The Prince and Princess of Wales. Photo: Getty Images.
Words: Harrison Montgomery Blackwell III
My distinguished readers,
One is often told, by those who came up rather later, that the old signals of status no longer exist, that the aristocratic codes have vanished, that taste has been democratised, that we are, all of us, quite terrifically equal in our cultural appetites.
It is, of course, a charming fiction.
The truth is not that distinction has disappeared, but that it has become rather more discreet. Less cavalry charge, more well-bred understatement. And, if I may be so bold, infinitely more interesting.
Permit me, then, a small reflection on how we arrived here.
When Distinction Was a Matter of Land (and Nerve)
In my grandfather’s time, the matter was refreshingly straightforward. One’s position in society was expressed through a combination of acres, access, and an almost theatrical commitment to leisure.
George Spencer Churchill at the Blenheim Palace.
Photo: Getty Images
The country estate was not merely a residence; it was a stage. Shooting in autumn, hunting in winter, sailing in summer. Each season offering its own choreography of privilege. Horses were not hobbies. They were, quite simply, part of the grammar of one’s existence.
There was no need to explain oneself. One lived as one did, and others, sensibly, did not.
Crucially, these pursuits possessed a certain stubborn exclusivity. They required time, money, and that most elusive of qualities: upbringing. One could purchase the estate, certainly, but one could not quite purchase the ease with which its rituals were performed.
Or so it was believed.
Then came industry. And with it, liquidity of a most inconvenient sort.
The bourgeoisie, or Nouveau Riche, began to acquire what had long been inherited. Houses were bought, collections assembled, invitations secured. Marriages, as ever, proved an efficient means of social integration.
The old order, faced with this enthusiasm, discovered an uncomfortable truth: when imitation becomes competent, exclusivity must seek refuge elsewhere.
The Turn to Taste
That refuge, as it happens, was found not in land, but in the mind.
The early twentieth century witnessed a recalibration. If estates could be bought, then distinction required something less tangible. Something that could not be acquired quite so abruptly. Hence the ascent of high culture.
Kenney Center Opera, Washington D.C.
Opera replaced horseflesh. Theatre replaced the hunt. One was expected to know one’s Bach as well as one once knew one’s bloodlines. Art became an essential fluency.
It was all rather civilised, if one overlooks the occasional earnestness.
What made this development effective was not expense alone, but interpretation. One could attend the opera, certainly, but understanding it, discussing it without vulgar enthusiasm or crippling self-consciousness, was another matter entirely.
Institutions were most obliging in this regard. Schools, universities, the BBC each played its role in gently reinforcing the notion that some tastes were not merely preferable, but elevated. And those who possessed them, naturally, occupied a correspondingly elevated position.
It was a quieter form of distinction than the gallop across one’s own land, but no less precise. Perhaps even more so.
The Great Softening
And then, as these things invariably do, it softened.
Post-war sensibilities, shifting values, and a general decline in deference conspired to make overt displays of superiority rather unfashionable. The word “elitist” acquired a tone one would previously have reserved for scandal.
The response, observed over several decades, has been neither retreat nor surrender, but adaptation.
One now meets individuals of considerable standing who display a most intriguing cultural versatility. They attend the opera, but they also speak, with genuine or at least well-performed enthusiasm, about cinema, popular music, even sport.
At first blush, this appears delightfully open-minded.
But let us not be sentimental.
This breadth is rarely indiscriminate. The choices are, more often than not, carefully filtered. Even in popular culture, one will observe a preference for that which has been reviewed favourably, discussed intelligently, or quietly endorsed by the appropriate arbiters.
One might say the palate has expanded, but the palate remains trained.
Fernando Fitz-James Stuart, 17th Duke of Huéscar.
Photo: Getty
On the Modern Fashion for Being “Quite Ordinary”
The most intriguing development, however, lies not in what is consumed, but in how it is presented.
In recent years, there has been a pronounced tendency among the well-positioned to emphasise the ordinary. Time with family. Quiet dinners. The companionship of dogs. Gardening, even.
One encounters this so frequently that it begins to feel almost… deliberate.
Now, I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of such pleasures. A well-kept garden is one of life’s genuine consolations, and dogs, in my experience, possess better judgement than most dinner guests.
Yet one cannot ignore the broader performance.
In an age where disparity is discussed with increasing enthusiasm, there exists a certain advantage in appearing grounded. To be not merely accomplished, but approachable. Not merely privileged, but pleasantly normal.
Thus, the modern elite has adopted a curious duality.
On one hand, the traditional markers persist: education, taste, networks, a familiarity with culture in its more demanding forms. On the other, these are presented alongside a repertoire of ordinariness that renders the whole far more palatable.
It is not a contradiction. It is a composition.
The Quiet Mechanics of Modern Distinction
What we observe, then, is not the dissolution of distinction, but its refinement.
Roger Federer.
Photo: Getty
Where once it relied on overt separation, it now operates through calibration. A careful balance of high and low, formal and informal, rarefied and relatable.
There is, if one looks closely, a certain discipline in this. The ability to enjoy without overdoing, to display without declaring, to signal without insisting.
Even humour has entered the equation. One occasionally encounters descriptions of interests delivered with a lightness—an ironic turn of phrase, a touch of understatement—that conveys not just taste, but confidence in that taste.
It is, in its way, rather elegant.
A Note to the Younger Gentleman
If I may presume to offer a small piece of counsel.
Do not concern yourself overmuch with appearing distinguished. That way lies strain, and nothing so quickly undermines the effect.
Attend to your tastes, certainly. Read well. Listen carefully. Learn to appreciate what deserves appreciation. But do not wear it too heavily.
Cultivate range, but not restlessness. Simplicity, but not affectation. And above all, ease.
Because, in the end, the most convincing form of distinction is not announced.
It is merely understood.
References
Accominotti, Fabien, Shamus R. Khan, and Adam Storer.
2018. “How Cultural Capital Emerged in Gilded Age
America: Musical Purification and Cross-Class Inclusion
at the New York Philharmonic.” American Journal
of Sociology 123(6):1743–83.
Annan, Noel. 1991. Our Age: English Intellectuals
Between the World Wars: A Group Portrait. New
York: Random House.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age
of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Beckett, John V. 1986. The Aristocracy in England,
1660–1914. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bennett, Tony, Mike Savage, E. Silva, Alan Warde, M.
Gayo-Cal, and D. Wright. 2009. Culture, Class, Distinction.
London, UK: Routledge.
ter Bogt, Tom F. M., Marc J. M. H. Delsing, Maarten van
Zalk, Peter G. Christenson, and Wim H. J. Meeus.
2011. “Intergenerational Continuity of Taste: Parental
and Adolescent Music Preferences.” Social Forces
90(1):297–319.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of
the Judgement of Taste. London, UK: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. “Vive La Crise! For Heterodoxy
in Social Science.” Theory and Society 17(5):773–87.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power.
Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production:
Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Brown, Julie, Nicholas Cook, and Stephen Cottrell, eds.
2017. Defining the Discographic Self: Desert Island
Discs in Context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Buchmann, Marlis, and Manuel Eisner. 1997. “The Transition
from the Utilitarian to the Expressive Self:
1900–1992.” Poetics 25(2):157–75.
Cannadine, David. 1999. The Decline and Fall of the
British Aristocracy. New York: Vintage Books.
Carlson, Tucker. 1999. “The Hall of Lame.” Forbes
(https://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/
1999/0308/063.html).
Chan, Tak Wing. 2019. “Understanding Cultural Omnivores:
Social and Political Attitudes.” The British
Journal of Sociology 70(3):784–806.
Coulangeon, Philippe. 2017. “Cultural Openness as an
Emerging Form of Cultural Capital in Contemporary
France.” Cultural Sociology 11(2):145–64.
