1. STANDARDS OF HIGH CULTURE UNDER UPWARD MOBILITY AND OUTMARRIAGE WOUT ULTEE & NAN-DIRK DE GRAAF RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN EQUALSOC BARCELONA SEPTEMBER 22-23, 2006

2. QUESTION 1: IS THERE FOR THE NETHERLANDS FROM 1974, 1983, 1993, 1998, 2000 TO 2003 AN UPWARD TREND IN ATTENDANCE OF CLASSICAL CONCERTS AND VISITING MUSEUMS? QUESTION 2: DOES IN EVERY YEAR MORE EDUCATION MAKE FOR HIGHER CHANCES OF ATTENDANCE AND VISITING? QUESTION 3: IF THERE IS NO UNIFORM UPWARD TREND, DID THE CHANCES OF ATTENDANCE AND VISITING DECLINE FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION?

3. QUESTION 4: AND IF SO, DID THE CHANCES OF ATTENDANCE AND VISITING ALSO DROP FOR THOSE WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND A FATHER AND SPOUSE WITH THAT EDUCATION? QUESTION 5: AND IF SO, DID THIS DECLINE COVARY WITH THE PERCENT OF THE PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION MARRIED TO A PERSON WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND BORN TO A FATHER WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION?

4. QUESTION 6: AND WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR A PERSON’S ATTENDANCE AND VISITING, DID THE WEIGHT OF THIS PERSON’S EDUCATION INCREASE RELATIVE TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EDUCATION OF THIS PERSON’S SPOUSE AND FATHER?

6. A HARD-NOSED EXERCISE IN QUANTITATIVE SOCIOLOGY? YES, BUT: MY THEORY IS A MIRROR-IMAGE OF A GENERAL THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES IN VARIOUS FORMS OF ART AND ELITIST ACTION THIS THEORY WAS PROPOSED BY ELIAS, GOMBRICH AND BOURDIEU WITH THE THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO KANT’S THEORY OF PURE AESTHETICS, AND WITH THE THEORY OF COMPETITIVE EXCESSES AVOIDING THE OBJECTION OF SOCIAL ARBITRARINESS

7. IF SOMETHING IS NOT EITHER UGLY/KITSCH OR BEAUTIFUL/ART, BUT IF THERE IS AN UNDERLYING CONTINUOUS YET ‘PURE’ SCALE, THEN INHERENT PROCESSES OF IMPROVEMENT PROPELLED BY COMPETITION IN CLOSED SOCIETIES MAKE FOR UPWARDLY CHANGING CUT-OFF POINTS AND IN OPEN SOCIETIES FOR DOWNWARDLY CHANGING CUT- OFF POINTS

8. ACCORDING TO ELIAS, COMPETITION BETWEEN THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE NOBILITY IN ABSOLUTIST FRANCE MADE FOR MORE AND MORE ELABORATE RULES OF CIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR ACCORDING TO GOMBRICH, THE COMPETITION BETWEEN CITIES IN MEDIEVAL FRANCE MADE FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER VAULTS IN CATHEDRALS

9. OTHER CASES FROM ARCHITECTURE: THE ROMAN PANTHEON AND THE DOME OF FLORENCE MOSQUES WITH HIGHER AND HIGHER DOMES IN ISTANBUL AFTER THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE ESCORIAL, VERSAILLES, SCHOENBRUNN: LARGER ROYAL PALACES WITH LARGER GARDENS THE ‘GRAND TRAVAUX’ OF THE PRENCH POST-WORLD-WAR-TWO PRESIDENTS SINCE THE CENTRE POMPIDOU

10. COMPETITION BETWEEN THE ABSOLUTIST RULERS OF THE 18 TH CENTURY GERMAN STATES: NOT ONLY LARGER PALACES, BUT ALSO BIGGER COLLECTIONS OF PICTURES AND LARGER ORCHESTRAS IN THE 19TH CENTURY BIEDERMEIDER ERA AND THE KAISERREICH: FROZEN INTO BILDUNGSBUERGERTUM

11. THE NETHERLANDS AS A MARITIME REPUBLIC WITH AMSTERDAM AS COMMERCIAL CENTER REMAINED OUTSIDE THIS COMPETITION, BUT COMPETITION BETWEEN PAINTERS IN A PROTESTANT COUNTRY FOR THE FAVORS OF THE SMALL BOURGEOISIE LED TO VARIOUS GENRES IN PAINTING, AMONG THEM STILL LIFES THE NETHERLANDS DID NOT HAVE COURT CULTURE, SINCE IT AS A REPUBLIC DID NOT HAVE MUCH OF A COURT

12. THE DUTCH REPUBLIC DID HAVE A STADTHOLDER WITH ROYAL ASPIRATIONS, AND STADTHOLDER WILLIAM V, WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRINCESS FROM PRUSSIA, IN 1774 OPENED IN THE HAGUE, THE POLITICAL CENTER OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, TO THE PUBLIC HIS COLLECTION OF PAINTINGS THE FRENCH IN 1795 TOOK THAT COLLECTION TO THE LOUVRE, AS PART OF THEIR ‘ARTISTIC VICTORY’

13. AT THE VIENNA CONGRESS IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE NETHERLANDS WOULD BECOME A KINGDOM THE STADTHOUDER COLLECTION STOLEN BY THE FRANCH WAS RETURNED IN 1822 AND HAS BEEN ON DISPLAY SINCE THEN IN ROYAL MUSEUM MAURITSHUIS IN THE HAGUE IT COULD BE VIEWED BY ANY ADULT WHO WAS WELL-DRESSED AND WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING CHILDREN

14. IN THE HAGUE IN 1800 IN ‘HUIS TEN BOSCH’, A RESIDENCE OF THE LAST STADTHOLDER WHO FLED IN 1795, A STATE MUSEUM WAS OPENED LOUIS-NAPOLEON, KING OF HOLLAND FROM 1806 TO 1810, MOVED IT TO THE TOWNHALL IN AMSTERDAM IT WAS MOVED AGAIN IN 1817 TO THE HOUSE OF THE BROTHERS TRIP WHO BECAME FILTHY RICH IN THE 17TH CENTURY IN IRON TRADE, PRIMARILY WEAPONS, WITH SWEDEN THE COLLECTION MOVED IN 1885 TO THE CURRENT BUILDING OF THE RIJKSMUSEUM IN AMSTERDAM

15. WHAT NOW IS CELEBRATED AS CLASSICAL MUSIC CAME TO THE NETHERLANDS AT THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY WITH THE ENLIGHTENMENT THE QUARTERS OF THE STADTHOLDER IN THE HAGUE IN THE 18TH CENTURY HAD A MUSIC AND DANCE HALL AND A BAND – BUT NOT AN ORCHESTRA NANNERL AND WOLFGANG MOZART PLAYED THERE IN 1765 THEY STAYED FOR SEVEN MONTHS BECAUSE FIRST SHE AND THEN HE CAUGHT TYPHOID MOZART’S SYMPHONY KV20 PREMIERED IN AMSTERDAM IN 1766 IN THE RIDING SCHOOL

16. IN ASTERDAM, IN 1785 THE SOCIETY FELIX MERITUS (‘HAPPY THROUGH MERIT’) OPENED A BUILDING WITH A MUSIC HALL AND A HALL FOR NATURAL EXPERIMENTS IN 1830 ODEON OPENED AS A MUSIC HALL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC THE PRESENT CONCERTGEBOUW IN AMSTERDAM WAS OPENED IN 1887 IN THE HAGUE IN 1805 THE SOCIETY DILIGENTIA (‘PERSEVERING APPLICATION’) FOR EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OPENED A NEW BUILDING, AND 1821 COME TO OFFER TO CONCERTI DILIGENTIA AN AUDITORIUM WITH A ROYAL BOX

17. A THESIS FOR NOVEL COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGICAL-HISTORICAL RESEARCH: IF A COUNTRY KNEW BEFORE 1795 AND BEFORE 1871 A STRONGER COURT CULTURE, THEN RIGHT NOW HIGH CULTURE IS A MORE IMPORTANT PART OF LEISURE IN THAT COUNTRY THIS HYPOTHESIS CAN BE TESTED QUITE EASILY IN A COUNTRY COMPARISON WHICH ESTABLISHES THE YEARS IN WHICH MUSEUMS AND CONCERT HALLS WERE ESTABLISHED AND TAKES THESE YEARS AS VARIABLES EXPLAINING NATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS FORMS OF HIGH CULTURE

19. WEBER’S AND GOLDTHORPE’S WAY OF BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY AND RESEARCH IN SOCIOLOGY: IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THEORIES, TAKE WELL-ESTABLISHED EMPIRICAL REGULARITIES AS STARTING POINT ULTEE’S LESS SHAKY AND MORE PROMISING BRIDGE: TAKE A MICRO-MACRO PARADOX AS STARTING POINT

20. THE MICRO-MACRO PARADOX OF PARIS-INSEE SOCIOLOGISTS: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT READING IS DECLINING, WHEREAS MORE EDUCATION MAKES FOR MORE READING AND THE GENERAL LEVEL OF EDUCATION HAS INCREASED? THE EASY ANSWER: IT’S THE TELEVISION STUPID! THE LONG ANSWER: WITH MORE UPWARD MOBILITY, THE ESTABLISHED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ARE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN ANY STANDARD OF HIGH CULTURE IN THE FACE OF MANY NEWCOMERS

21. SO THE INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS IS A GENERALIZATION OF THE EGOISM- PROPOSITION IN DURKHEIM’S LE SUICIDE: IF PERSONS ARE MORE STRONGLY INTEGRATED INTO A GROUP, THEY WILL BE MORE LIKELY LIVE UP TO ANY OF ITS STANDARDS AND IF THEY ARE LESS INTEGRATED, THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO COMPLY

22. WITH AS AUXILIARY ASSUMPTIONS: READING, ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERTS AND VISITING MUSEUMS ARE STANDARDS AMONG THE HIGH LY EDUCATED UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS ARE LESS INTEGRATED INTO THE GROUP OF HIGHLY EDUCATED PERSONS: COMPOSITION EFFECT THE HIGHLY EDUCATED FROM HIGHLY EDUCATED PARENTS DISINTEGRATE S A GROUP UNDER UPWARD MOBILITY: CONTEXTUAL EFFECT EDUCATIONAL HETEROGAMY HAS THE SAME EFFECTS AS EDUCATIONAL MOBILITY

23. THE DOWNWARD TREND IS EXPLAINED BY THE COMPOSITION EFFECT BUT THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE THEORY IS THE CONTEXTUAL EFFECT: THERE IS IN AN OPEN SOCIETY A DOWNWARD SPIRAL MAKING THE THEORY A MIRROR OF THE UPWARD SPIRAL POSTULATED FOR CLOSED SOCIETIES

24. THE ISSUE BEING RAISED RIGHT NOW BY OXFORD SOCIOLOGISTS IS WHETHER STATUS HAS STRONGER EFFECTS ON HIGH CULTURE THAN CLASS THE WAY OF MEASURING STATUS INVOLVES A MACRO-MEASURE REFERRING TO MARRIAGE AND FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS, WHEREAS I USE A MICRO-MEASURE AND A CONTEXTUAL MEASURE DO NOT GO AFTER CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS WITHOUT INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS IN THE NETHERLANDS OF ALL INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS, THAT OF EDUCATION IS STRONGEST

26. THE FOLLOWING TIME SERIES FOR THE NETHERLANDS PERTAIN ONLY TO PERSONS WHOSE EDUCATION IS KNOWN, AS WELL AS THE EDUCTION OF THEIR SPOUSE AND FATHER 1974 AND 1983 ARE FROM THE LIFE STUATION SURVEY OF STATISTICS NETHERLANDS 1993, 1998, 2000 AND 2003 FROM THE SERIES FAMILY SURVEY DUTCH POPULATION FNB

27. FOUR LEVELS OF EDUCATION: ONLY PRIMARY, LOWER SECONDARY, HIGHER SECONDARY, TERTIARY I SKIP READING AS HIGH CULTURE TO LESSEN THE TELEVISION EFFECT

28. ANSWER 1 PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR) ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT VISITING MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 28 33 25 31 29 22 29 42 47 65 67 55

29. ANSWER 2 ODDS RATIO HIGHEST / LOWEST EDUCATION AND ODDS RATIO HIGHERS / HIGHEST BUT ONE EDUCATION ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT VISITING MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 9.3 9.3 5.9 6.4 7.5 5.9 1.4 2.8 2.7 4.9 3.6 3.6 11.2 9.5 5.6 11.0 2.5 5.7 1.5 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.6 3.1

30. ANSWER 3 PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR) ONLY PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT VISITING MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 56 64 42 55 53 37 58 74 70 85 87 77

31. ANSWER 2 AGAIN ODDS RATIO HIGHEST / LOWEST EDUCATION AND ODDS RATIO HIGHERS / HIGHEST BUT ONE EDUCATION FOR THE EDUCATIONALLY HOMOGENEOUS ONLY ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT VISITING MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 40.8 36.0 21.4 18.3 14.4 8.1 1.9 4.3 6.2 11.5 7.1 6.1 38.5 22.5 9.6 24.7 8.6 11.5 2.1 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.5 4.8

32. ANSWER 4 PERCENT EVER (VERSUS NEVER IN A YEAR) ONLY PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST EDUCATION AND FATHER AND SPOUSE WITH THE SAME EDUCATION ATTENDING CLASSICAL CONCERT VISITING MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 78 80 65 67 64 50 77 84 78 91 88 85

33. ANSWER 5 AND AS THE CLIMAX OR ANTI-CLIMAX THE NUMBER OF PERSONS HOMOGENEOUS AT THE HIGHEST (AND LOWEST) LEVEL OF EDUCATION AS A PERCENT OF THE PERSONS WITH THE HIGHEST (LOWEST) LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 8 11 17 20 18 19 HIGHESTLOWEST 58 52 28 27 34 27

34. THERE GOES A NON-GRAND THEORY?

35. OUR INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS WAS ABOUT LIVING UP TO THE STANDARDS OF A GROUP THESE STANDARDS ARE BEST EXEMPLIFIED BY PERSONS WHOSE FATHER AND SPOUSE ARE IN THIS GROUP TOO FOR ESTIMATING EFFECTS OF OWN, FATHER’S AND SPOUSAL EDUCATION, LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS MISS THE GIST OF THE INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIS THESE MODELS ASSUME THAT MARGINAL FREQUENCIES ARE REFERENCE POINT FOR PERSONS, WHEREAS DIAGONAL FREQUENCIES ARE SO APPLY SOBEL’S DIAGONAL REFERENCE MODELS

36. ANSWER 6 WEIGHTS IN DIAGONAL REFERENCE MODELS FOR OWN, SPOUSE’S, AND FATHER’S EDUCATION CONCERT MUSEUM 1974 1983 1993 1998 2000 2003 0.43 0.35 0.22 0.35 0.48 0.17 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.52 0.45 0.07 0.56 0.42 0.02 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.48 0.30 0.22 0.52 0.34 0.14 0.62 0.27 0.11 0.52 0.45 0.07 ?!0.61 0.56 -0.17!? 0.48 0.44 0.08 WEIGHTS OF OWN EDUCATION ARE UP, OF FATHER’S EDUCATION DOWN, OF SPOUSE’S EDUCATION UP WITH RESPECT TO MUSEUM VISITS

37. IF YOU WISH TO VIEW THIS PRESENTATION ONCE MORE, TYPE IN GOOGLE ‘WOUT ULTEE’ AND ON MY WIBE SITE YOU WILL FIND IT UNDER THE HEADING OF ‘FOREIGN PRESENTATIONS’ AND THE SUB-HEADING OF ‘BARCELONA’