Portfolio of Essays

portfolio of short essays by lotte vanhulst

culture & society

contents culture week 1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 culture week 2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 power week 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 power week 4 .....................................................................................................................................................................7 identity week 5 .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 identity week 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 change week 7 ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 change week 8 ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

culture week 1

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

Culture: a definition Culture is a word that can be conjugated for multiple contexts. Someone can be cultured, be part of it, own it, respect it, interact with it, appropriate or abuse it, something can become culture, or it can become extinct. The definition of the word itself is at least as complex as its application. Culture has to do with people and the way they interact with each other by the means of media, beliefs, religion, values, discussion, language, heritage and tradition, (social) class, race, gender, etc. The differences between these are what makes something a form of culture. Whether this is confined to a small group of friends, family or a nation. It refers to everything that cannot be considered universal.

The dangers of culture resulting in exclusivity Where culture becomes problematic is when group formation that initially creates inclusiveness within the selection results in social exclusivity.

‘[Culture] is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.’ (Hofstede, 1994) In this quote Hofstede refers to the mind as a computer operating system that is being programmed by culture. The way in which a mind is programmed impacts the way you interact with culture.

Human brains are wired from childhood to relate things or people in similarity and dissimilarity to what one knows in order to get an understanding of one’s surroundings (Liberman et al., 2017). A danger to this constant categorical thinking is that it engages people in making assessments based on salient differences resulting in amplified perceptions and, ultimately, stereotyping. Thus, the focus on differences plays a significant part in the process of shaping cultural exclusivity.

This however requires more nuance. The categorisation into groups, you could say, embodies the lack of recognition of individual differences. As Hofstede (1994) points out, culture is based on the programming of minds. This differs from brain to brain. Triandis et al. (1985) calls for the use of level-appropriate terms to discern analyses between such orders of culture. Using the words “allocentric” and “idiocentric” in reference to a member of a culture that either has a collectivist stance or advocates an individualist position within their culture (Spencer-Oatey, 2012).

As a designer it is important to not rely on biased or stereotypical perceptions of cultures as a whole but to include the diversity of the individuals within a culture.

Furthermore, as differences are socially and psychologically distributed, boundaries between cultures can be blurred (Van Eekelen, 2022). It is undeniable that separate cultures can have their own distinct ways and means of interacting between one another, but it is important to consider that cultures do cross-over and can communicate, interact and - perhaps even –

influence each other. Culture is an ambiguous human construct that is subject to change and has a lot of layers (Van Eekelen, 2022). This in turn makes it almost impossible to give an inclusive definition of culture.

culture week 2

29/04

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

The role of taste as cultural distinction in class journeys One of the means of interaction in society that attributes to a definition of culture is that of those based on class. In social classes there is a desperate aspiration to be part of the higher volume of cultural capital in order. As is shown in the documentary titled All In The Best Possible Taste by Grayson Perry (2012), this so-called class journey is based on cultural distinction by non-financial assets. Or at least, they may not seem financial. Pierre Bourdieu has a similar theory on taste.

Bourdieu's approach holds that cultural capital consists of the collection of elements symbolising or proving to belong to a certain social class, such as knowledge, skill, taste, things, manners, etc. (White Fuse Media Ltd, 2016).

This follows a similar non-essentialist perspective that the documentary elaborates upon.

Interestingly, income is said not to be included in Grayson Perry’s definition on means for cultural distinction.

People are individualising but are not acting autonomously. They are merely following trends or reacting on undesired statutes of their own position in their current milieu. As Perry states in the documentary (2012), certain versions of middle class are founded on a reaction against the working-class taste. Here culture seems to take on an evaluative concept. This contradicts Spencer-Oatey (2012) who prefers to define culture as a descriptive concept. Yet the fact that there even is a link to be made between class and culture you could say indicates that there is an intrinsic evaluative aspect to culture, whether you like it or not.

Do you belong? Is it the right thing to belong? Or should you rather not, and distance yourself from commonality of culture? This is the tug of war that every sub-culture of middle class seems to tire themselves with.

The live-laugh-love middle class is desperate for tight rules. Whether it is mowing the lawn and cutting hedges into geometrical boxes or the casual show-off culture with brands flaunting on their knitted polos or shiny cars. Following a clarity of meaning that a known brand can convey a socially construct of a culture is formed that aims to not only distinguish but also elevate within the ladder of middle class. Here, symptoms of hyper capitalism meet class-hysteria.

Another sub-culture within middle class is those who don’t necessarily confine to material capital but rather cultural capital and capital of knowledge. Then again this is expressed through tangible symbolisms, like books and paintings.

All middle-class sub-cultures in the end, are aspirational purchasers. Regarding class as having nothing to do with income I therefore find too clear-cut. You need to be of a certain income bracket for you to be able to afford the (highly privileged) middle class struggle and then be validated. For the live-laugh-love middle class, where one grew up in, I think discerns

what one seeks to socially distinguish themselves from. For the academic intellectual middle class, if I may categorise this as such, the motivation is different. Here it is about, for example, proving organic credentials by shopping at the farmer’s market and collecting novel objects from cheap ‘unusual’ gems. The individualisation is much more evident in this sub-culture.

But the constant disassociating themselves from the common is toying with romanticization of other cultures. This brings us back to a problem that I have with the term culture. When are you distancing yourself from your own culture? How do you become member of a new one?

When is it respect and when is it cultural appropriation gone too far? In this case for example, I am referring to the romanticisation of poverty. This must not become the outcome of the tug of war in showing wealth but wanting to do it casually.

power week 3

04/05

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

Power is embedded in social fabric of societies. This is a form of structure. The blueprint.

However, the structures and boundaries in this are not constant. They can be stretched and changed and engaged with within the agency. Look at activism. Here, agency ensures individuals to reflect on what they do. Having this privilege is in itself a form of power.

Does having free will and therefore agency, give you power? Or is it only possible to attain power in relation to someone or something else? Is it a form of privilege to take a stand and express your opinion? I think so and that is why I think it is so important to speak up, even if it might be further away from what you associate yourself with or have experience with. People have power. But not all people. So, if you have it, use it for those who don’t.

Power in design The panopticon is a conceptual idea on power that is reflected in the design of a prison.

Here the imprisoned are under power by the intrinsic feeling of being watched, which is evoked by a design where the prisoners are unable to see when or when not they are being surveilled.

Foucault critiques Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the panopticon. According to Foucault (2020), power is a relation between actors that can determine each other’s behaviour. In the panopticon, knowledge is power. Foucault states that one does not possess power, but it is rather about the factors within a context that gives someone or something power. Power is not money for example. Income inequality is not always linked to power positions because there are more differences to consider, such as culture, gender or skin colour.

One of Foucault’s criticisms is on the penetration of regulation that is based on a mental mechanism of discipline, contemporarily known as the quantified self. The panopticon means visual power. I agree with Foucault. Such design is cruel and inherently based on the mistrust of others. The primary goal of a prison to me is not to punish but to isolate dangers on society and get them ready to eventually re-integrate them into the world as positive participators in society.

The panopticon is a design that is based on internalised coercive power. Instead of viewing it as the guard of the imprisoned that is empowered in its position of being able to contain punishment, the design of the panopticon is really based on the empowerment of the prisoner to self-discipline.

So not only “knowledge is power” but perhaps, in this situation, the knowledge of not knowing is a form of power as well. The agency in knowledge does not lie with the individual in this situation. Can someone have power without having agency?

Designers are equipped with the power of giving people (back) agency. People have power, governments and corporates inflict power and take away agency. Design, when done well, can give back agency and empower people to interact freely in society. Or, as Toni Morrison famously puts it: “Your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else.”

power week 4

13/05

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

The documentary titled ‘Panopticon’ by Dutch film director Peter Vlemmix focuses primarily on privacy violation and the power that big corporations and the government hold over the people in its society. Morozov (2014) discusses the highly instructive influence of the Internet of Things (IoT). Here it is more about the social pressure exerted by designs, which is often overlooked by solutionist desires. Where Morozov talks about social pressure, the documentary touches upon the problem of the power of companies that is stifled by the harvesting of data as a result of privacy violations.

An interesting take from the text is the gamification of behavioural changes for the purpose of efficiency. If you are continually stimulated externally, would one not lose intrinsic motivation?

Will we become dependent on external stimulants? Or is this already the case? This “neo”Taylorism reflects the endless desire for increasing efficiency but is at the expense of our own agency and creativity (Morotzov, 2014). Our skills are being designed away until they are redundant. The entire system is concentrated on fast, smooth economic flow whilst reducing anything else to repetitive work or no work at all. This results in a shift of the remaining power to the other end of the structure; the employer. Or, as depicted in the documentary, to the big corporates and governments.

Expressing power for the infliction of oppression Can design be devious? Another explicit expression of power is shown in the image on the right. This is a net above Hebron market to ‘protect’ Palestinians from being littered on by Israeli settlers.

A brutal expression of at the expense of another people by the Israeli settlers. The Other here being the Palestinian people. They find themselves physically closer to the ground than their occupiers. Although the Palestinians are ‘protected’ by the nets, the net or fence, underlines the demeaning subordination as is provoked by the occupiers. They have a higher status in human freedom and rights in this situation, living physically above the Palestinians. The fence on top might feel like a precautious measure, and in a sense it is because you could say the fencing is placed in order to protect the people below. However, the act of throwing one’s rubbish from above is in itself an act of diminishment. It instigates a feeling and position of supremacy. One must not be mistaken that this desired effect is in fact Palestinian women walking along Hebron market with nets above them littered by Israelis (Source: carefully designed to oppress.

Boness, 2019).

This expression of power is systemically designed in the city of Hebron where Palestinians are restricted in their daily life with fences, nets, barbed

wire, guards or checkpoints everywhere. The net, installed by the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces), does not symbolise protection, it symbolises oppression.

Vanderbilt University (2003) defines oppression as “the combination of prejudice and institutional power which creates a system that benefits one group whilst discriminating the other.”

This example may seem farfetched from the type of design students are educated for at the faculty of Industrial Design. Yet, this example shows it is important to take into account the composition of the interaction you are designing for. Physical feelings of hierarchy can be directly influenced in design.

The same goes for when designing for agency. In terms of the future of design, we must appopriate technology that gives people agency and allows to associate with community.

Another thing to consider is that parts of a design can symbolise different things in different cultures or contexts. Most of all, this shows the power of desired identities in attributing government and oppressing other people. In following chapters I will elaborate further on this concept of identity.

identity week 5

18/05

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

The concept of being a local in multiple places instead of a national from an entire country is something Taiye Selasi first introduced me with. I very much identify with this concept. Before having listened to Selasi’s TED talk I would say that my mother is English and my father is Dutch. This of course, does not at all cover the totality of the identity experienced by my parents or of that which makes them different from each other.

After my mother moved to what her friends and family called the mainland, she became to share the local identity of my father; Amsterdam. My sister and I are locals of this same place; where we grew up, but also of the place where the rest of our family lives and where our mother is a local; London.

Finally the dynamic character of identity and what someone does or does not identify with are included in Selasi's concept. I wonder if you could apply something similar to other categorisations that feel awkwardly constrictive.

Systems and systemic structures form representations to which people refer their own experiences. Experiences are attributed identities by identifying them with help from representations. This is unavoidable but also problematic in several ways. Firstly, how are these representations formed that have such influence on us? In Identity and Differences (1997), Woodward poses the next question why some symbolic meanings of identity are preferred. What power is at play?

Globalization, as Kevin Robins points out in Woodwards (1997) book, has had an empowering effect on people finding their identity. The transnational exchange of representation, one could say, has impacted the possibilities of identification. The classificatory system is diversifying. This results in people being able to identify themselves with representations more easily because there is simply more to choose from. But as is touched upon in the text, this is a phenomenon that can be used or abused as a powerful tool in marketing. This in turn can lead to cultural homogeneity, which dissociates identity from community or localness, in the way that Selasi refers to identity (Woodward, 1997).

‘The Other’: the undesired end of the dichotomous structure of identity An important factor when defining identity is inclusion, exclusion, perceptions and position in society or culture that form perspectives (Woodward, 1997). The Other often refers to those excluded, feared or inferior to the default. Simone de Beauvoir talks about women being The Other, or as she calls it: the second sex (de Beauvoir, 1949). Here, men are the default. In the book Identity and Differences (1997), countries of Islamic origin are also seen as "the other". In comparison to the European identity as “desired” default. The use of the term Middle East is another example of western centrist perspective. This orientalist stance results in exotisation, fear, supremacy and importantly desired identities. Identities within the default are free and have agency in society, or even hegemony. Identities outside of the default do not. This is also evident in the example I discussed previously on Palestinians being oppressed by the Israeli government.

In addition, identities can have agency but individuals do not always have agency in their identity. Bourdieu talks about a field in which agents are assumed to seek ruling it. Only once this has been achieved one has acquired the position of determining the legitimacy of others (Bourdieu, 1980). However, these fields are based on rules, expectations and specific standards. If you do not meet these (unspoken) rules, it is not possible to master the field.

Only when you possess the qualities or characteristics recognised as capital by the field do you receive the right to speak. The social or political context is what determines these rules and, in this case, therefore, who or what is a legitimate identity with agency. The Other in this context is I think the agent in the field that does not achieve legitimacy.

One thing I do not like about the term the other is that it indulges in the classification of a subordinate grouping. An essentialist perspective that doesnt help individuals gain agency in their own identities. There are factors that undeniably do not hold advantage in most fields and that are often inherently 2-0 behind in contemporary society. Like being black, a woman, homosexual, of a lower class, or someone that lives outside the boundaries of sovereign states. The undesired ends of the dichotomy in the structure of identity.

identity week 6

25/05

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

I consume therefore I am According to Slater (1997: Ch. 1), consumption requires economic exchange as well as selfidentification. The product serves this identity but only when it becomes a commodity after consumption. Before this transformation the product is futile in serving identity because of the necessarily impersonal output of mass production, which thrives best in a capitalist system. The only thing standing between the inhabitant of a capitalist society and a new identity is financial capital (Julier, 2013). If identity is reduced to something that has to be acquired, I wonder what value or meaning identity has anymore.

The overwhelming influence of capitalism that seeps into all facets of contemporary society is something that occupies my thoughts. What is left of identity and is it possible to become a designer that does not simply feed capitalism and all that it affects? In a lecture Slavoj Zizek talks about identity being non-existent (Zizek, 2020). He calls identity a mere illusion that is subject to difference within its context. A characteristic or attributed identity only exists in its relation to others. This is, I think, exactly the phenomenon that capitalism exploits.

Consumer sovereignty does not result in identity sovereignty. There is a certain freedom in consumption but we are governed by identities linked to possible commodities that one can acquire. In capitalism, identities, like having culture capital, are constructed by what one has or by what distinguishes one from the common. I consume, therefore I am.

In order for products to be related to a hierarchal position of status or concept of identity, people need to receive incentives regarding this classification (Scott Dawson and Jill Cavell, 1987). This happens through advertising, internet browsing, word of mouth, etc. Even if individuals are free to invest capital in something we want, capitalism exploits the illusion of identity through marketing and thereby takes away agency in consumption. We are bound to the dictatorship of self-interest. The photography from Exactitudes (2014) shows how through acquirement of goods, identities are constructed on the basis of difference in relation to other categories on the other pages of the book.

What is left of identity? If identity is fundamentally contingent to financial capital, what does this imply? Is identity based on the differences in combination of interests, aspirations or a fact of differences in privilege.

Artefacts reflecting identity Tote bags are a good example when it comes to identity confirmation in design. They are readily available and affordable. This makes them a clean slate on which identities can be constructed and publicly expressed by showing what brand, design, theme or words you associate yourself with on a bag. The Dille & Kamille tote bag for instance, might demonstrate the environmentally conscious consumption that this person would like to associate with or that they have more money to spend. In its turn this also shows how easily identities can be ascribed rather than achieved.

An interesting example of the abuse of this concept of identity is how countries or nations position themselves between eachother.

An example of this exploitation of the concept of identity is the pinkwashing that is going on in Israel. Being pro-queer is seen as a leftist, progressive attribute. This is an identity that is popular in the west at the moment. Israel exploits this position by trying to hide its humanitarian crimes behind an identity that they are fully aware of legitimises their position.

Or recently, when they signed the deal with Egypt and the European Union to provide the EU with gas as an alternative to Russian gas. The identity of Russia has lost its legitimacy because of invading the Ukraine. The Ukranian people are people that Western (European) people can relate to because they look similar and lived in similar ways. Because there is a lack of differences, the Ukrainian people could never be The Other (undoubtedly this also has to do with the ‘identity’ of Russia as stereotypised by the West through history).

Palestinians, considering them being stereotyped as the Islamic other, do not stand a chance in attaining a legitimised identity and therefore are at the bottom of social hierarchy. Dávila (2012) explains this in the following way.

‘What makes stereotypes so troublesome is not that they order and simplify information by reducing complexities to a few limited conventions, but that in doing so, they both reflect and, more important, engender social hierarchies.’

(Dávila, 2012) Agency follows identity. You could say that identity is complex, but the elephant in the room is racism.

change week 7

25/05

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

Revolution or revolutionary To be revolutionary has lost actual meaning because it is so commonly used in advertising.

The same goes for progress. The term is vague and does not necessarily say on which of the ends of the political spectrum you are. But it entails moving forward in a way. The connotation of change has changed as well. People have become lazy. Why do people use “revolutionary” all the time but seem to be scared of the word “revolution”? I would say revolution entails something someone would have to work for. Revolutionary is a label and an easy way to wear the identity of being progressive.

People have become lazy Hail the Maintainers is an essay that resonates with this, saying capitalism produces a tunnel vision of innovation and progress, but fails in maintaining the mundane. Whereas, in the end, maintenance has the greatest impact on inhabitants of a society (Russell & Vinsel, 2015). The necessary day-to-day labour is lost from sight due to the solutionist drive of constant innovation through technology. Andrew Russel also mentions that ‘economics had already

turned to technology to explain the economic growth and high standards of living in capitalist democracies’ (2015).

As soon as they figured that innovation had lost its meaning because it was used so excessively, it was already too late and more books with meaningless innovative titles were on their way to the shop shelves. The same happened to CIAM in the first half of the 20th century. This International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM) had radical ideas about how to design a city.

An example of one of their modernist projects is the Bijlmer (shown in the photograph). This design also went down in history as a result of fancy progressive words without regard for the necessities and maintenance of the daily lives of the people who would actually be living in it. By the time they realised it was not working as they expected, new apartment blocks were already shooting up out of the ground like mushrooms, explains Pi de Bruijn, co-architect of the Bijlmermeer, in an interview for the podcast 99% Invisible Modernist Bijlmer tower blocks in hexagonal honeycomb (Mingle, 2019). formation (ANP & Anefo, 1994).

The construction workers had contracts to build as many as 30 flats in the next few years. But finding tenants was already becoming difficult because of the lack of roads and shops (Mingle, 2019). The innovation outpaced the infrastructure. Russel (2015) refers to this by explaining the unattractive connotation of the word “infrastructure”. But as he says, and as is evident in the example of the Bijlmermeer, infrastructure is essential for the social success of

modernist or innovative ideas (Russel, 2015). Tenants were found, but they were not the type of tenants the architects initially had designed for.

The impact of identity on innovation or maintenance Migrants sought sanctuary in the concrete blocks of the Bijlmer, and because of the continuing lack of infrastructure and the fact that the desired residents no longer lived there, the Bijlmer acquired a negative connotation; the identity of the failed Modern in the Netherlands. It became the drain of society and there was not much incentive to improve it.

Only destruction and redevelopment were mentioned. Again, erasing and innovating instead of maintaining and improving. Or as Lepore (2014) in her article for The Newyorker calls it

disruptive innovation.

Only after a plane crashed into one of the apartment blocks, did the identity of the neighbourhood change into one that the rest of the Netherlands could sympathise with.

Finally constructive improvement came about and designs were made in cooperation with the users. So, in conclusion, complexity of user interactions often goes beyond what a designer can anticipate and identity, I think, has an impact on the question of innovating or maintenance.

change week 8

01/06

LOTTE VAN HULST

LAURENS STUDIO 17

In my experience as an aspiring designer, I have benefited greatly from discussions with users or people who are a little further removed from the design process. Being a designer, you have a lot of power and the danger is that you base your work on data that is either biased in its nature (like the gender data gap) or that is dependent on your personal insight and expectations. If you don't look beyond the obvious, you risk putting things out into the world that might have unwanted effects or create structures that influence people's agency when that was not your intention. Design that is not inclusive confirms stereotypes and alienates the people within the stereotype, or desired identity, of the diversity and variety of people outside the stereotype. These people are at least equally important members of society but they are unable to participate as the legitimised majority can.

In the past year, for example, I was given the assignment to redesign a fast-delivery system into a more sustainable one. The course was directed towards reducing the ecological footprint through design changes in packaging, transport or making the delivery process more efficient. I felt that the system worked fine as it was and already was plenty fast and efficient. You can replace plastic packaging with glass jugs or biodegradable paper but that does not change the social effects of the increasing standardisation of such service systems in society.

Through research I found that society is individualising and that the isolating effects of the pandemic did not do that development any good. Being able to order anything to be delivered at your house within ten minutes only isolates people further from participating in society. So, I looked how to redesign the system in such a way that it not only serves the basic need of food but also the basic need of social contact and engagement in communities.

A good designer is an inquisitive one When wanting to inflict change as a designer it is important to be aware of the tipping point of hubris. Designers must continue to ask themselves where their data comes from and what it is based on. They must have a non-essentialist attitude towards concepts or groups or communities. It is important to do extensive research into history so as not to contribute to disruptive innovation by questioning impact throughout capitals, hierarchies, evaluative- and descriptive concepts. When we design we ask questions of How? Or What? But we need to question the Why? to inspire a new How? A good designer is an inquisitive one.

To design for the future, as the faculty of Industrial Design propagates, I think we must learn to accept inconvenience and design accordingly. At the moment, individual agency is prefered over collective convenience. Historically, this ideology is a logical outcome in the 20th century when you think of the Cold War and its Red Scare. We inherited the 20th century idea of what is a good life. Now, designers must question: What is and what does a good life in the 21st century entail? And, is agency possible without exploitation?

References ANP & Anefo. (1994). Bijlmer flats [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/11/28/in-idealen-kun-je-niet-wonen-a2780208?t=1655633361 Boness, S. & VISUM/Redux. (2019, January 24). Palestinian market in Hebron [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/a-guided-tour-of-hebron-from-two-sides-of-theoccupation Bourdieu, P. (1984). Questions de Sociologie. Les Éditions de Minuit. de Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.). Penguin Random House.

Uyttenbroek, E., & Versluis, A. (2014). Ellie Uyttenbroek and Ari Versluis: Exactitudes. Macmillan Publishers.

Foucault, M. (2020). Panopticism. In The Information Society Reader (pp. 302-312). Routledge.

Hofstede, G. (1991/1994) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: HarperCollinsBusiness.

Julier, G. (2013). The culture of design. Sage. [C4 p.68-84 The consumption of design] Lepore, J. (2014). The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. In: The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., & Kinzler, K. D. (2017). The Origins of Social Categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.004 Morozov, E. (2014). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism Public Affairs. Penguin Books Ltd. Mingle, K. (2019, September 4). Bijlmer (City of the Future, Part 1) [Podcast]. 99% Invisible. Retrieved 14 June 2022, from https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/bijlmer-city-future-part-1/ Perry, G. (2012). All In The Best Possible Taste [Documentary]. Channel 4. Retrieved April 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Ra13rcd0s Russell, A., & Vinsel, L. (2015, December 7). Innovation is overvalued. Maintenance often matters more | Aeon Essays. Aeon. Retrieved 12 June 2022, from https://aeon.co/essays/innovation-is-overvaluedmaintenance-often-matters-more Scott Dawson and Jill Cavell (1987) ,"Status Recognition in the 1980S: Invidious Distinction Revisited", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 487-491.

Slater, D. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Sociology. The Sociology of Consumption and Lifestyle., edited by C. Calhoun, C. Rojeck, and B. Turner, 174–187. London: Sage.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts.

Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/interculturalskills/

Vanderbilt University. (2003). Understanding Privilege and Oppression [Slides]. Vanderbilt University. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/oacs/wp-content/uploads/sites/140/Understanding-Privilege-andOppression-Handout.doc Van Eekelen, B. F. (2022, 20 april). On the definition of culture [Lecture]. Culture & Society, Delft, Netherlands.

Vlemmix, P. (2013, February 24). Panopticon [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUyB0Tsj6jE White Fuse Media Ltd. (2016). Cultural Capital | Social Theory Rewired. Routledge. Retrieved 18 June 2022, from https://routledgesoc.com/category/profile-tags/cultural-capital