It is argued that sociology lacks an adequate conceptualization of the museum/society relationship. It is further argued (1) that the museum is an agency of classification; (2) that it is a relationship of cultural interdependence and (3) that museums have an internal relationship to modernization. The institution of the museum is shown to arise out of the indeterminacies of modernization. A dispute in the early history of London's Tate Gallery is explored as it illuminates that institution's organization of the contradictions of modernization. Pace Bourdieu and Elias, a key contradiction is seen to arise from a differentiation of the field of power and the cultural field. It is argued, against essentialist accounts of museums, that the Tate produced its point of view through the medium of this contradiction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsP., (1982), Historical Sociology, London: Open Books.
2.
AlexanderJ.C., (1995), Fin de Siecle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and the Problem of Reason, London: Verso Press.
BourdieuP., (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge and Regan Paul.
5.
BourdieuP., (1988), Homo Academicus, Oxford: Polity Press.
6.
BourdieuP., (1990), In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Oxford: Policy Press.
7.
BourdieuP.DarbelA., (1991), The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public, Oxford: Polity Press.
8.
BourdieuP.WacquantL.J.D., (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Oxford: Polity Press.
9.
BourdieuP., (1993), The Field of Cultural Production, Oxford: Polity Press.
10.
BrownR., (1977), ‘The Growth of Industrial Bureaucracy – chance, choice or necessity’ in GleichmannP.GoudsblomJ.KorteH. (eds), Human Figurations: Essays for Norbert Elias, Stichting Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, Amsterdam, 191–210.
11.
BuckmannD., (1973), James Bolivar Manson 1879–1975, London: Maltzahn Gallery.
12.
BullenJ.B., (ed.), (1988), Post-Impressionists in Britain: The Critical Reception, London: Routledge. Chantrey and his Bequest: A complete illustrated record of the purchases of the Trustees, with a biographical note, text of the will etc. (1904), London: Cassell.
13.
CleggStewart R., (1989), Frameworks of Power, London: Sage.
14.
CliffordJ., (1988), The Predicament of Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
15.
CliveM., (1964), The Day of Reckoning, London: Macmillan.
16.
CooperR.BurrellG., (1988), ‘Modernism, Postmodernism & Organisational Analysis: An Introduction’ in Organisation Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 91–112.
17.
ConnellR.W., (1983), Which Way is Up? Essays on Class, Sex and Culture, North Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
18.
CoombesA.E., (1991), ‘Ethnography and the Formation of National Identities’, 189–214 in HillerS. (ed.), The Myth of Primitivism, London: Routledge.
19.
CorriganP.SayerD., (1985), The Great Arch: English State Formation as Cultural Revolution, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
20.
CrimpD., (1993), On the Museum's Ruins, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
21.
DavidoffL., (1976), The Best Circles, London: Croom Helm.
22.
DuncanC.WallachA., (1980), “The Universal Survey Museum’, Art History, vol. 3, no. 4, 448–69.
23.
DuncanC., (1991), ‘Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship’, 88–103 in KarpIvanLavineS.D. (eds), Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics of Politics of Museum Display, Washington and London: The Smithsonian Institute.
24.
EliasN.ScotsonJ., (1965), The Established and the Outsiders, London: Frank Cass.
25.
EliasN.ScotsonJ., (1994), The Established and the Outsiders (2nd edition with new introduction by EliasNorbert), London: Sage.
26.
EliasN., (1978), The Civilizing Process; Vol. 1 ‘The History of Manners’, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
27.
EliasN., (1982), The Civilizing Process; Vol. 2 ‘State Formation and Civilization’, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
28.
EliasN., (1983), The Court Society, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
29.
FisherP., (1991), Making and Effacing Art, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
FlintK., (ed.), (1984), Impressionists in England: The Critical Reception, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
31.
FyfeG.J., (1995), ‘The Chantrey Episode: Art Classification, Museums and the State, c.1870–1920’, in PearceS. (ed.), Art in Museums: New Research in Museum Studies, Vol. 5, 5–41, London: Athlone Press.
32.
GalerienT., (1921), ‘The Renaissance of the Tate Gallery’, The Studio, Vol. 82, no. 344, 187–97.
33.
GiddensA., (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Oxford: Polity Press.
34.
GruetznerA., (1979), ‘Two Reactions to French Painting in Britain’ in Post Impressionism: Cross-currents in European painting, London: Royal Academy of Arts/Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 178–82.
35.
HallS., (1984), ‘The Rise of the Representative/Interventionist State’, 7–49 in MaclennanG.HeldD.HallS., (eds), State and Society in Contemporary Britain, Oxford: Polity Press.
36.
HamlynR., (1991), ‘Tate Gallery’ in WaterfieldG. (ed.), Palaces of Art: Art Galleries in Britain 1790–1990, London: Dulwich Picture Gallery, 113–16. High Roads of History (nd) Book VII, ‘High Roads of British History’, London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
37.
HutchisonS.C., (1968), The History of the Royal Academy, London: Chapman and Hall.
38.
JenkinsR., (1992), Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.
39.
JonesT., (1960), Henry Tate 1819–1899: A Biographical Sketch, London: Tate & Lyle Ltd.
40.
LambW.R.M., (1951), The Royal Academy, London: G. Bell & Sons.
41.
LambertR.S., (ed.), (1938), Art in London, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
42.
LayderD., (1994), Understanding Social Theory, London: Sage.
43.
LucasE.V., (1924), A Wanderer among Pictures: A Companion to the Galleries of Europe, London: Methuen.
44.
MacCollD.S., (1904), The Administration of the Chantrey Bequest: Articles reprinted from ‘The Saturday Review’, with additional matter, including the text of Chantrey's Will and a list of purchases. London: Grant Richards.
45.
MacConkeyK., (1989), British Impressionism, London: Phaidon Press.
46.
MacleodD.S., (1987), ‘Art Collecting and Victorian Middle Class Taste’, Art History, vol. 10, no. 3, 328–50.
47.
NightingaleA., (nd) Visual History: A Practical Method of Teaching Introductory History, London: A. & C. Black Ltd.
48.
PEP (1946), The Visual Arts, A Report Sponsored by the Dartington Hall Trustees, London: Oxford University Press.
49.
RattiganT., (1953), ‘The Browning Version’ in The Collected Plays of Terence Rattigan, Vol. 2, 1–48, London: Hamish Hamilton.
50.
RothensteinJohn, (1962), The Tate Gallery, London: Thames & Hudson.
51.
RothensteinJohn, (1966), Brave Day Hideous Night, London: Hamish Hamilton.
52.
RothensteinWilliam, (1932), Men and Memories: Recollections of William Rothenstein 1900–1922, London: Faber & Faber.
53.
RothensteinWilliam, (1939), Men and Memories; recollections of William Rothenstein 1922–1938, London: Faber & Faber.
54.
SavageM.BarlowJ.DickensP.FieldingT., (1992), Property, Bureaucracy and Culture: Middle-Class Formation in Contemporary Britain, London: Routledge.
55.
ScottJohn, (1991), Who Rules Britain”!Oxford: Polity Press.
56.
ShermanD., (1987), ‘The Bourgeoisie, Cultural Appropriation, and the Art Museum in Nineteenth Century France’ in Radical History Review, vol. 38, 38–58.
57.
ThompsonJ.B., (1984), Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Oxford: Polity Press.
58.
TillyardS.K., (1988), The Impact of Modernism, London: Routledge.
59.
WhiteH.C.WhiteC.A., (1965), Canvases and Careers, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
60.
ZolbergV., (1981), ‘Conflicting Visions in American Art Museums’ in Theory & Society, 10, 81–102.
61.
ZolbergV., (1995), ‘The Collection Despite Barnes: From Private Preserve to Blockbuster’ in PearceS. (ed.) Art in Museums, New Research in Museum Studies, Vol. 5, 94–108, London: Athlone Press.
