Sociology of culture

Teacher(s)

Delchambre Jean-Pierre; Nsengiyumva Jean-Luc (compensates Delchambre Jean-Pierre);

Language

French

Prerequisites

The prerequisite(s) for this Teaching Unit (Unité d’enseignement – UE) for the programmes/courses that offer this Teaching Unit are specified at the end of this sheet.

Learning outcomes

At the end of this learning unit, the student is able to :

This teaching unit focuses on a particular field of sociology, that of culture and cultural practices (with an openness to questions that are also of interest to anthropology). Even if it is not a formal prerequisite, it is advisable to have already taken at least one general introductory course in sociology (or anthropology), as well as an introductory course to social science methodology. The teaching unit is made up of a theoretical course and an involving activity (AI) in the context of which the student will have to carry out supervised individual work (research paper). The general objective of the teaching unit is twofold: 1°) in terms of theoretical skills, to acquire a sufficiently precise overview of the questions and issues specific to this field of sociology, as well as a good mastery of the conceptual resources which make it possible to elaborate and deal with these questions and issues in a coherent and methodologically controlled manner; 2°) in terms of practical skills, be able to apply theoretical resources in the context of individual work where it is also expected that the student implements the learning outcomes of methodological lessons (respect conventions of scientific writing, bibliographic research, stages of the inquiry process in the social sciences, etc.). More specific objectives: Acquire the conceptual tools to analyze the concrete functioning of cultural fields, as well as the norms that make sense in the worlds of art and culture (cf. e.g. so-called legitimate culture and its questioning , cultural policy benchmarks, etc.). Being able to understand the assumptions and implications of different theoretical approaches. Distinguish clearly between approaches based on the capacities or skills of agents (or individuals) and approaches using structures and the effects of domination. Take cultural practices, experiences and mediations seriously; not to reduce everything to the model of "distinction" and "domination". Take into account the recent transformations of the cultural field, without losing sight of the long term and the socio-historical perspective. Being able to practice decentering and comparison. Be able to formulate and problematize a relevant research question and identify good analyzers likely to empirically test the question posed. Work on reading and appropriating scientific literature. Clearly distinguish between analysis and value judgments. Being able to sociologically analyze the individualization of cultural practices and tastes, which implies going beyond the opposition between individual and society and sociologically accounting for individual behaviors and aspirations.

Content

Main points covered: - Culture, a plurivocal and controversial term: definitional issues. - The anthropological definition of culture and the sociological definition of culture. - Situation of the sociology of culture in relation to other disciplines interested in art and culture (art history, aesthetic philosophy, cultural history, cultural anthropology...). - Main aspects taken into account by the sociology of culture (cultural objects or goods, the figure of the creator and the artistic and cultural professions, tastes and audiences, practices and experiences, cultural policies and the economy of the culture...). - Presentation of some major approaches (cf. A. Hauser, P. Bourdieu, R. Peterson, B. Lahire, N. Heinich, Cultural Studies, Th. W. Adorno and the "Frankfurt School", H. S. Becker, A. Hennion...). - Historical perspective and current issues. - A few major themes: the diversification or even fragmentation of cultural practices (particularly in connection with digital technologies), cultural eclecticism and the testing of the model of "distinction", the transition from the democratization of "the » culture to cultural democracy (to each “his” culture and identity?), legitimate culture vs. popular cultures, pop culture and "minority" cultural expressions, culture and the relationship between illusion and reality, culture in relation to education and transmission, cultural relativism and aesthetic evaluation criteria, culture in a globalized world and diversified, the cultural industries and figure of the artist-entrepreneur, the fascination of the margins of the artistic bohemian to the petty bourgeoisie well endowed with "cultural capital" (what consequences of the precariousness of this social group carrying impulses and cultural innovations?), etc.

Teaching methods

The teaching unit is made up of a theoretical course of 30 hours (3 credits) and an involving activity (2 credits) consisting of carrying out individual work supervised by the assistant. As part of the theoretical course, the teacher exposes the material in a way that is pedagogically effective and interesting. Students are encouraged to ask questions and debate, the size of the audience allowing for interactive pedagogy. Good note-taking is recommended, on the one hand because the syllabus does not claim to be exhaustive, then because there may be a gap between the professor's oral presentation and the course notes, and finally because taking good notes is an important step in terms of understanding and understanding the subject. As part of the AI, the student is expected to produce an individual written work (research paper). This work must enable the student to demonstrate their ability to use, in a precise, rigorous, relevant, justified and articulated manner, conceptual resources and problematization elements related to the material presented in the theoretical course. This work must also be based on the basic skills acquired in introductory courses in social science methodologies (cf. ITUSS and DMSS). This individual work must result exclusively from personal work. It is therefore forbidden to have your work done by a third party (whether paid or not) or to use artificial intelligence (clarification: "intelligent" use of AI is acceptable in relation to specific aspects - bibliographic research , definition of concepts, etc. – on the other hand relying on the AI ​​to produce the work in its outline will be considered as fraud). The work is likely to be checked for plagiarism. What will be evaluated (see below for the precise modalities) will not only be the “finished product”, but the development process or the “making of” of the work. To this end, several sessions and permanence will be planned in order to provide supervision and control of the progress of the work. The work must be part of one of the themes proposed by the teachers. The precise objective of the work is to write an outline of a research project respecting the rules and conventions of scientific work, and not to propose a personal reflection on the mode of a dissertation, an essay or the expression of 'an opinion. It is particularly important to situate oneself in the register of sociological analysis, and not in the register of value judgments or normative/ideological evaluation. It is a question of demonstrating a capacity for elaboration and sociological analysis, and not of "giving one's opinion" on societal or political questions related to culture... The work, designed in an exploratory perspective, remains limited in size, which is why it is important to favor a precise mode of entry (avoid questions that are too general and a fortiori too vague or abstract) and to properly dimension the problem (it must fit in a few pages). The process of developing and writing the work will be marked by three key stages: - Formulation of a relevant, operational and well-targeted initial question (based on the proposed themes). - Appropriation of texts (minimum two texts from the bibliographic resources of the course, and minimum two additional texts resulting from a personal bibliographic research) and drafting of a problematization including at least a justification of the choices made and an articulation between several conceptual resources – other avenues will be suggested to students during the presentation session of the device. - Outline of an empirical testing device (which hypotheses can be envisaged based on the initial question and the draft problematization? and in what way could they be tested, i.e. meaning validated or invalidated?). It should be noted that the perspective remains exploratory: it is requested to design a mini research protocol, not to apply it by going to the field... The work supervision system is designed as follows: - A presentation session (instructions and advice...). - One (or two) session(s) devoted to proposals for initial questions. The students must first send a brief note of intent, and an exchange may take place around the proposed initial questions (with the assistant and between students, with encouragement to practice a reflective exercise using self-assessment and peer review, with the aim of improving the quality of the initial questions and getting off to a good start...). - Permanences planned to supervise and control the state of progress of the work concerning the second and third stages (work of appropriation of the texts and outline of problematization, development of the device of empirical investigation). Attendance at sessions is compulsory and students will be expected to show up at least once (with prior sending of a progress report). The dates and times of permanence, as well as the expectations and the deadlines, will be specified in an "instructions" document available on the Moodle page of the EU. The work must be written in accordance with the conventions of scientific writing, and may not exceed 24,000 characters (from 8 to 10 pages, line spacing 1.5). The final work must include in appendix the four texts read, annotated and worked on by the student. The work must be submitted no later than the day before the start of the exam session for which the student is registering. It must be sent by email to the assistant (Alexandra Syskova) in accordance with the procedures indicated in the document "instructions".

Evaluation methods

The EU assessment includes two parts whose weight in the overall score is as follows: - evaluation of the knowledge of the theoretical course during an oral examination (12/20); - evaluation of the individual written work (8/20). It should be noted that the evaluation of individual work has two levels: the main one is the continuous evaluation of the work by the assistant (will be taken into account the work in its final state but also the reflective exercise around the initial question as well as the quality of the appropriation and use of the texts read), and secondarily the teacher can ask the student to present his work during the exam, and adjust the evaluation according to the performance of the student. A student who has not done any individual work cannot be prevented from registering for the exam, but concretely the non-submission of the work results in a zero on the exam. It should be noted that a student who carries out his work outside the semester during which the teaching unit is scheduled (Q1) no longer benefits from the supervision of the assistant. However, this student is required to meet the same requirements (precise and relevant initial question, in-depth reading of at least four texts attached in the appendix, etc.). In the event that the student does not take the exam when he/she has completed and submitted his/her work on time, he/she will be awarded an overall mark of 0(A) or 0(NP) , the provisional mark relating to the work being kept for a later session during the same academic year (on the other hand the mark of the work is not carried over from one academic year to another.

Bibliography

Bibliographie indicative - Theodor W. Adorno, «L'industrie culturelle», Communications, n° 3, 1964, pp. 12-18. - Howard Becker, Les mondes de l'art, Paris, Flammarion, coll. Champs, 2006 (traduit de l'américain; éd. orig. : 1982). - Pierre Bourdieu, La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris, Minuit, 1979. - Pierre Bourdieu, Les règles de l'art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire, Paris, Seuil, 1992. - Philippe Coulangeon, Les métamorphoses de la distinction. Inégalités culturelles dans la France d'aujourd'hui, Paris, Grasset, 2011. - Ph. Coulangeon et J. Duval (dir.), Trente ans après La Distinction, Paris, La Découverte, 2013. - Christine Détrez, Sociologie de la culture, Paris, Armand Colin, 2014. - Olivier Donnat et Paul Tolila (dir.), Le(s) public(s) de la culture, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2003. - Hervé Glevarec, La culture à l'ère de la diversité, La Tour d'Aigues, L'aube, 2013. - Claude Grignon et Jean-Claude Passeron, Le savant et le populaire. Misérabilisme et populisme en sociologie et en littérature, Paris, Gallimard / Seuil, coll. Hautes études, 1989. - Arnold Hauser, Histoire sociale de l'art et de la littérature, Paris, P.U.F., coll. Quadrige, 2004 (traduit de l'allemand; éd. orig. : 1951). - Nathalie Heinich, L'élite artiste. Excellence et singularité en régime démocratique, Paris, Gallimard, 2005. - Antoine Hennion, La passion musicale. Une sociologie de la médiation, Paris, Métailié, 1993. - Bernard Lahire, La culture des individus. Dissonances culturelles et distinction de soi, Paris, La Découverte, 2004. - Lawrence W. Levine, Culture d'en haut, culture d'en bas. L'émergence des hiérarchies culturelles aux Etats-Unis, Paris, La Découverte, 2010 (traduit de l'américain; éd. orig. : 1988). - Armand Mattelart, Erik Neveu, Introduction aux Cultural Studies, Paris, La Découverte, coll. Repères, 2003. - Pierre-Michel Menger, Portrait de l'artiste en travailleur, Paris, Seuil, 2002.

Faculty or entity

> ESPB