Civil Society Elites and State Consecration: Acceptance,Ambivalence and Rejection of Royal Honours in the UK

Abstract

Elites are often offered prestigious state prizes and awards. Although most elites accept, prestigious prizes constitute a challenge for others since institutional symbolic capital cannot be merely accepted, but requires careful negotiation and management. This article investigates the dilemma of being consecrated by the state by studying civil society elites’ reception and use of royal honours, the UK’s most prestigious voluntary and charity work award. We theorise different positionings towards state consecration as elite strategies for downplaying distinction, which enable the maintenance of social hierarchy and transformation of symbolic capital into other resources. Based on an interview study we identify three elite positionings on the offer (‘acceptance’, ‘ambivalence’ and ‘rejection’) and associated practices of capital transformation. Although much prize research has focused on acceptance as a prerequisite for social, cultural and financial advantages, the article shows that some elites benefit more from rejection or ambivalent acceptance of a state prize.

Introduction

People with high status and recognition in their respective fields are often offered prizes and awards that elevate them above their peers. While some accept such honours with delight, others express ambivalence about being awarded a prestigious prize or a medal. Pierre Bourdieu was, for instance, reluctant to accept the Gold Medal offered by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), despite it being France’s highest science prize. From the perspective of Wacquant (2013), the award constituted a ‘quandary’ for his mentor since Bourdieu had devoted much of his academic work to exploring and criticising prizes and awards for masking power asymmetries (e.g. Bourdieu, 1984). At the same time, he would become the first sociologist in a list of renowned French academics and Nobel laureates to receive the medal. He addressed the dilemma by accepting the prize while, during the ceremony, criticising the prize-giving institution for the sake of independent social science (i.e. autonomy from the state and power elite) (Bourdieu, 2013).

This event reveals an under-explored problem in the sociology of prizes and awards and studies of state consecration more generally. Much research focuses on the Matthew effect of prizes and awards (Merton, 1968); that is, the added and cumulative value of accepting and receiving a prestigious award (Fox, 2014; Harper, 2020). Research in psychology and economics takes an instrumental approach as scholars explore the effects of ‘winning a prize’ on recipients’ work motivation, satisfaction, productivity and career trajectories (e.g. Harrison and Jepsen, 2015; Neckermann and Frey, 2013; Seppala and Smith, 2019). Others, often sociologists, examine the producer-side of prizes and awards and explore why some prizes are regarded as particularly valuable compared with others (e.g. Childress et al., 2017; English, 2005, 2021; Holmqvist, 2023; Winegarten, 1994) as well as their field effects (e.g. Altermark and Johansson, 2024). However, these valuable contributions pay little attention to prize recipients’ agency beyond acceptance and how they navigate being offered a prestigious prize. We thus know little about why some recipients, such as Bourdieu, express ambivalence, others outright reject a highly valued award such as Sartre with the Nobel Prize for Literature, while some readily accept the offered prize, sustaining its social magic.

To address this puzzle, the article explores how top civil society leaders (hereafter referred to as civil society elites; see Johansson and Meeuwisse, 2024; Johansson and Uhlin, 2020) receive and utilise royal honours within the British honours system, arguably the most prestigious award for voluntary and charity work in the UK (Harper, 2020). How do civil society elites value and deal with the reception of a royal (state) honour as a form of institutional symbolic capital? What gains can acceptance, ambivalence or rejection bring? Examples of the type of honours awarded to civil society elites are, among others, the Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (an OBE) or Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (a CBE), all recognised titles in British society (Harper, 2015; Scott, 2024).

We define civil society as the sphere distinct from the state and private sector, where citizens organise in non-profit, self-governing, voluntary organisations to pursue the public interest (Salamon and Anheier, 1997). Civil society elites refer to leaders who occupy top positions (e.g. as a CEO, Chair or trustee) in large and influential organisations with disproportionate access to economic and political resources (e.g. Greenpeace, National Trust or Oxfam). Previous studies find that British civil society elites are predominantly white, well-educated men with a privileged educational trajectory associated with an Oxbridge degree (Ivanovska Hadjievska and Arvidson, 2024; Lee and Scaramuzzino, 2024). Many civil society elites have successful professional careers in the public or private sectors before assuming elite positions in civil society, and overall show remarkable similarities with other British elite groups ¹ (Reeves and Friedman, 2024).

Our focus on civil society elites and royal honours is well suited to exploring the dilemmas that state consecration can pose for elite recipients. Distinguished actors, writers, musicians and academics often express concerns about being consecrated by the state, the monarchy or another establishment institution (English, 2021). Similarly, civil society elites derive – at least to some extent – status and legitimacy from their independence and/or critical stance towards the establishment and the state (Sevelsted and Johansson, 2024). However, civil society elites also gain legitimacy through their representational role in pursuing public benefit causes aligned with constituencies’ interests, earning recognition for their mobilisation against political and business elites (Guo and Musso, 2007).

Receiving a royal honour is an act of state elevation that distinguishes certain leaders as more valuable than others and defines who counts as the ‘nation’s heroes’ (Harper, 2020). Furthermore, proximity and access to centres of power and state resources (e.g. financial) are often prerequisites for exercising influence in line with organisational and constituency interests. Yet, their consecrating effect may pose a particular risk for civil society elites, as constituencies might begin to see them as part of ‘the establishment’ and less inclined to act as a counter-elite against other elites. The legitimacy dilemma that civil society elites thus face when presented with state honours provides a fertile ground for theoretically and empirically exploring the practice side of state consecration (see Altermark et al., 2023); that is, how actors navigate the legitimacy challenge upon being offered a royal honour beyond mere acceptance. Drawing on research on prizes and consecration, as well as the sociology of elites, this article aims to provide a theoretically driven account of prize acceptance, ambivalence and rejection as three ideal-typical practices of eliteness and the value each might bring.

The UK Honours System

The UK honours system is one of the oldest, and many other countries have similar systems of state or royal awards (Phillips, 2004). Historically, honours were given to members of the aristocracy and high-ranking military figures, whereas now, these include recipients from all parts of British society. A significant shift occurred in 1993 when the voluntary sector became a priority, and since then, most honours have been awarded for philanthropic or voluntary work (Harper, 2015; see also Scott, 2024). Honours are granted by government committees but ceremonially awarded by the monarch, who holds the ‘sole right to confer titles of honour on deserving people from all walks of life, in public recognition of their merit, service, or bravery’ (Royal Household, 2023). Two routes shape access to nomination: public nominations and through government department trawls. The honours committee provides final reviews and recommends nominees for decision by the Prime Minister (Cabinet Office, 2022). Although the royal family’s role is ceremonial, both the royal family and the recipients of the awards have ‘fed off on another in a symbolic relationship of prestige and credibility’ (Harper, 2020: 214).

The close connection to the royal family adds value to the award and consecrates those receiving it (Bourdieu, 1984). A royal honour is a tribute to exceptional individuals doing exceptional things: for example, those who have ‘delivered in a way that has brought distinction to British life and enhanced the UK’s reputation’ or ‘acted as role models in their field’ (Phillips, 2004: 26). Most people receive lower levels, such as an OBE or a CBE. In contrast, few receive higher honours (Knight, Dame or Companion). Holding an honour is relatively common among civil society elites. A biographical study of more than 150 top leaders found that a third have received a royal honour, with the most common being an OBE (Ivanovska Hadjievska and Arvidson, 2024; see also Altermark and Johansson, 2024).

As with other prestigious awards, extensive governance activities are devoted to minimising the risk that a rejection of an award could ‘bring the system into disrepute’ (Cabinet Office, 2022). Public controversies have nevertheless plagued the honours system, particularly in connection with ‘cash-for-honours’ scandals as people have been accused of buying their titles. The number of rejections has however been stable over recent years (40–50 individuals annually) and the ‘majority of people do not give any reason for refusing their award’ (Cabinet Office, 2023). Those who reject an honour rarely do so publicly, but media reports show that those who do are often well-known cultural elites, such as the writer Roald Dahl or the musician David Bowie (Guardian, 2020). There have also been more politically motivated refusals, for example Professor Phil Scraton, who, after his inquiry of the Hillsborough tragedy, rejected an honour in protest at those who remained unresponsive to demands for truth and justice (Guardian, 2016).

Despite efforts to democratise the honours system, it has been criticised for being opaque and for reproducing class and status differences (Harper, 2020). Campaigns like ‘Excellence not Empire’ have mobilised civil society leaders demanding the substitution of the word ‘Empire’ with ‘Excellence’ to emphasise the meritocratic nature of the awards. ² By joining the campaign, they express their moral responsibility to stand against social (and historical) injustices and personally distance themselves from the honours system and its association with the imperial and colonial past.

Symbolic Capital, Elite Distinction and Capital Transformation

Prizes and awards are central to the process of elite formation (Best, 2008; English, 2005). They function by separating ‘extraordinary individuals’ from ‘ordinary people’ and have a consecrating effect on those who are praised (Bourdieu, 1984). Like other rituals, prizes create discontinuity out of continuity and transform certain individuals into ‘winners’ (Childress et al., 2017; Frey, 2007). They provide awardees with resources such as monetary sums or material tokens (e.g. medals), but more importantly, bring status and recognition as a form of symbolic capital (Best, 2008). Bourdieu (1989: 21) defined symbolic capital loosely, referring to objects and practices that elevated ordinary actors to the status of being ‘well-known and recognised’ ones.

In this respect, prizes function as elements of a system of exchange, a transaction through which the producer and the recipient hope to realise symbolic profit (English, 2021: 305). Merton’s (1968) seminal study of academic prizes found awardees increasingly cited and funded, highlighting the cumulative advantage of receiving a prize (i.e. the Matthew effect). A prize can lead to the development of other capitals, especially a prestigious prize, as it brings ‘an image of respectability and honourability’ (Bourdieu, 1984: 291). The value that comes with being awarded a prize can hence bring social capital (access to a community of other laureates or central decision-makers) (Neveu, 2018) or economic capital (as one’s improved status could lead to higher salaries, fees for public talks or earnings from authored books) (Benveniste et al., 2022; Best, 2008; Sapiro, 2023). Similarly, receiving a prize may provide access to cultural capital, particularly in its institutionalised state (e.g. getting into a prestigious educational programme), or in its objectified state (e.g. medals and diplomas) (Harrison and Jepsen, 2015). Moreover, recipients of prestigious awards gain the power to ascribe value and admiration to a person or object, often elevating it to a sacred or holy status. Such power is especially significant in fields like literature, the arts and civil society, where symbolic capital, status and legitimacy hold greater importance than economic profit (Allen and Parsons, 2006; Dean, 2020).

This suggests that some prizes bring more status and recognition than others. For example, being awarded a prize by a local horticultural association might be significant for a group of horticulturalists but rarely brings status outside that community. Well-known prizes such as the Nobel Prize or a royal honour provide recipients with institutional symbolic capital as they consecrate and elevate awardees across fields on a societal level (Bellezza, 2023; Berry, 1981; English, 2005). The status of a particular prize is often connected to the perceived quality of the awarding organisation (Allen and Parsons, 2006) or the reputation of previous awardees, as admired individuals enhance the prestige of future awardees. Consequently, awardees tend to stay loyal to the prize-giving organisation since ‘doing otherwise would reduce the value of the reward received’ (Frey, 2007: 7).

Prizes can also mask power asymmetries. Award ceremonies with royal family members and extensive media coverage help sustain the honours system’s social magic and reinforce the role of honours in creating and maintaining elite domination. According to Bourdieu (1998: 96), misrecognition refers to the process by which dominated social agents fail to recognise underlying power structures that shape their social realities. Such processes may, however, be only partly conscious (James, 2015). Subordinate actors often have only a vague understanding of what is going on and are unable to comprehend it entirely, especially since elites seek to hide, disguise or mask the source of their power and the ways by which their elite status is reproduced.

For a long time, elite sociologists focused on cultural distinctions as markers of superiority and signals of eliteness (Bourdieu, 1984; Daloz, 2009). However, recent research on elite omnivorousness questions the relevance of cultural distinctions (e.g. Jarness and Friedman, 2017), especially as contemporary elites increasingly portray themselves as ordinary (as cultural omnivores) to maintain legitimacy in an era of increased inequalities (e.g. Reeves and Friedman, 2024). The related but less explored concept of ‘strategies of condescension’ is particularly relevant to our analysis (e.g. Bourdieu, 1992). It emphasises the practices elites use to distort, negate or minimise objective power asymmetries to obscure differences from others. In terms of consecration, according to English (2014), regardless of one’s involvement with an award as a recipient, it is crucial not to appear overly eager in accepting it. Instead, to generate symbolic gains, one must show some indifference to such gains, not to lose legitimacy in the eyes of peers or the wider public.

For example, as actors in a field shaped by charitable and selfless action, civil society elites, while being elevated as leaders, often seek to convince others that their actions will benefit ‘all’ and are grounded in ‘authentic’ sincerity (Swartz, 1997: 70), downplaying potential personal benefits (e.g. career advancement) from consecration. However, civil society elites’ practices of condescension must be analysed in relation to actors’ field positions since ‘one’s participation in the game differentiates itself according to the position occupied in the game’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 117). Thus, we approach civil society elites’ positioning with respect to royal honours as an elite strategy for maintaining legitimacy by downplaying distinction. This, in turn, enables the maintenance of social hierarchy to go unchallenged, and allows civil society elites to reap the benefits of state consecration.

Method and Data

The article draws on 16 semi-structured interviews with civil society leaders of prominent charities in the UK. This method was chosen as it is well suited for collecting information on ‘elite cultures and subjectivities’ (Gilding, 2010: 757). The sampling of interviewees followed a mix of purposive and snowball sampling strategies, enabling the inclusion of interviewees with diverse characteristics reflective of the heterogeneous nature of civil society (see Table 1 in the Appendix). This means that only some interviewees were contacted based on their positions as CEOs or Chairs of the board of large and resource-rich civil society organisations (CSOs). Following initial access, further interviewees were identified through recommendations from participants, granting us access to prominent civil society leaders who have received an honour and are working in charities active across various issue areas. Eight interviews with civil society elites were conducted online during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), with eight follow-up interviews conducted in the spring of 2023.

The interview study includes individuals who have received different types of honours ranging from an OBE to higher honours such as life peerage and Dame Commander (DBE) and individuals who have received multiple honours. ³ Additionally, we interviewed two respondents without titles who have participated in recruitment processes for elite positions in civil society and one respondent who has rejected a royal honour – a rare occurrence in civil society, as most rejections are done anonymously. Importantly, we also asked respondents to share knowledge of leaders who have rejected an honour. Our informants include leaders with different backgrounds, including those who identify as ethnic minorities in the British context, which may influence their relationship with the monarchy and the state.

Interviews provide personal accounts (Maclean et al., 2012), offering rich narratives about elites’ experiences with prizes and the reasoning behind their positioning. The interviews lasted 40–70 minutes, and respondents provided informed consent to participate, in accordance with permission granted by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The topic guide included questions about social background, career trajectories and recruitment, personal experience of being offered an award and the value and use of honours in their professional lives. Online texts collected from the ‘Excellence not Empire’ initiative website and other online articles on the royal honours, also informed our analysis.

We analysed the data using thematic analysis, identifying central themes in interview transcripts (Braun and Clarke, 2006). NVivo 14 software was used to identify interview sections in which elites tell stories about their experience with royal honours. In a second round of coding, we observed that personal stories followed a similar temporality: (1) the moment of finding out about the award offer; (2) the period leading up to a decision; and (3) the aftermath, including reflections on its use and impact. In line with our analytical framework, we identified three ideal-typical positionings – acceptance, ambivalence and rejection – based on how civil society elites related to the offer and how they sought to extract value from it while seeking to remain legitimate in the eyes of peers and constituencies. We consider these positionings ideal-typical, and, like Jarness and Friedman (2017), we found that the same informants could present different accounts in the same interview (e.g. humble and ambivalent acceptance). However, this occurred only on rare occasions; hence we present the analysis as three distinct ideal-typical positionings.

Positionings on the Offer

Civil society elites responded to the offer of an honour in three distinct ways. A majority of leaders accepted the honour, and we distinguish between humble and ambivalent acceptance practices. Importantly, while rare, there are accounts of individuals who rejected the offer. The following analysis explores the reasoning behind these different positionings towards state consecration.

Humble acceptance is rooted in sincere appreciation for the award, with those interviewed viewing it as an extraordinary life event. However, due to their roles as civil society leaders, they feel compelled to emphasise that they did not strategically seek an honour; rather, it just happened during their career in the sector. Although the honours elevate leaders into a different league – making them ‘a valid voice, someone who is a trusted figure, someone that could be spoken to’ (Interviewee No. 2) – they find it important to downplay any personal (career-related) motivations associated with receiving the honour. Instead, they justify their acceptance by referring to its importance for their colleagues or organisation. It appears essential to downplay links to personal achievements or success, and instead recognise the work of others in relation to the award:

It was a recognition of what we were achieving as an organisation, again that sounds cliched because it is a personal honour, but there is no way that I would have got it hadn’t it been doing the work that I have been doing, with the colleagues that I have. (Interviewee No. 3)

This positioning also included expressions of pride. Recipients were proud to be offered honours and passionate about gaining national recognition. However, the decision to accept was commonly justified in reference to others, primarily in relation to family expectations:

I know it has made a huge difference to my dad, and he is no longer with me. I was just really pleased that he had the opportunity to see me receive that. And my mum as well. It is the only thing probably in my entire life that she has been really proud of me receiving. I would not take that away from them. (Interviewee No. 1)

This approach involves a combination of humble acceptance and downplaying personal gains. Elites with higher (and multiple) honours are particularly adamant about minimising the value these honours bring. One leader expressed that other ‘people get more excited about it than I do, I’ll usually forget that I’ve got one until someone points it out’ (Interviewee No. 6). Other leaders emphasise that this is not something they believe in, and in a playful manner one remarked: ‘Somebody I met recently must have looked at my LinkedIn profile and said, “You’ve got an OBE!” and I was like, “Yeah, would you like it? [laughs] Do you want the badge?”’ (Interviewee No. 5).

Ambivalence is linked to a different positioning to the offer. Civil society elites we interviewed expressed scepticism and reluctance about the offer but ultimately accepted it. They felt torn between their social recognition as elite actors in civil society and the expectations of grass-roots constituencies and peers regarding their representative capacity and ‘counter elite’ role (Interviewees No. 1; No. 3; No. 14). Like Bourdieu’s quandary regarding the offer of a Gold Medal, they feared being ‘viewed by some as being establishment and not necessarily an independent voice’ (Interviewee No. 2).

Compared with humble acceptance, ambivalent positioning includes being critical of the honours system and expressing discomfort that it differentiates between more and less deserving civil society leaders, creating inequality within the sector and reproducing elites. The honours system stands in opposition to what they believe in, and leaders with ethnic minority backgrounds express high ambivalence towards accepting the honours. An OBE recipient we interviewed, from a migrant background and family with an independence struggle against the British Empire, doubted her decision. Ultimately, she accepted the honour because it was a recognition of her professional journey in the UK.

The offer requires careful consideration and elites extensively consulted colleagues, family and friends before accepting the award. Such practices serve the function of identifying and moderating potential risks related to their acceptance:

There is a lot of debate in the sector around whether it is appropriate to be in receipt of an honour, particularly given the E standing for Empire, and I had some conversations with colleagues about it – obviously not saying I had received one but about the concept of whether one should or shouldn’t accept, particularly colleagues who were people of colour – and came to the conclusion that the benefits to me and to the organisation outweighed the negative connotations. (Interviewee No. 3)

Such consultation often took place without revealing one had been offered an honour, which suggests that reception is delicate for civil society elites and needs careful consideration, as straightforward acceptance could cause legitimacy loss in certain circles. To be critical relates to a civil society ethos and leaders pointed out that it was inappropriate for them, as civil society leaders, to ‘enjoy’ the honours as in other sectors, referring to business (Interviewee No. 16). Acceptance without criticism is largely perceived as an act of ‘selling out’ and hence poses a risk of being seen as ‘establishment’ in the eyes of peers and constituencies (Interviewees No. 14; No. 15).

Both the humble and ambivalent positionings include actors reducing the significance of the honours’ personal (career) benefits. Yet, they recognise the implied social elevation. One of the ambivalent recipients, who had multiple honours, reflected on being raised in a working-class family. While he achieved social mobility through a professional career as a barrister in central London, what changed his social status were the honours he received from his engagement in the sector, as ‘each of the honours kind of pushes me further and further higher in the eyes of the majority of people in society’ (Interviewee No. 2). Having an honour changes how they are socially perceived, as it turns them into distinguished individuals. Being awarded an honour brings particular status and recognition due to the social magic involved: ‘it makes people think you’re respectable’ (Interviewee No. 11).

In contrast, some rejected the royal honour in direct (but rarely public) opposition to the honours system. According to an informant, rejection is often motivated by strong personal values and anti-elitist sentiments:

I do know somebody who refused it several times, somebody who I used to work with [. . .] but again it would have come at the end of his career, and he refused it on political grounds, on the grounds that this is an elitist acknowledgement. (Interviewee No. 4)

In accounts of rejections, a dual justification appears central. On the one hand, rejection stems from viewing the honours system as reproducing the power of the monarchy. On the other hand, it is often based on political stances (e.g. ideological disagreement with the government or the system). For instance, accepting the award in the name of the Empire would not sit easily with leaders’ political struggle and ideology. One of the leaders we interviewed had personally rejected an honour since this was incompatible with the types of organisations and initiatives she was leading. Accepting an honour, in her view, could discredit them:

I think if you are really understanding the toxicity. . . toxic nature of what has come out of colonisation, what has come out of even the word Empire, I could not do the work I’m doing [. . .] where I’m talking about removing these colonial-era laws, and accept something that talks about being proud to be part of the empire. (Interviewee No. 10)

Practices of Capital Transformation

Despite downplaying the personal gain of having an honour, or even rejecting it, we find accounts of the extensive transformation of the symbolic value of honours into other valuable resources. Humble and ambivalent acceptance largely led to similar types of use and capital gains. Honours were transformed into political access and influence, opportunities for social networking, career advancement and organisational benefits. Leaders mentioned that receiving an award ‘opened doors’ and enabled them to have their voices heard or to gain access to decision-makers, especially in the context of a Conservative party in power (Interviewees No. 1; No. 3). This is the case because the honour is seen as a ‘mark of legitimacy’ or a ‘seal of approval’ in the words of one interviewee (Interviewee No. 2): ‘I mean it’s, if you were to write to a minister, putting your OBE on the end it’s probably worth doing. Yeah, if you are trying to signal influence or ability then, yes’ (Interviewee No. 5). Another interviewee stated that he now has greater access to decision-makers since he is perceived as a ‘legitimised voice’ (Interviewee No. 2). If a leader decides to decline the offer, it might have consequences for their access to political elites, who could interpret the rejection as an act of being anti-state or anti-monarchy (Interviewees No. 1; No. 3).

An honour also brings enhanced career prospects. One interviewee (No. 7) who had been working as a recruiter, stressed that if a person has an OBE for work in the sector, it signalled that they had ‘real credibility’. There is a perception that one has guaranteed employment if one receives such recognition:

Listen, someone has said to me when I got my honour, you will always find an employment with a CBE. So after all, before getting it I was never without work anyhow, but I was thinking, actually, you know . . . I am in a sector where honours are common, but you do not have to travel far actually in London, in different social grouping and settings where they are far less common, they are much more scarce and therefore if you have one, it has much more agency and purchase, I guess from the simple demand–supply economics. (Interviewee No. 1)

An honour, moreover, brings access to elite social circles. Interviewees mentioned being invited to serve on governing bodies of universities, companies and other CSOs due to their honours. For instance, one informant shared how her former university contacted her after she received an honour, which resulted in her joining their advisory board on industry contributions as the only person from the charity sector (Interview No. 3). The honorary titles (e.g. CBE or Lord) are also valuable for the hiring organisations since having a person with an honour on the board attracts donors:

So, when I think of it, there is no doubt that if you come from a certain background, if you have ‘Sir’ or ‘Lady’ in front of your name, that does count for quite a lot, it’s you know, it’s a sort of badge – it’s a badge of entry, basically. I think it makes people think you’re respectable, and secondly, it looks good for them in terms of a card of entry for them. (Interviewee No. 12)

However, humble and ambivalent acceptance differs on a central account. Whereas the former included limited concern over displaying the title, the latter expressed tactical awareness of when and how to use (or not use) their honours:

I use it in contexts where I think it would help my voice to be heard. If not it’s not something that I brandish – it’s a tactical use of it because in some context you’re heard differently because some people for some reason are impressed by things like that. I don’t know why but yeah, some people are, so it’s a tactical thing. (Interviewee No. 6)

The title appears easy to publicly display in contexts where they are in contact with other elites but less when they act as representatives of constituencies or meet with constituents. Following this divide, ambivalent recipients displayed the title on their professional LinkedIn page to signal credibility. Leaders also display the title by their name if someone asks for it; for example, when acting as a keynote speaker at a conference or to increase the visibility of a project or initiative. However, it cannot be used too excessively or as a symbol of power, and when and where to display it is of central concern. Some chose not to display it as it might bring negative value for them or the cause they stand for (even though this is rare, according to interviewees). Other leaders stressed that they would not use the title on their CV header but would consider including it in the awards section. Some used their titles professionally, mainly for the benefit of their organisation, but not privately, as it would come across as bragging:

I think some people use it almost as a symbol of power, and potentially overuse it, and that can be a little distasteful. I do not need to, and nobody needs to, affirm their value by the validation of others. So, from a humanitarian perspective I do not ever want to elevate myself, at the expense of someone else feeling less. I do not have it on my business cards, I do not have it on my letterhead. I do have it on my professional LinkedIn network, partly because that is a professional network [. . .] If the CV shows some recognition by government, and power, that we have credibility and we have done work, that is valuable, and that is the only place I use it. (Interviewee No. 1)

Also, those who rejected an honour engaged in capital transformation practices. However, rejection appears to follow different rules of exchange and transformation. Although they rejected the offer, they still gained recognition from within the field, e.g. from other CEOs, or constituencies. They were largely seen as courageous, remaining true to the cause and not selling out. While ambivalent recipients were careful about when to hide and display their titles, this did not apply to those who rejected. One leader even used the rejected title when giving talks and public speeches. In this case, the declined honour symbolised the leader’s anti-establishment position. The rule of not bragging about oneself thus appeared less relevant here, as they could display and personally benefit from a title they did not accept. One interviewee, however, suggested that this only worked in limited cases when leaders were branding themselves as outsiders or anti-establishment and had the status within civil society to do so. Hence, this strategy was not plausible for most civil society leaders who, in contrast, depended on having close connections with decision-makers and donors (Interviewee No. 2).

Discussion

Much of the prize research suggests that awards bring status to those who receive them (Best, 2008; English, 2021), as well as other advantages, as awardees transform their recognition into other valuable resources (Harrison and Jepsen, 2015; Merton, 1968). Our research finds that the mechanism of cumulative advantage also applies to civil society elites since being honoured by the state brings social, cultural and economic resources of key career value as leaders seek to exercise political or societal influence. However, unlike much prize research (see Berry, 1981; English, 2005; Frey, 2007), we find that, beyond mere acceptance, advantages from prestigious prizes can be generated by those rejecting or ambivalently accepting a prize.

Instead of primarily capturing these as responses to a type of prize, we consider them as expressions of actors’ field affiliations and their positions within it (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Inspired by research on cultural fields, civil society elites’ responses are here seen as structured along two axes: their relation to the state (the field of power) and their relation to constituents. Each includes distinct elite strategies for downplaying distinction while maintaining dominance and reaping benefits from consecration. The difference between acceptance and rejection resembles the distinction between an establishment and a cultural avant-garde (Bourdieu, 1992).

Those who humbly accept fill an establishment position acting proximate to the ‘field of power’ (Bourdieu, 1992). Like philanthropists, they gain value from their voluntary engagement (Krauz-Lahav and Kemp, 2020; Maclean et al., 2021; Ostrower, 1995). They owe their position to their ability to trade the symbolic capital of their elite role in civil society for political influence or societal recognition (Sevelsted and Johansson, 2024). This position requires very modest forms of condescension, and they trade their honours almost like any other form of commodity. Pure acceptance might, however, portray them as elites like any other. Hence, when accepting, they must – at least modestly – downplay the personal value and benefit involved, signalling the taboo of the field (Bourdieu, 1998: 96). To remain legitimate to colleagues, members and donors, they therefore downplay the personal relevance of the prize, including personal ambitions of receiving one, and amplify its significance for others. Such humble practices appear to be a widespread cultural ritual among many elite groups, as we find it commonly practised in music, film and academia (English, 2014).

Those who reject can be seen as counter-elites who maintain distance from the state to appear ‘true’ to their anti-establishment stances (Johansson and Meeuwisse, 2024). Rejection of the offer becomes an elite strategy to downplay distinction and maintain their dominant status in civil society. Their position resides on the premise of extensive criticality towards the state, and by not selling out, they become an internally consecrated (within the field of civil society) counter-elite with the power to consecrate others (Dean, 2020). Despite acting as leaders of large and powerful CSOs, they position themselves on the same side as oppressed groups. Like avant-garde artists or painters, they criticise other leaders for selling out, following the divide between ‘genuine’ and ‘commercial art’ (Bourdieu, 1980). Such emphasis on their progressive and radical views serves as a means to mask the elite position they hold in the field, especially as they simultaneously reap the benefits of their rejection, even if mainly for field-specific events and without much value outside the community of committed members or activists. Unlike both humble and ambivalent recipients, they have thus broken the social magic of the honours and acted disloyally (to the state) without any fear of sanctions. Rejection can thus be viewed as politically exposing the honours system, and to some extent, also a critique of those who accept. Whether this also applies to other types of prizes (less political than an honour) is, however, beyond the scope of our study.

While these findings follow Bourdieu’s theoretical accounts, the ambivalent recipients offer a theoretical misfit to his inclination for binary oppositions (Maclean and Harvey, 2019). The ambivalent recipients – like Bourdieu himself – position themselves as public critics, even though they accept and reap the benefits from being consecrated. Their position requires them to engage in a complex game of condescension, reflecting their position between social recognition as an elite (establishment) and the grass-roots demands for critical (counter-elite) examination of power structures. Masking the prize at field-specific events while exposing it to other elite groups is the rule of the game. This tactic of hiding (internally) and displaying (externally) appears strategic, as it allows them to explore the professional potential of the prize.

These positionings appear to relate to informants’ individual backgrounds and the type of organisations they lead. Although our material has limitations, humble recipients link with social and elite professional backgrounds; that is, they are often societal elites who engage in civil society voluntarily. They often lead service- or capacity-building organisations, and rejection would be a risk to both personal and organisational careers, as honours benefit both. Rejection ties closely to leaders with experience in activist, anti-establishment types of organisations, and family trajectories of oppression. Acceptance would cause them more status loss than status gain. Rejection is politically motivated, not necessarily connected with the prize, but with what it stands for. The ambivalent position ties in with a strong identification with the ethos of civic engagement and personal histories of social mobility. Some expressed ambivalence due to their ethnic minority or middle- or working-class backgrounds. More systematic research is, however, needed, for example on different elite groups’ reception of institutional symbolic capital. This would advance theorising on the individual and contextual factors explaining individual prize reception and use.

Conclusion

This article confirms what prize research has shown, that is, a Matthew effect from prestigious prizes and awards, as recipients gain further advantages from being awarded royal honours. However, our research shows that both acceptance and rejection bring social, cultural and financial value. Although some elite groups rarely reject a state prize (e.g. business elites who seek rather than reject royal honours), straightforward acceptance is impossible for other elite groups and degrees of critical distancing are necessary. We conclude that this is a structural feature of elite groups dependent on field-specific legitimacy. Cultural elites might feel pressure from an audience or fan base, whereas civil society elites’ legitimacy depends on their ability to represent members and citizen interests. This is especially relevant in times of intense grass-roots mobilisation against systemic inequalities in civil society, such as the Black Lives Matter movement or campaigns that address civil society leaders as a privileged group (e.g. #CharitySoWhite campaign) (Ivanovska Hadjievska, 2024). However, in light of current trends of populism, other elite groups – such as academic, cultural, political or even business elites – might face similar public pressures to express ambivalence or even reject prestigious prizes, as pure acceptance becomes an act of elitism.