellite TV in the Netherlands]..

Mommaas, Hans, 1993. Leefstijlen, tussen traditie en moderniteit. Vrijetijd en Samenleving 11 (1), 49–78.

[Lifestyles, between tradition and modernity].

Peterson, Richard, 1992. Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and

univore. Poetics 21, 243–258.

Peterson, Richard, 1997. The rise and fall of highbrow snobbery as a status marker. Poetics 25, 75–92.


Peterson, Richard, Kern, Roger, 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American

Sociological Review 61 (October), 900–907.

Savage, Mike, et al., 1992. Intellectuals and the Theory of Post-Modern Culture. In: Savage, M. et al.

(Eds.), Property, Bureaucracy and Culture. Middle-class formation in contemporary Britain. Routle-

dge, London, pp. 127–131.

Schulze, Gerhard, 1993. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart. Frankfurt: Kampus.

(The experience society: a contemporary sociology of culture).

Soja, Edward, 1996. Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell

Publishers, Oxford.

Trienekens, Sandra, 1999. Kunst en cultuur: cultuurparticipatie van allochtonen. Vrijetijd Studies 4 (17),

47–61. [Arts and culture: cultural participation of minority-ethnic groups].

Van der Hoogen, Q., van den Berg, H.O., 1997. Etnische minderheden en Nederlands kunstbeleid.

Boekmancahier 34, 391–406. [Ethnic minorities and Dutch cultural policy].

Van Wel, Frits, 1993. Een cultuurkloof tussen generaties? Cultuurstijlen onder jongeren en hun persoon-

lijke netwerk. Boekmancahier 17, 306–321. [A culture gap between generations? Cultural styles among

youths and their personal networks].

Zolberg, Vera, 2000. Richard Peterson and the sociology of art and literature. Poetics 28, 157–171.

Sandra Trienekens studied Human Geography at the University of Amsterdam. Over the last three years,

she has conducted research in Rotterdam and Manchester in the context of a comparative study of cultural

diversity and multicultural citizenship in England and The Netherlands. Currently, she is finishing her

PhD thesis on this topic at the University of Tilburg.


‘colourful’ distinction: the role of ethnicity and ethnic orientation in cultural consumption

Documents