5. evrard, yves. democratizing culture or cultural democracy

7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy

1/10

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam20

Download by:[Vilinius University] Date:03 December 2015, At: 14:59

The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society

ISSN: 1063-2921 (Print) 1930-7799 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?

Yves Evrard

To cite this article:Yves Evrard (1997) Democratizing Culture or CulturalDemocracy?, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 27:3, 167-175, DOI:

10.1080/10632929709596961

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632929709596961

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 237

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10632929709596961#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10632929709596961#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjam20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjam20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam20


2/10

Democratizing Culture or

Cultural Democracy?

YVES EVRARD

he argument

in

this article is that deb ates about culture-which g o

T

eyond cultural policies to include, for example, the criticism of mass

culture in defense of intellectual culture-may

be

grouped and structured

around the conflict between two paradigms: the democratization of culture

versus cultural democracy. This conflict comes

to

a large extent from the cul-

tural field itself.

My aim is to present the characteristics of the two paradigms and the ori-

gin

of

the dichotom y before seeking to identify their philosophical roots and

show link s between this dichotom y and those in other fields su ch as research

on

communication and consumer behavior.

I

will conclude by showing how

this conflict between two cultural paradigms may be viewed in light of the

transition from modernity to postmodernity.

I

hope to contribute to an under-

standing

of

the deba te rather than advocate the superiority

of

one position over

the other.

The Roots of the Dichotomy between Democratization and Demacracy

Government cultural policies, notably in Europe and more specifically

in

France, are mainly steered toward the democratization of culture. Th ey aim

to

disseminate major cultural works to an audience that does not have ready

access

to

them, for lack of financial means or knowledge derived from edu-

cation. From this perspective, a mark of s ucce ss fo r a cultural policy w ould be

a dem ograph ic structure for attenda nce for major artw orks that m atches that

Yves Evrard is

u

professor at Group HEC

i n

Jou~v-en-Jrisu.s. runce.

Full I997 167

Do

wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive

rsity]at14:5903December

2015


3/10

The Journal

of

Arts Management, LAW and Society

of the total population. This match would mean that the disparities in cultural

attendance would have been erased. However, the failure of such policies is

shown by the persistent gap, revealed by one study after another, in terms of

education and income, between those who attend museums

or

theaters and the

population as a whole.

By contrast, a model of cultural democracy may be defined as one

founded on free individual choice, in which the role of a cultural policy is not

to interfere with the preferences expressed by citizenxonsumers but to sup-

port the choices made by individuals or social groups through a regulatory

policy applied to the distribution of information

or

the structures of supply, as

happens in other types of markets.

The two models are in a Copernican opposition in the sense that the first

centers on artwork being disseminated widely and the second centers on pro-

viding an individual with the opportunity to exercise free choice. The main

basis for this dichotomy lies in the difference between beauty and aesthetics.

In the first case Lacoste 1986), there are objective, universal norms present

in the work of art, which give it its value. Democratization would seek to dis-

seminate these norms or create a universal canon. By contrast the theory of

aesthetics-attributed to Baumgarten and developed in the eighteenth century

in parallel with the emergence of the subject theory Ferry 1990)-bases

value on the pleasure or satisfaction derived from contemplating a work of art

or attending a performance, that is, the subjective judgment of taste. Even

though the exercise of judgment is universal, the outcome is not, and this leads

to different choices that may be observed and analyzed, for instance through

segmentation studies Cans 1974).

From the point of view of beauty, the focus is the work of art, from which

a history of art and artistic forms is derived. From the point of view of aes-

thetics, however, the same work may be perceived differently by various sub-

jects

or

at different moments in time. From such a plurality of readings is

derived the analysis of aesthetic reception Jauss 1978), which centers on the

audience and seeks to understand and analyze its reactions.2

The differences between beauty and aesthetics raise the question of a def-

inition of art. In one case, the source of art lies in an object and in its creation,

that is, the aesthetic intention.

In

the other, art stems from the way the object

is looked at, that is, the aesthetic relationship Genette 1997). An object may

therefore be artistic or not, according to the circumstances. Marcel Duchamp

thus triggered a fundamental rupture with his ready-made artwork, when,

by exhibiting at a painters fair a urinal signed R. Mutt Guillet de Monthoux

1993) he turned i t into an object that could generate an aesthetic perception.

The current controversy in France over a project to create a Museum of

Primary Arts and Civilizations has pitted museologists who, following Michel

Leiris and the surrealists, see an aesthetic value in objects from so-called

168 Vol. 27 No

3

Downloadedby[ViliniusUniversity]at14:5903December

2015


4/10

Democratizing Culture or Cultural D emocracy?

primitive civilizations, against ethnologists, for whom such objects must be

interpreted in relation to their original functions in sacred or daily life.

The Philosophical oots

The dichotomy between democratizationof culture and cultural democra-

cy is rooted in fundamental philosophical debates. The question of the exis-

tence of universal norms, on which universalism is at odds with multicultur-

alism and relativism, has parallels in epistemology.So too does the question

of the source of such norms and whether

or

not they are considered transcen-

dental, because this contributes to defining the status of works of art and

notably their religious

or

secular character.

For supportersof universalism, human nature is characterized by the exis-

tence of universal norms, which

in

turn are used to justify policies

of

cultural

democratization with the purpose of disseminating them. This idea is ques-

tioned by culturalists such as Edgar Morin

1973).

who said that the nature of

man is his culture. Drawing on scientific findings from ethnology, they seek

to show the coexistence of a variety

of

cultures, each with its specific charac-

teristics. They reject ethnocentrism, which claims that one form of culture is

superior to others or judges others by its own criteria. This vision

of

multi-

culturalism may be linked to the paradigm of cultural democracy in which

each segment of taste,

or

each s~bculture.~an find a legitimate expression.

Although an analysis of the legitimization process in

the cultural domain is

beyond the

scope

of this essay,

it

may be

useful

to recall sociological theories

showing how cultural norms are developed by social groups Lxvine 1988).

Cultural relativism, derived from multiculturalism, has important implica-

tions for epistemology, oneof which is the statusof reality, which may becon-

sidered unique the source, in the artistic field,of Platos imitation) or multiple

resulting from a social construction process [Berger and Luckmann 19861,

that is, cultural rather than natural). This debate finds echoes in the two

main schools of thought in contemporary social sciences, one based on objec-

tivism, the other on subjectivism Holbrook and Hirschmann 1992). The first

is positivism, which seeks to apply to social sciences a model derived from the

natural sciences in which science aims to establish universal laws. The second

is interpretivism. according to which the subjective nature

of

actors involved

in

social phenomena leads to an epistemological break and marks the autonomy

of the social sciences, the findings of which are seen

as

contingent, notably

in

terms of cultural context, and relative. It may be noted that this difference is

similar to that between explanation and understanding over which Durkheim

and

Weber

differed.

To return more specifically to the arts, supporters of cultural democrati-

zation usually see works of art as reflecting transcendental values that are

Fall 997 169

Do



2015


5/10

The Journal

of

Arts Management,

Law,

and Society

external to them. Such values are intemporal, which explains the importance

given to ancient artworks and to cultural heritage see for instance the imag-

inary museum of Andre Malraux). They can also have a religious source.

The origin of art is often attributed to sacred art, and the artist seen as an

expression of God s in the divine Mozart. The religious connotation

linked to art may linger even in a secular context. For instance, the aura

attached to a work of art was invoked by Benjamin 1983) to criticize the

techniques that permit

the

reproduction of works of

art

and generate a cul-

tural industry. Fumaroli 1991) described a cultural state giving birth to

modem religion, and Ferry 1996) expounded a theory of a Man-God, in

which culture, a creation of man, replaces religion. We may even wonder

whether a conflict between art and money, ritually invoked against econom-

ic and managerial analyses of culture, is merely a mask hiding the incom-

patibility of religion and money.

A democratic perspective, on the other hand, considers the immanence

of the artwork, seen here and now, emphasizing the present creation, subject

eventually to shifts in taste, which are frequent in cultural history. The limit of

this approach-for any object may acquire an artistic status based on the way

it is presented and, more importantly, looked at-lies in the definition of a

frontier between works of art and ordinary objects, the risk being that works

of art become commonplace, even a mere commodity commodification,

Kelly 1991; Wearing and Wearing 1992).

Culture and Comm unication

In

view of the significant interaction between culture and communica-

tion-in France both are managed by the Ministry of Culture and Communi-

cation-ne should look at links between the two paradigms and the issues

underlying theories of communication. The interaction between art and the

media often blurs the frontier between creation and diffusion. Art is increas-

ingly submitted to the logic of events and media. This can

be

seen in the devel-

opment of great painting exhibits and festivals of music or theater that fi t

the most traditional forms of artistic expression into an ephemeral form of civ-

ilization, risking a carnivalization of culture Twitchell

1992).

The democratization paradigm implies a model of communication based

on a transfer of information from center to periphery, in which people are

more interested in the emission here, the supply structure) than in different

interpretations of the reception. The opposite model is the network, based

on a connection of independent units. The Internet, which is developing

exponentially, is an example of this type of structure, and most computer

networks are following

a

similar trend. Underlying such differing commu-

nication paradigms, one may identify two ways of representing society

170 Vol.

27. No.


2015


6/10

Democratizing Culture o r Cultural Democracy?

Breton 1992): a vertical, hierarchical pyramid or a horizontal structure

where communication establishes a social l ink among independent individ-

uals or social groups.

Another parallel may be found

in

the evolution of media theory Barran

and Davis 1995)from a study of media effects what it does to people) to an

analysis of media usage what people do with it). An analysis of audiences,

then, goes beyond a simple attendance count to include qualitative studies

of

peoples relationships to works of art.

Research on the penetration of technology into society follows similar pat-

terns; it first centered on theories of diffusion based for example on epi-

demiological models) but eventually considered longer cycles of technology

assimilation, leading to the creation and modification of social customs. The

importance of analyzing societys assimilation of technology is illustrated by

the many episodes

in

the history of science and technology of inventions

being hijacked for uses not originally intended by their creators. We know for

example that Bell first created the telephone to hear opera performances from

a distance: His invention proved a worldwide success, thanks to other uses

invented later.

Culture and Consumption

The emphasis given here to the audience

as

a major player in the differen-

tiation between two cultural policy paradigms leads one to consider research

on consumer behavior.

I

will use the word

consumer

because

it

is widely used

in the study of contemporary societies, despite the fact that i t applies poorly

to culture. Etymologically the word refers to destruction consuming), while

a fundamental characteristic of a work of

art

is that it lasts: Even when sub-

ject to shifts in taste and fashion, it outlives its consumption. It is, however,

difficult to find a better word: for example, attendance applies to perfor-

mances, but other works such

as

books or records are usually approached

through ownership.

According to the democratization paradigm, the consumer is seen as play-

ing a rather passive role. The qualitative norms already inherent

in

works of

art

have parallels

in

the norms of reception based on the silent and contem-

plative attitude of what one may call a Victorian audience.

In

the democracy paradigm the consumer plays a more active role, which

may even involve participation and which is closer to how audiences behaved

in previous centuries

or

behave today at popular forms of entertainment.

It

is

interesting to note that studies of leisure behavior show an increase in partic-

ipative leisure outings,

in

spite of theories that consider so-called home cul-

ture notably television) to be an obstacle to the development of such outings

or the cause of their decline. One may also note a recent surge in France of

Fall

997

I71

Do



2015


7/10

The Journal of Arts Management, Law nd

Society

interest in amateur cultural practices Donnat 1996), long ignored by socio-

logical analyses of culture, perhaps because of their low economic value.

Another conflict lies in whether to emphasize cognitive or affective aspects

of interactions with works of art.

A

connoisseur, for example, is able to relate

a work of art to other contemporary

or

historic works, either in similar or dif-

ferent forms of artistic expression. But perception may also center on the emo-

tions aroused by the work of

art

as

in

the analyses by Morin 1978) of pro-

jection and identification generated by films. There is again a conflict here

between the externalities of works of

art

and the autonomy of the con-

sumers e~ peri en ce .~

The paradigm of democratization is often linked to a vision of culture com-

ing under the domain of education.

In

France the Ministry of Culture is occa-

sionally joined to the Ministry of Education. The ideology of democratization

would then further movements for popular education Urfalino 1996). The

success of works by Bourdieu 1979) on distinction, in line with his previous

work on reproduction

in

the sociology of education Bourdieu and Passeron

1970), shows the impact of such a conceptualization.

By contrast, the democracy paradigm tends to draw on views derived from

the sociology of leisure Dumazedier 1962). This conflict also relates to the

establishment of a hierarchy among the priorities assigned to culture in its

social missions, whether the priority should be knowledge or entertainment.

The latter often carries pejorative connotations, perhaps stemming from a

puritanical view of pleasure

or

a rejection of emotion as irrational. This appar-

ent dichotomy is, however, being questioned. As the director of the Salzburg

music festival, Gerard Mortier, said in a recent interview, The frontier

between classical music and entertainment must be abolished.

Consequences and Limitations

I

will now

look

at the consequence,or implications, of the two paradigms,

notably for cultural policies. I will then consider their limitations and the

pos-

sibility of drifting toward extreme forms.

The first consequence applies to the role of the state.

In

a context of cul-

tural democratization, its mission would be to generate a supply, thereby

ensuring access t core works of art listed in a canon. The terms of the prob-

lem are different if the policy applies to cultural heritage or to creation. In

the first case, the sedimentation over time of judgments of taste may gener-

ate a consensus despite the fact that the history of art is full of shifts in

appraisal. In the second case, a gap between

the

actors in charge of choosing

which works of art are to be subsidized and the consumers may trigger con-

flicts because the legitimacy of the formers superior taste may be ques-

tioned by the latter.

172

Vol. 27

No.


2015


8/10

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Dem ocracy?

In a cultural democracy. on the other hand, the states main role will be reg-

ulatory, aiming for a minimal amount of intrusion into cultural content.

In

France, public policy toward the film industry is an example of such an

approach, whereby most of the financing follows a logic of automatic redis-

tribution designed to ensure the sectors financial balance through a forced-

savings policy. The policy applied to the performing arts, however, is closer to

the democratization approach.

Moreover, the two paradigms rely on different underlying definitions of

equality. The democratization paradigm implies an equality of outcomes,

designed to meet a logic of quotas, for example, when theater audiences are

expected to have the same sociodemographic structure as the whole popula-

tion. The democracy paradigm implies an equality of opportunities, in which

the market structure needs to be varied enough to respect taste diversity and

satisfy each segment of taste.

The two paradigms may, however, drift to extremes if taken too far. In cul-

tural democratization, a dogmatism inherent in the idea of a core culture may

lead to elitism Holbrook 1995; Henry 1994) and to the creation of a cultur-

al ghetto

if

elites start to feel besieged. Cultural democracy, on the other

hand, may drift to populism, which emphasizes short-term reactions linked to

easy, immediate pleasure and obeys the tyranny of audience ratings. I t is

important to draw a line between attendance and appreciation or evaluation,

but a systematic criticism of the legitimacy of citizens preferences should

also be avoided. Moreover, relntivism-that is, a questioning of the absolute

or universal nature of cultural values-should not be confused with

nihilism,

a rejection of all values.

Conclusion: The Postmodernity Perspective

One may observe that many

of

the above points characterizing the cultur-

al democracy paradigm are close to the components of po~tmodernity:~

A variety of tastes relates to cultural eclecticism, which may take the

form of collage or pastiche, cutting across styles and history and opposing the

notion

of

the core canon inherent

in

universalism.

.

A questioning, from an epistemological point of view, of the unique sta-

tus of reality can be related to works by Jean Baudrillard 1983) on virtual

reality and hyperreality, as well as on simulation and enactment.

Multiculturalism is another obvious meeting point.

And the convergence of mass culture and consumer culture, the artistic

expression of which is pop art-see for instance the Brillo Box or Campbell

Soup

works by Andy Warhol Danto 1992)-is also relevant. Pop

art

is anoth-

er example of problematizing artworks status as Duchamp did). The out-

Fall

I997 I73

Do



2015


9/10

The Journal

of

Arts Munagement, Law, and Society

come of this convergence is an enterta inm ent society, or so cii t i du spectacle,

which has

been

analyzed by Debord

197 1 1988).

There is a certain paradox in such a convergence between cultural democ-

racy and postmodernity in the sense that aesthe tics based

on

the subjective

judgment of taste results from the emergence of the subject, which is in turn

linked to modernity (com pare with works by Ferry on homo aestheticus

[

19901). It seems, however, that moderns have not considered all the conse-

quences of the creation

of

the subject

or

that, perhaps under the influence of

nineteenth-century romantic theories (Schaeffer

1992),

the artistic field may

have remained a refuge

for

religious spirit, with

or

without an explicit refer-

ence t o the presence

of

God rom this perspective, the rela tionshi p of the tw o

paradigms may then be seen as reflecting the transition from modernity to

postmodernity.

NOTES

1 Although the exercise of choice is individual, or possibly comes from microgroups in soci-

ety, one must not ignore its social component (Fenster

1991).

2. To illustrate the fact that artworks may

be

subject to varied interpretation, one may recall

the story of an intellectual who saw the film

Rambo.

which epitomized in his view a certain US

cultural imperialism. and was surprised to find that for som e members of the audience, m ost of

them immigrant workers, the hero embodied an individual's struggle for freedom and opposition

to bureaucracy.

3.

Sub

here do es not mean inferior.

4. I t is clear that these tendencies are complementary rather than rival, even if the two para-

digms em phasize their differentiation. For research

on

measuring components of consumption

experiences and their contribution to its evaluation. see Evrard and Aurier 1996).

5 . See Fuat and Venkatesh 1995).

REFERENCES

Baran. Stanley

J..

and Dennis K. Davis. Moss Commun icu r ion

Theon..

Wadsworth. 1995.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. Semiotexte. 1983.

Benjam in, Walter. L'oeuvre d'a rt I'ere de sa repro duc tiviti technique. I n Essais 2. 1935-1940.

Berger. Peter. and Thoma.. Luckmann.

La

ronsrrucr ion socia le de lo

re alire .

Meridiem

Bloom. Harold. The Wesrern Canon. MacMillan. 1994.

Bourdieu. Pierre. La distincrion. Editions de Minuit.

1979.

Bourdieu. Pierre. and

J

Claude Passeron. La rep~JdUCtifJn. ditions de Minuit. 1970.

Breton. Philippe. L ufopie de

la

commun i ra t i on . La Dicouvene. 1992.

Danto. Arthur C. Beyond the

Br i l l 0 Box.

Noonday Press, 1992.

Debord. Guy.

Commentai res

sur la socie te du

spectacle.

Editions Gerard Lebovici. 1988.

Lcc socie r i du

spectacle.

Champ libre. 1971.

Donnat. Olivier. e s amateurs. Ministtre de la Culture. 1996.

Dumazedier. loffre.

Vcrs

une civilisorion

des

loisirs. Seuil. 1962.

Evrard. Yves. and Philippe Aurier. Identification and Validation of the Com pon ents of the

Fenster, Mark. 'Th e Problem

of

Taste within the Pro blematic of Culture, C o m m u n i r u t i o n T h e o y

87-126. Denc%2l-Gonthier. 1983.

Klincksieck. 1986.

Person-O bject Relationship, Journu/ ofBusine.ss

Research

37 1996): 127-1 34.

May 1991: 87-105.

174

Vol.

27

No.3


2015


10/10

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy.?

Ferry, Luc.

Homo Aesrhericus.

Grarset, 1990.

L home-Diru

u le

sens de la vie.

Grasset. 1996.

Flichy. Patrice.

Une

hisroire de la com munication moderne. La Dkouverte, 1991

Fuat. Firat A,. and Alladi Venkatesh. Liberatory Postmodemism and the Reenchantment o f

Consumption:'

Journal of

Consumer

Research 22

1995):

2 3 9 4 7 .

Fumaroli. Marc. L Erar

culrurel.

Editions de Fallois.

1 9 9 1

Gans. H erbert J. Popular Culrure and Hig h Culture. Basic Books, 1974.

Genette, Gtrard. Lo

relation esrhiriyue.

Seuil,

1997.

Guillet de Monthoux. Pierre. R. Mutt Art Mana ger. In

Acres de la

Ze conf imnce

de I AIMAC,

Holbrook. Moms B.

The

Three Faces

of

Elitism: Postmodemism. Political Correctness and

Holbrook. Moms B.. and Elisabeth C. Hirschmann.

Posr-Modern Co nsumer Research.

Sage

Henry, William A.

111 In

Defense ofElirism. Anchor Books. 1994.

Jauss. Hans R. Pour

une esthRique de la riception.

Gallimard.

1978.

Kelly, John R. Com mod ification and Consciou sness: A n Initial Study. Leisure

Srudies

10

Lacoste, Jean. L idi e de beau. Bordas.

1986.

Levine, Law rence W.

Highhmw Lowbmw.

Harvard University Press

1988.

Morin. Edgar. e

cinima

u

I hom mr imaginaire,

nouvelle Cdition. Editions de Minuit. 1978.

Rigaud, Jacques.

L exception culrurel le.

Grasset.

1995.

Schaeffer, Jean-Marie.

L art d e l dge moderne.

Gallimard. 1992.

f i i t ch el l . James B. Carnival Culrurt.. Columbia University Press, 1992.

Urfalino. Philippe. L invention de la polirique culrurelle. La Documentation Franqaise. 1996

We aring, Betty. and Stephen We aring. Identity and the Com modification of Leisure,

Leisure

1-36. 1993.

Popular Culture,

Journal ofhfacmma rkering

Fall 1995: 1 2 8 4 .

Publications, 1992.

1991): 7-18.

.Lc paradigme perdu:

a

narure humaine. Seuil, 1973.

Studies

1992): 3-IX.

Fall

1997

I

75

Do



2015

5. evrard, yves. democratizing culture or cultural democracy

Documents