Sociology of culture

Teacher(s)

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

This year's course will focus on art history. Although it will not be an art history course, it will provide reference points and resources enabling students to appropriate objects and questions in this field, so as to be able to articulate these contributions with the sociology of culture, and to draw sociological (but also anthropological) lessons from them. One part of the course will therefore focus on art history (from the outset conceived in relation to sociological questions and issues), while a second part will present the contributions and tools of the sociology of culture. Each lesson will address and articulate these two aspects.  The choice of entry point will also aim to encourage students to decentralize their thinking and curiosity, by not remaining focused on the present.  By putting the sociology of culture to the test through art history (and vice versa), we'll be able to consider some of the major issues usually addressed in a course like this from a historical perspective - for example, definitions and approaches to “art” and “culture”, transformations in the figure of the “artist” over time, analysis of how “art worlds” or “cultural fields” have functioned in different eras, what transformations in artistic and/or cultural representations and standards tell us (and what they tell us about the state of a society), the agents and mediators of artistic and cultural fields, the importance of material supports and techniques, the cultural policies of modern nation-states and their antecedents, the distinction between “legitimist” or even “elitist” approaches (high culture. ...) and more “democratic” and “popular” or even “populist” approaches (cultural expressions in all their diversity...), the relationship between art/culture and politics (between conformism and contestation, powers instrumentalizing art vs. art questioning powers. ...), the relationship between art/culture and the economy (cf. the art market, mass commercial culture, cultural marketing and tourism, discourses of rebellion or subversion integrated by the capitalist system and rendered inoffensive, etc.). On the other hand, we must not fall into the “sociological” or “sociologizing” trap of taking an overly “deterministic” view of social, economic, political and other factors, at the risk of missing the question of the “internal” dynamics of forms, or crushing it through lack of nuance. In other words, the aim is to articulate so-called “internal” and “external” approaches, which implies, in terms of the sociology of culture, not reducing everything to questions of determination and/or domination.

Teaching methods

The UE is made up of a 30h theoretical course (3 credits) and an involving activity (2 credits) consisting of a personal application and reflection exercise based on a prior appropriation of a precise, documented object or theme.  As part of the theoretical course, the teacher presents the material in a way that is pedagogically effective and interesting. Students are encouraged to ask questions and engage in debate, as the size of the audience allows for interactive teaching. Good note-taking is recommended, firstly because the syllabus does not claim to be exhaustive, secondly because there may be a discrepancy between the teacher's oral presentation and the course notes, and thirdly because good note-taking greatly enhances understanding and appropriation of the material.  Details of the application exercise as part of the involving activity :  Objective: students will demonstrate their ability to use the tools seen in the course (theories and concepts, modes of reasoning and analytical models, debates and controversies, etc.) to deal with an object from an exploratory perspective, with compulsory recourse to the comparative method. The comparison will have to be made between, on the one hand, elements seen in the course and belonging to the history of art, mainly European, and on the other hand, an object that is either contemporary (which may be European, non-European, global, hybrid or transcultural...), or refers to the past of a non-European culture.  This practical exercise will take the form of an individual assignment consisting of two parts: - A preparatory phase during the semester, consisting of choosing an object and developing or researching it, taking into account the instructions and purpose of the assignment (i.e., the appropriation of resources and tools seen in class for the purpose of a comparison exercise). During this phase, students will be required to:  1) Conduct research to identify an object. At this stage, we refer to an object rather than a question or issue, as these two aspects will come into play later. Initially, students will therefore choose a type of artistic or cultural expression, a practice, a movement, a style, etc., ensuring that this object is sufficiently precise and can be placed in a specific context, either in the present or the past. 2) Submit this object to the teaching assistant via Moodle for approval. Two criteria will be taken into account: firstly, the object must be sufficiently specific and “situated,” which means that the historical and social “coordinates” of the object to be analyzed must already be indicated; secondly, the same object cannot be chosen by more than one student; in the event of “duplicates,” priority will be given to the object submitted first.   3) Conduct personal research based on scientific texts, articles, or book chapters in order to familiarize yourself with the subject matter, while taking into account the major questions and common themes of the theoretical course. Optionally, students may submit their bibliographic selection to the teaching assistant, who may issue (on one occasion only) an opinion not on the relevance of the texts in terms of their content, but rather on their acceptability as scientific texts.  The identification of the subject, its characterization, and its documentation (bibliography including at least six relevant and specialized references) will result in the writing of a two-page descriptive sheet. The characterization will be done in response to questions that will be asked on a descriptive level. Students will also be asked to mention possible links with issues or authors covered in the course. Finally, it is very important to ensure that the bibliography is correct in terms of scientific writing conventions and the accuracy of references (one or more referencing errors, and a fortiori the production of a false or truncated reference, will result in all work submitted as part of the AI being considered inadmissible).  As part of this first preparatory phase, an introductory session will be held, and the assistant will be on hand at specified times. - Next, the second part: an assessment, which will take the form of a written exercise that students will have to complete individually and which will constitute one of the two parts of the exam. This individual exercise will take the form of an essay based on a question that will be given to students at the beginning of this part of the exam. Students must address the question in relation to the subject they have chosen, using the documentation they have collected and the “toolbox” presented during the course. In this essay, students must, based on the object they have chosen and documented: a) draw a comparison with a theme or common thread covered in the course, and b) explicitly use at least three references from the bibliography in the descriptive sheet. During this written part of the exam, students will be allowed to have 20 pages of handwritten notes at their disposal, which may relate to the content of the texts referenced in the bibliography or to elements of the course. Please note: we emphasize that only personal, handwritten notes will be accepted, and the handwriting will be checked to ensure that it matches that of the student taking the exam. Handwritten notes must be submitted at the same time as the essay at the end of the written part of the exam.  The scientific texts making up the bibliography must be correctly referenced on a separate sheet, which will be handed in at the same time as the written essay. The relevance of this bibliography will be taken into account in the assessment of the written work.  It goes without saying that all electronic devices and connections to the outside world will be prohibited during this assessment phase. This written part of the exam will last 2 hours. Please note that more detailed instructions and advice will be provided during the semester.  Students who do not participate in the Q1 activity and do not take the written part of the exam (essay) in January must meet the requirements in the second session (August), but will not be able to count on support from the teaching assistant.

Evaluation methods

The EU assessment comprises two parts, each with its own weighting in the overall mark: - assessment of the individual written essay, corresponding to the activity part of the UE (50% of the total, i.e. 10/20).
- assessment of knowledge of the theoretical course in an oral examination (50% of the total, i.e. 10/20). 
The language of assessment is French.
The use of generative AI is prohibited in this course, at least with regard to assignments that are subject to assessment. 
The modalities of the exercise expected within the framework of the involving activity have already been presented above. 
The oral examination will include a minimum of 2 open-ended questions. The student will have approximately 10 minutes to prepare. For both oral and written exams, electronic media and external connections are of course forbidden. 
As far as possible (see constraints linked to the organization of the session), the written and oral parts of the exam will take place on the same day. The exam formula is therefore a written exam followed by an oral. 
Given that the written dissertation (preceded by the work expected during the preparatory phase) is considered an individual assignment within the framework of the engaging activity, the grade obtained for this part of the assessment may be retained, in the event of failure in the exam, for the August session (but of course not beyond that, as carrying it over from one year to the next is not permitted). However, in this case, the student retains the possibility of improving their grade by retaking the written essay corresponding to the engaging activity (it should be noted that, in this case, they can no longer count on the assistance of the teaching assistant). It should be added that the grade obtained for the theoretical part (oral exam) cannot be carried over from one session to another. 
Students who take—or retake—the AI part during the August session are required to send (by email, and this time to the professor) their descriptive sheet by the end of July at the latest, without any feedback being provided (since there is no longer any supervision after the first semester). 

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