[雙語翻譯]文化消費外文翻譯--文化消費模式中的社會不平等

1、5700 英文單詞， 英文單詞，3.3 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 10200 字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Eijck K V. Social Inequality in Cultural Consumption Patterns[J]. International Encyclopedia of the Social Mohr and DiMaggio, 1995). All of these determinants are

2、somehow related to class and status, thus causing social inequality in cultural consumption.The central aim of this contribution is to assess the merits of the main theoretical explanations for this social inequality in

3、cultural consumption by evaluating the existing empirical evidence. The most prominent theoretical accounts, i.e., cultural capital theory and status theory, will be addressed. Difficulties with attempts to empirically s

4、ettle which one of these theories is more valid will be addressed. In addition, special attention will be paid to the habitus as the linking pin between socioeconomic background and cultural lifestyles. Finally, possible

5、 directions for future research are suggested.Cultural Inequality: Theoretical AccountsCultural inequality can be theorized to follow from differences in skills or resources. It takes resources, or capital (cultural, eco

6、nomic, and social) to develop and implement a certain lifestyle. Unequal command of these resources leads to different lifestyles. This ties in with a second common theoretical account, which sees lifestyles as expressin

7、g social honor or prestige by demonstrating access to certain, more or less scarce, resources. Such prestige may not only be a mere by- product of a lifestyle, but it may also be a reward that is consciously sought after

8、 by engaging in certain esteemed activities.Knowledge and ResourcesAccording to Bourdieu (1984), cultural lifestyles depend primarily on cultural capital. This cultural capital is acquired during (early) socialization an

9、d inculcated in the habitus, which structures subsequent cultural practices. This entails a process that Bourdieu called cultural reproduction, where parents rich in cultural capital transmit this capital to their childr

10、en, who simultaneously invest and expand it in their educational career and emerge out of this process endowed with a large amount of cultural capital of their own. The cultural skills thus embodied engender an aesthetic

11、 disposition that encourages a taste for highbrow culture.Behind this reasoning lies the assumption that highbrow culture is more complex than popular culture. Thus, in his information-processing theory, Ganzeboom (1982)

12、 argued that the ability to process complex cultural information is a requirement for highbrow cultural from Weber (1946 [1922]), Veblen (1953[1899]), Collins (1979), and, again, Bourdieu and Passeron (1977). Here, lifes

13、tyles are primarily considered as criteria for demarcating and identifying class groupings. Cultural lifestyles are then seen as primarily reflecting the status-rendering characteristics of the behaviors and taste patter

14、ns involved. Simultaneously reflecting the honorable investments of time, money, and knowledge, highbrow culture participation has been an excellent way to demonstrate social worth. As long as others believe that this ty

15、pe of culture requires special skills and sensibilities, it also helps legitimate the high-end social positions of the highbrow audience by demonstrating their exquisiteness. Culture can thus be used to exclude people wi

16、th ‘bad’ taste and include those who are socially and culturally similar to oneself.Empirical Tests of the TheoriesAbove, it has been explained that cultural lifestyles can be seen as either reflections of knowledge, ski

17、lls, and attitudes, or as indicators of status group membership. In his discussion on the concept of cultural capital, Lizardo also addresses the general distinction between skills vs status seeking. On the one hand, he

18、argues that cultural capital can indeed be defined as “an aptitude or a generalized, transposable (across contexts) skill acquired in the combined realms of the upper-middle class family and the school system” (Lizardo,

19、2010: p. 310). In addition, he distinguishes what he calls the boundaries point of view, where cultural capital is defined as the institutionalized repertoire of high status signals useful for purposes of marking and dra

20、wing symbolic boundaries in a given social context. In the boundary perspective, the link with specific cognitive requirements as to the content of cultural capital is largely absent, since “what counts as cultural capit

21、al are those symbolic resources that are actively mobilized by members of groups or class fractions to establish their difference from other groups and thus to devalue the cultural resources and symbolic practices of out

22、siders” (Lizardo, 2010: p. 310). Bourdieu similarly talked about a ‘cultural arbitrary,’ indicating that it does not matter much which exact cultural taste the upper classes display; it is in large part the fact that the

23、y have this taste that makes it a form of cultural, or symbolic, capital. Although, at a more general level, lifestyles reflecting the ability to spend money or to deal with complexity will be more prestigious than lifes

24、tyles that require no such investments (Prieur et al., 2008), the symbolic value of cultural lifestyles is defined as a function of the social prestige of its possessors as much as in terms of properties of specific cult

25、ural items or activities such as complexity or rarity. This conflation of cultural capital as skills and cultural capital as a status marker makes it hard to empirically determine which theoretical account of social ineq

26、uality in cultural lifestyles is more valid.Mapping Social Background EffectsCultural lifestyles symbolize status positions by pointing at certain skills, attitudes, knowledge, taste, or other resources. A resource that

27、has consistently been found to be a very strong determinant of cultural lifestyles is educational attainment (Kraaykamp and NieuwBeerta, 2000; Van Eijck and Bargeman, 2004). For Ganzeboom (1982), effects of educational a

28、ttainment substantiate the impact of knowledge. In addition to education, however, occupation and income also show up as recurring sources of lifestyle differentiation. For a proper understanding of the relation between

29、lifestyle and social positions, these prime sources of stratification will be compared and the findings will be linked back to the work of Veblen, Weber, Bourdieu, and Ganzeboom.According to Lizardo (2008: p. 5), we are