An eclectic eclecticism: Methodological and theoretical issues about the quantification of cultural omnivorism

Abstract

International audienceCultural eclecticism has been the focus of most sociological debates pertaining to cultural practices since the publication of Richard Peterson's first articles on the topic. Underlying these debates surrounding results, the prevailing definitions and methods are particularly striking for their… eclecticism. And although it is not explicitly stated, it appears that sociologists disagree over the parameters of inquiry – how the object of study is constructed and all manner of methodologies, rather than over hypotheses and whether or not they are valid. In this paper, we shall extend and systematize assertions that appear in various works on omnivorousness. Our aim is to determine the theoretical implications of the three groups of choices that seem critical in statistical methods of studying cultural eclecticism: choices concerning indicators of taste; methods of constructing a scale of cultural legitimacy; and indicators of cultural omnivorousness

Social space and cultural class divisions: the forms of capital and contemporary lifestyle differentiation

“…However, there are fundamental problems with the concept of the cultural omnivore, in terms of the ways in which taste is measured and the ways in which its implications are interpreted (see e.g. Atkinson ; Holt ; Jarness ; Lahire ; Robette and Roueff ; Savage and Gayo ). We highlight two incisive critiques here.…”

La distinction : addendum statistique

“…Comme l'ont noté Richard A. Peterson et Roger M. Kern (), Philippe Coulangeon (), Omar Lizardo et Sara Skiles (), Nicolas Robette et Olivier Roueff () ou encore Adrian Leguina (), le modèle de l'omnivorité (Peterson ; Peterson et Kern ; Peterson et Simkus ) actualise et prolonge plus qu'il ne contredit le modèle de l'homologie structurale élaboré par P. Bourdieu. Bien qu'il soit monnaie courante de les opposer (Atkinson ; Bryson ; Veenstra ), ces deux perspectives ne sont pas antithétiques.…”

Omnivorousness and openness: comments to Tak Wing Chan

“…There are additional reasons to question the purported ‘openness’ of omnivores and these relate to the category of the ‘omnivore’ itself. Although the notion of a divide between ‘omnivores’ and ‘univores’ is now widespread in cultural sociology, research has also found significant problems with this conceptualization, questioning its validity and usefulness (see, e.g., Atkinson ; Friedman ; Ollivier ; Prieur and Savage ; Rimmer ; Robette and Roueff ; Savage and Gayo ). For instance, Robette and Roeuf have shown that beneath an apparent scientific consensus lies an eclectic array of methodology in the indicators and methods used to operationalize ‘omnivorousness’, leading to disparate results and to authors using the same term while writing about different phenomena.…”