Sociological research has long suggested that cultural participation is socially stratified. We build on this literature to discuss the role of the subjective and objective dimensions of stratification and how they are linked to practices of social distinction through cultural consumption. The aim of this study is to understand (1) the effect of subjective and objective social status on patterns of cultural participation and (2) the implications of the status inconsistency. We use a probabilistic and representative sample of the Chilean urban population older than the age of 18. Latent class analyses show that a significant proportion of Chileans can be considered cultural omnivores. Multinomial diagonal reference models suggest that omnivorousness is positively predicted by subjective and objective social status. Moreover, regarding inconsistency, objective social status is prominent in the explanation of omnivorousness for both status-underestimating and status-overestimating individuals. These findings provide important insights for discussing the implications of status inconsistency on cultural consumption.
AldersonASJunisbaiAHeacockI (2007) Social status and cultural consumption in the United States. Poetics35(2–3): 191–212.
2.
AtkinsonW (2011) The context and genesis of musical tastes: Omnivorousness debunked, Bourdieu buttressed. Poetics39(3): 169–186.
3.
BaerL.EitzenD. S.DupreyC.ThompsonN. J.ColeC. (1976). The consequences of objective and subjective status inconsistency. The Sociological Quarterly, 17(3), 389-400.
4.
BergerJWillerDZelditchM (2005) Theory programs and theoretical problems. Sociological Theory23(2): 127–155.
5.
BourdieuP (1979) Distinction : A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrissonR (2019) Back to the original omnivore: On the artefactual nature of Peterson’s thesis of omnivorousness. Poetics76: 101359.
7.
CalhounC (1982) The Question of Class Struggle: Social Foundations of Popular Radicalism During the Industrial Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8.
CastilloJCMirandaDMaderoI (2013) Todos Somos de Clase media: Sobre el estatus social subjetivo en Chile. Latin American Research Review48(1): 155–173.
9.
ChanTW (2010) The social status scale: Its construction and properties. In: ChanTW (ed.) Social Status and Cultural Consumption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–56.
10.
ChanTWGoldthorpeJH (2007a) Social stratification and cultural consumption: Music in England. European Sociological Review23(1): 1–19.
11.
ChanTWGoldthorpeJH (2007b) Social stratification and cultural consumption: The visual arts in England. Poetics35(2–3): 168–190.
12.
ChanTWTurnerH (2017) Where do cultural omnivores come from? The implications of educational mobility for cultural consumption. European Sociological Review33(4): 576–589.
13.
CorreaT.PavezI.ContrerasJ. (2020). Digital inclusion through mobile phones?: A comparison between mobile-only and computer users in internet access, skills and use. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7), 1074-1091.
14.
de VriesRReevesA (2021) What does it mean to be a cultural omnivore? Conflicting visions of omnivorousness in empirical research. Sociological Research Online. Epub ahead of print 19 April 2021. DOI: 10.1177/13607804211006109.
15.
D’HoogeLAchterbergPReeskensT (2018) Imagining class: A study into material social class position, subjective identification, and voting behavior across Europe. Social Science Research70: 71–89.
16.
De RosaMFloresIMorganM (2020) Inequality in Latin America Revisited: Insights from Distributional National Accounts (2020/09; Issue Brief).
17.
DomhoffG. William. 1998. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000. Mountain View, Cal.: Mayfield.
18.
EvansMDRKelleyJ (2004) Subjective social location: Data from 21 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research16(1): 3–38.
19.
FalkMKatz-GerroT (2016) Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify common determinants?Journal of Cultural Economics40(2): 127–162.
20.
FişekMH (1998) The combining of status information. Journal of Mathematical Sociology22(4): 333–353.
21.
FriedmanSReevesA (2020) From aristocratic to ordinary: Shifting modes of elite distinction. American Sociological Review85(2): 323–350.
22.
GayoM (2016) A critique of the omnivore: From the origin of the idea of omnivorousness to the Latin American experience. In: HanquinetLSavageM (eds) Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 104–115.
23.
GayoM (2017) Exploring cultural disengagement: The example of Chile. Cultural Sociology11(4): 468–488.
24.
HahlOZuckermanEWKimM (2017) Why elites love authentic lowbrow culture: Overcoming high-status denigration with outsider art. American Sociological Review82(4): 828–856.
25.
JackmanMRJackmanRW (1973) An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review38(5): 569–582.
26.
JægerMKatz-GerroT (2010) The rise of the eclectic cultural consumer in Denmark, 1964–2004. The Sociological Quarterly51(3): 460–483.
27.
JarnessV (2015) Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research. Poetics53: 65–79.
28.
JenkinsR (2014) Social Identity. 4th ed.London: Routledge.
29.
JinLTamTTaoL (2019) Well-off but powerless? Status incongruence and psychological well-being in contemporary China. Social Science and Medicine235: 112345.
30.
Karademir HazırIWardeA (2016) The cultural omnivore thesis: Methodological aspects of the debate. In: HanquinetLSavageM (eds) Routledge Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 77–89.
31.
KarlssonL (2017) Self-placement in the social structure of Sweden: The relationship between class identification and subjective social placement. Critical Sociology43(7–8): 1045–1061.
32.
Katz-GerroTJægerM (2013) Top of the pops, ascend of the omnivores, defeat of the couch potatoes: Cultural consumption profiles in Denmark 1975–2004. European Sociological Review29(2): 243–260.
33.
KelleyJEvansMDR (2017) Societal inequality and individual subjective well-being: Results from 68 societies and over 200,000 individuals, 1981–2008. Social Science Research62: 1–23.
34.
KhanSR (2011) Privilege : The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
KrausMWTanJJX (2015) Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology58: 101–111.
36.
LamontM (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LamontMMolnárV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology28(1): 167–195.
38.
LenskiGE (1954) Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. American Sociological Review19(4): 405.
39.
LizardoO (2010) Culture and stratification. In: HallJRGrindstaffLLoM-C (eds) Handbook of Cultural Sociology. New York: Routledge, pp. 305–314.
40.
LizardoO (2019) Culture and stratification. In: GrindstaffLLoM-CMHallJR (eds) Routledge Handbook of Cultural Sociology. New York: Routledge, pp. 198–206.
41.
LizardoOSkilesS (2009) Highbrow omnivorousness on the small screen? Cultural industry systems and patterns of cultural choice in Europe. Poetics37(1): 1–23.
42.
LizardoOSkilesS (2012) Reconceptualizing and theorizing ‘omnivorousness’. Sociological Theory30(4): 263–282.
43.
MacClureOBarozetEValenzuelaAM (2020) Naming oneself in the social mirror: A vignette-based survey. Current Sociology70(1): 77–99.
44.
MilesAGibsonL (2016) Everyday participation and cultural value. Cultural Trends25(3): 151–157.
45.
MuellerGPlugE (2006) Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review60: 3–22.
46.
OddssonG (2018) Class imagery and subjective social location during Iceland’s economic crisis, 2008–2010. Sociological Focus51(1): 14–30.
47.
Pérez-AhumadaP (2014) Class consciousness in a mature neoliberal society: Evidence from Chile. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility38: 57–75.
48.
PetersonR (1992) Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics21(4): 243–258.
49.
PetersonR (2005) Problems in comparative research: The example of omnivorousness. Poetics33(5–6): 257–282.
50.
PetersonRKernRM (1996) Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review61(5): 900.
51.
PetersonRSimkusA (1992) How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational Status Groups. In: LamontMMichaelF (eds) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. University of Chicago Press, pp. 152–168.
52.
RankinBErginM (2017) Cultural omnivorousness in Turkey. Current Sociology65(7): 1070–1092.
53.
ReevesA (2019) How class identities shape highbrow consumption: A cross-national analysis of 30 European countries and regions. Poetics76: 101361.
54.
SobelME (1981) Diagonal mobility models: A substantively motivated class of designs for the analysis of mobility effects. American Sociological Review46(6): 893.
55.
SobelME (1985) Social mobility and fertility revisited: Some new models for the analysis of the mobility effects hypothesis. American Sociological Review50(5): 699–712.
56.
TorcheF (2007) Social status and cultural consumption: The case of reading in Chile. Poetics35(2–3): 70–92.
57.
TorcheF (2010) Social status and public cultural consumption: Chile in comparative perspective. In: ChanTW (ed.) Social Status and Cultural Consumption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–138.
WrightD. (2016). Cultural consumption and cultural omnivorousness. In InglisD.AlmilaA. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Sociology (pp 567-577). London: SAGE Publications.
63.
WrightE. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
YalvaçNSKarademir HazırI (2020) Do omnivores perform class distinction? A qualitative inspection of culinary tastes, boundaries and cultural tolerance. Sociology55(3): 469–486.
65.
ZhangX (2008) Status inconsistency revisited: An improved statistical model. European Sociological Review24(2): 155–168.
66.
ZhaoTJinXSongW, et al. (2018) How a perceived status change increase consumers’ tendency toward consumption through double psychological mechanisms. Asian Journal of Social Psychology21(1–2): 65–73.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
