Overlaps and accumulations: The anatomy of cultural non-participation in Finland, 2007 to 2018

Abstract

There is a fervent belief that culture is, among other desirable ideals, “good for you.” This has been the baseline of the cultural policies in many countries. Through cultural policies, some forms of cultural participation over others are subvented through public funding, which makes it yet more important to ask which groups intentionally withdraw—or are left out—from which forms of it. We address the debate on cultural non-participation by scrutinizing nationally representative and longitudinal survey data from Finland, a Nordic welfare country with allegedly low social and cultural hierarchies, for years 2007 and 2018. We explore the changes in cultural non-participation by asking whether the main frequencies of cultural non-participation have changed between 2007 and 2018, what forms of different cultural non-participation patterns can be distinguished, and which socioeconomic factors best predict which form of cultural non-participation most in both years. Finally, we ask whether certain everyday forms of participation would compensate or complement non-existing cultural participation. We find three main cultural non-participation patterns: highbrow avoidance, mainstream avoidance, and nightlife avoidance. While the changes in non-participation look small from the macro level, their internal dynamics face a steep change between 2007 and 2018. Especially higher education becomes a continuously more significant factor for any kind of cultural activity. We also show that cultural participation is not compensated by everyday activities as often claimed in the literature, but that cultural and everyday non-participation overlap. Our results indicate that the alleged egalitarianism in Finland does not reach cultural participation: avoiding most forms of participation is more and more related to socio-economic differences reflecting social and cultural hierarchies.

Community resilience and cultural sustainability in two Finnish urban neighbourhoods

“…As Virolainen (2014) notes, cultural participation has been a key aspect of cultural policy since the introduction of modern cultural policies in the 1960s and 1970s in general and in Finland in particular (see also e.g., Jancovich and Bianchini, 2013;Heikkilä and Lindblom, 2022). Moreover, as Kangas (2001, p. 62) mentions, since the 1970s Finnish cultural policy has focused on the idea that cultural policy should contribute to a process of equalisation among various social groups and avoid the wide discrepancy of opportunities for the consumption of culture.…”

“…Moreover, as Kangas (2001, p. 62) mentions, since the 1970s Finnish cultural policy has focused on the idea that cultural policy should contribute to a process of equalisation among various social groups and avoid the wide discrepancy of opportunities for the consumption of culture. Even though the promotion of equality is a central aim in Finland's cultural policy (Kangas and Sokka, 2015, p. 143), interestingly, in recent studies Heikkilä and Lindblom (2022) note that more than twothirds of all Finns never attend the operas or jazz concerts that are commonly publicly funded arts genres (cf. Van Hek and Kraaykamp, 2013), whereas almost everyone goes to the cinema at least sometimes, a leisure activity that is commonly driven by a commercial operator.…”

“…Thus, leisure and cultural offerings, cultural consumption as well as overall participation in culture is a multilevel construction that relates to the institutional highbrow art structures, lowthreshold participation in the events or festivals or grassroot doit-yourself activities, for instance (Purhonen et al, 2014;Heikkilä and Lindblom, 2022). In this sense, according to current trends, "cultural participation remains a highly stratified and polarised field, also in an egalitarian society" such as Finland (Heikkilä, 2021, p. 202).…”

Identiteettityöskentely aikuisbändissä

“…muotoista alkeistason instrumenttipedagogiikkaa. Taideharrastamisen mahdollisuudet aikuisille taiteen perusopetuksen tai vapaan sivistystyön konteksteissa ovat usein rajoitettuja, sukupuolittuneita, aiempia teknisiä taitoja edellyttäviä (Laes & Rautiainen 2018) tai luokkasidonnaisia (Heikkilä & Lindblom 2022). Esimerkiksi tekniset perusvalmiudet voivat olla usein pedagogisista tai ryhmädynaamisista syistä kurssille pääsyn vaatimus, vaikka eläköityneelle sukupolvelle ei olisi ollut kyseisen oppiaineen perusteiden opetusta tarjolla peruskouluaikana (Laes & Rautiainen 2018, 134).…”