In contemporary cultural discourse, taste is often treated as personal, spontaneous, and value-neutral. Preferences in art, food, clothing, or media are assumed to reflect individual identity, creativity, or authenticity. Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste dismantles this assumption with precision, revealing taste as a deeply structured expression of social class and cultural capital.
Published in 1979, Distinction is not merely a critique of aesthetic ideology, but a monumental empirical study of how class differences are reproduced through cultural practices. It remains one of the most important works of 20th-century sociology — not only because of its theoretical insights, but also because of the systematic rigor with which it links the seemingly trivial domain of taste to broader social hierarchies.
Taste as a Mechanism of Social Reproduction
At the core of Bourdieu’s argument is the idea that taste is not natural. Rather, it is shaped by one’s position within a field of social relations. What appears to be a personal inclination — a fondness for minimalist design, contemporary jazz, or “clean” eating — is often the product of years of exposure, education, and habituation within a specific social class.
This embodied disposition is what Bourdieu terms habitus: a set of ingrained habits, perceptions, and classifications that guide our understanding of what is “good,” “refined,” or “vulgar.” Habitus is not consciously acquired; it is sedimented over time through lived experience. It both reflects and reinforces class position.
Through large-scale surveys of French households, Bourdieu demonstrates that aesthetic preferences strongly correlate with social class, educational background, and economic capital. Upper-class individuals, for instance, are more likely to adopt a “pure gaze” — an aesthetic stance that privileges formal abstraction and symbolic distance. Working-class respondents, on the other hand, tend to value functionality, clarity, and sensory immediacy.
The Role of Cultural Capital
Bourdieu distinguishes between economic capital (money and property), social capital (networks and connections), and cultural capital — the knowledge, skills, and dispositions acquired through formal and informal education.
Cultural capital enables individuals to decode and appreciate dominant cultural forms — from classical music and modernist art to fine dining and literary fiction. It is this familiarity with legitimate culture that marks the boundary between distinction and vulgarity. Yet the rules of this game are rarely explicit. The dominant class imposes its preferences as “natural” and “universal,” thereby masking their arbitrariness and protecting their privilege.
This subtle but pervasive process is what Bourdieu calls symbolic violence: the imposition of systems of meaning that legitimize inequality without coercion. Those who lack access to the dominant aesthetic codes are not only excluded — they are made to feel inadequate or inferior for their “bad taste.”
A Critique of Kantian Aesthetics
One of the most significant contributions of Distinction is its re-reading of Kantian aesthetics. Kant argued that judgments of beauty must be disinterested and universal — free from practical concerns and private interest. Bourdieu, however, reveals how such disinterestedness is itself a classed capacity, acquired through specific cultural conditioning.
What Kantian philosophy describes as a transcendental condition of aesthetic experience is, in Bourdieu’s view, the embodied habitus of the bourgeois class. The ability to “see form” without “needing function” is not innate, but learned — and, crucially, unevenly distributed.
Legacy and Contemporary Relevance
More than four decades after its publication, Distinction remains a foundational text for understanding the cultural logic of inequality. It has shaped research in sociology, cultural studies, education, art theory, and even food politics. Today, when discussions of taste are embedded in algorithms, lifestyle branding, and social media aesthetics, Bourdieu’s insights feel more relevant than ever.
What we like continues to say something about who we are — and, more precisely, where we stand. fuck.
Leave a Reply