Why Sociologists Believe That Culture Might Be Bad for You
A revised version of a 2020 work reexamines how a cultural landscape dominated by a “white, male and middle-class” standard is increasingly problematic in today’s UK. Recent challenges such as the Covid-19 pandemic, Brexit, austerity measures, and rising inflation have compounded longstanding issues in the arts. Despite changes in government and promises of reform in arts education and funding bodies, little has shifted to alter the underlying structures that many believe continue to harm the field.
A Community of Unusual Characters
The three sociologists responsible for this study present their findings in straightforward language—albeit supported by extensive footnotes and a robust dataset drawn from 237 interviews with cultural and creative professionals. Their research portrays those working in fields like broadcasting, theatre, film, publishing, and the visual arts as notably distinct from the broader population. This distinction is sharpened by what they describe as a “somatic norm,” an expectation that cultural practitioners conform to a white, middle-class, male prototype. Over recent decades, the number of cultural workers hailing from wealthy, professional backgrounds has nearly doubled, while those from working-class origins have diminished by almost half. In this evolving landscape, middle-class dominance remains persistent, and women—regardless of their background—face additional hurdles due to social expectations and the pressures of caregiving. Meanwhile, people of color continue to contend with racial bias, with women of color from working-class roots bearing the heaviest burdens.
Reluctance to Challenge the Status Quo
The authors argue that those who fit the dominant profile are generally hesitant to acknowledge or address the entrenched inequalities within their professions. Although cultural occupations are among the most progressive and welfare-supportive fields, many artists and cultural workers attribute their achievements simply to personal talent, hard work, and luck, overlooking the structural advantages they have long enjoyed. It is striking, they note, that only about a third of new entrants to these fields remain in them for more than a decade—a statistic that invites reconsideration of the narrative of meritocracy. The researchers contend that initiatives which focus solely on increasing representation without shaking up the underlying hierarchy risk exploiting diversity rather than fostering genuine systemic change. In their view, the celebratory language of multiculturalism can sometimes obscure the stark reality of privilege, as the prevailing group continues to benefit from advantages ingrained since childhood. Throughout the work, the authors express a measured skepticism about the roles of inherent talent and serendipity in achieving cultural success.
The Illusion of Meritocracy
The central argument is that culture, far from being an unalloyed good, actually mirrors and reinforces societal imbalances related to class, gender, and race. Because many believe that engagement with the arts is inherently beneficial on a personal level, the unequal underpinnings of the cultural sector often go unchallenged. The idea that artistic achievement is purely a matter of merit—an ideology that tends to favor senior white males—conceals the deep-rooted advantages conferred by social origin. The authors are particularly persuasive when they demonstrate that personal interpretations of professional success can mask the more significant structural issues at play. They also point out that while culture is often used to critique societal inequalities, its very form and organization can perpetuate those same disparities. Even at high-profile institutions, such as renowned opera houses and national theatres—where progressive leadership has recently emerged—the tension between structure and critique remains palpable. This dynamic is equally observable in the realms of new writing, fringe theatre, and modern visual art.
Conclusion
In the end, culture is both a reflection of society and a force that helps shape it. The book’s title is intentionally provocative, drawing attention to the discomforting reality that the arts may reinforce social inequities. While the researcher writing this review admits to personally benefiting from the conventional system, he also maintains a belief in the value of culture. The study challenges us to reconsider how we view the arts—not just as a source of personal enrichment, but as a domain fraught with complex social dynamics that demand critical examination.
Culture is Bad for You: Inequality in the Cultural and Creative Industries is a revised edition published by Manchester University Press, providing an in-depth analysis across 408 pages and featuring numerous illustrations. The work by Orian Brook, Dave O’Brien, and Mark Taylor invites readers to reflect on the intricate relationship between cultural production and social inequality.
Rockin’ the faith, one verse at a time!
Growing up, the Bible’s stories deeply impacted me. Now, with over 15 years of preaching experience, I blend timeless teachings with modern technology, making them relevant for today’s world.
Bible Hub Verse is my platform to share historical insights and thought-provoking articles, exploring both familiar and uncommon Christian topics. My passion is building a welcoming online space for everyone to learn, grow in their faith, and discover the Bible’s enduring message.
Join the journey!
God bless you.
By
