PLAN DE TRATAMIENTO

I first explain the relevance of the theory of ‘cultural intermediaries,’ along with its uses and critiques, in examining managers’ activities. Following this, I establish a typology of managers working with Momentum-funded musicians before

discussing existing research regarding music and cultural intermediaries. My focus is specifically on analysing artist managers as cultural intermediaries.

DEFINITIONS

The concept of ‘cultural intermediaries’ can be traced to Bourdieu’s work

Distinction (1984), where Bourdieu examined the relationship between social class and ‘taste’ by analysing social survey data from France, as discussed in Chapter 2. Bourdieu’s theorising of the complex overlaps between legitimacy and

distinction. The concept of cultural intermediaries fits within Bourdieu’s theories as a group of occupations important to the legitimisation processes within the

production and consumption of symbolic goods. These occupations are held both by the new petite bourgeoisie, a new subset of the social classes created from the working class and the middle class seeking upward mobility, and by members of

172

the bourgeoisie, who seek retention of their place in the dominant class. The petite bourgeoisie have high levels of educational capital while the existing bourgeoisie possess lower levels of educational capital. Bourdieu considered cultural

intermediaries to be workers from the emergent class, the ‘new petite bourgeoisie’, which “comes into its own in all the occupations involving presentation and

representation” and in “institutions providing symbolic goods and services,”

including “cultural production” (359). The aspects of representation and symbolic production are relevant in this research, but it is particularly the way Bourdieu sees these workers as capable of shaping goods to people’s tastes and legitimising them that ties to the mediating work managers are doing.

The managers working with Momentum-funded musicians are engaging in a larger artist development process, where they frame the musical texts and position the musicians as legitimate. They do this in the funding applications to PRSF and through their dealings with music companies who may want to initiate a deal with the musicians they manage. The strength of managers’ abilities to carry out this process is influenced by a melange of the social, educational, cultural and economic capital they possess. An example of the importance of social capital for managers is the value they hold to musicians as well-connected individuals capable of linking them with successful people and companies. Interestingly, Bourdieu identified that members of the petite bourgeoisie, derived from both the emergent classes and the upper classes, who ‘reconvert’ into roles such as cultural intermediaries, “possess a very great capital of familiarity and a social capital of ‘connections’” (1984: 360). While the class stratification of France, at the time of Bourdieu’s work, is not directly comparable to the current divisions within the UK music industries, the significance of capital for individuals in mediating roles – and the value of the interactions derived from mediation – are no less important.

In The Cultural Intermediaries Reader, Mathews and Smith Maguire seek to build a clearer definition of cultural intermediaries from Bourdieu’s original whilst incorporating conceptual steps made, since then, by scholars in economic

sociology and political economy (2014). They put forth a two-part definition stating that, “First cultural intermediaries are market actors who construct value by

173

mediating how goods (or services, practices, people) are perceived and engaged with by others (end consumers, and other market actors including other cultural intermediaries)” (2014: 2). Within the first part of this definition, they argue that the description of cultural intermediaries is vague enough to solicit comparison to any power dynamic where one person is able to influence another person’s view of a person or thing. The element of value creation facilitated through mediation is also insufficient as a distinct characteristic of cultural intermediaries (Mathews and Smith Maguire, 2014: 2).

The second part of their definition contends, “In the struggle to influence others’ perceptions and attachments, cultural intermediaries are defined by their claims to professional expertise in taste and value within specific cultural fields (and the foundations on which such claims rest)” (Mathews and Smith Maguire, 2014: 2). They clarify and mitigate the possible pitfalls of identification by

emphasising the expertise and the context of cultural intermediaries’ locations.

The ‘foundations’ in the definition refers to the “devices and dispositions” cultural intermediaries draw upon to achieve their influence on others (du Gay, 2004).

Managers mediating for Momentum musicians not only need access to multiple types of capital (economic, social and cultural), they need to possess a level of expertise in musical knowledge. In order to make deals and build partnerships, they also need to be adept at spotting and developing talent that is recognised by those in the music industries with whom they seek to make goods legitimate.

HAS THE TERM INTERMEDIARIES BEEN EXTENDED TOO FAR?

After Bourdieu’s work, Featherstone (1991) and du Gay et al. (1997) carried the

‘cultural intermediaries’ concept forward and popularised the term (Smith Maguire, 2014: 15). Research on cultural intermediaries now primarily takes an economic sociology, cultural economic or political economic perspective, with each area adjusting their understanding of the term to suit their research paradigm.

Critique has long accompanied discussion of the concept, and

disagreement persists about which cultural workers might be seen as cultural

174

intermediaries, with scholars claiming on either side that the term is too broadly or too narrowly used. Hesmondhalgh’s work illustrates the ‘too broad’ argument:

By this point in its history, the term is being used to refer very generally to those involved in the production of symbols. And Justin O’Connor (2004:

40) points to other uses too: cultural facilitators and entrepreneurs from Diaghilev to Brian Epstein, and consultants who mediate between the interests of cultural producers and the world of cultural policy. (2006: 227) Hesmondhalgh claims it is ironic that much of the work on cultural intermediaries misunderstands the original theory. He takes issue with the way the class sub-divisions of the new petite bourgeoisie seem to be misunderstood as equaling the cultural intermediaries: “Featherstone equates the new petite bourgeoisie with a small sub-set of that social class, the (new) cultural intermediaries”

(Hesmondhalgh, 2006: 226). On the other side, Negus argues the term is used too discriminately, only including certain groups as cultural intermediaries and

excluding others who are potentially important mediators in the production

process, like accountants in the recorded music industry (Negus, 2002: 6). Negus appears reticent to accept the value of a concept when its deployment contains inherent blind spots regarding who counts as a mediator.

Hesmondhalgh disagrees with Negus’ (2002) argument that the term should not be so limited. He instead advocates that engaging with Ryan’s (1992)

proposed division of cultural labour is more productive as this would allow for a better understanding of cultural production as a process and those intermediating.

He argues Ryan’s definition, “[involves] a number of different roles performed sometimes by different people, sometimes by the same people” (Hesmondhalgh 2006: 227). While Smith Maguire and Matthews call for better understanding of the differentiation of cultural intermediaries and their practices, they maintain the usefulness of this concept to analyse cultural production. I agree with their assessment that, “The specific practices and processes of how value is formed and added to cultural goods, the interconnections of various intermediaries operating in and across various fields, and how such cultural work can be conceptualised generally remain fertile areas for further study, discussion and debate” (Smith Maguire and Matthews, 2010: 10). There remains room to

175

understand the ways that value is formed by mediating actors and between other intermediaries.