Cultural Omnivorousness

The term cultural omnivorousness was first introduced to the cultural consumption literature by Richard Peterson in 1992 (see Peterson 1992 [cited under Reference Texts]) to refer to a particular cultural appreciation profile. According to his definition, this profile emerged in the late 20th century, in accordance with macro changes experienced in the socioeconomic and political spheres. Omnivorous consumers have an increased breadth of cultural taste and a willingness to cross established hierarchical cultural genre boundaries. In other words, the concept refers to a taste profile that includes both highbrow and lowbrow genres. Peterson’s initial studies—with Kern and Simkus—used data on tastes in music in the United States. Later, especially after researchers in Europe developed an interest in the term, many other cultural consumption domains were analyzed to see whether highbrow taste profiles tend to become less exclusive. This interest has been so consistent that we now have sufficient empirical and theoretical research to label the discussion a coherent sociological “debate.” The relationship between omnivorous orientation and variables such as education, age, gender, class, ethnicity, and race has been analyzed in many different national contexts and cultural fields. The omnivore thesis is extremely important for contemporary cultural theory because it pushes researchers to scrutinize the current status of the relationship between culture and power. The contributors to this debate have provided competing answers to the following crucial questions: What is the strength and direction of the association between socioeconomic status and cultural taste? Are we witnessing the decomposition of cultural-class boundaries and snobbishness? How far does cultural omnivorousness bring tolerance and cultural inclusion? These questions, asked within the debate, demonstrate the concept’s significance for our understanding of sociocultural change. Many case studies have shown that eclectic repertoires are more likely to be embodied by the educated middle classes. Peterson himself argued that the employment market has begun to seek this kind of wide-ranging awareness and cultural inclusiveness. It seems that being a true omnivore requires certain skills, investment, and prior cultural knowledge, which can be translated into advantages in other social fields. Moreover, empirical research is now sufficient enough to show that omnivores are selective and they show little tolerance for the genres associated with lower social/cultural status. Therefore, this repertoire may very well be considered a new form of distinction—a strategy the economically and culturally advantaged use to “make” their identity and distinguish themselves from others. The debate has progressed quite successfully. Many different types of omnivorousness have been discovered since the term was first coined; not every eclectic repertoire holder follows the same trajectory of boundary crossing. For instance, some omnivorous consumers cross the highbrow-lowbrow boundary by adding highbrow genres to their profile after having experienced upward mobility, while others include lowbrow genres to their once exclusive highbrow taste repertoires. Different forms of omnivorousness—and their degree of cultural tolerance—allow us to see more clearly the current status of the association between cultural hierarchy and consumption. Although limited in quantity, some important research has been done critically questioning the kind of social structures, institutions, national contexts, and school curricula that enlarge the cultural cultivated fractions’ repertoires. Recent research on contemporary forms of cultural capital and cosmopolitanism also engages closely with the omnivore debate. It is important to note that arguments still remain with regard to methods and analysis; not every contributor agrees on a common definition for measurement—operationalization—of the omnivore profiles. Some researchers take participation, while others take taste or knowledge, as proxies to measure omnivorousness. Some contributors measure only the breadth (the status of the genres preferred) and others measure volume of tastes (the number of preferred genres/activities) without looking at their composition, namely how far people cross boundaries. Other disagreements (methodological and theoretical) with regard to other aspects of the debate have been briefly referred to above. These disagreements not only make the debate more lively and dynamic, but also ensure that interest in the concept does not decrease over time.