Geometric Data Analysis. Johs. Hjellbrekke & Olav Korsnes Dep. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cultural Distinctions: A Geometric Data Analysis. Johs. Hjellbrekke & Olav Korsnes Dep. of Sociology University of Bergen

The critique(s) against Bourdieu’s ”Distinction” (1979) • Outdated; may have been right in the 1960-ies, but things have changed since then • Not relevant outside the French society • Deterministic – habitus as a ”trojan horse” for determinism • Individualization-processes • Popular culture is much more autonomous from the legitimate culture than what Bourdieu claims; it has its own hierarchies and specific forms of capital.

Some important contributions • Beck – individualization thesis; social hierarchies less and less important • Lamont – moral and symbolic boundaries, boundary work, evaluative repertoires • Peterson – Omnivore-univore, the homology thesis • Bryson – patterns of rejection/dislike • Chan & Goldthorpe – Class or status, ”strong”/strict homology or ”loose” homologies? • Hestholm, Sakslind & Skarpenes: no moral evalutions of culture and cultural distinctions

Varieties in Societal Perceptions. ISSP1999 Social Inequality III Norway Sweden Germany France USA (West) An elite at the top, few in the 3,1 10,3 10,6 12,4 16,2 middle, many at the bottom A society that looks like a 10,9 23,9 26,7 49,8 30,6 pyramide, with an elite at the top, more in the middle, and most at the bottom A pyramide, but with few 19,3 27,6 25,5 23,1 17,9 people at the bottom. A society where most people 56,0 33,0 23,9 12,9 25,3 are in the middle. Many people near the top, only 7,7 1,3 2,0 0,8 2,7 very few at the bottom Can’t choose 3,2 3,9 11,3 0,9 5,4 Total 100 100 100 100 100

Our approach • Cultural distinctions through reported practices • What correspondence can be found between the oppositions within this space, and oppositions between positions/groups in the social space? • I.e.: can a correspondence between positions in social hierarchies and hierarchies of cultural attendance/practices/preferences be found for the Norwegian case? • How many groups/clusters can be identified, and what are their profiles with respect to cultural practices? • Are the internal oppositions in these clusters the same as in the global space?

Construction of the space – analytical strategy • Data set: Culture and Media Survey 2008, Central Bureau of Statistics • N=1194 (respondents 24-70 yrs old, with a registered occupation) • Personal interviews • Active variables = 44 • Total # of active categories = 102 • Total # of passive categories = 0 (!) • Standard Multiple Correspondence Analysis ( NOT Specific MCA [cf. Le Roux & Rouanet 2004, 2010) • Ascending Hierarchical Cluster Analysis • Structured Data Analysis • Class Specific MCA of a selected subgroup

But before we start • Let’s remind ourselves… • ”In the analysis of questionnaires, it is not enough to do a correspondence analysis to do analyses à la Bourdieu. The fundamental social space must be constructed from an extensive set of relevant variables and ample enough to allow the full multidimensional display of individuals.” (Rouanet & al. 2000)

Variables • Attendance of cultural arrangements/events last 12 months • Types of events/music types/expositions • Q = 14 • K= 40

Variables • TV-preferences; channels and types of programs/shows • Program types: Q=9 • Channels: Q=6 • K=30 • I.e: Binary coded variables

Radio • Channels • Q=6 • K=12 • Binary variables

Newspapers • Q=9 • K=20

Axes: Eigenvalues and modified inertia rates Eigenvalue Percentage Percentage, Cumulated percentages, Benzécri’s modified rates modified rates Axis 1 .0923 7.00 55.8 55.8 Axis 2 .0602 4.57 16.2 72.0 Axis 3 .0530 4.02 10.6 82.6

Contributions from blocks of variables TV, Cultural Radio, Newsp channels atten- Channels Incl. & dence & internet programs programs Axis 1 86.6 1.3 3 9.1 Axis 2 10.2 74.1 3.7 12.0 Axis 3 31.0 24.8 14.6 29.6

The Cloud of Individuals, fac.plane 1-2

Contributions to axis 1 + Active/ Engaged +Inactive Highbrow /Dis- engaged

Contributions to Axis 2 - TV/Media + TV/Media

The Cloud of Individuals, fac.plane 1-3

Contributions Axis 3 + Traditional Media: TV/Newspapers, +Highbrow + ”New” Media: Internet/Emerging

The Cloud of Individuals, fac.plane 2-3

Fac.plane 2-3

Structuring factors • Age • Class • Education • Sex

Axis 1: EGP-classes + Active/Engaged Highbrow +Inactive/Disengaged + Service Class + Manual Working Class

Axis 1: Educational level +Inactive/ + Active/ Disengaged Highbrow + Lower Higher educ. educ levels levels

Axis 2: (Minor) Sex (Differences) Internal opposition at lower secondary educational levels - TV/Media + TV/Media

Axis 3: Age + Traditional Media: TV/Newspapers, +Highbrow Older respondents +Inactive + Active/ Highbrow + ”New” Media: Internet/Emerging Younger respondents

Subgroups (clusters) within this space • Ascending hierarchical cluster analysis • Ward’s method • Done on total inertia, i.e. all the axes in the analysis (all the dimensions in the space) • Identified on the basis of similarities/dis- similiarities across the active set of variables • Calculated on the basis of the individuals’ axis coordinates on all dimensions

How many clusters? • How many clusters? • What are their profiles? • How large are they? • Do they intersect in the factorial planes? • 6 retained for interpretation

Cluster 1: 26%. Actives/Engaged. Over-represented Over-represented categories, active categories, variables supplementary variables Artium – highest gen educ 1-4 art exhib. 12 months One type of art exhibition Women 1-4 theater visits 12 mnths HED 3-4 years One type of concerts EGP 1 (Higher service) 1-4 concerts 12 mnths Underrepresented: 1-4 museum visits 12 mnths No univ. educ Men

Cluster 2: 10,5%. Hyper- actives/hyper-engaged Over-represented Over-represented categories, active variables categories, supplementary variables Artium – gen educ level 5+ theater 5+ art exhibitions HED 5-6 yrs 5+ museums NOK 1 mill+ HH income 5+ concerts HED 7yrs+ 5+ ballet/dance EGP 1 Higher service 5+ cinema Underrepresented National newspapers P2 – national radio No university educ.

Cluster 3: 4,7%. TV - traditional Over-represented Over-represented categories, active categories, variables supplementary variables TV Nature No university education TV Other NRK 1 Underrepresented: TV News HED 3-4 yrs NRK 2

Cluster 4: 8%. TV-/Media cluster Over-represented Over-represented categories, active variables categories, supplementary variables NRK2 Educ level: Realskole Age group 3 – 45-64 yrs old TV debate NRK1 TV news TV info soc Underrepresented: Age group 2 – 24-43 yrs old P2 2 types of concerts 1-4 museum visits 12 mnths

Cluster 5: 25.1%. Music listeners, radio/concerts Over-represented Over-represented categories, active variables categories, supplementary variables No art exhib/types Age group 2 1 type of concert Men 1-4 concerts No TV debate No NRK2 Underrepresented: Age group 3 – 44-64 yrs

Cluster 6: 25,8%. Inactives Over-represented Over-represented categories, active categories, variables supplementary variables No concerts/types Oldest age group: Age group 4 – 65 yrs + No art exhibitions/types No theater No university education No cinema No and Low incomes: - 200’ No museums 1 festival Underrepresented: No library/library books HED 3-4 yrs, 5-6 yrs 7yrs+

6 clusters in fac.plane 1-2

4 of 6 clusters in fac.plane 1-3

Step 3: Class Specific Analysis (CSA) • Specific MCA: Developed by Brigitte Le Roux, restriction of analysis to the categories of interest (Le Roux & Rouanet 2004) • Class Specific MCA: Developed by Brigitte Le Roux (see Le Roux & Rouanet 2004, 2010) in order to study a class of indivuals/cases with reference to the complete sample/population, i.e. an analysis of a subcloud with reference to the global cloud. • What are the principal axes of the subcloud? How are they interpreted, compared to the the axes in the global cloud?

CSA • CSA of cluster 2: The Hyper-Active/Hyper- Engaged • Internal oppositions at the top of the capital hierarchy • High vs. Low frequentation? • Omnivores vs. Univores? • Univores vs. Univores?

Factorial plane 1-2, cloud of individuals

Contributing points – axis 1 10 categories – 91.6% of the contribution + Theater + Museum + Art exhib

Contribution points axis 2 18 categories – 88.1% of the contribution Univorousness – art & music ? Opera - NO Omnivorousness – art & music

Factorial plane 1-3

Factorial plane 2-3

Contributing points Axis 3 17 categories – 83.2% of the contribution + Radio/Internet + Museum visits

• Thank you for your attention!