The arts as cultural capital among elites: Bourdieu's theory reconsidered

ELSEVIER Poetics 26 (1998) 43-53

POETICS

The arts as cultural capital among elites: Bourdieu's theory reconsidered

Francie Os t rower*

Department of Sociology, William James Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Abstract

Pierre Bourdieu's influential theory of cultural capital has increasingly been subject to criticism. This paper addresses Bourdieu's ideas about the role of the arts in class cohesion among elites, a group to whom the theory should be most applicable. It finds that the arts are valued by elites and do contribute to class cohesion, but not entirely in the way his theory describes. In contrast to Bourdieu's emphasis on aesthetic knowledge and tastes, I propose that culture's importance for class cohesion, at least in the American context, is rooted in the social organization of elite participation in the arts. Thus, the link that cultural capital theory draws between the arts and class cohesion is correct, but it occurs through an alternative mechanism. This argument is developed through an analysis of 175 in-depth personal interviews from two studies of elites conducted by the author.

I. Introduction

Pierre Bourdieu's (1984[ 1979]) theory of cultural capital emphasizes the importance of distinctive aesthetic tastes and knowledge in reinforcing class boundaries. According to Bourdieu, familiarity with high culture is possessed to a greater degree by those at the top of the class hierarchy, and serves as an indicator of class status that facilities cohesion and exclusivity among its possessors. He further contends that it takes considerable training and early socialization to acquire cultural capital,l enhancing its efficacy in maintaining class distinctions. 2

This is an expanded version of a paper presented at the 1997 American Sociological Association Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada (Session on 'Theories of Social and Cultural Capital'). My thanks to David Halle and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Financial support received from the following sources (listed alphabetically) is gratefully acknowledged: Center for the Study of Philanthropy, Lilly Endowment, New York Community Trust, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund of the Aspen Institute, a Yale University John F. Enders Research Assistance Grant, and the Yale University Program on Non-Profit Organizations. * E-mail: [email protected] 1 For Bourdieu, early socialization bestows an ease with cultural matters and a seemingly natural sense of taste that eludes even those willing to spend considerable time on enhancing their cultural knowledge later in life. 2 'Cultural capital' has been conceptualized and measured in various ways (Lamont and Lareau, 1988). This paper focuses on facility with the arts, specifically

0378-2166/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PH S 0 3 0 4 - 4 2 2 X ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 2

44 F. Ostrower / Poetics 26 (1998) 43-53

These ideas have come under increasing criticism. Lamont (1992) argues that for the American upper middle class, moral boundaries are more prominent than aesthetic ones, and questions the generality of Bourdieu's findings even within France. Erickson (1996) maintains that interest in high culture is not an important basis of solidarity in business, except perhaps at the most elite level. Halle (1992) contends that members of different classes do not relate to art in fundamentally different ways, that cultural capital is not as difficult to obtain as Bourdieu suggests, and questions the idea that the arts play an important role in class exclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to address Bourdieu's ideas concerning the role of the arts in class cohesion among elites, 3 a group to whom his theory should be most applicable. It argues that the arts are valued by elites and do facilitate class cohesion (that is, contribute to elite solidarity and exclusivity) but not entirely in the way that his theory describes. Bourdieu, writing in France, emphasizes the importance of artistic knowledge and a distinctive aesthetic orientation. By contrast, I argue that culture's importance for upper class cohesion, at least in the American context, is rooted in the social organization of elite participation in the arts. In short, I argue that the link that cultural capital theory draws between the arts and class cohesion holds, but propose that it occurs through an alternative mechanism.

2. Data

Data in this paper are drawn from two separate studies I conducted on elites. The first, a study of elite philanthropy, is based primarily on 99 personal interviews I conducted with wealthy donors who live and/or work in the New York City area. 4

The 88 donors that constitute the study's formal sample represent a response rate of 80 percent. 5 Eleven additional donors were interviewed as part of a pretest, and provide further qualitative materials. Respondents spoke freely and at length, with interviews lasting an average of one hour and forty minutes (the median was one

high culture - a focus that is prominent in both Bourdieu's own work and in the American literature on cultural capital (Lamont and Lareau, 1988: 162). 3 In Bourdieu's theory, the 'dominant class' as a whole is richer in economic and cultural capital than are members of other classes. The dominant class itself, however, is further divided into segments richer in economic capital (e.g., business managers) versus cultural capital (e.g., intellectuals). Cultural capital is by definition important to members of the latter group. The focus of this paper is on the former group, and when I use the term 'elites' it is to this economic elite group that I refer. 4 That study is presented in Ostrower (1995). This paper draws on material from that book to address a different topic. 5 Donors were sampled through the following two stage procedure: First, lists of donors of $1,000 or over were assembled from a sample of large New York City nonprofits in seven areas of activity (culture, education, animal and environmental causes, social services, hospitals, other health and rehabilita- tion, and youth development not falling under another category). Forty-eight organizations provided usable lists (a response rate of 75 percent). Next, a random, stratified (by size of contribution) sample of donors was drawn from the lists, with the top strata consisting of those who had made at least one gift of $100,000 or over. A detailed discussion of the sampling procedure and rationale is presented in Ostrower (1995).

F. Ostrower / Poetics 26 (1998) 43-53 45

hour and thirty minutes), and ranging from thirty minutes (due to the respondent's illness) to four hours.

The second set of data is from my study of elite boards of major arts institutions. This research is based primarily on my personal interviews with 76 trustees of four organizations in two cities. These large cities are located in different regions of the country and are geographically distant from one another. These institutions are themselves elite with respect to their size and wealth, and their trustees are drawn largely from social and economic elites. Between 40 and 56 percent of the trustees on each of the boards were interviewed. 6 In this study, too, interviews lasted an average of one hour and forty minutes (the median was just over one and a half hours), and ranged from forty minutes to three and a half hours.

Taken together, these two sets of data provide insight into the value elites place on culture, the nature of elite involvement with the arts, and the way that cultural involvement facilitates elite cohesion in one set of large cities. Drawing on these data, I present a set of empirical findings and develop a theoretical argument concerning the relationship between the arts and elite cohesion. As we shall see, there is reason to believe that the conclusions have a wider applicability, but it remains for future research to determine the precise scope of their relevance. 7

3. C u l t u r e as an el i te va lue

The value and prestige of the arts among elites is reflected in philanthropic giving patterns observed in the donor data. Among those I interviewed, cultural organizations were second only to educational ones as the recipients of donors' largest gifts) Virtually everyone gave some money to culture, and they often donated considerable sums (p. 92). 9 The prominence of culture is also demonstrated by other, organizational data. Comparing donations to large New York City nonprofits in seven areas of activity, I found that cultural and educational organizations received more donations of $1,000 or over than those in any of the other fields. ~0 The prominence of cul-

6 Among all trustees, 21% declined to be interviewed (or, in some cases, initially agreed and then had to cancel). The balance includes trustees who live far from the city area where interviews were conducted (e.g., in another part of the country), who were traveling during the interview period, for whom information needed to contact them was unavailable, and who were known to be so gravely ill that an attempt to contact them was not made. 7 This paper addresses the issues of whether, and how, high cultural involvements contribute to elite cohesion. It does not seek to establish the relative importance of cultural involvements (compared with other sources of cohesion) or to explain why these serve as a mark of class status - complex and important issues that warrant independent treatment. x Thus, 42.9% of donors had made at least one of their three largest gifts during the past year to a cultural institution, and 69.4% had made one to an educational institution. Culture and education garnered large total contributions from a comparably high percentage of donors. This reflects the fact that the money donors give to culture is spread out among a larger number of institutions than the money they give to education. ') Unless otherwise noted, all page number citations are to Ostrower (1995). i~ The median number of gifts of $1,000 or more received by cultural institutions was 600.6 and the average was 362. In education, the median was 461 and the average was 451. For hospitals, which received the next highest number, the median drops to 210 (with an average of 305.7).


ture is a distinctive feature of elite philanthropy, for culture is a relatively minor recipient of charitable giving in general) ~ This emphasizes the importance of cultural causes to affluent donors, who do often choose to give to the arts.

The value that elite donors place on cultural causes is also seen in the reasons that they give for making large contributions to culture. For instance, one person explained that she makes her largest cultural gifts because, 'I love and adore classi- cal music', while another said he gave out of 'a real commitment to music, and to the cultural life of this city and the nation'. For yet another, 'one of the ... things that man has going for it is appreciation for the arts'.

Although more donors gave one of their largest gifts to education, they did not express a comparable interest in the field of education. Rather, they accounted for these gifts in terms of their desire to support specific, individual institutions (namely, schools that they, or a family member attended) (p. 99). This contrast further under- scores elite donors' interest and enthusiasm for the cultural field. So, too, does the fact that individuals spread their total giving to culture out over a larger number of institutions (p. 167).

Another sign of elites' esteem for the arts is reflected in the fact that they enjoy contact with artists. Providing such contact is one of the 'perks' used to solicit donations. For instance, a trustee interviewed for my study of boards explained that having receptions with performers is one of the things the organization does to raise money. Another trustee said he personally enjoys attending parties with artists. For him, 'that's part of the whole thing, the charm of dealing with these lovely people, lovely singers'. This enthusiasm for contact with artists is particularly noteworthy because interaction in elite philanthropy generally remains confined within the elite (Ostrower, 1995).

As cultural capital theory would expect, these elite individuals do value the arts. Yet Bourdieu's theory posits more than interest in, and appreciation of, culture. For him, elites possess considerable artistic knowledge and a distinctive aesthetic outlook that is difficult for others to obtain. Moreover, cultural tastes and knowledge strengthen elites' ties with one another, and serve as a basis for excluding others who do not share their facility with high culture. Accordingly, we must look in greater detail at the specific nature of elite enthusiasm for, and involvement with, the arts. For this purpose, we may turn to data on elite trustees of major cultural institutions.

4. Elite arts trustees and the arts

Affluent arts trustees that I interviewed expressed their regard for the importance of the arts and expected the same of fellow board members. Although trustees generally valued the arts, however, they did not necessarily claim considerable artistic background or expect it from other board members. Indeed, some made casual and surprising references to their own lack of expertise. One member of an opera board

~ Figures from a recent year show only 6.9% of all giving going to the combined category of arts, culture, and humanities (Giving USA, 1996: 13).


said, ' I do not represent myself as an expert on the opera anymore than I ' m an expert on cancer ... Nor do I want to be thought of as an expert on the opera' . A museum trustee said, ' I don ' t know much about art. I ' m no art historian. And my taste is only as refined as I know what I like when I see it'. Yet another board member acknowledged, ' I ' m not famous for either my art collection or my knowledge of abstract expressionism ... If I were not interested in maintaining this incredible storehouse and educational institution of the arts, then I wouldn' t be there'. These quotes are drawn both from self-made individuals and those of inherited wealth who received the early socialization in the arts stressed by Bourdieu. Interestingly, a trustee from France observed that, ' the overall degree of knowledge of the [American] board is lower than it would be in France'. This further suggests the lesser importance of artistic knowledge in the American elite context.

It might be objected that trustees' demurrals actually reflect an elite ideology, described by Bourdieu (1984[ 1979]), which privileges artistic tastes that are seen as a natural gift rather than as the result of formal training. That this is not the case is shown by the fact that trustees admire professionals' expertise, enjoy their own opportunities for learning, and readily acknowledge shifts in their own taste as a result of learning more. Furthermore, trustees expressed respect for fellow trustees who do command such knowledge. Moreover, trustees are relatively unconcerned with, and even explicitly reject in some cases, the idea of artistic enjoyment as a pure and unmediated experience. ~2 In short, trustees admire those they view as having developed knowledge and tastes, but they do not feel required to have it themselves.

Although trustees may not possess, or feel bound to acquire considerable knowledge of the arts, they do emphasize the value of cultural institutions. The man who is 'no art historian' describes the museum's mission as 'nourishing the soul of the patrons of that institution and of the city'. An opera trustee who enjoys opera but is not 'a real aficionado', feels the institution is among those 'which provides a way for us to remember that we are human, and therefore need the civilizing influence of the arts'. A member of another board said, 'Many of the trustees don ' t know anything about art, but they know the institution should exist ' .

Some trustees, of course, are quite knowledgeable about the arts, or a particular aspect of the arts. Moreover, the general level of exposure to high arts may well be higher among these elites than among members of other classes, as Bourdieu claims. The point here, however, is that such knowledge and a distinctive aesthetic disposi- tion are hardly viewed as a part of these individuals' identity or a requirement for acceptance among their peers.

To the extent that artistic expertise is identified as a necessary or inherent attribute of a social group, it is of professionals in the cultural field. Furthermore, at least in principle, trustees accept the idea of staff authority in the artistic arena, based on their professional expertise. 13 As one opera trustee put it, ' it isn't up to us as board

~2 This was seen, for instance in support for the use of supertitles (or translations) in opera performances. One trustee, for instance, derided critics who believe opera should be understood without supertitles as elitists. t3 In reality, the involvement of trustees in artistic matters is more complex. This issue is dealt with in my study of boards, but goes beyond the scope of this particular paper.


members to direct to the artistic management what they can put on'. Even a knowledgeable collector said he is respectful of the artistic decisions of staff because 'curators have a hundred times more knowledge of their area than an amateur can have'. 14

This material reinforces the doubts that critics have expressed about the importance of extensive, exclusive cultural knowledge as a basis for class solidarity. It is true that this material comes from a specialized, rather than a representative group within the elite, namely arts trustees. Since it is a group of elites involved with the arts, however, the bias should work in favor of Bourdieu's theory. Even so, we have still seen problems with his characterization of the nature and use of the arts as a basis of elite differentiation and exclusivity.

Must we then conclude that the arts do not contribute to class solidarity as Bour- dieu maintains? I argue that we should not abandon cultural capital theory's basic insight concerning the link between culture and stratification. Rather, I propose that we revise our understanding of this relationship, at least in the American context. Specifically, I argue that we must expand the focus from artistic knowledge and attitudes to accord a greater role to the concrete ways that elites participate in the arts. This includes a particular emphasis on elites' philanthropic involvement with formal organizations that preserve, present, and produce art.

5. The social organization of elite arts participation

When we turn from looking at artistic knowledge to the concrete way in which elites become involved with arts organizations, we see that association with the arts does indeed contribute to elite cohesion. Through their philanthropy elites carve out a distinctive and exclusive relationship with prestigious arts institutions, which allows them to maintain a privileged sense of identification between these institutions and their class. Others may use and value these institutions and their art, but elite involvement with them is carried out separately, in a relatively homogeneous environment (Ostrower, 1995).

Charity benefits are an example of one setting in which philanthropy brings elites together with one another. One donor noted that he enjoys a cultural organization's fundraiser because, ' I t ' s an opportunity to meet some people and do some things, which in my mind is more networking than anything else'. Another wealthy individual enjoys benefits because 'there are a lot of people like me there' (p. 37). Such comments reflect the fact that the exclusive nature of these events is one of their attractions. Privileged access to art exhibitions and performances also provide set-

14 Trustees' stated recognition of staff authority in artistic matters does not rest only on a belief in professionals' greater artistic knowledge. It is part of a wider understanding of appropriate board/staff functions that dictates restraint even on the part of trustees with considerable knowledge of the arts. Whether or not trustees are seen as quite knowledgeable, however, the point, again, is that such an artistic background is not viewed as an inherent attribute and expression of class status. Professional training and identity, not class status, is depicted as the reference point for such knowledge.


tings in which elite participation in the arts brings them together with their peers. For elite donors and trustees, arts institutions not only present art, but also serve as prestigious settings for dinners and social events.

A particularly prized form of involvement with arts organizations among elites is membership on the boards of cultural institutions. Among the elite, different volunteer activities hold different amounts of status. Board membership is held in particularly high esteem. Indeed, in the eyes of affluent donors, serving on nonprofit boards is one of the very signs of elite status. Thus, one donor I interviewed wryly described board membership as a virtually mandatory 'accoutrement' of being wealthy (p. 36).

A brief consideration of the nature of contemporary elite philanthropy clarifies why board membership is so valued. Contemporary philanthropy is organizational in nature. Most gifts go to organizations rather than directly to individuals (Blau, 1986[ 1964]). Donors develop a connection and loyalty to particular nonprofits that, in turn, fosters and perpetuates their contributions. Involvements with particular organizations become part of the donors' very o w n identi ty in the eyes of those they know. Consequently, individuals derive prestige from identification with nonprofits. From the perspective of elites, board membership represents the height of involvement and identification (Ostrower, 1995).

Some types of nonprofits and their boards, however, enjoy greater stature than others. Cultural institutions are among those privileged in this regard. Donors themselves are aware of this hierarchy. One woman, for instance, said, 'There are certain institutions that if you're a volunteer for them, then you're a big deal. If you are on the board of something else, nobody's heard of it. People don't tend to come to meetings'. By contrast, she sees people 'line up by droves' to volunteer for a prestigious arts institution she knows (p. 41). Another donor acknowledged, 'There are some aspects of philanthropic work Which are connected with social snobbery. I rec- ognize it myself' (p. 37). Thus, he was 'thrilled' to join the board of one prestigious arts organization. He said, 'Naturally I want to be known as an expert on [the organization]. That may be a form of social snobbery, but I 'm delighted that this is hap- pening!' A trustee interviewed in the study of arts boards explained that his institution, 'has attracted over the years the great philanthropic figures of [this city] to come on the board ... It's always sort of been considered a very prestigious board to be associated with. And I've yet to find anyone who's been asked who turns it down'. Another trustee attributes the prestige of her institution's board and another local arts board to the fact that, 'They are cultural institutions ... Art and music give a certain status'. Indeed, board seats are so highly valued that boards try to develop alternative honors (such as honorary trusteeship) for important donors who they are not prepared to include on the board.

In sum, boards are another class homogeneous setting in which elites participate in the arts, and membership on them is a mark of class identity. This is reflected in the fact that donors often spoke of people seeking membership on arts boards to establish their status or gain social entree (p, 95). For instance, one donor described how someone had asked a family member what it would cost to get onto a cultural board on which he serves. Explaining why the person wanted to join, she said: 'Social profile. A new forum of making social connections. Actually, the person in


this case was someone from out of town who wants to spend more time in New York' (p. 38). Another donor, who believes that philanthropy is a prerequisite for membership in certain social circles, said: 'If you move to IX] and you want to be accepted by the OK people, you break your back to get on the board of the museum ... The entrees leading off that board are not to be believed. You cannot imagine the vying that goes on to get onto that board' (p. 38).

Perceptions about networks surrounding cultural organizations are supported by the fact that larger donors to culture were in fact more likely to know one another socially than were other donors in my study. L5 These findings show again that both symbolically, and in practice, association with arts organizations is connected with elite identity and interaction.

As the board study shows, prestigious boards take care to maintain these connections and the prestige which make them so desirable among the elite. One way that they do this is to include socially prominent individuals on the board. For instance, one trustee said that having prestigious members such as Mary Doe (a pseudonym) makes membership desirable to other wealthy people who then want to join so they can say, 'Well, Mary and I were discussing this the other day, or whatever'. Although wealth is a criterion for selecting trustees, boards stop short of explicitly 'selling' their seats, which would dilute their prestige. An influential trustee of one board told me 'we have a rule on the nominating committee that we can't be bought'. A member of another board believes her board is 'at the top of the list' in terms of prestige, because 'you can't buy your way onto it'. As she acknowledged, 'money has everything to do with [the organization]'. But, she said, you cannot make a deal to join: 'I know that from people who wanted to make a deal, and it just doesn't work like that. You have to demonstrate ... that your heart is in the right place'. Describing how board members are chosen, another trustee explained: 'They're chosen, I regret to say, the same way that cooperative apartment buildings work ... There's a system ... where ... the board has to approve you - and they approve you on criteria which are, certainly money, but also social mores'. Presti- gious boards can simultaneously make wealth a criterion for membership, and still use other considerations because so many wealthy people want to join) 6

Prestigious boards also expect new members to conform to the norms and values of the current group, perpetuating the board's homogeneous character. This is true even as boards have become more open to new, or previously excluded millionaires within the elite in an effort to raise additional funds (Ostrower, 1995). Indeed, even

~5 The density of social networks was four times greater among larger culture donors than among donors as a whole. It was also four times as high as the figure for large donors to universities and col- leges, and over twice as high as for hospital donors (p. 95). ~6 Among donors I studied, social prominence, as indicated by belonging to the core status group within the elite, was a determinant of membership on cultural boards, independent of monetary donations (Ostrower, 1995: 46--47). This reflects the importance that cultural boards place on retaining an association with prestigious members of the elite. Membership in the core status group was determined using standard indicators in elite research (see Domhoff, 1983:44 A,7), and includes individuals who are either: listed in the Social Register (a society bluebook), members of an elite club, or graduates of a prestigious prep school.


a trustee who objected to some newly wealthy board members felt that the board wouldn't actually put someone 'offensive on', while another trustee said that 'wave makers' are not good for boards because they 'cause a flap'.

When it comes to arts organizations themselves, trustees are surprisingly open. Particularly relevant is that trustees accept, and even encourage, measures to increase the numbers of people using the arts organizations they oversee. A striking example here is opera trustees' support for the use of supertitles, which provide Eng- lish translations during performances. The very purpose of supertitles is to make opera more accessible, and trustees favor their use precisely because they believe that they 'get more people interested'. Also in contrast to traditional stereotypes of elite exclusivity is the willingness of trustees to have arts organizations engage in commercial and marketing activities to raise money, even though commercial forces tend to erode status boundaries (See DiMaggio, 1982, and DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985, who draw on the work of Max Weber). Thus, one trustee has no problem if it's done 'tastefully' and a trustee who once objected changed her mind after she saw how much money it earned.

By contrast, other attitudes and practices are conducive to keeping the board itself a relatively privileged and homogeneous arena. A case in point is the very way in which trustees define the functions of the board. Trustees characterize giving and raising money as a central function of board members. This is frequently defended as serving the best interests of the organization. For instance, one person said, 'I think it always helps to have rich people on a board ... You know, you need money to run these institutions ... And the more rich people you have involved, the more chance you have of raising money from them'. Another donor believes a policy of 'give, get, or get off' for trustees is 'vital', because trustees who don't give are less able to raise contributions from other people.

Whatever the motivation for trustees' outlook, the fact is that such criteria provide a rationale for perpetuating the homogeneous class character of boards.17 When an activity or resource serves as a basis of class solidarity, we should expect elites to build boundaries around it, maintaining its exclusivity within their own group. Such barriers do indeed surround the social organization of elite participation in the arts, further supporting the argument that it is here that we find the basis of the arts' contribution to elite cohesion.

6. Conclusion

Bourdieu's critics question the importance of class-based aesthetic tastes and knowledge in facilitating solidarity and exclusivity among the upper and upper-middle classes. This paper has examined the role of arts involvement among elites. If

h7 Given the emphasis on individualism, achievement, and egalitarian values in American society, a justification for elite dominance on boards of major nonprofit cultural institutions is problematic. A rationale based in the functional needs of the organizations (for money), reinforces the status privilege of elites, while avoiding explicit claims of elite superiority or entitlement.


high cultural involvements function anywhere as Bourdieu believes, it should be among members of this group. The results confirm that elites value the arts, but bol- ster doubts about the presence and importance of aesthetic capabilities as the basis of class distinctions, even among the elite. Nonetheless, I maintain that the arts do contribute to class cohesion, as Bourdieu asserts, but propose that they do so in a different way, at least in the American context.

It is the social organization of elite participation in the arts, and specifically elite involvement with arts organ i za t ions that forms the basis of culture's role in reinforcing class solidarity. The boundaries surrounding the homogeneous world of charity benefits, boards, and other philanthropic events are considerable, for one must have the money to participate. Elite attitudes and practices reinforce these boundaries. Thus, the arts play a role in class cohesion because of the way in which elites involve themselves with a set of arts organizations and with one another through their arts participation.

The arts are by no means the sole facilitator of elite cohesion, and comparable processes are also at work in other types of elite philanthropy. At the same time, the fact that culture is so prominent in elite philanthropy, and that elites so value association with arts institutions testifies to the enduring interest, value, and social cachet associated with high culture in elite circles.

This paper's conclusions are based on the analysis of elites in one set of large cities, but there is reason to believe that they have a wider applicability. This study found commonalities among elites in cities in different parts of the country with different cultural traditions. Moreover, there is ample evidence of elite involvement with arts organizations in numerous urban centers (see, e.g., DiMaggio and Useem, 1982; Jaher, 1982; McCarthy, n.d.). Future research is needed, however, to establish how widely applicable the conclusions are, and to investigate whether the links between the arts and elite cohesion differ in nature or strength in smaller cities, or among some large ones. Since elites get involved with cultural institutions outside of the cities where they live, it would also be useful to extend the present analysis by considering whether the arts facilitate elite cohesion across (as well as within) cities, t8

Bourdieu's critics have rightly identified weaknesses in his theory. This analysis has offered additional grounds for criticism in certain respects. At the same time, by offering a modification to Bourdieu's approach, by showing its empirical applicability to a rich set of data, and by outlining areas for further research, it is hoped that this discussion will contribute to ongoing sociological interest in the relationship between the arts and elite cohesion. It is a subject that warrants interest and one on which much remains to be done.

is It would also be of interest to study any inter-city rivalries concerning arts institutions, such as one that was discussed by one city's trustees. From one perspective, rivalries suggest division rather than cohesion. Yet the very fact that arts institutions become a subject of competition testifies to the signifi- cance that elites attach to them. Furthermore, there were people involved with arts organizations in both of the rival cities, indicating that rivalry does not preclude contact.


References

American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, 1996. Giving USA. New York: American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel.

Blau, Peter M., 198611964]. Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, N J: Transaction. Bourdieu, Pierre, 198411979]. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DiMaggio, Paul, 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, I: The creation of an

organizational base for high culture in America. Media, Culture and Society 4, 33-50. DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr, 1985. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection.

American Journal of Sociology 90, 1231-1261. DiMaggio, Paul and Michael Useem, 1982. The arts in class reproduction. In: Michael W. Apple (ed.),

Cultural and economic reproduction in education, 181-201. London: Routledge. Domhoff, G. William, 1983. Who rules America now? A view for the eighties. Englewood Cliffs, N J:

Prentice-Hall. Erickson, Bonnie H., 1996. Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology 1,217-251. Halle, David, 1992. The audience for abstract art: Class, culture, and power. In: Michble Lamont and

Marcel Fournier (eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality, 131-151. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Jaher, Frederic Cople, 1982. The urban establishment: Upper strata in Boston, New York, Charleston, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Lamont, Mich~le, 1992. Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, Mich~le and Annette Lareau, 1988. Cultural capital: Allusions. gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory 6, 153-168.

McCarthy, Kathleen D., n.d. Twentieth century cultural patronage. Working paper, Center for the Study of Philanthropy, City University of New York.

Ostrower, Francie, 1995. Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, N J: Prince- ton University Press.

Francie Ostrower is Associate Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. Her areas of interest include philanthropy and nonprofit organizations, elites, culture, and qualitative methods. She is the author of Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy, co-author (with Paul DiMaggio) of Race, Ethnicity, and Participation in the Arts, and is currently writing a book on boards of directors of major arts institutions.

Documents

The arts as cultural capital among elites: Bourdieu's theory reconsidered