7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
1/10
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam20
Download by:[Vilinius University] Date:03 December 2015, At: 14:59
The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
ISSN: 1063-2921 (Print) 1930-7799 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20
Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?
Yves Evrard
To cite this article:Yves Evrard (1997) Democratizing Culture or CulturalDemocracy?, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 27:3, 167-175, DOI:
10.1080/10632929709596961
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632929709596961
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 237
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10632929709596961#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10632929709596961#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjam20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjam20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10632929709596961http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam207/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
2/10
Democratizing Culture or
Cultural Democracy?
YVES EVRARD
he argument
in
this article is that deb ates about culture-which g o
T
eyond cultural policies to include, for example, the criticism of mass
culture in defense of intellectual culture-may
be
grouped and structured
around the conflict between two paradigms: the democratization of culture
versus cultural democracy. This conflict comes
to
a large extent from the cul-
tural field itself.
My aim is to present the characteristics of the two paradigms and the ori-
gin
of
the dichotom y before seeking to identify their philosophical roots and
show link s between this dichotom y and those in other fields su ch as research
on
communication and consumer behavior.
I
will conclude by showing how
this conflict between two cultural paradigms may be viewed in light of the
transition from modernity to postmodernity.
I
hope to contribute to an under-
standing
of
the deba te rather than advocate the superiority
of
one position over
the other.
The Roots of the Dichotomy between Democratization and Demacracy
Government cultural policies, notably in Europe and more specifically
in
France, are mainly steered toward the democratization of culture. Th ey aim
to
disseminate major cultural works to an audience that does not have ready
access
to
them, for lack of financial means or knowledge derived from edu-
cation. From this perspective, a mark of s ucce ss fo r a cultural policy w ould be
a dem ograph ic structure for attenda nce for major artw orks that m atches that
Yves Evrard is
u
professor at Group HEC
i n
Jou~v-en-Jrisu.s. runce.
Full I997 167
Do
wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive
rsity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
3/10
The Journal
of
Arts Management, LAW and Society
of the total population. This match would mean that the disparities in cultural
attendance would have been erased. However, the failure of such policies is
shown by the persistent gap, revealed by one study after another, in terms of
education and income, between those who attend museums
or
theaters and the
population as a whole.
By contrast, a model of cultural democracy may be defined as one
founded on free individual choice, in which the role of a cultural policy is not
to interfere with the preferences expressed by citizenxonsumers but to sup-
port the choices made by individuals or social groups through a regulatory
policy applied to the distribution of information
or
the structures of supply, as
happens in other types of markets.
The two models are in a Copernican opposition in the sense that the first
centers on artwork being disseminated widely and the second centers on pro-
viding an individual with the opportunity to exercise free choice. The main
basis for this dichotomy lies in the difference between beauty and aesthetics.
In the first case Lacoste 1986), there are objective, universal norms present
in the work of art, which give it its value. Democratization would seek to dis-
seminate these norms or create a universal canon. By contrast the theory of
aesthetics-attributed to Baumgarten and developed in the eighteenth century
in parallel with the emergence of the subject theory Ferry 1990)-bases
value on the pleasure or satisfaction derived from contemplating a work of art
or attending a performance, that is, the subjective judgment of taste. Even
though the exercise of judgment is universal, the outcome is not, and this leads
to different choices that may be observed and analyzed, for instance through
segmentation studies Cans 1974).
From the point of view of beauty, the focus is the work of art, from which
a history of art and artistic forms is derived. From the point of view of aes-
thetics, however, the same work may be perceived differently by various sub-
jects
or
at different moments in time. From such a plurality of readings is
derived the analysis of aesthetic reception Jauss 1978), which centers on the
audience and seeks to understand and analyze its reactions.2
The differences between beauty and aesthetics raise the question of a def-
inition of art. In one case, the source of art lies in an object and in its creation,
that is, the aesthetic intention.
In
the other, art stems from the way the object
is looked at, that is, the aesthetic relationship Genette 1997). An object may
therefore be artistic or not, according to the circumstances. Marcel Duchamp
thus triggered a fundamental rupture with his ready-made artwork, when,
by exhibiting at a painters fair a urinal signed R. Mutt Guillet de Monthoux
1993) he turned i t into an object that could generate an aesthetic perception.
The current controversy in France over a project to create a Museum of
Primary Arts and Civilizations has pitted museologists who, following Michel
Leiris and the surrealists, see an aesthetic value in objects from so-called
168 Vol. 27 No
3
Downloadedby[ViliniusUniversity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
4/10
Democratizing Culture or Cultural D emocracy?
primitive civilizations, against ethnologists, for whom such objects must be
interpreted in relation to their original functions in sacred or daily life.
The Philosophical oots
The dichotomy between democratizationof culture and cultural democra-
cy is rooted in fundamental philosophical debates. The question of the exis-
tence of universal norms, on which universalism is at odds with multicultur-
alism and relativism, has parallels in epistemology.So too does the question
of the source of such norms and whether
or
not they are considered transcen-
dental, because this contributes to defining the status of works of art and
notably their religious
or
secular character.
For supportersof universalism, human nature is characterized by the exis-
tence of universal norms, which
in
turn are used to justify policies
of
cultural
democratization with the purpose of disseminating them. This idea is ques-
tioned by culturalists such as Edgar Morin
1973).
who said that the nature of
man is his culture. Drawing on scientific findings from ethnology, they seek
to show the coexistence of a variety
of
cultures, each with its specific charac-
teristics. They reject ethnocentrism, which claims that one form of culture is
superior to others or judges others by its own criteria. This vision
of
multi-
culturalism may be linked to the paradigm of cultural democracy in which
each segment of taste,
or
each s~bculture.~an find a legitimate expression.
Although an analysis of the legitimization process in
the cultural domain is
beyond the
scope
of this essay,
it
may be
useful
to recall sociological theories
showing how cultural norms are developed by social groups Lxvine 1988).
Cultural relativism, derived from multiculturalism, has important implica-
tions for epistemology, oneof which is the statusof reality, which may becon-
sidered unique the source, in the artistic field,of Platos imitation) or multiple
resulting from a social construction process [Berger and Luckmann 19861,
that is, cultural rather than natural). This debate finds echoes in the two
main schools of thought in contemporary social sciences, one based on objec-
tivism, the other on subjectivism Holbrook and Hirschmann 1992). The first
is positivism, which seeks to apply to social sciences a model derived from the
natural sciences in which science aims to establish universal laws. The second
is interpretivism. according to which the subjective nature
of
actors involved
in
social phenomena leads to an epistemological break and marks the autonomy
of the social sciences, the findings of which are seen
as
contingent, notably
in
terms of cultural context, and relative. It may be noted that this difference is
similar to that between explanation and understanding over which Durkheim
and
Weber
differed.
To return more specifically to the arts, supporters of cultural democrati-
zation usually see works of art as reflecting transcendental values that are
Fall 997 169
Do
wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive
rsity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
5/10
The Journal
of
Arts Management,
Law,
and Society
external to them. Such values are intemporal, which explains the importance
given to ancient artworks and to cultural heritage see for instance the imag-
inary museum of Andre Malraux). They can also have a religious source.
The origin of art is often attributed to sacred art, and the artist seen as an
expression of God s in the divine Mozart. The religious connotation
linked to art may linger even in a secular context. For instance, the aura
attached to a work of art was invoked by Benjamin 1983) to criticize the
techniques that permit
the
reproduction of works of
art
and generate a cul-
tural industry. Fumaroli 1991) described a cultural state giving birth to
modem religion, and Ferry 1996) expounded a theory of a Man-God, in
which culture, a creation of man, replaces religion. We may even wonder
whether a conflict between art and money, ritually invoked against econom-
ic and managerial analyses of culture, is merely a mask hiding the incom-
patibility of religion and money.
A democratic perspective, on the other hand, considers the immanence
of the artwork, seen here and now, emphasizing the present creation, subject
eventually to shifts in taste, which are frequent in cultural history. The limit of
this approach-for any object may acquire an artistic status based on the way
it is presented and, more importantly, looked at-lies in the definition of a
frontier between works of art and ordinary objects, the risk being that works
of art become commonplace, even a mere commodity commodification,
Kelly 1991; Wearing and Wearing 1992).
Culture and Comm unication
In
view of the significant interaction between culture and communica-
tion-in France both are managed by the Ministry of Culture and Communi-
cation-ne should look at links between the two paradigms and the issues
underlying theories of communication. The interaction between art and the
media often blurs the frontier between creation and diffusion. Art is increas-
ingly submitted to the logic of events and media. This can
be
seen in the devel-
opment of great painting exhibits and festivals of music or theater that fi t
the most traditional forms of artistic expression into an ephemeral form of civ-
ilization, risking a carnivalization of culture Twitchell
1992).
The democratization paradigm implies a model of communication based
on a transfer of information from center to periphery, in which people are
more interested in the emission here, the supply structure) than in different
interpretations of the reception. The opposite model is the network, based
on a connection of independent units. The Internet, which is developing
exponentially, is an example of this type of structure, and most computer
networks are following
a
similar trend. Underlying such differing commu-
nication paradigms, one may identify two ways of representing society
170 Vol.
27. No.
Downloadedby[ViliniusUniversity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
6/10
Democratizing Culture o r Cultural Democracy?
Breton 1992): a vertical, hierarchical pyramid or a horizontal structure
where communication establishes a social l ink among independent individ-
uals or social groups.
Another parallel may be found
in
the evolution of media theory Barran
and Davis 1995)from a study of media effects what it does to people) to an
analysis of media usage what people do with it). An analysis of audiences,
then, goes beyond a simple attendance count to include qualitative studies
of
peoples relationships to works of art.
Research on the penetration of technology into society follows similar pat-
terns; it first centered on theories of diffusion based for example on epi-
demiological models) but eventually considered longer cycles of technology
assimilation, leading to the creation and modification of social customs. The
importance of analyzing societys assimilation of technology is illustrated by
the many episodes
in
the history of science and technology of inventions
being hijacked for uses not originally intended by their creators. We know for
example that Bell first created the telephone to hear opera performances from
a distance: His invention proved a worldwide success, thanks to other uses
invented later.
Culture and Consumption
The emphasis given here to the audience
as
a major player in the differen-
tiation between two cultural policy paradigms leads one to consider research
on consumer behavior.
I
will use the word
consumer
because
it
is widely used
in the study of contemporary societies, despite the fact that i t applies poorly
to culture. Etymologically the word refers to destruction consuming), while
a fundamental characteristic of a work of
art
is that it lasts: Even when sub-
ject to shifts in taste and fashion, it outlives its consumption. It is, however,
difficult to find a better word: for example, attendance applies to perfor-
mances, but other works such
as
books or records are usually approached
through ownership.
According to the democratization paradigm, the consumer is seen as play-
ing a rather passive role. The qualitative norms already inherent
in
works of
art
have parallels
in
the norms of reception based on the silent and contem-
plative attitude of what one may call a Victorian audience.
In
the democracy paradigm the consumer plays a more active role, which
may even involve participation and which is closer to how audiences behaved
in previous centuries
or
behave today at popular forms of entertainment.
It
is
interesting to note that studies of leisure behavior show an increase in partic-
ipative leisure outings,
in
spite of theories that consider so-called home cul-
ture notably television) to be an obstacle to the development of such outings
or the cause of their decline. One may also note a recent surge in France of
Fall
997
I71
Do
wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive
rsity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
7/10
The Journal of Arts Management, Law nd
Society
interest in amateur cultural practices Donnat 1996), long ignored by socio-
logical analyses of culture, perhaps because of their low economic value.
Another conflict lies in whether to emphasize cognitive or affective aspects
of interactions with works of art.
A
connoisseur, for example, is able to relate
a work of art to other contemporary
or
historic works, either in similar or dif-
ferent forms of artistic expression. But perception may also center on the emo-
tions aroused by the work of
art
as
in
the analyses by Morin 1978) of pro-
jection and identification generated by films. There is again a conflict here
between the externalities of works of
art
and the autonomy of the con-
sumers e~ peri en ce .~
The paradigm of democratization is often linked to a vision of culture com-
ing under the domain of education.
In
France the Ministry of Culture is occa-
sionally joined to the Ministry of Education. The ideology of democratization
would then further movements for popular education Urfalino 1996). The
success of works by Bourdieu 1979) on distinction, in line with his previous
work on reproduction
in
the sociology of education Bourdieu and Passeron
1970), shows the impact of such a conceptualization.
By contrast, the democracy paradigm tends to draw on views derived from
the sociology of leisure Dumazedier 1962). This conflict also relates to the
establishment of a hierarchy among the priorities assigned to culture in its
social missions, whether the priority should be knowledge or entertainment.
The latter often carries pejorative connotations, perhaps stemming from a
puritanical view of pleasure
or
a rejection of emotion as irrational. This appar-
ent dichotomy is, however, being questioned. As the director of the Salzburg
music festival, Gerard Mortier, said in a recent interview, The frontier
between classical music and entertainment must be abolished.
Consequences and Limitations
I
will now
look
at the consequence,or implications, of the two paradigms,
notably for cultural policies. I will then consider their limitations and the
pos-
sibility of drifting toward extreme forms.
The first consequence applies to the role of the state.
In
a context of cul-
tural democratization, its mission would be to generate a supply, thereby
ensuring access t core works of art listed in a canon. The terms of the prob-
lem are different if the policy applies to cultural heritage or to creation. In
the first case, the sedimentation over time of judgments of taste may gener-
ate a consensus despite the fact that the history of art is full of shifts in
appraisal. In the second case, a gap between
the
actors in charge of choosing
which works of art are to be subsidized and the consumers may trigger con-
flicts because the legitimacy of the formers superior taste may be ques-
tioned by the latter.
172
Vol. 27
No.
Downloadedby[ViliniusUniversity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
8/10
Democratizing Culture or Cultural Dem ocracy?
In a cultural democracy. on the other hand, the states main role will be reg-
ulatory, aiming for a minimal amount of intrusion into cultural content.
In
France, public policy toward the film industry is an example of such an
approach, whereby most of the financing follows a logic of automatic redis-
tribution designed to ensure the sectors financial balance through a forced-
savings policy. The policy applied to the performing arts, however, is closer to
the democratization approach.
Moreover, the two paradigms rely on different underlying definitions of
equality. The democratization paradigm implies an equality of outcomes,
designed to meet a logic of quotas, for example, when theater audiences are
expected to have the same sociodemographic structure as the whole popula-
tion. The democracy paradigm implies an equality of opportunities, in which
the market structure needs to be varied enough to respect taste diversity and
satisfy each segment of taste.
The two paradigms may, however, drift to extremes if taken too far. In cul-
tural democratization, a dogmatism inherent in the idea of a core culture may
lead to elitism Holbrook 1995; Henry 1994) and to the creation of a cultur-
al ghetto
if
elites start to feel besieged. Cultural democracy, on the other
hand, may drift to populism, which emphasizes short-term reactions linked to
easy, immediate pleasure and obeys the tyranny of audience ratings. I t is
important to draw a line between attendance and appreciation or evaluation,
but a systematic criticism of the legitimacy of citizens preferences should
also be avoided. Moreover, relntivism-that is, a questioning of the absolute
or universal nature of cultural values-should not be confused with
nihilism,
a rejection of all values.
Conclusion: The Postmodernity Perspective
One may observe that many
of
the above points characterizing the cultur-
al democracy paradigm are close to the components of po~tmodernity:~
A variety of tastes relates to cultural eclecticism, which may take the
form of collage or pastiche, cutting across styles and history and opposing the
notion
of
the core canon inherent
in
universalism.
.
A questioning, from an epistemological point of view, of the unique sta-
tus of reality can be related to works by Jean Baudrillard 1983) on virtual
reality and hyperreality, as well as on simulation and enactment.
Multiculturalism is another obvious meeting point.
And the convergence of mass culture and consumer culture, the artistic
expression of which is pop art-see for instance the Brillo Box or Campbell
Soup
works by Andy Warhol Danto 1992)-is also relevant. Pop
art
is anoth-
er example of problematizing artworks status as Duchamp did). The out-
Fall
I997 I73
Do
wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive
rsity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
9/10
The Journal
of
Arts Munagement, Law, and Society
come of this convergence is an enterta inm ent society, or so cii t i du spectacle,
which has
been
analyzed by Debord
197 1 1988).
There is a certain paradox in such a convergence between cultural democ-
racy and postmodernity in the sense that aesthe tics based
on
the subjective
judgment of taste results from the emergence of the subject, which is in turn
linked to modernity (com pare with works by Ferry on homo aestheticus
[
19901). It seems, however, that moderns have not considered all the conse-
quences of the creation
of
the subject
or
that, perhaps under the influence of
nineteenth-century romantic theories (Schaeffer
1992),
the artistic field may
have remained a refuge
for
religious spirit, with
or
without an explicit refer-
ence t o the presence
of
God rom this perspective, the rela tionshi p of the tw o
paradigms may then be seen as reflecting the transition from modernity to
postmodernity.
NOTES
1 Although the exercise of choice is individual, or possibly comes from microgroups in soci-
ety, one must not ignore its social component (Fenster
1991).
2. To illustrate the fact that artworks may
be
subject to varied interpretation, one may recall
the story of an intellectual who saw the film
Rambo.
which epitomized in his view a certain US
cultural imperialism. and was surprised to find that for som e members of the audience, m ost of
them immigrant workers, the hero embodied an individual's struggle for freedom and opposition
to bureaucracy.
3.
Sub
here do es not mean inferior.
4. I t is clear that these tendencies are complementary rather than rival, even if the two para-
digms em phasize their differentiation. For research
on
measuring components of consumption
experiences and their contribution to its evaluation. see Evrard and Aurier 1996).
5 . See Fuat and Venkatesh 1995).
REFERENCES
Baran. Stanley
J..
and Dennis K. Davis. Moss Commun icu r ion
Theon..
Wadsworth. 1995.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. Semiotexte. 1983.
Benjam in, Walter. L'oeuvre d'a rt I'ere de sa repro duc tiviti technique. I n Essais 2. 1935-1940.
Berger. Peter. and Thoma.. Luckmann.
La
ronsrrucr ion socia le de lo
re alire .
Meridiem
Bloom. Harold. The Wesrern Canon. MacMillan. 1994.
Bourdieu. Pierre. La distincrion. Editions de Minuit.
1979.
Bourdieu. Pierre. and
J
Claude Passeron. La rep~JdUCtifJn. ditions de Minuit. 1970.
Breton. Philippe. L ufopie de
la
commun i ra t i on . La Dicouvene. 1992.
Danto. Arthur C. Beyond the
Br i l l 0 Box.
Noonday Press, 1992.
Debord. Guy.
Commentai res
sur la socie te du
spectacle.
Editions Gerard Lebovici. 1988.
Lcc socie r i du
spectacle.
Champ libre. 1971.
Donnat. Olivier. e s amateurs. Ministtre de la Culture. 1996.
Dumazedier. loffre.
Vcrs
une civilisorion
des
loisirs. Seuil. 1962.
Evrard. Yves. and Philippe Aurier. Identification and Validation of the Com pon ents of the
Fenster, Mark. 'Th e Problem
of
Taste within the Pro blematic of Culture, C o m m u n i r u t i o n T h e o y
87-126. Denc%2l-Gonthier. 1983.
Klincksieck. 1986.
Person-O bject Relationship, Journu/ ofBusine.ss
Research
37 1996): 127-1 34.
May 1991: 87-105.
174
Vol.
27
No.3
Downloadedby[ViliniusUniversity]at14:5903December
2015
7/25/2019 5. Evrard, Yves. Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy
10/10
Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy.?
Ferry, Luc.
Homo Aesrhericus.
Grarset, 1990.
L home-Diru
u le
sens de la vie.
Grasset. 1996.
Flichy. Patrice.
Une
hisroire de la com munication moderne. La Dkouverte, 1991
Fuat. Firat A,. and Alladi Venkatesh. Liberatory Postmodemism and the Reenchantment o f
Consumption:'
Journal of
Consumer
Research 22
1995):
2 3 9 4 7 .
Fumaroli. Marc. L Erar
culrurel.
Editions de Fallois.
1 9 9 1
Gans. H erbert J. Popular Culrure and Hig h Culture. Basic Books, 1974.
Genette, Gtrard. Lo
relation esrhiriyue.
Seuil,
1997.
Guillet de Monthoux. Pierre. R. Mutt Art Mana ger. In
Acres de la
Ze conf imnce
de I AIMAC,
Holbrook. Moms B.
The
Three Faces
of
Elitism: Postmodemism. Political Correctness and
Holbrook. Moms B.. and Elisabeth C. Hirschmann.
Posr-Modern Co nsumer Research.
Sage
Henry, William A.
111 In
Defense ofElirism. Anchor Books. 1994.
Jauss. Hans R. Pour
une esthRique de la riception.
Gallimard.
1978.
Kelly, John R. Com mod ification and Consciou sness: A n Initial Study. Leisure
Srudies
10
Lacoste, Jean. L idi e de beau. Bordas.
1986.
Levine, Law rence W.
Highhmw Lowbmw.
Harvard University Press
1988.
Morin. Edgar. e
cinima
u
I hom mr imaginaire,
nouvelle Cdition. Editions de Minuit. 1978.
Rigaud, Jacques.
L exception culrurel le.
Grasset.
1995.
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie.
L art d e l dge moderne.
Gallimard. 1992.
f i i t ch el l . James B. Carnival Culrurt.. Columbia University Press, 1992.
Urfalino. Philippe. L invention de la polirique culrurelle. La Documentation Franqaise. 1996
We aring, Betty. and Stephen We aring. Identity and the Com modification of Leisure,
Leisure
1-36. 1993.
Popular Culture,
Journal ofhfacmma rkering
Fall 1995: 1 2 8 4 .
Publications, 1992.
1991): 7-18.
.Lc paradigme perdu:
a
narure humaine. Seuil, 1973.
Studies
1992): 3-IX.
Fall
1997
I
75
Do
wnloadedby[ViliniusUnive
rsity]at14:5903December
2015