|  

Monday, July 14, 2008

New study: Your earnings determine your culture

Posted by John Stoehr on Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 8:11 AM

So does your mom, according to this study by Statistics Canada, which surveyed how nearly 10,000 Canadians aged 15 and over spend their leisure time. Your mom's level of education has more impact on you and your siblings than your father's level of education.

In general, the more money you make and the more education you have, the more things you do culturally. But the type of job you have — say one, like journalism, that doesn't pay all that much, relatively speaking, but immerses you in people, organizations, and culture — also has an impact on your cultural menu. The report found that:

... someone working in management, business, finance or administration was 8.8 per cent more likely to attend a theatrical performance than someone unemployed or in a job related to primary industry or manufacturing.

Those whose parents had advanced education, such as a university degree, were much more likely than those whose parents with lower education to attend most cultural activities. Mom's education had more of an impact than did dad's schooling, according to the report.

For those in a romantic relationship, their partner's education had an even greater effect than their mother's schooling on their likelihood of participating in cultural activities. But factor in a kid or two and the time they spent going out declined, the study found.

This news is pretty much intuitive, but I find a few things interesting. One is that the survey looks at people ages 15 and older, providing some insight, however oblique, into the behavior patterns of youth culture.

Another is that the report lends credence to the growing theory that the arts need to target more precisely young professionals, those with advanced degrees and gainful employment but who have not settled down to raise a family. There are so many different ways of making money from dating — It's Just Lunch, for instance — it seems arts organizations have a lot to look into.

The Canadian survey also brings up a subject that's hard to bring up among the high earning and highly educated people that are the subject of this survey — the role that mothers play in the acculturation of their children.

Used to be that a child's cultural education started at home. Now, since the 1970s, the beginning of the current social structure of two people bringing home incomes to meet the demands that used to be met by one income, a child's cultural education is more likely to begin at school.

This is a shift that should get more discussion among those of us involved in the arts and those of us observing those involved in the arts. Problem is, the role of women remains politically charged, what with the ascendancy, since the Reagan Administration, of the pernicious "family values" orthodoxy. It would be difficult to have a mature conversation about it.

Thanks to Artsjournal.

Comments (3) RSS

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

Generic user icon

This is pretty standard stuff from Lindsey. On 7 September 2007, at an American Enterprise Institute "surge" rally, he said that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation" in Iraq. Unfortunately, the grain of salt his opinions are worth are vastly over-magnified by the "very serious" reporters and pundits in DC.

Posted by Geoff Miller on December 17, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

"The Canadian survey also brings up a subject that’s hard to bring up among the high earning and highly educated people that are the subject of this survey — the role that mothers play in the acculturation of their children. Used to be that a child’s cultural education started at home. Now, since the 1970s, the beginning of the current social structure of two people bringing home incomes to meet the demands that used to be met by one income, a child’s cultural education is more likely to begin at school. This is a shift that should get more discussion among those of us involved in the arts and those of us observing those involved in the arts. Problem is, the role of women remains politically charged, what with the ascendancy, since the Reagan Administration, of the pernicious “family values” orthodoxy. It would be difficult to have a mature conversation about it."
Earlier conservatives (particularly the Southern Agrarians and Russell Kirk) criticized industrial capitalism because it disrupted organic communities and the nuclear family. Their complaint, that instead of an integrated, work/family environment (the family farm for example) fathers would have to leave their families for extended periods of time, disrupting traditional (and as they would say, "normal") patterns of child raising. These criticisms were made in the 1930's, 40's and 50's . Today it's a double whammy - where both parents are far removed, or more removed than they once were, from the life and raising of their children. Government schools, as you noted, often have more influence than Mom and Dad. Most Americans of average means have no other choice - they have to work to survive, despite what it does to family life. Being disconnected is the new norm. The funny thing is, other than old school conservatives, the only similar criticisms I have seen of modern, industrial capitalism as it relates to family issues, are a few thoughtful Leftists and feminists, although for entirely different reasons. Good post. Jack

Posted by jackhunter on July 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

"The Canadian survey also brings up a subject that’s hard to bring up among the high earning and highly educated people that are the subject of this survey — the role that mothers play in the acculturation of their children. Used to be that a child’s cultural education started at home. Now, since the 1970s, the beginning of the current social structure of two people bringing home incomes to meet the demands that used to be met by one income, a child’s cultural education is more likely to begin at school. This is a shift that should get more discussion among those of us involved in the arts and those of us observing those involved in the arts. Problem is, the role of women remains politically charged, what with the ascendancy, since the Reagan Administration, of the pernicious “family values” orthodoxy. It would be difficult to have a mature conversation about it."
Earlier conservatives (particularly the Southern Agrarians and Russell Kirk) criticized industrial capitalism because it disrupted organic communities and the nuclear family. Their complaint, that instead of an integrated, work/family environment (the family farm for example) fathers would have to leave their families for extended periods of time, disrupting traditional (and as they would say, "normal") patterns of child raising. These criticisms were made in the 1930's, 40's and 50's . Today it's a double whammy - where both parents are far removed, or more removed than they once were, from the life and raising of their children. Government schools, as you noted, often have more influence than Mom and Dad. Most Americans of average means have no other choice - they have to work to survive, despite what it does to family life. Being disconnected is the new norm. The funny thing is, other than old school conservatives, the only similar criticisms I have seen of modern, industrial capitalism as it relates to family issues, are a few thoughtful Leftists and feminists, although for entirely different reasons. Good post. Jack

Posted by jackhunter on July 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM | Report this comment

Add a comment

John Stoehr
Arts Editor

Recent Comments

City Paper Blogs

RSS Links

Classified Listings
Most Viewed
Most Commented
Most Emailed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2009, Charleston City Paper   RSS