I'm currently taking a sociology course on culture and one thing I've learned is that there's three separate meanings behind culture: the ethnographic definition, the symbolic definition and the aesthetic or humanistic definition.
The ethnographic meaning of culture is the most commonly used definition because it refers to a group's way of life or, to put it simply, the beliefs and values that a group of people accept and practice (such as Middle Eastern culture versus American culture or even more specifically, Los Angeles culture verse New York culture).
The symbolic meaning, on the other hand—which is used by sociologists—observes cultural symbols (religion, fashion, food, etc.) that are produced by society and the meanings attached to said symbols.
Lastly, the aesthetic definition refers to a specific sense of style or taste which brings in the high culture/low culture debate. High culture is characterized by an appreciation for the fine arts, classical music (opera, for example), ballet, the humanities and overall any indication of a more sophisticated knowledge. Whereas low culture negatively refers to different forms of pop culture or folk culture (if I need to explain what defines pop culture then you've clearly lived under a rock all these years). I want to focus on how the aesthetic definition of culture is flawed according to sociology and why that's relevant.
According to sociologists, the problem with this cultural definition is that it's a narrow and exclusive meaning because in order to be "cultured" as some say, one must have an intellectual and emotional sensitivity as well as knowledge of the fine arts. In other words, only specific individuals (typically elitists) fit this so-called high culture.
The reason people within high culture come off arrogant is because some of them truly believe themselves to be superior to those outside their bubble. However, what is it that makes refined people seem superior to those within low culture? After all, personal taste in music, fashion, art, and everything else is purely subjective. Apparently, throughout history, white elitists—shocker I know—have determined what high-class aestheticism resembles. I read in my textbook that jazz music, for example, was considered sophisticated once the elites considered it to be so. Funny how anything that stems from black culture—all cultures really—is still dictated by the white aristocracy.
In this article I mention that an old classmate stated people residing in the San Fernando Valley are uncultured as opposed those who live within West Hollywood because they don't care to visit museums and listen to "good" music. Let's be clear that if the Valley was surrounded by museums and music venues like WeHo than it would qualify as a more artistically cultured place.
I find that in order to be cultured one does not need to possess sophistication and elegance, but simply live life. How can people forget that culture doesn't merely apply to elitism? Whether you listen to Beethoven or Slipknot, drink expensive wine or cheap beer, read Shakespeare or Harry Potter, then you are participating in some form of culture. We all have our personal preferences, but who are we to say that our culture is better than another, specifically when we may not have immersed ourselves in that culture? Even if you've had a taste of many other cultures don't sit there and assume yours is the only one to live by.
