- Email: [email protected]
Gender, networks, and cultural capital
Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103 www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic
Preface
Gender, networks, and cultural capital Since 1990, empirical research inspired by Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital has effloresced in amount, quality and sophistication. We now know a lot about the association between family background and cultural capital, and something about the impact of cultural capital on educational and other life outcomes, not just in Western Europe and the US, but Eastern Europe, Latin America, and even Asia. Scholars from around the world have contributed to this literature, with particular active research communities in the Netherlands and the United States. In so doing, they have produced a rapprochement between Bourdieu’s theoretical framework and the positivist methodologies of which he was deeply skeptical, but which have demonstrated the power and enduring vitality of his ideas (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; DeGraaf et al., 2000; DiMaggio, 2001; Ganzeboom et al., 1990). At the same time, there remain certain critical issues that have been too rarely examined. The papers in this special issue address two such issues: the gendered character of cultural reproduction; and the role of social networks in the distribution of cultural capital. Substantively, the papers focus on people’s participation in the arts, for the most as arts consumers. Quite aside from their contribution to our understanding of cultural reproduction, then, the papers will be of more general interest to readers who are interested in patterns of arts participation. The relative neglect of gender has been something of an embarrassment to research on cultural capital, which has dwelt intently on the impact of socioeconomic status on cultural capital without systematically noting or theorizing the sometimes larger impact of gender (McCall, 1992; Dumais, 2002). When he compared the aesthetic dispositions of business executives or shopkeepers to those of schoolteachers and artists, Bourdieu shrewdly recognized the impact on cultural behavior and taste of variation between persons not simply in the volume, but also in the composition, of the capital they possessed, especially the relative balance of cultural and economic capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Yet he never systematically applied the same analytic lens to explaining differences in investment in cultural capital between men and women. It is inviting to do so, for at least two reasons. First, higher levels of arts participation by women are explicable in so far as middleclass women’s educational attainment has often outstripped their occupational achievement and earnings, relative to middle-class men (a fortiori for those in what Bourdieu called the ’’dominant’’ class fractions). This fact should lead women to 0304-422X/$ - see front matter # 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2004.02.004
100
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
invest particularly heavily in cultural capital and take it particularly seriously. Second, the migration of middle-class women into the labor force in the US and other western societies should to some extent alter these incentives and induce change in the distribution of cultural capital between the genders. Yet, as Bourdieu would certainly note, explaining cultural participation in terms of individual assets and incentives is far too simple, for men and women, when they form families, engage in a common project of child-raising, towards which different forms of capital are not simply accumulated, but also deployed. Because so much cultural reproduction occurs in the family, understanding the negotiation of patterns of deployment in the gendered division of household labor is critical to understanding the process of cultural reproduction as a whole. For these reasons, it is appropriate that gender is prominent in all of the papers in this special issue. The neglect of social networks has been equally notable, given Bourdieu’s use of the field (champs) as an analytic framework for understanding social relations (Bourdieu, 1988). The notion of champs invites the use of network analysis to identify the structure of fields and the patterns of social relations that provide the context for individual’s investments in cultural and other forms of capital. In his theoretical writing, Bourdieu is careful never to reify the class fractions that stand as proxies for shared formative experience and shared social relations of the persons within them (Bourdieu, 1990). Insofar as network-analytic concepts enable one to specify aspects of these relationships precisely in studies of relatively bounded human communities, their contribution to the study of cultural capital is potentially substantial. For example, such an approach lends itself to the examination of context effects in cultural reproduction and the diffusion of cultural capital. And by making it possible to identify the social context in which cultural participation occurs, network analysis can help us understand when cultural capital is used to impose cultural boundaries and when it is employed to bridge them. Two of the papers in this issue—those by Danielle Kane and Craig Upright–work towards just such conceptual integration (and see also Erickson 1996; Relish 1997). Craig Upright’s paper addresses the nexus of gender and social relations by exploring the relationship between the cultural consumption of spouses. Although much research on arts participation in the United States has used the Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPAs) sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, to my knowledge Upright’s is the first to take advantage of the fact that the SPPAs are household surveys, with data collected from husbands and wives in those households where both are present. This feature enables him to explore the relationship between wives’ and husbands’ participation in the arts. From the standpoint of network analysis, the paper is one of only two that explore the impact of a key ‘‘tie’’—the spousal relation—on behavior (Van Berkel and DeGraaf, 1995 is the other), and, as such, it provides a framework that could be expanded to a broader set of social relationships. From the standpoint of gender, the spousal relation is critical, in light of theoretical arguments about the gendered division of household labor. Dating back to the nineteenth-century ‘‘doctrine of separate spheres,’’ women have been assigned the role of ‘‘culture specialists’’ in many middle-class families, given responsibility for raising sons and, especially, daughters to appreciate life’s finer
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
101
things, including music, literature and the arts (Collins, 1988). Consistent with this, Upright demonstrates that wives’ educational and other characteristics have a particularly strong effect on the arts attendance of their husbands, even after one controls for the husband’s own characteristics. Indeed, men whose wives have high levels of education are more likely to attend arts events not only with their wives (as might be expected if they were dragged along), but apart from their spouses as well. Danielle Kane explores the relationship between the structure of individuals’ networks and their consumption of cultural products and performances in the relatively intimate setting of an elite US university. Studying university students (both undergraduates and those pursuing advanced degrees) is a good idea for several reasons: universities are hotbeds of cultural consumption, and students of university age are particularly open to new forms of aesthetic experience; college attendance appears to be one of the strongest predictors of cultural capital in the population at large; students in their first year of university form a kind of ready-made community that is relatively bounded off from the outside world; and the effects of network structure are likely to be especially clear when variation in place of residence, age, and educational background is substantially truncated. Kane calculates the density and heterogeneity of the social networks of 421 students, and discovers that those with the most heterogeneous social networks are most actively engaged in pursuits likely to reflect (and perhaps to reinforce) high levels of cultural capital. This result is consistent with the view that cultural capital contributes to the formation of social capital, with some kinds of culture talk useful for affirming status boundaries and other kinds valuable for creating common ground across horizontal social divisions. (Erickson [1996] found a similar association in a sample of Toronto security-industry employers and employees, and Peterson and Kern [1996] suggested that heterogeneous social networks played a role in the rise of the ‘‘cultural omnivore.’’) Equally interesting is Kane’s discovery that network structures are considerably more effective predictors of the behavior of women than of men, a result that complements Upright’s findings about the gendered division of labor. Even among new students at an elite university, a group in which one would expect gender differences to be somewhat muted, cultural behavior is more strongly aligned to aspects of women’s structural positions than to men’s. The other two papers focus on gender rather than networks. Jason Kaufman and Jay Gabler’s contribution asks how extra-curricular activities (participation in formal but voluntary after-school clubs for which academic credit is not received) that students pursue in high school influence the probability that they will go to college, and, if they go, that they will attend a highly selective university. If the elite French students about whom Bourdieu wrote in the 1960s and 1970s used cultural capital acquired in the home as a sign of election, permitting a relatively effortless entry to the top e´coles, US students in the 2000s, including those of the upper-middle class, have become highly strategic in their efforts to gain access to the most selective institutions. Kaufman and Gabler assess the results of the choices students make using data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey and paying close attention to differences in outcomes for young men and young women. The study is
102
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
novel in at least two ways. First, the activities, which are ordinarily described on college applications, can be viewed not only as indicators of previous stocks of cultural capital, but also as strategic efforts to influence gatekeepers. Second, whereas the other papers focus on the consumption of arts, media, and literature, arts activities are just some among many of the forms of participation the authors of this paper address. Kaufman and Gabler conclude that direct participation in artsmaking activities increases the probability that students attend college by enhancing their stock of human capital. Consistent with Bourdieu’s view of cultural capital as most effective when it is inculcated in the family, training in the arts has no effect on attending elite colleges, however—whereas having parents who expose one to the arts increases the probability of admission to an elite institution. For the most part, effects are similar for male and female students; but there is some tendency for young men and women to be advantaged particularly by participation in activities associated primarily with the opposite gender. This result suggests that hypercompetitive, highly rationalized gatekeeping processes employ different signals to find students who are not just high in cultural capital but ‘‘who stand out, defy expectations, or are otherwise unique among their peers.’’ In the final paper, Toqir Mukhtar and I are concerned, first, to document trends in several types of arts participation between 1982 and 2002; and, second, to see if those trends are consistent with the view espoused by many sociologists of culture that the hegemony of the high-culture arts as a form of cultural capital was breaking down during that period. We contend that if the value of the arts as cultural capital had been deflating, participation rates would have declined; and this decline would have been particularly visible among the youngest cohorts. Moreover, if declines had reflected a devaluation of the elite arts as cultural capital, rather than some secular shift in leisure preferences or modes of cultural consumption, then we would expect to find greater decline in high-culture activities than in more popular pastimes, and declines more marked among those groups who had in the past invested most heavily in cultural capital: college graduates, women, and a fortiori, female college graduates. The results are not consistent with the view that the arts have lost their status as cultural capital in the United States, but they do provide some evidence that the relative prominence of different cultural activities has shifted (with European-based performance activities losing ground to jazz and to the visual and plastic arts), and that participation in many kinds of cultural audiences declined notably among younger Americans between 1982 and 2002. At the same time, however, those declines were more modest among college graduates and women than among persons with less education and men. That women’s advantage has not declined is particularly surprising given the fact that increases in middle-class female labor-force participation and changes in family structure might have been expected to moderate differences between the genders, quite apart from changes in the salience of the arts as cultural capital. Although definitive judgment awaits more formal hypothesis-testing, the general pattern of change appears to us to indicate not a revolutionary devaluation of the arts as cultural capital, but rather evolutionary change in the composition of cultural capital and in the practices through which it is acquired and employed.
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
103
The papers in this special issue will not settle the questions about which students of the relationship between culture, power, and social status argue. The generalizability of their conclusions are limited by their reliance on data from the United States and by their focus on participation in the arts to the exclusion of most other potential forms of cultural capital. At the same time, these papers present new findings with which the theoretical debates will have to contend, and propose innovations in research design and methodology that may engender further exploration of the role of gender and social networks in cultural reproduction— work that, in turn, may elucidate the mechanisms by which cultural capital is reproduced and the ways in which it enters into people’s lives.
References Aschaffenburg, Karen, Ineke, Maas, 1997. Cultural educational careers. American Sociological Review 62, 573–587. Bourdieu, Pierre, Passeron, Jean-Claude, 1977. Reproduction Education Society and Culture. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1988. Homo Academicus, trans. P. Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Collins, Randall, 1988. Women and men in the class structure. Journal of Family Issues 9, 27–50. DeGraaf, Nan Dirk, De Graaf, Paul M., Kraaykamp, Gerbert, 2000. Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: a refinement of the cultural capital terspective. Sociology of Education 73, 92–111. DiMaggio, Paul, 2001. Social Stratification, Life Style, Social Cognition and Social Participation. In Social Stratification in Sociological Perspective, 2nd edition, edited by David Grusky. Westview Press; Boulder, Colorado. Dumais, Susan A, 2002. Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role of Habitus. Sociology of Education 75, 44–68. Erickson, Bonnie, 1996. Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology 102, 217–251. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G., DeGraaf, Paul M., Robert, Peter, 1990. Cultural reproduction theory on socialist ground. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 9, 79–104. McCall, Leslie, 1992. Does gender fit? Bourdieu, feminism, and conceptions of social order. Theory and Society 21, 837–867. Peterson, Richard A, Kern, Roger M., 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review 61, 900–907. Relish, Michael, 1997. It’s not all education: network measures as sources of cultural competency. Poetics 25, 121–139. Van Berkel, Michel, Nan Dirk, De Graaf, 1995. Husband’s and wife’s culture participation and their levels of education: a case of male dominance? Acta Sociologica 38, 131–149.
Paul DiMaggio Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA E-mail address: [email protected]
Preface
Gender, networks, and cultural capital Since 1990, empirical research inspired by Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital has effloresced in amount, quality and sophistication. We now know a lot about the association between family background and cultural capital, and something about the impact of cultural capital on educational and other life outcomes, not just in Western Europe and the US, but Eastern Europe, Latin America, and even Asia. Scholars from around the world have contributed to this literature, with particular active research communities in the Netherlands and the United States. In so doing, they have produced a rapprochement between Bourdieu’s theoretical framework and the positivist methodologies of which he was deeply skeptical, but which have demonstrated the power and enduring vitality of his ideas (Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; DeGraaf et al., 2000; DiMaggio, 2001; Ganzeboom et al., 1990). At the same time, there remain certain critical issues that have been too rarely examined. The papers in this special issue address two such issues: the gendered character of cultural reproduction; and the role of social networks in the distribution of cultural capital. Substantively, the papers focus on people’s participation in the arts, for the most as arts consumers. Quite aside from their contribution to our understanding of cultural reproduction, then, the papers will be of more general interest to readers who are interested in patterns of arts participation. The relative neglect of gender has been something of an embarrassment to research on cultural capital, which has dwelt intently on the impact of socioeconomic status on cultural capital without systematically noting or theorizing the sometimes larger impact of gender (McCall, 1992; Dumais, 2002). When he compared the aesthetic dispositions of business executives or shopkeepers to those of schoolteachers and artists, Bourdieu shrewdly recognized the impact on cultural behavior and taste of variation between persons not simply in the volume, but also in the composition, of the capital they possessed, especially the relative balance of cultural and economic capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Yet he never systematically applied the same analytic lens to explaining differences in investment in cultural capital between men and women. It is inviting to do so, for at least two reasons. First, higher levels of arts participation by women are explicable in so far as middleclass women’s educational attainment has often outstripped their occupational achievement and earnings, relative to middle-class men (a fortiori for those in what Bourdieu called the ’’dominant’’ class fractions). This fact should lead women to 0304-422X/$ - see front matter # 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2004.02.004
100
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
invest particularly heavily in cultural capital and take it particularly seriously. Second, the migration of middle-class women into the labor force in the US and other western societies should to some extent alter these incentives and induce change in the distribution of cultural capital between the genders. Yet, as Bourdieu would certainly note, explaining cultural participation in terms of individual assets and incentives is far too simple, for men and women, when they form families, engage in a common project of child-raising, towards which different forms of capital are not simply accumulated, but also deployed. Because so much cultural reproduction occurs in the family, understanding the negotiation of patterns of deployment in the gendered division of household labor is critical to understanding the process of cultural reproduction as a whole. For these reasons, it is appropriate that gender is prominent in all of the papers in this special issue. The neglect of social networks has been equally notable, given Bourdieu’s use of the field (champs) as an analytic framework for understanding social relations (Bourdieu, 1988). The notion of champs invites the use of network analysis to identify the structure of fields and the patterns of social relations that provide the context for individual’s investments in cultural and other forms of capital. In his theoretical writing, Bourdieu is careful never to reify the class fractions that stand as proxies for shared formative experience and shared social relations of the persons within them (Bourdieu, 1990). Insofar as network-analytic concepts enable one to specify aspects of these relationships precisely in studies of relatively bounded human communities, their contribution to the study of cultural capital is potentially substantial. For example, such an approach lends itself to the examination of context effects in cultural reproduction and the diffusion of cultural capital. And by making it possible to identify the social context in which cultural participation occurs, network analysis can help us understand when cultural capital is used to impose cultural boundaries and when it is employed to bridge them. Two of the papers in this issue—those by Danielle Kane and Craig Upright–work towards just such conceptual integration (and see also Erickson 1996; Relish 1997). Craig Upright’s paper addresses the nexus of gender and social relations by exploring the relationship between the cultural consumption of spouses. Although much research on arts participation in the United States has used the Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPAs) sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, to my knowledge Upright’s is the first to take advantage of the fact that the SPPAs are household surveys, with data collected from husbands and wives in those households where both are present. This feature enables him to explore the relationship between wives’ and husbands’ participation in the arts. From the standpoint of network analysis, the paper is one of only two that explore the impact of a key ‘‘tie’’—the spousal relation—on behavior (Van Berkel and DeGraaf, 1995 is the other), and, as such, it provides a framework that could be expanded to a broader set of social relationships. From the standpoint of gender, the spousal relation is critical, in light of theoretical arguments about the gendered division of household labor. Dating back to the nineteenth-century ‘‘doctrine of separate spheres,’’ women have been assigned the role of ‘‘culture specialists’’ in many middle-class families, given responsibility for raising sons and, especially, daughters to appreciate life’s finer
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
101
things, including music, literature and the arts (Collins, 1988). Consistent with this, Upright demonstrates that wives’ educational and other characteristics have a particularly strong effect on the arts attendance of their husbands, even after one controls for the husband’s own characteristics. Indeed, men whose wives have high levels of education are more likely to attend arts events not only with their wives (as might be expected if they were dragged along), but apart from their spouses as well. Danielle Kane explores the relationship between the structure of individuals’ networks and their consumption of cultural products and performances in the relatively intimate setting of an elite US university. Studying university students (both undergraduates and those pursuing advanced degrees) is a good idea for several reasons: universities are hotbeds of cultural consumption, and students of university age are particularly open to new forms of aesthetic experience; college attendance appears to be one of the strongest predictors of cultural capital in the population at large; students in their first year of university form a kind of ready-made community that is relatively bounded off from the outside world; and the effects of network structure are likely to be especially clear when variation in place of residence, age, and educational background is substantially truncated. Kane calculates the density and heterogeneity of the social networks of 421 students, and discovers that those with the most heterogeneous social networks are most actively engaged in pursuits likely to reflect (and perhaps to reinforce) high levels of cultural capital. This result is consistent with the view that cultural capital contributes to the formation of social capital, with some kinds of culture talk useful for affirming status boundaries and other kinds valuable for creating common ground across horizontal social divisions. (Erickson [1996] found a similar association in a sample of Toronto security-industry employers and employees, and Peterson and Kern [1996] suggested that heterogeneous social networks played a role in the rise of the ‘‘cultural omnivore.’’) Equally interesting is Kane’s discovery that network structures are considerably more effective predictors of the behavior of women than of men, a result that complements Upright’s findings about the gendered division of labor. Even among new students at an elite university, a group in which one would expect gender differences to be somewhat muted, cultural behavior is more strongly aligned to aspects of women’s structural positions than to men’s. The other two papers focus on gender rather than networks. Jason Kaufman and Jay Gabler’s contribution asks how extra-curricular activities (participation in formal but voluntary after-school clubs for which academic credit is not received) that students pursue in high school influence the probability that they will go to college, and, if they go, that they will attend a highly selective university. If the elite French students about whom Bourdieu wrote in the 1960s and 1970s used cultural capital acquired in the home as a sign of election, permitting a relatively effortless entry to the top e´coles, US students in the 2000s, including those of the upper-middle class, have become highly strategic in their efforts to gain access to the most selective institutions. Kaufman and Gabler assess the results of the choices students make using data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey and paying close attention to differences in outcomes for young men and young women. The study is
102
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
novel in at least two ways. First, the activities, which are ordinarily described on college applications, can be viewed not only as indicators of previous stocks of cultural capital, but also as strategic efforts to influence gatekeepers. Second, whereas the other papers focus on the consumption of arts, media, and literature, arts activities are just some among many of the forms of participation the authors of this paper address. Kaufman and Gabler conclude that direct participation in artsmaking activities increases the probability that students attend college by enhancing their stock of human capital. Consistent with Bourdieu’s view of cultural capital as most effective when it is inculcated in the family, training in the arts has no effect on attending elite colleges, however—whereas having parents who expose one to the arts increases the probability of admission to an elite institution. For the most part, effects are similar for male and female students; but there is some tendency for young men and women to be advantaged particularly by participation in activities associated primarily with the opposite gender. This result suggests that hypercompetitive, highly rationalized gatekeeping processes employ different signals to find students who are not just high in cultural capital but ‘‘who stand out, defy expectations, or are otherwise unique among their peers.’’ In the final paper, Toqir Mukhtar and I are concerned, first, to document trends in several types of arts participation between 1982 and 2002; and, second, to see if those trends are consistent with the view espoused by many sociologists of culture that the hegemony of the high-culture arts as a form of cultural capital was breaking down during that period. We contend that if the value of the arts as cultural capital had been deflating, participation rates would have declined; and this decline would have been particularly visible among the youngest cohorts. Moreover, if declines had reflected a devaluation of the elite arts as cultural capital, rather than some secular shift in leisure preferences or modes of cultural consumption, then we would expect to find greater decline in high-culture activities than in more popular pastimes, and declines more marked among those groups who had in the past invested most heavily in cultural capital: college graduates, women, and a fortiori, female college graduates. The results are not consistent with the view that the arts have lost their status as cultural capital in the United States, but they do provide some evidence that the relative prominence of different cultural activities has shifted (with European-based performance activities losing ground to jazz and to the visual and plastic arts), and that participation in many kinds of cultural audiences declined notably among younger Americans between 1982 and 2002. At the same time, however, those declines were more modest among college graduates and women than among persons with less education and men. That women’s advantage has not declined is particularly surprising given the fact that increases in middle-class female labor-force participation and changes in family structure might have been expected to moderate differences between the genders, quite apart from changes in the salience of the arts as cultural capital. Although definitive judgment awaits more formal hypothesis-testing, the general pattern of change appears to us to indicate not a revolutionary devaluation of the arts as cultural capital, but rather evolutionary change in the composition of cultural capital and in the practices through which it is acquired and employed.
Preface / Poetics 32 (2004) 99–103
103
The papers in this special issue will not settle the questions about which students of the relationship between culture, power, and social status argue. The generalizability of their conclusions are limited by their reliance on data from the United States and by their focus on participation in the arts to the exclusion of most other potential forms of cultural capital. At the same time, these papers present new findings with which the theoretical debates will have to contend, and propose innovations in research design and methodology that may engender further exploration of the role of gender and social networks in cultural reproduction— work that, in turn, may elucidate the mechanisms by which cultural capital is reproduced and the ways in which it enters into people’s lives.
References Aschaffenburg, Karen, Ineke, Maas, 1997. Cultural educational careers. American Sociological Review 62, 573–587. Bourdieu, Pierre, Passeron, Jean-Claude, 1977. Reproduction Education Society and Culture. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1988. Homo Academicus, trans. P. Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Collins, Randall, 1988. Women and men in the class structure. Journal of Family Issues 9, 27–50. DeGraaf, Nan Dirk, De Graaf, Paul M., Kraaykamp, Gerbert, 2000. Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: a refinement of the cultural capital terspective. Sociology of Education 73, 92–111. DiMaggio, Paul, 2001. Social Stratification, Life Style, Social Cognition and Social Participation. In Social Stratification in Sociological Perspective, 2nd edition, edited by David Grusky. Westview Press; Boulder, Colorado. Dumais, Susan A, 2002. Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role of Habitus. Sociology of Education 75, 44–68. Erickson, Bonnie, 1996. Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology 102, 217–251. Ganzeboom, Harry B.G., DeGraaf, Paul M., Robert, Peter, 1990. Cultural reproduction theory on socialist ground. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 9, 79–104. McCall, Leslie, 1992. Does gender fit? Bourdieu, feminism, and conceptions of social order. Theory and Society 21, 837–867. Peterson, Richard A, Kern, Roger M., 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review 61, 900–907. Relish, Michael, 1997. It’s not all education: network measures as sources of cultural competency. Poetics 25, 121–139. Van Berkel, Michel, Nan Dirk, De Graaf, 1995. Husband’s and wife’s culture participation and their levels of education: a case of male dominance? Acta Sociologica 38, 131–149.
Paul DiMaggio Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA E-mail address: [email protected]