international review for the sociology of sport-2002-wilson

THE PARADOX OF SOCIAL CLASS AND SPORTSINVOLVEMENTThe Roles of Cultural and Economic Capital

Thomas C. WilsonFlorida Atlantic University, USA

Abstract Studies in the sociology of sport have found that the higher one’s social class, the greateris one’s overall involvement in sports, but the less likely is one’s involvement in what have come to be called ‘prole’ sports. Using data from the 1993 General Social Survey, this study tests two explanations for this paradox, one stressing class-based differences in cultural capital and the otheremphasizing class-based differences in economic capital. Findings show that those who are richest in cultural capital and those richest in economic capital are most likely to be involved in sports generally, and that these tendencies are independent of one another. However, those richest in culturalcapital are least likely to be involved in ‘prole’ sports, and economic capital has no bearing on ‘prole’sports involvement. In all, cultural capital explains the paradox of social class and sports involvementbetter than economic capital does. Inferences are drawn for the role of sports involvement in thereproduction of social inequality, and for the ‘cultural omnivore’ thesis.

Key words • Americans’ sport consumption • cultural capital • social class

Sports Involvement and Social Class

Sociology of sport findings present a paradox. On the one hand, the higher one’ssocial class, the more likely one is to be involved in sports. But on the other hand,the higher one’s class, the less likely one is to be involved in certain sports that have come as a result to be associated with the lower classes. Studies haverepeatedly shown that indicators of social class are positive predictors of sportinvolvement in general and that members of the upper classes are more likely tobe both sports participants and sports spectators (Bourdieu, 1984; Coakley, 1998;Curtis and Milton, 1976; Eitzen and Sage, 1991: 304; Erickson, 1996; Hughesand Peterson, 1983; Leonard, 1998; Nixon and Frey, 1996; Scholsberg, 1987;Yergin, 1986; Young and Willmott, 1973). However, social class is inverselyrelated to involvement in certain ‘prole’ sports, so-called because they are avoided by the upper classes and have therefore become associated with the proletariat or working class (Curry and Jiobu, 1984; Eitzen and Sage, 1991;Nixon and Frey, 1996). For example, Bourdieu (1978) found that the Frenchupper classes were more likely to play golf and tennis and to go skiing than the

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF SPORT 37/1(2002) 5–16 5

© Copyright ISSA and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi)[1012–6902 (200203) 37:1;5–16; 021851]

03_IRS 37/1 articles 29/1/02 10:15 am Page 5

at Istanbul Universitesi on June 26, 2015irs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http:\\www.sagepublications.com

http://irs.sagepub.com/

working class was, but less likely to be interested in boxing, rugby, bodybuild-ing, and football. American studies have produced similar results. Yergin (1986)found that, while the upper classes are more likely to attend most sporting events,they are less likely than the lower classes to attend wrestling and boxing matches.Scholsberg (1987) came to the same conclusion for wrestling and boxing, andalso found that the upper classes are less likely to go bowling, lift weights, or beamong rodeo or roller derby spectators. In the same vein, Eitzen and Sage (1991)identify bowling, wrestling, and contact sports in general as more attractive to theworking class than to the upper classes.

An explanation for this paradox can be drawn from Pierre Bourdieu’s con-cept of cultural capital. According to Bourdieu (1978, 1984; see also Collins,1979; Holt, 1997, 1998), all cultural consumption including sports consumptionrequires the appropriate preferences and tastes as well as skills and knowledge,which he terms cultural capital. Cultural capital is gained from one’s upbringingand education. Critically, cultural capital varies by social class, and in fact servesas a marker and a legitimater of social differences. Most sports are consistent withthe preferences of the upper classes, either because they exemplify virtues that theupper classes hold dear or because like art, music, and pure academics, they arepursued as ends in themselves rather than for instrumental purposes (Bourdieu,1978; Lamont, 1992: 121). However, some sports are inconsistent with or evenantithetical to upper class preferences and are therefore rejected by the upperclasses as a negative assertion of their tastes (Bourdieu, 1978: 20, 1984: 56; seealso Holt, 1998; Lamont, 1992; Peterson, 1997). Grounds for this rejection arevaried, and include a sport’s emphasis on artifacts or skills that are devalued inthe upper class milieu, or a sport’s treatment of the body as an instrument towardsome end rather than as an object of cultivation for its own sake (Bourdieu,1984). In contemporary America, the upper classes tend to avoid sports that stressphysical contact, toughness, asceticism, and hard manual labor, the so-called‘prole’ sports (Eitzen and Sage, 1991; Nixon and Frey, 1996).

There is another explanation that stresses economic capital rather than cultural capital. Sports involvement either as a participant or a spectator requiresboth money and leisure time, and the upper classes have more of both (Bourdieu,1978; Coakley, 1998; Eitzen, 1996; Nixon and Frey, 1996; for evidence of erosion in class-based differences in leisure, see Rojek, 2000; Schor, 1991).‘Prole’ sports are relatively inexpensive, however, and for this reason they areparticularly attractive to lower class persons (Mandell, 1984: 278; Nixon andFrey, 1996: 206). In short, class-based differences in economic capital enableupper class involvement in expensive sports, leaving ‘prole’ sports largely relegated to the lower classes.

Evaluating these two explanations would require assessing the separateeffects of cultural capital and economic capital on involvement in sports (Holt,1997). But notwithstanding numerous studies linking class indicators with sportsconsumption, an assessment of cultural and economic capital’s respective inde-pendent effects has been reported in only a single study that has recently appearedin this journal. Using data from the 1992 General Social Survey of Canada, Whiteand Wilson (1999) analyzed spectatorship at amateur and professional sportingevents. Following Bourdieu (1978, 1984), they measured cultural capital with

6 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF SPORT 37(1)




respondent’s education and economic capital with respondent’s householdincome. Results of their analysis showed that both income and education weredirectly and independently related to attendance at sporting events, from whichWhite and Wilson concluded that both economic and cultural capital promoteCanadians’ sports involvement.

In the following study, I extend this line of research by testing two hypothe-ses drawn from the implications of cultural and economic capital for sportsinvolvement reviewed above. The first hypothesis is that both cultural and eco-nomic capital independently promote sports involvement in general. White andWilson’s (1999) study confirms this for sports attendance among their Canadiansample. My analysis will focus on both attendance and sports participation, usingAmerican data. The second hypothesis is that both cultural and economic capitalwill retard involvement in ‘prole’ sports. To my knowledge no prior study hasaddressed this issue.

Data and Methods

The following analysis is based on data for a representative sample of Americanscontained in the 1993 NORC General Social Survey (Davis and Smith, 1998). Inthe survey, respondents indicated if they had engaged in each of a list of leisure-time activities during the previous year. Two of the activities pertained to sportsinvolvement generally: attendance at any sports event and participation in anysport. One pertained to a particular genre of ‘prole’ sport: attendance at an auto,stock car, or motorcycle race. As Aveni (1976) has noted, attendance at theseevents may also imply participation, because at the amateur level many racingspectators are also contestants. Prior studies report that involvement in sports ofthis sort are inversely related to social class indicators (e.g. Leonard, 1998;Martin and Berry, 1987; Scholsberg, 1987). Eitzen and Sage (1991) suggest thattheir popularity among the lower classes may be cultural: such sports are notschool-related, they emphasize speed and violence, and the relevant artifacts andskills (cars and driving) are familiar to lower class culture. Curry and Jiobu(1984) provide some historical context, speculating that auto-racing’s appeal tothe lower classes is a logical extension of Appalachian whiskey running.

Involvement in these activities is shown in Table 1. Men are more involvedthan women are. Roughly three in five men report attending a sports event, andthe same proportion has actively taken part in sport. Among women, only abouthalf have attended and half have participated. Men are also more likely to havegone to an auto or cycle race, a bit less than a quarter of them having done so,compared to just over one in ten women.

In the following analysis, I assess the impact of both economic and culturalcapital on the sports involvement indicators in Table 1. Following White andWilson (1999), I operationalize economic capital with respondent’s householdincome, and cultural capital with respondent’s educational attainment. Thisapproach to measuring cultural capital is consistent with Bourdieu’s (1984: 23)argument that education transmits class-based culture intergenerationally in theform of dispositions directed both toward scholastic knowledge and also beyond

WILSON: SOCIAL CLASS AND SPORTS INVOLVEMENT 7




the curriculum.1 Similary, Dimaggio and Useem (1978) have noted that, onceclass-based preferences evolve, they are maintained intergenerationally in largemeasure by educational reinforcement.

The analytic strategy in the analysis is Multiple Classification Analysis(MCA), again following White and Wilson (1999).2 In the MCAs, I control fourdemographic variables found in prior studies to be related to sports involvement:race, age, region, and community size (Hughes and Peterson, 1983; Lamont,1992: 121; Scholsberg, 1987; Yergin, 1986; White and Wilson, 1999).3 Separateanalyses will be presented for men and women because my preliminary analysesof the GSS data showed significant differences by gender in the relationship ofeducation and income to sports involvement.

Results

Sports Attendance and Participation

Table 2 pertains to sports attendance and addresses the hypothesis that culturalcapital and economic capital each promote sports involvement. Model 1 presentsthe bivariate relationships of income and education with sports attendance, andshows for both men and women alike that more affluent people and better educated people are more likely to attend sports events. In the men’s and in thewomen’s analysis, the value of the eta coefficients are all of roughly the same magnitude, indicating that the income–attendance relationships and theeducation–attendance relationships are all of approximately equal strength, andthat there is no difference in their magnitudes between men and women.

Model 2 presents the independent effects from a multivariate analysis foreconomic and cultural capital, where the effect of each is adjusted for the other.Again, among both men and women, education and income remain significantlyand directly related to sports attendance. This means that more affluent people aremore likely to attend sports events regardless of their education. A case in point:women in the highest income category are more than twice as likely to haveattended than women in the lowest income category (68.9% vs 33.9%). And, formen and women alike, better educated people are more likely to attend sportingevents, again regardless of their incomes. To illustrate, men who did not gradu-


Table 1 Frequency of Sports Involvement within Previous Year,among Men and Women (%)

Men (N = 646) Women (N = 812)

Attend an amateur or professional sports event 61.6 49.3Participate in any sports activity such as softball, basketball, swimming, golf, bowling, skiing or tennis 63.9 52.3Go to an auto, stock car, or motorcycle race 22.9 10.5

1993 GSS, N=1458. All differences between men and women are significant, p < .000.




ate high school are only about half as likely to attend compared to men with post-graduate degrees (38.1% vs 77.7%). Among both men and women, model 2 betacoefficients are smaller than comparable eta coefficients in model 1, indicatingthat the relationships of income and education with attendance are each some-what attenuated when the other is controlled. Model 2 betas also show that amongmen, the impact of education on attendance is somewhat greater than that of education (beta = .279 vs .209), whereas if anything the opposite is the caseamong women (beta = .184 vs .239).

Model 3 repeats the analysis, this time with additional controls for race, age,region, and community size. Model 3 beta coefficients are consistently smallerthan their counterparts in model 2, indicating that the relationships of income andeducation with sports attendance are further attenuated with the additional demo-graphic controls. However, they consistently remain statistically significant androbust. For example, for men and women in the highest income category or thehighest education category, at least two-thirds had attended a sporting event,compared to fewer than half of those in the lowest income or education cate-gories. Among men, the independent effects of income and education are of


Table 2 Frequency of Sports Attendance by Income and Education (%)

Men (N = 646) Women (N = 812)

(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

Income< $9999 29.6 39.5 40.9 26.2 33.9 36.6 $10–19,999 47.1 53.3 55.2 39.3 41.3 42.5$20–29,999 57.9 60.0 59.7 42.6 42.7 40.9$30–39,999 67.9 66.8 65.9 59.7 57.5 57.3$40–49,999 64.9 63.7 61.4 57.9 55.5 55.0$50–59,999 78.8 73.4 71.4 59.6 54.5 53.6$60–74,999 84.0 75.7 76.6 72.4 67.8 66.4$75,000 + 75.0 67.1 67.8 76.9 69.8 67.7

eta/beta .323*** .209*** .194*** .326*** .239*** .215***

Education: < high school graduate 30.6 38.1 43.4 25.8 35.0 39.2high school graduate 58.7 58.7 59.1 42.7 45.1 45.0some college 71.7 69.7 66.4 59.3 56.1 54.5college graduate 74.2 71.5 70.2 61.1 54.7 52.9postgraduate degree 82.4 77.7 76.0 74.0 65.6 64.7

eta/beta .362*** .279*** .221*** .296*** .184*** .149***

1993 GSS, N=1458. Model 1: bivariate income–attendance and education–attendance relationships.Model 2: income–attendance relationship net of education; education–attendance relationship netof income. Model 3: income–attendance relationship net of education, race, age, region and community size; education–attendance relationship net of income, race, age, region and community size. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.




roughly equal magnitude (betas = .194 and .221), while among women the effectof income is somewhat stronger than that of education (betas = .215 vs .149).

In all, Table 2 confirms the first hypothesis, showing the cultural capital indi-cated by education, and economic capital indicated by income, each indepen-dently promotes sports attendance. These results for the American GSS sampleare similar to White and Wilson’s (1999) results for their Canadian sample. InTable 3, additional results confirming the hypothesis are presented for sports participation. Model 1 bivariate relationships show that, among both among menand women alike, more affluent people and better educated people are more likely to be sports participants. Among men, the education relationship is some-what stronger than the income relationship (eta = .416 vs .325), whereas the relationships are of equal strength among women (eta = .348 vs .344).

Table 3’s model 2 shows that income and education each influence sportsparticipation independent of one another. Among both men and women, bettereducated people are more likely to participate regardless of income, and moreaffluent people are more likely to participate regardless of education. Comparingmodel 2 beta coefficients with comparable eta coefficients in model 1, the respec-


Table 3 Frequency of Sports Participation by Income andEducation (%)

Men (N = 646) Women (N = 812)

(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

Income: < $9999 33.8 45.0 7.5 24.2 34.4 37.5$10–19,999 47.1 54.8 58.2 42.3 45.1 46.5$20–29,999 59.6 62.3 61.1 52.5 52.2 50.4$30–39,999 70.8 69.9 67.4 62.2 59.0 58.1$40–49,999 71.9 70.9 66.8 65.8 62.2 61.6$50–59,999 78.8 72.0 69.7 61.7 55.5 54.5$60–74,999 76.0 66.2 68.4 72.4 66.6 64.8$75,000 + 83.8 73.7 75.6 78.2 69.7 67.3

eta/beta .325*** .188*** .162*** .344*** .227*** .193***


eta/beta .416*** .345*** .246*** .348*** .236*** .179***

1993 GSS, N=1458. Model 1: bivariate income–attendance and education–attendance relationships.Model 2: income–attendance relationship net of education; education–attendance relationship netof income. Model 3: income–attendance relationship net of education, race, age, region and community size; education–attendance relationship net of income, race, age, region and community size. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ** p < .001.




tive influence of income and of education is each attenuated somewhat when theother is controlled, but without exception they remain significant and strong. Forexample, women in the lowest income category are again less than half as likelyto be sports participants compared to highest income women (34.4% vs 69.7%),and women not graduating high school are less than half as likely to participatethan those with postgraduate degrees (32.3% vs 66.5%). For men, income resultsare only a little less striking, showing a 73.7 percent participation rate among themost affluent compared to 45.0 percent for those of lowest income. Men’s educa-tion results are somewhat stronger than those observed for women, however, show-ing that while 83.4 percent of graduate-degree holders participate in sports, onlyslightly more than a third, 37.6 percent, of men not graduating high school do.

Model 3 in Table 3 adds the demographic controls, and the influences ofincome and education are further attenuated (as indicated by lower betas coeffi-cients in model 3 compared to their counterparts in model 2). But for men andwomen alike the influences remain significant and dramatic. Among men, forexample, 75.6 percent of the most affluent and 80.7 percent of the best educatedparticipate in sports, compared to fewer than half of the least affluent or the leasteducated. Among women, roughly two-thirds of both the most affluent and of thebest educated participated in sports, compared to little more of a third of thosewith lowest incomes or least education. The influence of income and of educa-tion on sports participation are roughly equal for women (betas =.193 and .179),whereas for men the influence of education is somewhat stronger than for income(betas = .246 vs .162).

Involvement in ‘Prole’ Sports

Table 4 addresses the hypothesis that cultural and economic capital each retardinvolvement in ‘prole’ sports, and focuses on attendance at auto and cycle races.Model 1 shows that economic capital as reflected by household income has littleto do with auto and cycle racing attendance. Among both genders there is sometendency for people with low and modest incomes (under $10,000 for men, andunder $30,000 for women) and those with high incomes (over $75,000 for bothmen and women) to attend racing events less often than those with income fallingbetween these extremes. But the income–attendance relationship is never signifi-cant in model 1, nor in the multivariate analyses in models 2 and 3.4

Racing attendance is strongly related to cultural capital, however, at leastamong men. Model 1 shows that less educated men are far more likely to go toauto and cycle races compared to better educated men. The contrast is sharpestbetween high school graduates, fully a third of whom went to racing events, and men with graduate degrees, only 6.7 percent of whom did so. There is ananomaly: men not graduating high school attend racing less often than men withhigh school but not college diplomas and those with some college, though moreoften than those with college and graduate degrees. Model 2 repeats the analysiscontrolling for income and model 3 adds demographic controls, and resultsremain virtually unchanged.

Cultural capital has a somewhat weaker influence on women’s racing atten-dance. Model 1 shows that the education–attendance relationship is not signifi-





cant, and that while attendance is lowest among the best educated (4.1% for hold-ers of graduate degrees) it is highest not among the least educated (9% amongthose without high school diplomas) but among women with some college edu-cation (14.8%). Model 2 controls for income, and these results change little.However, with demographic controls added in model 3, a significant influence ofeducation does emerge. Women holding postgraduate degrees remain least like-ly to attend racing (2.0%) and this time least educated women, those without highschool diplomas, are the most likely to do so (14.5%). However, attendance isnearly as high among women having some college education (12.6%) and differslittle between high school graduates and college graduates (9.4% vs 8.8 %).

Discussion

This study has addressed a paradox in the sociology of sport: the upper classesare more involved in sports overall, but they are less involved in certain ‘prole’sports. Theoretically this paradox can be explained by class-based differences in


Table 4 Frequency of Attendance at Auto or Motorcycle Race byIncome and Education (%)

Men (N = 646) Women (N = 812)

(1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

Income: < $9999 16.9 16.1 16.4 5.4 4.9 5.7 $10–19,999 26.5 24.4 24.8 9.8 9.4 10.1$20–29,999 25.4 23.3 22.1 9.8 10.0 9.2$30–39,999 26.4 24.8 23.9 15.1 15.1 14.4$40–49,999 28.1 28.0 27.2 15.8 15.3 15.2$50–59,999 21.2 20.9 20.8 12.8 13.7 13.4$60–74,999 22.0 25.5 25.9 12.1 12.6 11.9$75,000 + 13.8 20.2 23.1 7.7 8.9 8.9

eta/beta .112 .078 .068 .113 .116 .102


eta/beta .210*** .204*** .208*** .100 .094 .111*

1993 GSS, N = 1458. Model 1: bivariate income–attendance and education–attendance relationships. Model 2: income–attendance relationship net of education; education–attendancerelationship net of income. Model 3: income–attendance relationship net of education, race, age,region and community size; education–attendance relationship net of income, race, age, region andcommunity size. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.




cultural capital and by class-based differences in economic capital. To evaluatethese explanations, I have tested two hypotheses drawn from them: first, culturalcapital and economic capital each promote sports involvement generally; and second, both cultural and economic capital retard involvement in ‘prole’ sports.

Operationalizing cultural capital with educational attainment and economiccapital with household income, the analysis presented here has found unambigu-ous support for the first hypothesis. Among both men and women alike, eco-nomic capital and cultural capital promote attendance at sporting events and participation in sports, each does so independent of the other, and each does soindependent of selected demographic variables as well.

Findings for the second hypothesis were mixed. There is no evidence thateconomic capital exerts any influence on ‘prole’ sport involvement, at least asreflected by attending auto and cycle racing. However, there is some evidence forwomen and far stronger evidence for men that those with greater cultural capitalare less involved in racing sports compared to those whose cultural capital is limited.

Considered together, these results provide little support for class-based differences in economic capital as an explanation for the paradox of social classand sports involvement. Those rich in economic capital are more involved insports generally, presumably because they can better afford their cost, both interms of money and leisure time. But those with limited economic capital showno particular affinity for ‘prole’ sports, regardless of those sports’ relative afford-ability.

Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital provides a far better explanation.Those rich in cultural capital are more prone to sports involvement generally butless likely to be involved in ‘prole’ sport, and this implies that sports consump-tion is to a large degree motivated by preferences, tastes, skills, and knowledgethat vary by social class. Apparently, most sports well fit the tastes and prefer-ences of the upper classes, but some sports like auto and cycle racing do not.Sports of this latter sort are therefore avoided by the upper classes. As a result ofupper class avoidance, and perhaps also because these sports better correspond tolower class tastes (a possibility that has not been feasible to test in this study),auto and cycle racing along with other so-called ‘prole’ sports attract participantsand spectators drawn largely from the lower classes. Critically, all of this occursindependent of class-based differences in economic capital, so the influence ofcultural capital on sports consumption need have nothing to do with the ability topay.

I draw two inferences relevant to broader stratification issues from thisstudy’s findings. The first pertains to the reproduction of social inequality.Bourdieu has argued that class differences in taste are means of reproducing status-based social networks that in turn provide access to material and symbolicgoods (Bourdieu, 1984; see also Collins, 1979; Douglas and Isherwood, 1979).Others have argued similarly, noting that taste functions as a means of ritual identification in the construction of social relations. Those with high-culturaltastes prefer interacting with each other, but neither they nor those they excludenecessarily intend or even recognize the social reproductive implications(DiMaggio, 1987; DiMaggio and Ostrower, 1990; Holt, 1997; Lamont, 1992).





Empirical evidence for these claims is limited but generally supportive and showsthat similarity in taste does in fact influence one’s choice of friends, associates,and spouse (DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Lamont et al., 1996). It has been suggested that tastes in sports may also function in this way (Booth and Loy,1999; Eitzen and Sage, 1991). The findings presented in this study showing thatsports tastes are linked not only to economic capital but particularly to class-based differences in cultural capital strongly imply that, along with other classdifferences in taste, sports tastes do in fact function to accommodate and re-inforce the existing structure of social inequality.

The second inference pertains to the emergence of the cultural ‘omnivore’. Anumber of studies suggest that high-brow snobbery, centered around upper classcultural pursuits and involving the repudiation of ‘common’ tastes, has beenreplaced as a status marker by more cosmopolitan and eclectic tastes characteris-tic of what has been called the cultural ‘omnivore’ (DiMaggio, 1987; Erickson,1996; Lamont, 1992; Levine, 1988; Peterson, 1997). Much of this research hasfocused on tastes in music. For example, Peterson and Simkus (1992) report thatamong the elite only a minority consider classical music to be their favorite musical genre, and more favor country music than favor opera. In the same veinPeterson and Kern (1996) found that fans of classical music and opera are morelikely than others to also enjoy ‘middle-brow’ and ‘low-brow’ music genres. Atleast one study suggests that omnivorism has not entirely replaced snobbery,however. Bethany Bryson (1996) reports in her study based on the same 1993GSS data set I have used in this study that the greater one’s education (andimplicitly, one’s cultural capital) the broader one’s musical tastes, but the broaderone’s tastes, the more likely one is to dislike those musical genres that are mostfavored by the least educated. She concludes that, while high-status cultural tolerance seems to be the current rule, it is not indiscriminate and instead con-tinues to reject markedly low-status genres. My findings for sports tastes parallelBryson’s findings for music. That those richest in cultural capital are generallymore involved in sports is consistent with the ‘cultural omnivore’ thesis (thoughstrictly speaking my findings show only that the elite’s participation is more frequent, not necessarily more varied). However, my findings also show thatthose richest in cultural capital apparently dislike ‘prole’ sports like auto andcycle racing, suggesting that there are strict limits to any cultural omnivorism insports tastes among the elite. It thus appears that, to some extent at least, culturalcapital continues to involve the classification of consumption items into the moreand the less valued, and to promote the elite’s disdain for the latter.

Notes

1. As Lamont and Lareau (1988) have noted, Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital has been operationalized in various ways including educational attainment but also high culture know-ledge and participation (see e.g. DiMaggio, 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr, 1985; Dimaggio andUseem, 1978). Holt (1997) contends that Bourdieu’s concept has a twofold meaning: a field-specific form, exemplified by specific tastes in art, food, music, and the like; and an ‘abstractedvirtual form’ consisting of generic transposable dispositions, tastes, knowledge and the like,accumulated primarily through social class background. It is this latter sense of cultural capital,for which educational attainment is an appropriate operationalization, that is used in this paper.





2. In preliminary analyses, I also tried OLS regression and logistic regression, and results did notdiffer substantively from those reported here. In the end, I chose MCA because in the GSS datathe relationship between income and sports involvement (particularly in the racing genre asshown in Table 4) departs somewhat from linearity, making both OLS regression and logisticregression inappropriate. Additionally OLS regression is, strictly speaking, inappropriate for thisstudy’s dichotomous dependent variables.

3. Race is a dichotomy coded for nonwhite. Age is at respondent’s last birthday. Region is a seriesof four dummies, respectively coded for east, midwest, south, and west, based on US Censusdivisions. Community size is based on the GSS variable XNORCSIZ recoded 1 = open country;2 = unincorporated area < 2500; 3 = town or village of 2500–9999; 4 = small city of10,000–49,999, 5= SMSA where central city is 50,000–250,000; 6= SMSA where central city isover 250,000.

4. This is not an artifact of the income variable’s coding. I repeated the Table 4 analyses tryingalternative income codings with as many as 21 categories and as few as three. Income was neversignificantly related to men’s attendance at auto and cycle races. In a single case for women,with income coded 1 = < $30,000; 2 = $30,000–75,000; 3 = $75,000+, there was a significantpositive bivariate relationship but none when demographic controls were introduced.

References

Aveni, A.F. (1976) ‘Alternative Stratification Systems: The Case of Interpersonal Respect amongLeisure Participants’, Sociological Quarterly 17: 53–64.

Booth, D. and Loy, J. (1999) ‘Sport, Status, and Style’, Sport History Review 30: 1–26.Bourdieu, P. (1978) ‘Sport and Social Class’, Social Science Information 17: 819–40.Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Tast, trans. Richard Nice.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bryson, B. (1996) ‘“Anything but Heavy Metal”: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes’,

American Sociological Review 61: 884–99.Coakley, J.J. (1998) Sport in Society (6th edn). Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.Collins, R. (1979) The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification.

New York: Academic Press.Curry, T.J. and Jiobu, R.M. (1984) Sports: A Social Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Curtis, J.E. and Milton, B.G. (1976) ‘Social Status and “The Active Society”: National Data on

Correlates of Leisure-Time Physical and Sport Activities’, in R.S. Gruneau and J.G. Albinson(eds) Canadian Sport: Sociological Perspectives, pp. 303–29. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.

Davis, J.A. and Smith, T.W. (1998) General Social Surveys, 1972–1998 [machine-readable data file].Principal investigator, James A Davis; director and co-principal investigator, Tom W. Smith; co-principal investigator, Peter V. Marsden. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.

DiMaggio, P. (1982) ‘Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participationon the Grades of U.S. High School Students’, American Sociological Review 47: 189–201.

DiMaggio, P. (1987) ‘Classification in Art’, American Sociological Review 52: 440–55.DiMaggio, P. and Mohr, J. (1985) ‘Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment and Marital Selection’,

American Journal of Sociology 90: 1231–61.DiMaggio, P. and Ostrower, F. (1990) ‘Participation in the Arts by Black and White Americans’,

Social Forces 68: 753–78.DiMaggio, P. and Useem, M. (1978) ‘Social Class and Arts Consumption: The Origins and Con-

sequences of Class Differences in Exposure to the Arts in America’, Theory and Society 5:141–61.

Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979) The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books.Eitzen, S.D. (1996) ‘Classism in Sport: The Powerless Bear the Burden’, Journal of Sport and Social

Issues 20: 95–105.Eitzen, S.D. and Sage, G.H. (1991) Sociology of North American Sport (5th edn). Madison, WI:

Brown & Benchmark.Erickson, B.H. (1996) ‘Culture, Class and Connections’, American Journal of Sociology 102: 217–51.





Holt, D.B. (1997) ‘Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s Theory of Taste from its Critics’,Poetics 25: 93–120.

Holt, D.B. (1998) ‘Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption?’, Journal of ConsumerResearch 25: 1–25.

Hughes, M. and Peterson, R.A. (1983) ‘Isolating Cultural Choice Patterns in the US Population’,American Behavioral Scientist 26: 459–78.

Lamont, M. (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, M. and Lareau, A. (1988) ‘Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in RecentTheoretical Development’, Sociological Theory 6: 153–68.

Lamont, M., Schmalzbauer, J., Waller, M. and Weber, D. (1996) ‘Cultural and Moral Boundaries inthe United States: Structural Position, Geographic Location, and Lifestyle Explanations’,Poetics 24: 31–56.

Leonard, W.M., II (1998) A Sociological Perspective of Sports (5th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Levine, L.W. (1988) Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of a Cultural Hierarchy in America.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mandell, R.D. (1984) Sport: A Cultural History. New York: Columbia University Press.Martin, T.W. and Berry, K.J. (1987) ‘Competitive Sport in Post-Industrial Society: The Case of the

Motocross Racer’, in Andrew Yiannakis, T.D. McIntire, M.J. Melnick and D.P. Hart (eds) SportSociology: Contemporary Themes (3rd edn), pp. 269–75. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Nixon, H.L., II, and Frey, J.H. (1996) A Sociology of Sport. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Peterson, R.A. (1997) ‘The Rise and Fall of Highbrow Snobbery as a Status Marker’, Poetics 25:

75–92.Peterson, R.A. and Kern, R.M. (1996) ‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore’,

American Sociological Review 61: 900–7.Peterson, R.A and Simkus, A. (1992) ‘How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational Status Groups’, in M.

Lamont and M. Fournier (eds) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making ofInequality, pp. 152–86. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rojek, Chris (2000) ‘Leisure and the Rich Today: Veblen’s Thesis after a Century’, Leisure Studies19: 1–15.

Scholsberg, J. (1987) ‘Who Watches Television Sports?’, American Demographics 9: 45–9, 59.Schor, J.B. (1991) The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic

Books.White, P. and Wilson, B. (1999) ‘Distinctions in the Stands: An Investigation of Bourdieu’s

“Habitus”, Socioeconomic Status and Sport Spectatorship in Canada’, International Review forthe Sociology of Sport 34: 245–64.

Yergin, M.L. (1986) ‘Who Goes to the Game?’, American Demographics 8: 42–3.Young, M. and Willmott, P. (1973) The Symmetrical Family: A Study of Work and Leisure in the

London Region. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Thomas C. Wilson is Professor of Sociology, Florida Atlantic University inBoca Raton, Florida. His current research focuses on class-based differences inculture consumption as well as class- and race-based determinants of premaritalfertility patterns. His most recent work has been published in Social Forces andSociological Perspectives.

Address: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA. Email: [email protected]





international review for the sociology of sport-2002-wilson

Documents