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 Cultural
Democracy?, 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

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjam20
Download by: [Vilinius University]

Date: 03 December 2015, At: 14:59

Democratizing Culture or
Cultural Democracy?
YVES EVRARD

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

he argument in this article is that debates about culture-which go

beyond 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 cultural field itself.
My aim is to present the characteristics of the two paradigms and the origin of the dichotomy before seeking to identify their philosophical roots and
show links between this dichotomy and those in other fields such 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 understanding of the debate 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. They 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 education. From this perspective, a mark of success for a cultural policy would be
a demographic structure for attendance for major artworks that matches that
Yves Evrard is u professor at Group HEC in Jou~v-en-Jrisu.s.Frunce.

Full I997

167

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

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 support 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 providing 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 disseminate 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 aesthetics, however, the same work may be perceived differently by various subjects 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 definition 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 it 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

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?

primitive civilizations, against ethnologists, for whom such objects must be

interpreted in relation to their original functions in sacred or daily life.

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

The Philosophical Roots

The dichotomy between democratization of culture and cultural democracy is rooted in fundamental philosophical debates. The question of the existence of universal norms, on which universalism is at odds with multiculturalism and relativism, has parallels in epistemology. So too does the question
of the source of such norms and whether or not they are considered transcendental, because this contributes to defining the status of works of art and
notably their religious or secular character.
For supporters of universalism, human nature is characterized by the existence of universal norms, which in turn are used to justify policies of cultural
democratization with the purpose of disseminating them. This idea is questioned 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 characteristics. They reject ethnocentrism, which claims that one form of culture is
superior to others or judges others by its own criteria. This vision of multiculturalism may be linked to the paradigm of cultural democracy in which
each segment of taste, or each s~bculture.~
can 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 implications for epistemology, one of which is the status of reality, which may be considered 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 objectivism, 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 democratization usually see works of art as reflecting transcendental values that are
Fall 1997

169

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

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 imaginary 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, as 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 cultural 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 economic and managerial analyses of culture, is merely a mask hiding the incompatibility 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 Communication

In view of the significant interaction between culture and communication-in France both are managed by the Ministry of Culture and Communication-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 increasingly submitted to the logic of events and media. This can be seen in the development of great painting exhibits and festivals of music or theater that fit
the most traditional forms of artistic expression into an ephemeral form of civilization, 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 communication paradigms, one may identify two ways of representing society
170

Vol. 27. No. 3

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?

(Breton 1992): a vertical, hierarchical pyramid or a horizontal structure

where communication establishes a social link among independent individuals 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 patterns; it first centered on theories of diffusion (based for example on epidemiological 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 differentiation 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 it 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 subject to shifts in taste and fashion, it outlives its consumption. It is, however,
difficult to find a better word: for example, attendance applies to performances, but other works such as books or records are usually approached
through ownership.
According to the democratization paradigm, the consumer is seen as playing 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 contemplative 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 participative leisure outings, in spite of theories that consider so-called home culture (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 1997

I71

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

The Journal of Arts Management, Law,and Society

interest in amateur cultural practices (Donnat 1996), long ignored by sociological 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 different forms of artistic expression. But perception may also center on the emotions aroused by the work of art, as in the analyses by Morin (1978) of projection and identification generated by films. There is again a conflict here
between the externalities of works of art and the autonomy of the consumers e~perience.~
The paradigm of democratization is often linked to a vision of culture coming under the domain of education. In France the Ministry of Culture is occasionally 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 apparent 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 possibility of drifting toward extreme forms.
The first consequence applies to the role of the state. In a context of cultural democratization, its mission would be to generate a supply, thereby
ensuring access to core works of art listed in a canon. The terms of the problem 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 generate 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 conflicts because the legitimacy of the formers superior taste may be questioned by the latter.
172

Vol. 27, No. 3

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?

In a cultural democracy. on the other hand, the states main role will be regulatory, 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 redistribution designed to ensure the sectors financial balance through a forcedsavings 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 population. 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 cultural 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 cultural 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. It 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 cultural 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 status 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
also relevant. Pop art is anothSoup works by Andy Warhol (Danto 1992)-is
er example of problematizing artworks status (as Duchamp did). The out-

Fall I997

I73

The Journal of Arts Munagement, Law, and Society

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

come of this convergence is an entertainment society, or sociiti du spectacle,

which has been analyzed by Debord (197 1 ; 1988).
There is a certain paradox in such a convergence between cultural democracy and postmodernity in the sense that aesthetics based on the subjective
judgment of taste results from the emergence of the subject, which is in turn
linked to modernity (compare with works by Ferry on "homo aestheticus"
[ 19901). It seems, however, that moderns have not considered all the consequences 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 reference to the presence of God.From this perspective, the relationship of the two
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 society, 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 some members of the audience, most of
them immigrant workers, the hero embodied an individual's struggle for freedom and opposition
to bureaucracy.
3. Sub here does not mean inferior.
4. It is clear that these tendencies are complementary rather than rival, even if the two paradigms emphasize 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 Communicurion Theon.. Wadsworth. 1995.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. Semiotexte. 1983.
Benjamin, Walter. "L'oeuvre d'art A I'ere de sa reproductiviti technique." In Essais 2. 1935-1940.
87-126. Denc%2l-Gonthier. 1983.
Berger. Peter. and Thoma.. Luckmann. La ronsrrucrion sociale de lo re'alire'. Meridiem
Klincksieck. 1986.
Bloom. Harold. The Wesrern Canon. MacMillan. 1994.
Bourdieu. Pierre. La distincrion. Editions de Minuit. 1979.
Bourdieu. Pierre. and J. Claude Passeron. La rep~JdUCtifJn.Editions de Minuit. 1970.
Breton. Philippe. L'ufopie de la communiration. La Dicouvene. 1992.
Danto. Arthur C. Beyond the Brill0 Box. Noonday Press, 1992.
Debord. Guy. Commentaires sur la socie'te' du spectacle. Editions Gerard Lebovici. 1988.
-.
Lcc socie'ri du spectacle. Champ libre. 1971.
Donnat. Olivier. L 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 Components of the
Person-Object Relationship," Journu/ ofBusine.ss Research 37 ( 1996): 127-1 34.
Fenster, Mark. 'The Problem of Taste within the Problematic of Culture," Communirution T h e o y
May 1991: 87-105.

174

Vol. 27, No. 3

Democratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy.?

Ferry, Luc. Homo Aesrhericus. Grarset, 1990.
L'home-Diru ou le sens de la vie. Grasset. 1996.
Flichy. Patrice. Une hisroire de la communication moderne. La Dkouverte, 1991.
Fuat. Firat A,. and Alladi Venkatesh. "Liberatory Postmodemism and the Reenchantment of
Consumption:' Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1995): 2 3 9 4 7 .
Fumaroli. Marc. L'Erar culrurel. Editions de Fallois. 1991.
Gans. Herbert J. Popular Culrure and High Culture. Basic Books, 1974.
Genette, Gtrard. Lo relation esrhiriyue. Seuil, 1997.
Guillet de Monthoux. Pierre. "R. Mutt Art Manager." In Acres de la Ze confimnce de I'AIMAC,

-.

Downloaded by [Vilinius University] at 14:59 03 December 2015

1-36. 1993.

Holbrook. Moms B. 'The Three Faces of Elitism: Postmodemism. Political Correctness and
Popular Culture," Journal ofhfacmmarkering Fall 1995: 1 2 8 4 .
Holbrook. Moms B.. and Elisabeth C. Hirschmann. Posr-Modern Consumer Research. Sage
Publications, 1992.
Henry, William A. 111. In Defense ofElirism. Anchor Books. 1994.
Jauss. Hans R. Pour une esthRique de la riception. Gallimard. 1978.
Kelly, John R. "Commodification and Consciousness: An Initial Study." Leisure Srudies 10
(1991): 7-18.

Lacoste, Jean. L'idie de beau. Bordas. 1986.

Levine, Lawrence W. Highhmw Lowbmw. Harvard University Press. 1988.
Morin. Edgar. Le cinima ou I'hommr imaginaire, nouvelle Cdition. Editions de Minuit. 1978.
. Lc paradigme perdu: La narure humaine. Seuil, 1973.
Rigaud, Jacques. L'exception culrurelle. Grasset. 1995.
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie. L'art de l'dge moderne. Gallimard. 1992.
fiitchell. James B. Carnival Culrurt.. Columbia University Press, 1992.
Urfalino. Philippe. L'invention de la polirique culrurelle. La Documentation Franqaise. 1996.
Wearing, Betty. and Stephen Wearing. "Identity and the Commodification of Leisure," Leisure
Studies I I (1992): 3-IX.

Fall 1997

I 75