Content uploaded by Özgür Yaren
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Özgür Yaren on Apr 17, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755251317382
Cultural Sociology
1 –24
© The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17499755251317382
journals.sagepub.com/home/cus
How do Conservative and
Islamic Art Audiences
Define Good Taste?
Cultural Classifications at
the Crossroads of Morality,
Religion, and Politics in Turkey
Irmak Karademir
University of Nottingham, UK
Özgür Yaren
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Abstract
This study explores how conservative/Islamic art audiences in Turkey describe and classify good
taste in art and how their cultural repertoires inform their notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Despite the
significant popular attention conservative art and its associated taste communities have received
with the rise of political Islam, little is known about how such art is understood by its audience
or its position within existing taste hierarchies. Drawing on cultural classification literature, our
analysis of 36 interviews with conservative/Islamic art audiences in Turkey addresses this gap
through an inductive, qualitative approach. The findings reveal three modes of appreciation –
eclectic, moralist, and cosmopolitan – each associated with different levels of identification with
conservative taste communities, challenging assumptions about the existence of a homogeneous
conservative art audience. This study also provides a nuanced view of how political and moral values
influence aesthetic judgements and create unique strategies for boundary-making and boundary-
crossing, contributing to discussions on localised forms of cultural eclecticism and exclusion.
Keywords
conservative/Islamic art, cultural classifications, cultural omnivore, modes of appreciation, moral
boundaries, politics, religious morality, taste, Turkey
Corresponding author:
Irmak Karademir, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, University Park Campus,
Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Email: irmak.karademir@nottingham.ac.uk
1317382CUS0010.1177/17499755251317382Cultural SociologyKarademir and Yaren
research-article2025
Article
2 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Introduction
In 2017, Erdoğan, the president of Turkey and founder of its ruling Justice and
Development Party (AKP: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), declared that despite having
gained power in economic and political spheres, his political project had not achieved
hegemony in the field of culture, supposedly dominated by established secular gate-
keepers (Hürriyet Daily News, 2017). This was not an isolated statement; many artists
and critics closely associated with political Islam have expressed similar sentiments
over the last two decades, particularly referring to how western forms enjoy higher
status in cultural hierarchies, thereby excluding segments of society not socialised to
those tastes due to their backgrounds or religious sensitivities (Bilgin, 2022; Lekesiz,
2013; Yıldırım, 2018). Following the AKP’s rise to power, public debates on nurturing
‘conservative art’1 and ‘conservative taste’, as well as projects that could facilitate
such goals, gained prominence. Processes of cultural legitimation, which determine
what constitutes good taste in art, subsequently entered a dynamic period, if not a total
upheaval. The term ‘conservative art’ gained widespread traction in popular culture
shortly after the release of a provocative essay by novelist İskender Pala (2012) titled
‘Conservative Art Manifesto’.2 It was further explored in essays featured in the culture
and art sections of popular newspapers, which asked: ‘Can there be such a thing as
conservative art?’ (e.g. Habertürk, 2012; Kahraman, 2012). Despite the widespread
interest this debate garnered, the aesthetic criteria employed in defining the contours
of conservative art have not been explored academically. The perceived status of taste
in conservative art also remains unknown, as well as how it is appreciated and experi-
enced by its audience. These questions are highly relevant as they can shed light on the
tensions that emanate from the fields of culture and art and circulate within other
fields, leading to exclusions and inclusions and thus contributing to the reproduction
of inequalities.
The debate on conservative art warrants the attention of not only scholars studying
Turkish politics but also cultural sociologists exploring taste dynamics more broadly.
The literature examining taste structures, though primarily emerging from the Global
North, has increasingly recognised how political values intertwine with cultural appre-
ciation and legitimation processes (e.g. Krolo and Tonković, 2024; Sivonen and
Heikkilä, 2024). It also acknowledges that the established hierarchies between ‘high-
brow’ and popular culture are undergoing a transition, leading to the opening up of once
narrow profiles of legitimacy towards more cosmopolitan, eclectic, and inclusive reper-
toires (e.g. Chan, 2019; Peterson and Kern, 1996; Savage et al., 2018). The Turkish
context is interesting in exploring how such transformations can be experienced locally,
in a context where, arguably, the field of culture has been less autonomous from the
field of politics compared to the Global North contexts from which much cultural soci-
ology literature originates.
Through in-depth interviews, we investigate how audiences in conservative art circles
describe and classify good taste in art and how these classifications shape their sense of
identity in relation to others. Our analysis, combining cultural classification literature
with conservative art debates, reveals three modes of appreciation: eclectic, moralist, and
cosmopolitan. Each mode represents a different level of identification with conservative
Karademir and Yaren 3
taste communities, challenging assumptions about the existence of a homogeneous con-
servative art audience. This study also offers a nuanced view of how the crossing of
cultural boundaries is valued, contributing to discussions on cultural omnivorousness
and the interplay of cultural and moral boundaries.
Cultural Classifications: Continuities and Change
Sociology has extensively explored both theoretical and empirical perspectives showing
that aesthetic judgements are socially constructed rather than based on the intrinsic quali-
ties of the artwork itself (Baumann, 2007; Becker, 1982; Bourdieu, 1984). These judge-
ments are known to be rooted in social divisions, particularly social class (e.g. Bennett
et al., 2009; Tampubolon, 2010) and levels of embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu,
1984). Differences in cultural appreciation matter as they classify the classifier (Bourdieu,
1984), lead to social network formation (Lizardo, 2006; Wohl, 2015), and result in other-
ing and inclusion/exclusion in social fields beyond the cultural (De Keere, 2022;
Friedman and Laurison, 2020).
Evidence suggests that the links between tastes and cultural capital show significant
patterns confirming hierarchies in many cultural areas, including music (Nault et al.,
2021), literature (Atkinson, 2016), and visual arts (Prieur et al., 2008). Despite these
findings, growing research suggests that traditional hierarchies in the arts are diminish-
ing. For instance, Friedman and Reeves (2020) show that since the 1950s, elites have
started to blend popular tastes with their traditional highbrow profiles. This supports the
omnivore thesis of Peterson and Kern (1996), which argues that highbrow exclusivity is
being replaced by a broader appreciation of diverse cultural tastes. While there are con-
cerns about its measurement (Karademir Hazır and Warde, 2015), a similar trend of
omnivorousness has been noted across various cultural fields (e.g. Chan, 2019; Savage
and Gayo, 2011).
This has sparked debate about whether the trend represents a fundamental shift
from Bourdieusian cultural classifications or merely reflects changes in highbrow cul-
ture in late modern societies (De Vries and Reeves, 2022). Studies indicate that ‘cultur-
ally omnivorous’ individuals are selective in broadening their cultural repertoires,
often avoiding highly stigmatised, racialised, or politicised forms (Leguina et al.,
2016; Yalvaç and Karademir Hazır, 2021). Additionally, there is interest in the reflex-
ivity of those crossing cultural boundaries, who often embrace a knowing, playful, and
anti-snobbish approach (O’Brien and Ianni, 2023). Omnivorousness, linked to cosmo-
politanism, supports new forms of cultural capital (Prieur and Savage, 2013) and holds
increasing cultural currency. This includes the expansion of highbrow culture to
encompass emerging forms like contemporary music, digital media, and global influ-
ences (Savage et al., 2018).
While shifts in cultural classifications may not undermine theories linking them to
broader power structures, they do raise questions about how different taste groupings
affect inclusions and exclusions in daily life. This is especially relevant in the context of
Turkey, where political influence may be altering cultural legitimacy and introducing
new dimensions to trends like omnivorousness.
4 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Complex Classifications: The Interplay of Culture and
Morality
It is important to explore how ‘culture’ in cultural classifications is conceptualised and
how it is underpinned by moral, political, or religious evaluative frameworks. If the same
people use varying criteria in judging arts and culture, the identification of cultural taste
groups that neatly correspond to high status and privileged positions, as well as strong
exclusionary boundaries, becomes problematic.
It is well documented how ‘high’ and ‘low’ are not universal or unchanging descrip-
tors of culture (Daloz, 2010); they change across time and national contexts. There is
also a growing body of literature suggesting that distinctions other than ‘high/low’ can be
just as encompassing in classifying expressions of taste. For instance, Bellavance (2008)
argues that the distinction of ‘old’ (traditional, established, conformist, etc.) and ‘new’
(modern, up and coming, rebellious, etc.) is at least as discriminating as ‘high/low’. She
also describes a third classification system dividing the local and international, suggest-
ing the existence of a variety of relatively antagonistic and overlapping systems referring
to ‘diverse registers of legitimacy’. More recent empirical studies confirm that hierar-
chies are nuanced and diverse. In Serbia, for example, cleavages are not only informed
by ‘high/low’ and ‘urban/rural’ distinctions; they are also shaped by political sensitivi-
ties, such as ‘cosmopolitanism’ versus ‘patriotism’, with the former being legitimated by
those who hold higher levels of cultural capital. Similar classification systems are
observed in Denmark (Prieur et al., 2008), Finland (Kahma and Toikka, 2012), and the
UK (Prieur and Savage, 2013). The distinction between national British cultural forms
and ‘quirky’ Anglophone forms is interpreted by Savage et al. (2010) as an indicator of
cosmopolitan cultural capital, a particular form distributed according to one’s cultural
resources and age.
Empirical studies looking beyond the Global North also raise questions about the
permeability of cultural classifications. Political orientations seem to shape the Croatian
musical field, as Krolo and Tonković (2024) show how political values embedded in the
textual and narrative aspects of genres impact their audience appeal. Arguably, the legiti-
mation process is more open to interventions from outside the realm of culture, such as
politics and religion, in contexts where cultural fields are relatively less autonomous and
political tensions are more explicit. Lavie and Dhoest’s (2015) comparative study of
Flemish and Israeli television showed that politically subversive content elevated the
status of cultural products in Israel, where the political and cultural fields have been
more polarised than in Flanders. As Yaren and Karademir Hazır (2020) demonstrate,
politics shape the order of legitimacy even more dramatically in Turkey, where the state
has made direct interventions through censorship and the selective distribution of public
funding. In such instances, the connection between political and artistic realms becomes
more intricate and cultural classifications remain deeply linked to sensitivities beyond
aesthetic criteria.
Lamont’s approach to classification systems and symbolic boundaries is highly rel-
evant here, as it posits that these boundaries extend beyond the realm of culture and
create communities based on shared understandings of ‘them’ and ‘us’. Symbolic
boundaries are conceptual lines used to categorise and separate different social groups
Karademir and Yaren 5
(Lamont, 1992, 2000). These boundaries are divided into three types: cultural (based on
education, manners, and cultural practices), socio-economic (based on wealth and pro-
fessional success), and moral (based on honesty, solidarity, and consideration for oth-
ers). Moral boundaries are particularly significant for our research as they encompass
political (Sivonen and Heikkilä, 2024) and religious (Lamont et al., 1996) values, thus
allowing us to interrogate the roles of morality and culture in the appreciation of con-
servative art. While the boundary approach is primarily used to understand how people
categorise others, these evaluative frameworks are also applied to include and exclude
cultural objects. Therefore, they are valuable for examining how repertoires are utilised
in appreciating art and in drawing morally and culturally informed taste boundaries.
Various empirical studies following Lamont’s inductive method have revealed how
moral boundaries operate differently from cultural boundaries and shape class relations
in complex ways (e.g. Jarness, 2017; Karademir Hazır, 2014; Mendez, 2008). While this
approach suggests the diversity of classification systems, it assumes that the notions
underlying each are easily separable. However, aesthetic judgements are not purely cul-
tural; they are entangled with moral values and could also reinforce them in complex
ways (Jarness, 2017; Sivonen and Heikkilä, 2024; Vassenden and Jonvik, 2023). Thus,
an inductive qualitative approach seems best suited to explore their interaction and
potential consequences in terms of group formation. This will also fill a gap in our under-
standing of the verbal classification and evaluation of cultural objects by social groups,
revealing their patterns of perception, appreciation, and appropriation (Holt, 1998;
Jarness, 2015). In the following section, we provide contextual background explaining
how the Turkish case offers a good opportunity to explore how cultural classifications
are underpinned by moral values, including religious and political ones.
The Turkish Context
In this study, we explore the cultural classifications of a ‘conservative’ audience in
Turkey, where European tastes and western consumption practices hold significant clas-
sificatory power. Since the Ottoman Empire’s modernisation, Alafranga or European
style has been viewed as superior to Alaturka or Turkish style (Göle, 1997; Kandiyoti,
1997). This hierarchy remains influential today; for example, Rankin et al. (2014) iden-
tify a high-status group in Turkey, ‘engaged cosmopolitans’, who embrace globalised
culture and possess considerable economic and cultural capital. The divide extends
beyond elite versus non-elite to various levels of cultural preference, with distinctions
often based on attitudes towards western culture (Rankin et al., 2014). ‘Western-ness’ is
perceived broadly, so preferences for western popular music or cinema, associated in
Turkey with high cultural and economic capital, remain significant regardless of their
position within the taste hierarchies of their original national context.
It is also crucial to consider how religiosity or proximity to a Muslim lifestyle has inter-
sected with and reshaped cultural hierarchies in this process. The rise of political Islam in
the 1980s and the liberalisation of the economy created conditions for upward mobility and
capital accumulation for segments of society often described as ‘conservative’. This,
according to many, led to a bifurcation of the bourgeoisie and middle classes into two dis-
tinct segments based on religious sentiment (Buğra, 1998; Özcan and Turunç, 2011;
6 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Yavuz, 2003). Consumption markets responded to demands for new goods and services
suitable for conservative segments (Navaro-Yashin, 2002; Saktanber, 2002; White, 1999),
and ‘soon a wide variety of products positioned as ‘Islamic’, ranging from summer resorts
to clothing, decorative objects and food, became available to the newly emerging, reli-
giously oriented middle/upper classes’ (Sandıkçı and Ger, 2007: 194).
This bifurcation has been emphasised to such an extent that it has rendered other
aspects of cultural boundaries, especially those underpinned by class differences, much
less visible (Karademir Hazır, 2014, 2017). This overemphasis has also revived a histori-
cal reading of cultural tensions in Turkey known as the ‘center–periphery’ approach
(Mardin, 1973), wherein secular and western cultural repertoires are associated with a
powerful centre while Muslim and local ones are linked with a periphery perceived to
have suffered from exclusion and a lack of cultural legitimacy (for an overview, see
Bakiner, 2018). Academic interest in these ‘polarised’ tastes has concentrated on con-
sumer goods and services and the use of urban space, particularly in its most visible
forms, such as veiling (e.g. Alimen, 2019) or architecture (e.g. Batuman, 2017), rather
than artistic fields.
It is within this context that the AKP government adopted cultural conflict as a political
discourse to reinforce group identity as a political project. Erdoğan’s lament that ‘we still
have problems ruling in the social and cultural field’, which he has repeated over the years,
has signalled a clear intent to intervene in cultural matters. This was evident in the con-
servative art debates initiated by top bureaucrats and in the establishment of alternative
cultural events, such as the Bosphorus Film Festival, that aligned with the government’s
ambiguous Islamic project, either directly or through government-controlled NGOs. The
topic was also vigorously discussed among conservative intelligentsia and in newly
emerged conservative-Islamic culture and art journals (e.g. Barkçın, 2020; Ergenç, 2023).
The common thread in these political projects is the assumption that there is a widely
accepted notion of ‘conservative’ art, often used interchangeably with terms like
‘Islamic’, ‘national’, or ‘native’. It also assumes that a social group with conservative
artistic tastes has only recently acquired the chance to engage in cultural consumption
that matches their preferences, and that these tastes either constitute or have the potential
to create a distinct aesthetic community separate from those with secular tastes. Both
popular debates and academic literature in this domain have disproportionately focused
on the interventions of those in power in the cultural sphere, inflammatory and polarising
political discourse, and partisanship within the art world when discussing the Islamic
conservative cultural/artistic domain (e.g. Akyıldız et al., 2022; Arik, 2023; Çolak,
2024). Meanwhile, empirical research on Islamic-conservative culture and taste com-
munities covers a wide range of areas, including daily life and lifestyle (Akçaoğlu, 2019;
Göle, 2017), fashion and consumption (Alimen, 2019; Crăciun, 2019; Sandıkçı and Ger,
2010), and television audience (Özçetin et al., 2018). However there remains a gap in our
understanding of how potential audiences for ‘conservative art’ perceive and appreciate
good taste in the arts and how these tensions shape cultural hierarchies in Turkey more
broadly. This study’s contribution lies in its systematic, detailed exploration of the taste
profiles within this assumed taste community for the first time. It unpacks the axes of
differentiation and tension while contextualising these dynamics within the broader lit-
erature on cultural taste.
Karademir and Yaren 7
Data and Methods
The data used in this article were collected as part of a large mixed-methods project
exploring how the rise of political Islam has transformed the dynamics within Turkish art
fields. The project focused on three areas where Islamist or conservative artists have
either historically been prevalent or gained prominence over the past two decades: litera-
ture, cinema, and performing arts. These three popular and easily accessible art forms
also emerged in our interviews as the most frequently referenced domains among Islamic
conservative audiences. We employed an inductive, interpretive approach to data analy-
sis, aiming to understand how audiences of ‘conservative art’ perceive their tastes and
experiences within their taste communities. However, the sampling process required a
partially deductive approach to define the conservative audience. We identified art jour-
nals, publishing houses, cultural centres, and organisations that incorporate religious
sensitivities into their offerings, as well as those with varying degrees of Islamic or
Islamist orientation. Initially, we established a Twitter account dedicated to conservative/
Islamic art. Through that account, we engaged with followers of artists and critics who
explicitly reference or draw upon their Muslim identity. Additionally, we identified key
figures in cultural organisations known for their Islamic sensitivities, including those
associated with Sufi orders or tariqas, where workshops and training were provided to
amateur art enthusiasts. We have introduced the aims of the project through these chan-
nels and in these settings, using a participant information sheet where the project was
presented under its officially funded title, making it clear that the scope of the project
was Islamic, religious, and conservative taste in the arts. In this context, the sampling
method used was convenience sampling and snowball sampling, where participants’
self-identification was confirmed by their decision to opt into the project.
Our primary recruitment methods do not support generalisation. However, in line
with the principles of the sampling methods used, we aimed to maintain balance across
the channels from which we recruited participants and avoided ‘anchoring’, which refers
to the researcher overly relying on certain productive leads. As these sampling methods
are used when it is not possible to construct a sampling frame due to the difficulty of
reaching certain networks, we actively worked towards achieving diversity. Fieldwork
continued until the modes of responses began to repeat themselves and reached satura-
tion after 36 interviews. The list of interviewees; their gender, age and occupation are
presented in the Appendix. The interviews were mostly conducted in public places, such
as cafés and restaurants for face-to-face meetings, and via Zoom for online sessions. Of
our interviewees, 13 were also art critics, contributing to both written and online media
outlets. The interviews took place between November 2019 and April 2021,3 and lasted
between 45 minutes and three hours. Ethics approval was granted by the Ankara
University Ethics Board.
The research team comprised three academics (senior researchers) and two graduate
students, diverse in terms of gender and career stage, although none were affiliated with
Islamic or conservative art circles. At least one senior researcher was present at the major-
ity of the face-to-face interviews, while the majority of the online interviews were con-
ducted, and all interviews transcribed, by the graduate student researchers involved in the
project. One interviewee, who had close ties to the community and political cadres, acted
8 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
as an informal adviser, providing insight into the data collection and analysis processes.
The interview questions explored the interviewees’ understanding of good taste in cinema,
literature, and stage arts; the criteria they used to judge artwork; and the social conditions
shaping their taste profiles. Towards the end of the interviews, questions focused more on
their personal experiences of taste, how they perceived their tastes in relation to others, and
whether they felt a sense of belonging or alienation from others based on their tastes.
We coded the transcribed and anonymised interviews inductively, following Saldana’s
(2011) coding method and Glaser’s (1965) grounded theory approach. Responses to the
initial questions generated a range of codes, such as ‘sophistication’, ‘authenticity’,
‘morally appropriate’, ‘sophisticated’, and ‘western’. Comparisons of codes within their
contexts revealed two important axes of differentiation and three distinct modes of
appreciation – eclectic, moralist, and cosmopolitan – which occupy different positions
(Table 1). Interviewees demonstrated these modes of interpretation to varying degrees,
but they function as mutually exclusive categories; we did not observe any interviewee
displaying characteristics of more than one mode.
Eclectic Mode of Appreciation
The eclectic mode of appreciation reflects an interesting systematic combination of two
different sets of criteria that a group of interviewees (n: 15) employed while defining
their own taste as well as good taste in art more broadly. The first set drew on a vertical
hierarchy of aesthetic criteria consistent with how highbrow and popular taste are distin-
guished in the traditional sense. The second involved the themes articulated in cultural
products, especially their authenticity and relatability, along with their incorporation of
native and non-western cultural elements.
It was apparent that for these respondents, the traditional hierarchies between high-
brow and popular art are meaningful; good artwork is seen as a complex product that
cannot be easily decoded. Art is expected to challenge the audience to think and reflect
on the message embedded within it. There was also an underlying assumption that good
artwork would have a lasting impact, consistent with its proximity to popular production
and consumption circuits. For instance, while R06 was reflecting on the soundtracks
used in films she disliked, she stated:
I don’t know much about popular music or current musicians, as it doesn’t interest me [. . .]
Popular music seems to come in and out of fashion rapidly, and in my opinion, it often lacks
meaning in the lyrics and substance in the music or visuals. For instance, my son, who’s very
classical and old-fashioned, plays the violin. He’s interested in playing Turkish classical music.
My daughter and I, on the other hand, enjoy jazz and blues very much.
Here, R06 is clear that music garnering popular recognition is produced without artistic
or aesthetic concern. Furthermore, she ranked various genres, contrasting the popular
music used in blockbuster Turkish movies with Turkish classical music, as well as jazz
and blues, which are typically considered highbrow. In Turkey, these genres are almost
exclusively ‘owned’ by urban secular groups, with festivals organised by associations
known for their close ties with western cultural production circuits. Rankin et al. (2014)
Karademir and Yaren 9
Table 1. Distinctive features of three modes of appreciation.
Modes of
Appreciation
Understanding of Good
Taste
Criteria for Aesthetic
Judgement
Typical Examples of
Positively Evaluated
Works of Culture
Negatively Evaluated
Works/Qualities
Cultural Boundaries
(Secular/Muslim; Us/
Them)
Eclectic
n. 15
Sophisticated artworks
that challenge the
audience; not evaluated
based on compliance
with Islamic values;
includes native and non-
western narratives.
Traditional hierarchy
of aesthetic criteria
(highbrow vs. popular);
authenticity; local
themes and relatable
stories (‘the story of
this land’).
Classical works in their
fields; modernist Turkish
poets (20th century);
works by Sabahattin
Ali; patriarchal family
dynamics in Hirokazu
Kore-eda films; Bahman
Ghobadi films (‘realities
of the region’); Iranian
films.
Easily consumable
content; overtly political
or religious messaging;
Works seen as too
ideologically motivated;
Onur Ünlü films
(popular with subtle
Islamic references);
Cins magazine (popular,
strong Islamist
messages).
Broadly inclusive
boundaries (e.g.
secular artists of
the national canon,
non-western artists).
Moralist
n. 12
Prefers genres like
melodrama and comedy;
adherence to Islamic
morality is valued but not
strictly required.
Appreciation of
popular taste seen
as more authentic;
religious references
in cultural products
elevate value.
Nationally popular
productions; works
by artists with Islamic
affiliations; Semih
Kaplanoğlu’s films with
Islamic references.
Netflix productions (e.g.
those promoting LGBT
themes); vaudeville
works (e.g. involving
extramarital affairs);
aversion to highbrow
art.
Clear us/them
distinction, with a
stronger emphasis
on maintaining
traditional
boundaries
(exceptions allowed
for popular works).
Cosmopolitan
n. 9
Appreciates
sophisticated, challenging
artworks; does not judge
works based on Islamic
values, embracing the
Global North/western
art canon.
Emphasis on the
artwork’s capacity to
represent universal
human conditions
and offer novel
perspectives.
Fleabag; Dogtooth
(Yorgos Lanthimos);
works by world authors
(Tarkovsky, Bergman,
Kieslowski), abstract art.
Content perceived
as sexist, vulgar, or
unsophisticated; Cem
Yılmaz's films.
No relevance to
conservative/Islamist
factions; boundaries
are almost non-
existent.
10 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
found that liking jazz and blues was a distinguishing taste in Turkey, a taste that appeared
alongside highbrow literary genres, TV art shows, and independent films and was more
common among highly educated secular factions. There was emphasis in this interview
on how R06 could cross the boundaries of traditionally secular/western cultural products
despite her involvement in Islamist art circles. Similarly, R05 explained in detail how the
religious beliefs or political identity of the artist cannot be made a part of the aesthetic
evaluations of their artwork, and what matters is whether or not the artist is capable of
‘creating their own world’:
For instance, I never rejected Turgut Uyar, you know? I didn’t treat him like he was something
that didn’t belong to me. I never did that with Turgut Uyar, Edip Cansever, or other poets like
Cemal Süreya [all modernist Turkish poets] [. . .] Inspired by T.S. Eliot, my most exclusionary
view is to ask: is this a major poet or a minor poet? [. . .] For me there’s simply this thing called
Turkish literature, and within it, there’s Cemal Süreya, this person, that person, all in the same
place, just differing by their methods. The debates on cultural power are extremely political, as
if literature has no value in itself.
Throughout the interview, R05 elaborated on the distinction between ‘major’ and ‘minor’
artists, distinguishing those who have consistently produced original works in a manner
that legitimises them as classical in their own fields, both nationally and internationally.
In contrast, overly political or religious messaging was seen as something that devalues
art, hindering the development of good aesthetics. This notion was evident in the way
interviewees in this group assigned value to artwork commonly seen as belonging to
conservative art. For instance, R02 and R27 both explicitly referred to Cins, a literature/
culture magazine that defines itself as a tool in the psychological and discursive struggle
against the existing secular cultural hegemony, as being too ideologically motivated. It
was contrasted with Fayrap, another conservative literature magazine, which, according
to R02, should be read like a book, cover to cover, as it presents a coherent, accumulative
aesthetic ‘journey’. The short stories and poems published in Cins, on the other hand, can
be abstracted from the medium and ‘consumed’ individually, which is an indication of its
status as an element of popular culture. Thus, pieces published in certain conservative
mediums are automatically products of popular culture. According to R27, they lack a
traditional artistic heritage and cannot be considered as art; they are incapable of touch-
ing the lives of real people, ideologically motivated, and easily ‘consumed’:
Well, the determining factor of culture is never the art produced by Islamists. Art exists as a
field totally separate from society [. . .] Who reads that ‘Cins’ magazine, how much do they
read it? Okay, let’s say they read it, but how much does that magazine actually touch anyone’s
life? I’m still reading poems from the republican era [. . .] I sit down and read [historically
respected Turkish novelists and poets such as Edip Cansever or Sabahattin Ali] over and over.
In addition to aesthetic sophistication and political disinterestedness, these interview-
ees referred extensively to the themes covered by a given artwork while explaining what
they found aesthetically pleasing. Relatability and authenticity of the theme were para-
mount for this group. Although they did not refrain from using western classical artwork
and artists as yardsticks for good art, they enjoyed stories that could be tied to the local
Karademir and Yaren 11
milieu. For instance, R06 explained the following while giving examples of her tastes in
literature and films:
I mean, if there’s an element of me in it, it interests me. Like, when I read Salinger’s The
Catcher in the Rye, everyone was always referencing him [. . .] But honestly, when I read it, it
didn’t really resonate with the tensions in my own society. It didn’t give me anything [. . .] We
were just talking about Kore-eda and his film, Still Walking. There was this completely
patriarchal Japanese family, belonging completely to the East [. . .] the family dynamics, you
know? As long as we can find ourselves in it, we can connect with it.
Similarly, R05 compared the works of Onur Ünlü, a Turkish arthouse filmmaker who
incorporates Sufi references in his absurdist films, to those of Iranian Kurdish film direc-
tor Bahman Ghobadi. R05 believed he could ‘feel’ what Ghobadi is trying to convey in
A Time for Drunken Horses (2000) and Turtles Can Fly (2004) because they draw on the
realities of the region. In contrast, although Ünlü’s films are appreciated in conservative
circles, they cannot generate the same emotional response in R05 due to their proximity
to popular culture and lack of authenticity in their themes.
In the eclectic mode of appreciation, unlike the moralist mode to be discussed next,
artwork is not judged in terms of its compliance with Islamic values. Navigating diverse
art was seen as a distinguishing competence, as opposed to the narrower repertoires
assumed to exist within the religious audience. Delivering a relatable story (‘the story of
this soil’) and authenticity were seen as artistic strengths, and these criteria seem to local-
ise the more universal highbrow/popular distinction. The values described by Lamont
(1992) as underpinning moral boundaries are certainly at play, but they are merged with
other aesthetic criteria that make up cultural boundaries. This mode of appreciation does
not seem to correspond neatly with any socio-economic status. None of the interviewees
who embodied this form of appreciation had early socialisation in highbrow arts at home,
and most were upwardly mobile compared to their parents.
Interviewees demonstrating this mode of appreciation were highly aware of the divi-
sions and tensions between secular and conservative factions within the field of arts.
There was also a recognition of how conservative artists’ relatively new entry into the
field impacts their ability to be taken seriously by the established secular cultural cir-
cles, who are the prime arbiters of cultural legitimation. They were also aware that they
are seen differently by the secular audience, believed to hold assumptions about how
conservatives would appropriate art. For instance, one interviewee said that she notices
people turning to look at her at film festivals whenever a gay couple is shown on screen,
due to her headscarf. However, drawing on self-confidence that arises from their eclec-
ticism, these interviewees neither take a position in these tensions nor distinguish ‘us’
from ‘them’.
Moralist Mode of Appreciation
This mode of appreciation is labelled as ‘moralist’ because these interviewees (n: 12)
differed from others in their responses to the highbrow/popular distinction and the role
of religion in their aesthetic judgements. From the examples these interviewees offered,
12 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
it was apparent that there was an established understanding of a traditional hierarchy
between artwork that is challenging, difficult to decode, and classic/‘serious’, produced
with a non-commercial ethos, and artwork that is accessible to wider society and carries
entertainment value. While in the eclectic mode, close proximity to highbrow taste,
regardless of its association with secular values, was seen as an asset, in the moralist
mode, appreciation of popular taste was seen as more authentic. For instance, R14 rec-
ognised the cultural currency of being knowledgeable about critically recognised films
but explained that she is not keen on devoting her resources to seeing them:
We’re not big arthouse movie fans. I mean, I don’t get into those really quiet, slow-paced films
that don’t explain much but people think have so much depth and meaning. I prefer more
melodramatic stuff, simpler films that say what they mean [. . .] I often try to get my friends to
watch acclaimed movies with me, but I know they don’t enjoy them. Honestly, I’m not a big
fan, either. I watch them mostly to be knowledgeable and be able to hold a conversation about
them. It’s kind of a necessity if I’m in those social settings.
Interviewees in this group referred to comedy as a genre that they like in film and
theatre. The actors and performers they mentioned, such as Tolga Çevik and Ali Sunal,
produce popular shows for TV channels, which reach a wide range of audiences.
However, there is an important distinction to be made here: these interviewees were
highly suspicious of popular culture emanating from the Global North, especially through
the streaming platform Netflix. They were concerned that such platforms were functional
in reproducing cultural imperialism while promoting values that would contradict Islamic
and traditional Turkish values. For instance, R01 stated:
Netflix got a fund of like 60 million dollars just to, you know, support and promote the LGBT
community. Like, those cartoons with characters kissing, little kids being made to kiss and
stuff. It’s like they’re doing this to emphasise different sexual identities, you know, LGBT. It’s
like kids are being used as tools. Or maybe cinema is being used as a tool for that.
Good taste in art for these interviewees has strong moral underpinnings, interfering
with the universal artistic criteria used to judge or legitimise artwork. This led interview-
ees in this group to see art as a medium for the dissemination of appropriate moral and
religious values. We are hesitant to suggest that adherence to Islamic morality is the
prime criterion these interviewees drew on. As shown earlier in this article, albeit more
limitedly, they also appreciate national popular productions without religious sensitivity.
However, there were several instances in which these interviewees emphasised the need
to develop what they considered to be ‘Muslim art’ with the provision of political and
economic support from above. This perspective drew heavily on a specific reading of
Turkish cultural fields as dominated by an exclusive secular centre that is responsible for
curtailing the development of Muslim art. For instance, R07 argued that the culturally
legitimated miniseries Bir Başkadır (Ethos; dir. Berkun Oya, 2020) misrepresented
women in headscarves as being of low social status and that there is a need for a Muslim
film culture:
Karademir and Yaren 13
Cinema can undeniably be used as a tool for conveying Islamic messages because its influence
is indisputable [. . .] Platforms such as Netflix in particular have productions that can truly
change human nature and the nature of society. For example, depictions of homosexuality or
criticisms directed at veiled ladies like in Ethos demonstrate the medium’s power to impact the
sociological fabric of both Turkey and the world [. . .] Why shouldn’t we be in that lane, as
well? Why shouldn’t we show people beauty? Muslim cinema is really necessary for the film
industry. Iranian cinema has achieved this. In fact, they have films that begin with the phrase
‘In the name of God’.
It is difficult to pinpoint the roles that these interviewees assign to the religious and
moral values of the artist in their evaluations of cultural products. In some instances,
established secular cultural intermediaries such as critics, editors, or the juries of prestig-
ious awards were criticised for devaluing artwork based on the religious identity of the
artist. In other instances, these interviewees seemed to be convinced that what they con-
sidered to be religiously acceptable moral themes could only be reflected in or commu-
nicated through artwork if the artist embodies them personally. For instance, R14
described what she felt when she viewed a theatre play that used an extramarital relation-
ship as a source of humour:
So, there’s this comedy about a man cheating on his wife, and everyone in the theatre is cracking
up. But you’re sitting there thinking, ‘That’s totally wrong’. It’s like people are losing their
ability to see what’s right and wrong. They just present it as a joke [. . .] But when you say
something is ‘Islamic’, you’re saying it’s a rule set by God. Whether you’re making art,
painting, writing books, or teaching, Islam gives you guidelines [. . .] They don’t tell you
exactly how to make a movie, but they give you values to follow.
In this mode of appreciation, books, films, and plays produced by artists who are
publicly known or claimed to be associated with Islamic factions are highly valued. The
criteria used to evaluate the themes addressed in art are much more exclusive. Whereas
in the eclectic mode, relatable stories are preferred over universal ones, in the moralist
mode, it is the religious references embedded in cultural products that elevate their status
to that of proper artwork. The following statement from R19 showcases the centrality of
Islamic content in the aesthetic appreciation of this audience:
[Semih Kaplanoğlu’s Yusuf or ‘Joseph’] trilogy was on a whole different level for me [. . .] I
thought it was really cool how he took the story of Joseph and told it in his own way. I knew
there had to be deeper meanings, but I couldn’t quite figure them out on my own. When I
started to see these deeper meanings, I was blown away. I was like, ‘Wow, he’s telling the story
of prophet Joseph!’
But how is this mode of appreciation experienced? Interviewees in this group rarely
crossed the boundaries between ‘secular’ and ‘Muslim’, and when they did, they were
not keen on engaging with artworks or genres traditionally defined as highbrow art.
None of the interviewees in this group referred to seriousness, lastingness, or non-com-
mercial ethos as elements of their repertoire. Like the eclectic interviewees, they were
highly aware of a sharp division between the secular and Islamic within art production
14 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
and consumption circles. However, they were much more moralist than the eclectics and
tended to link aesthetic considerations more closely to moral and political tensions. For
instance, R24 referred to secular artists as a ‘mob’, working as gatekeepers to exclude
Muslim artists from entering the field. He was certain he would not be given a role in a
theatre play because he would not agree to kiss a woman if it were part of the script. Such
examples were not infrequent; similar anecdotes were shared about how it was practi-
cally impossible for amateur poets in this group to publish their work in secular art peri-
odicals. These feelings created much stronger definitions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in their
evaluative frameworks, making them more enthusiastic about supporting the develop-
ment of a coherent conservative/Islamic art tradition. In this sense, the criteria that under-
pin moral boundaries are dominant in the way these interviewees categorised their tastes
and themselves vis-à-vis other prevalent modes of appreciation (Lamont, 1992).
Cosmopolitan Mode of Appreciation
This mode overlaps with the eclectic mode in terms of the aesthetic criteria used to judge
artwork. Films, books, and plays that compel the audience to think and reflect, rather
than delivering the story directly in an ‘unsophisticated’ manner, are considered worthy
of appreciation by the interviewees demonstrating this framework (n: 9). The unique
aspect of this mode is embracing the Global North/western art canon, favouring works
that align with established western aesthetic traditions and critical frameworks. The use
of metaphors is highly valued, especially in films, where technical elements such as
light, sound, and angle are skilfully employed to convey connections or meanings implic-
itly. Subtlety is of paramount importance, as surface meanings and didactic messaging
are seen as characteristics of popular culture and indicators of a lack of artistic depth. In
the field of film, this criterion is further extended to elevate visual narratives over direct
verbal narration:
I really care more about the visual storytelling, you know, the cinematography. Like in
Hitchcock’s Psycho [. . .] they say so much without saying anything. Just with a single image,
they can convey so much. To me, visual storytelling is much more powerful than using dialogue.
This comment from R15 can be contrasted with R14’s earlier statement, where she
explained that she did not like films with long silences and instead enjoyed those that can
be understood and appreciated by everyone. R15, on the other hand, acknowledged that
while popular films have entertainment value and are not unimportant to the public, they
are unsatisfactory to her compared to art films that tell stories to make her question life.
In the field of literature, the depth of the characters and directionality of the story are
seen as important indicators of a good book; does the story evolve and take the reader to
a new place towards the end, and do the characters develop throughout? Interviewees in
this group often used more technical language to assess aesthetic and cinematographic
elements, and their evaluations were much more nuanced. For instance, R17 discussed a
recent adaptation of King Lear and explained in detail what she expected from adapta-
tions. She strongly disliked this adaptation of Shakespeare because the text was decon-
textualised from the period in which it was written and included references to
Karademir and Yaren 15
contemporary events. The legitimacy of the play was also compromised by the addition
of humorous content, which R17 assumed was intended to entertain the audience.
Similarly, for another interviewee, the problem with popular taste is that when artwork
prioritises wide circulation over critical engagement, there is a higher risk of resorting to
vulgar and shallow themes. While discussing her dislike of popular Turkish comedy
movies, R18 explained how they reproduce uncritical, vulgar, and sexist perspectives:
I saw A.R.O.G. [written and directed by Cem Yılmaz, a popular Turkish comedian, in 2008]
and G.O.R.A. [Cem Yılmaz, 2004]. I didn’t laugh at all, and their jokes often seemed sexist to
me. I prefer truly intelligent humour, like British comedy. That’s probably why I don't like Cem
Yılmaz; he seems vulgar to me. I enjoy shows like Fleabag, After Life, and Sherlock.
With its appeal to wide audiences, comedy as a genre has long been associated with
popular taste. However, within comedy, there are productions increasingly being legit-
imised due to their critical value (Friedman, 2011). In R18’s case, it is interesting to see
that the humour in popular Turkish comedy movies was contrasted with a particular
form of British humour, which, in its own national context, receives critical recogni-
tion. Other interviewees in this group referred to various artists and artworks from the
Global North to exemplify their sense of good taste. R15 mentioned Charlie Chaplin
and Fritz Lang as her favourite artists, while R04 referred to Tarkovsky, Bergman, and
Kieślowski. For R08, it was Tarkovsky, Michelangelo Antonioni, Michael Haneke,
Lars von Trier, and Jim Jarmusch. There were also references to leftist Turkish direc-
tors of the 1970s and their films, such as Yılmaz Güney’s The Herd (1979). In stark
contrast to the two other modes of appreciation, the interviewees in this group made
explicit reference to how moral codes did not play a role in their judgements of art. For
instance, R04 stated:
There’s a Greek film called Dogtooth [dir. Yorgos Lanthimos, 2009]. It’s a film that really
impacted me, one that delves into human and social structures. However, it also contains some
very explicit scenes [. . .] Friends ask, ‘Hey, you’re really into movies, can you recommend
something?’ Excited to share this new discovery, I suggested it to a few of them [. . .] But then
later I’d get reactions like, ‘What kind of movie was that?! We almost had to fast-forward
through the whole thing. I never thought you’d recommend something like that.’ After that, I
realised you can’t recommend everything to everyone.
Similarly, R15 stated that she would not present sexual interactions directly and in full
detail if she were a director herself but could still appreciate them if a director chooses to
include them and believes they are integral to the story. Since Islamic morality, or the
lack thereof, is not a criterion for these interviewees, they tend to participate in a wider
range of artistic events than those embodying the moralist mode. Film enthusiasts are
particularly likely to attend international festivals organised by well-established secular-
leaning associations. Some also enjoyed attending the panels that follow screenings,
where the films are discussed in detail with critics and production teams. This may
explain why these interviewees were more likely to use technical terms and provide more
nuanced evaluations while describing their taste.
16 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
What differentiates this mode of appreciation from the eclectic mode is, first, that
there were almost no references to literary magazines, authors, or film producers associ-
ated with conservative factions. Even those that eclectics included in their taste palette
for being of high quality, not commercially or ideologically motivated, were largely non-
existent in the cosmopolitan interviewees’ narratives. Second, cosmopolitan interview-
ees regarded the capacity of the artwork to represent universal human conditions as a
feature of good artwork, rather than ‘telling the story of this geography’, as eclectics
emphasised. This does not mean that the relatability of the characters and the story was
unimportant, but themes that cut across regions when articulated realistically – such as
gender inequalities, class differences, and generational tensions – were highly praised for
their capacity to address the problems of the universal human condition. More abstract
themes challenging established notions and understandings were also referred to as
markers of good artwork. For instance, R15 thought she must have qualities similar to
those of other people who like Chaplin, as anyone who appreciates him must have a
‘problem’ with life and question or challenge what is presented as factual. Similarly, the
artwork valued by R08 was described as bringing novel perspectives to issues that are
widely shared and experienced:
I’m more interested in abstract art, I guess. I really love Monet’s ambiguity and Jackson
Pollock’s complexity. Jackson Pollock is an American artist who uses huge canvases. Sometimes
the colour combinations, or the way the splatters are arranged, are so beautiful that I’m just in
awe. I love his paintings because they relate problems, because what I’ve learned, especially in
literature, poetry, novels, and film, is that unless you break the existing order, unless you add
something new, you can’t really create something lasting.
Like other modes of appreciation, it is not possible to specify a straightforward socio-
demographic characteristic that informs the features of this group. However, it was appar-
ent that cosmopolitan interviewees were the ones most distant from political debates over
Islam or the positions of Muslims in fields of arts and culture. Some identified themselves
as coming from a ‘conservative’ culture, and some were active participants in workshops
and training programmes offered by associations known to have ties to conservative fac-
tions. However, their religious identity had almost no bearing on their taste profiles. As a
result, they tended not to internalise the secular/Islamist art distinction or consider them-
selves as part of a taste community distinguished by religious/moral codes. In contrast to
the eclectic group, most did not even implicitly recognise that distinction or assume that
their tastes were potentially being categorised by others based on their religious identity.
The most striking comment exemplifying this disassociation was embedded in R18’s
evaluation of Ethos. This critically acclaimed miniseries was criticised earlier by a ‘mor-
alist’ interviewee for misrepresenting women with headscarves as being of low social
status. However, ‘cosmopolitan’ R18 was highly sceptical of the conservative audience
that automatically identified with those women, despite having nothing else in common
besides the headscarf. She suggested that there are other characters, secular and not veiled,
that they could identify with, but that they fail to decode metaphors correctly due to their
inferiority complex and resentfulness. In contrast to the first two groups, the definitions of
good taste in this group mainly drew on cultural criteria.
Karademir and Yaren 17
Concluding Discussion
This study has explored cultural classifications in a context in which religious morality
and politics have increasingly been intervening in the realm of aesthetics. While politi-
cally mobilised discussions are based on the assumption that there exists ‘conservative
art’ with a dedicated audience, our findings revealed different modes of appreciation
among that audience, marked by conflicting understandings of what constitutes good
taste in art.
There is a growing body of literature recognising how aesthetic appreciation and
legitimation are deeply intertwined with moral values, emanating from religion and poli-
tics (e.g. Lavie and Dhoest, 2015; Rankin et al., 2014; Yaren and Karademir Hazır, 2020;
Krolo and Tonković, 2024). In our case, an important axis that creates diversity in aes-
thetic classifications appears to be one’s proximity to political Islam. Although all our
interviewees engaged with or expressed interest in conservative/Islamic art, their politi-
cal orientations varied. For those who closely identify with this project, religious appro-
priateness tends to override aesthetic concerns, becoming almost the sole determinant of
good taste. Conversely, those who do not identify as closely with the project often rely
on aesthetic criteria and exhibit characteristics of moral anti-boundaries (Lamont, 1992),
where classifications based on religious morality are devalued. This provides nuance to
existing literature suggesting that morality helps unprivileged groups compensate for
their lack of other capital, becoming a dominant classification repertoire (Jarness and
Flemmen, 2019; Lamont, 2000). Because we found no such structuring factor and con-
sidering that most interviewees grew up in religious households of low socio-economic
status, we can plausibly argue that the relationship between different types of capital and
boundary work may not be as straightforward as argued. Our findings may also indicate
the limited explanatory power of habitus in explaining the intergenerational transmission
of repertoires. Social mobility is known to lead to different dynamics in habitus forma-
tion, such as a shattered habitus (Daenekindt and Roose, 2013), a habitus clivé (Friedman,
2016), or a divided habitus (Paulson, 2018). While exploring secondary socialisation’s
role in shaping different modes was beyond this study’s scope, the findings suggest it
influences the permeability of cultural classification systems, making them either closed
to or strongly shaped by moral values. This seems to be especially significant in contexts
like Turkey, where religious groups are experiencing substantial upward mobility, urban-
isation, and greater engagement with art and culture. An important contribution of this
study, therefore, is to demonstrate how an inductive boundary approach can be incorpo-
rated into empirical studies of cultural taste in such contexts, enabling the unpacking of
appreciation mechanisms that draw on a wider repertoire, including moral and religious
values.
In the Turkish context, it is evident that the perceived differences between secular and
religious culture underpin a form of eclecticism considered a privilege by those who pos-
sess this repertoire. This aligns with literature showing that eclecticism is overwhelm-
ingly associated with high cultural capital (e.g. Ferrant, 2018; Roose et al., 2012).
However, as Leguina et al.’s (2016) cross-cultural comparison of different forms of
omnivorousness demonstrates, understanding how eclectics use different criteria requires
nuance. In this case, the boundaries crossed are not purely within the cultural realm. In
the eclectic mode, evaluations of aesthetic criteria, such as shape, form, and quality of
18 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
artistic composition, tend to rely on universal standards. In contrast, aspects of the art-
work related to the overall theme and storyline are judged by how authentically they
represent the concerns of the predominantly Muslim geographical region. In other words,
these respondents crossed boundaries that are informed by both morality and aesthetics.
This illustrates the complexity of cultural classifications and how religious values can be
integrated into aesthetic evaluations, shaping how certain social groups engage in eclec-
ticism in unconventional ways.
Inferring the position of these modes of appreciation in the order of legitimacy is not
straightforward, given that we could not identify a clear association between them and
the interviewees’ class backgrounds or existing levels of capital. That said, interviewees
who tended to cross the boundaries between what they labelled as ‘conservative’ and
‘secular’ art participated in consecrated and legitimised art events and circles (e.g. festi-
vals or book launches) and felt more comfortable making sophisticated and sometimes
technical aesthetic judgements. Similarly, supporting research that underlines the critical
recognition of cosmopolitan repertoires (e.g. Savage et al., 2010), interviewees with a
cosmopolitan mode of appreciation did not consider their religious values as interfering
with their competence in engaging with globally legitimated art forms and artists. In
contrast, the moralist mode of appreciation, which is ‘univorous’ in terms of its apprecia-
tion of conservative art, is rooted in popular taste (e.g. commercial, easily decodable
content) rather than demonstrating a ‘cultivated’ approach. Moreover, among our sam-
ple, there was a prevailing understanding that artists and audiences associated with Islam
or forms of art aimed at disseminating Islamic values and morality are not recognised by
the producers, artists, and intermediaries who occupy gatekeeping positions in art fields.
This was evident in the strong feelings of resentment expressed in the moralist mode of
appreciation and the deliberate disidentification with conservative art circles in the cos-
mopolitan and eclectic modes. Therefore, we can plausibly infer that, despite the lack of
distinguishing cultural and economic capital separating them from the rest of the group,
eclectics and cosmopolitans within the conservative audience can potentially perform
distinctions against the univore profile, paralleling previous research demonstrating the
declining value of univorousness elsewhere in the world.
We consider Lamont’s (1992) approach to be a valuable framework for capturing the
nuances of cultural appreciation that cannot be conveyed merely by measuring likes and
dislikes. While our analysis did not employ Lamont’s tripartite operationalisation of
symbolic boundaries, her approach underpinned our rationale for exploring the lived
experiences of taste and interactions between moral and aesthetic judgements. It also
helped provide nuance to our understanding of cultural boundaries arising from existing
cultural classifications, going beyond the overused generalised reading of the cultural
clash between East and West or Islamic and secular, which is popularly assumed to domi-
nate cultural fields in Turkey. The analysis showed that a significant portion of the con-
servative art audience seems to have embodied the traditional ‘secular’ highbrow/
lowbrow distinction through secondary socialisation and avoids drawing boundaries
based on religious values.
An important limitation of this study is that our approach does not allow us to examine
how cultural classifications within the ‘conservative audience’ function specifically across
different art forms. We acknowledge that audience members who engage exclusively with
Karademir and Yaren 19
a single art form (e.g. those interested only in literature but not in film) did not constitute
a significant segment. Accordingly, our interviewees generally expressed views spanning
multiple art forms, which led us to analyse conservative taste patterns as a broader phe-
nomenon rather than as medium-specific classifications. First, therefore, the data were not
suitable to question whether or not interviewees’ cultural profiles included dissonant ele-
ments, with some aspects drawing on legitimate cultural registers while others do not
(Lahire, 2008). Second, the design of the study did not allow us to explore whether or not
different taste dynamics may emerge across various art forms, especially those challeng-
ing Islamic sensitivities. For example, tastes in visual arts, stage arts, and film are more
likely to be evaluated based on moral criteria compared to literature. Thus, politics and
religious morality may shape cultural classifications differently depending on the art
form. This underscores the need to explore the dynamics of conservative art and apprecia-
tion modes across multiple fields comparatively in future studies.
Acknowledgements
We extend our thanks to co-researcher Prof Dr Cenk Saraçoğlu, our fellow scholars and Dr Agah
Hazir for their valuable contributions.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by The Scientific and Technological
Research Institution of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) under Grant 218K152.
Ethical Approval and Informed Consent
Ethics approval was obtained from the Ankara University Ethics Board (approval number 64497)
prior to data collection. All interviewees signed a consent form, and pseudonyms were used in the
text to maintain their anonymity. The data are currently closed to public use.
ORCID iDs
Irmak Karademir https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1568-4612
Özgür Yaren https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0760-0303
Notes
1. Within the AKP’s ambiguous Islamic project, the terms ‘conservative’, ‘national’ (milli, with
religious connotations), and ‘Islamic’ are often used interchangeably. As articulated by one
of Erdoğan’s top bureaucrats, ‘conservative art’ and ‘Islamic aesthetics’ are treated as near
synonyms in this discourse (İsen, 2012).
2. For a comprehensive review of debates on ‘conservative art’, see Gündoğdu (2012).
3. The research was paused for six months due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
References
Akçaoğlu A (2019) Zarif ve Dinen Makbul. İstanbul: İletişim.
Akyıldız K, Furman I and Hecker P (eds) (2022) The Politics of Culture in Contemporary Turkey.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
20 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Alimen N (2019) Faith and Fashion in Turkey: Consumption, Politics and Islamic Identities.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Arik H (2023) Creative geographies of Islam: The case of Islamic and traditional visual arts scene
in Istanbul. Cultural Geographies 30(3): 339–353.
Atkinson W (2016) The structure of literary taste: Class, gender and reading in the UK. Cultural
Sociology 10(2): 247–266.
Bakiner O (2018) A key to Turkish politics? The center–periphery framework revisited. Turkish
Studies 19(4): 503–522.
Barkçın S (2020) Kültürel iktidar. Cins, October, Issue 61.
Batuman B (2017) New Islamist Architecture and Urbanism: Negotiating Nation and Islam
Through Built Environment in Turkey. London: Routledge.
Baumann S (2007) A general theory of artistic legitimation: How art worlds are like social move-
ments. Poetics 35(1): 47–65.
Becker H (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bellavance G (2008) Where’s high? Who’s low? What’s new? Classification and stratification
inside cultural ‘repertoires’. Poetics 36(2–3): 189–216.
Bennett T, Savage M, Silva E, et al. (2009) Culture, Class, Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bilgin O (2022) Kültürel İktidar. Istanbul: Diplomasi Vakfı Yayınları.
Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
Buğra A (1998) Class, culture, and state: An analysis of interest representation by two Turkish
business associations. International Journal of Middle East Studies 30(4): 521–539.
Chan TW (2019) Understanding cultural omnivores: Social and political attitudes. British Journal
of Sociology 70(3): 784–806.
Çolak E (2024) ‘Homegrown and national culture’: The cultural policies of Erdogan’s ‘New
Turkey’. International Journal of Cultural Policy 1–17. Published online 15 May. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2024.2345372.
Crăciun M (2019) Islam, Faith, and Fashion: The Islamic Fashion Industry in Turkey. London:
Bloomsbury.
Daenekindt S and Roose H (2013) A mise-en-scène of the shattered habitus: The effect of social
mobility on aesthetic dispositions towards films. European Sociological Review 29(1): 48–59.
Daloz J (2010) The Sociology of Elite Distinction: From Theoretical to Comparative Perspectives.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Keere K (2022) Evaluating self-presentation: Gatekeeping recognition work in hiring. Cultural
Sociology 16(1): 86–110.
De Vries R and Reeves A (2022) What does it mean to be a cultural omnivore? Conflicting visions
of omnivorousness in empirical research. Sociological Research Online 27(2): 292–312.
Ergenç K (2023) Kültürel iktidar meselesine dair. Umran, July, Issue 347.
Ferrant C (2018) Class, culture, and structure: Stratification and mechanisms of omnivorousness.
Sociology Compass 12(7): e12590.
Friedman S (2011) The cultural currency of a ‘good’ sense of humour: British comedy and new
forms of distinction. British Journal of Sociology 62(2): 347–370.
Friedman S (2016) Habitus clivé and the emotional imprint of social mobility. Sociological Review
64(1): 129–147.
Friedman S and Laurison D (2020) The Class Ceiling: Why It Pays to Be Privileged. Bristol:
Bristol University Press.
Friedman S and Reeves A (2020) From aristocratic to ordinary: Shifting modes of elite distinction.
American Sociological Review 85(2): 323–350.
Glaser GB (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems
12(4): 436–445.
Karademir and Yaren 21
Göle N (1997) The quest for the Islamic self within the context of modernity. In: Bozdoğan S
and Kasaba R (eds) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press, 81–94.
Göle N (2017) The Daily Lives of Muslims: Islam and Public Confrontation in Contemporary
Europe. London: Bloomsbury.
Gündoğdu S (2012) Çağdaş Türkiye’de Muhafazakar Sanat Sorunu. Istanbul: Granada.
Habertürk (2012) Muhafazakar sanat olur mu? Habertürk, 10 May. Available at: https://www.
haberturk.com/polemik/haber/728760-muhafazakar-sanat-olur-mu (accessed 4 September
2024).
Holt D (1998) Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer
Research 25(1): 1–25.
Hürriyet Daily News (2017) We still have problems in social and cultural rule: President Erdoğan.
Hürriyet Daily News, 29 May. Available at: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/we-still-
have-problems-in-social-and-cultural-rule-president-erdogan-113644 (accessed 4 September
2024).
İsen M (2012) 21’inci yüzyıl Türkiye’sinde kültür ve sanat anlayışı. In: Gündoğdu S (ed.) Çağdaş
Türkiye’de Muhafazakar Sanat Sorunu. Istanbul: Granada, 13–17.
Jarness V (2015) Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research.
Poetics 53: 65–79.
Jarness V (2017) Cultural vs economic capital: Symbolic boundaries within the middle class.
Sociology 51(2): 357–373.
Jarness V and Flemmen MP (2019) A struggle on two fronts: Boundary drawing in the lower
region of the social space and the symbolic market for ‘down-to-earthness’. British Journal
of Sociology 70(1): 166–189.
Kahma N and Toikka A (2012) Cultural map of Finland 2007: Analysing cultural differences using
multiple correspondence analysis. Cultural Trends 21(2): 113–131.
Kahraman E (2012) Muhafazakar sanat olur mu? Gerçek Edebiyat, 7 June. Available at: https://
www.gercekedebiyat.com/haber-detay/muhafazakar-sanat-olur-mu-ekrem-kahraman/6370
(accessed 4 September 2024).
Kandiyoti D (1997) Gendering the modern: On missing dimensions in the study of Turkish moder-
nity. In: Bozdoğan S and Kasaba R (eds) Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in
Turkey. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 113–132.
Karademir Hazır I (2014) Boundaries of middle-class identities in Turkey. Sociological Review
62(4): 675–697.
Karademir Hazır I (2017) Wearing class: A study on clothes, bodies and emotions in Turkey.
Journal of Consumer Culture 17(2): 413–432.
Karademir Hazır I and Warde A (2015) The cultural omnivore thesis: Methodological aspects of
the debate. In: Hanquinet L and Savage M (eds) Routledge International Handbook of the
Sociology of Art and Culture. London: Routledge, 77–89.
Krolo K and Tonković Ž (2024) The sound of distinction: Social class and political orientations as
predictors of music taste in Croatia. In: Baker C (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Popular
Music and Politics of the Balkans. London: Routledge, 251–264.
Lahire B (2008) The individual and the mixing of genres: Cultural dissonance and self-distinction.
Poetics 36(2–3): 166–188.
Lamont M (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American
Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont M (2000) The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and
Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Lamont M, Schmalzbauer J, Waller M, et al. (1996) Cultural and moral boundaries in the United
States: Structural position, geographic location, and lifestyle explanations. Poetics 24(1):
31–56.
Lavie N and Dhoest A (2015) ‘Quality television’ in the making: The cases of Flanders and Israel.
Poetics 52: 64–74.
Leguina A, Widdop P and Tampubolon G (2016) The global omnivore: Identifying musical taste
groups in Austria, England, Israel and Serbia. Sociological Research Online 21(3): 24–40.
Lekesiz Ö (2013) Sanat Bizim Neyimize? Istanbul: Profil Kitab.
Lizardo O (2006) How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review
71(5): 778–807.
Mardin Ş (1973) Center–periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics? Daedalus 102: 169–190.
Mendez LM (2008) Middle class identities in a neo-liberal age: Tensions between contested
authenticities. Sociological Review 56(2): 220–237.
Nault JF, Baumann S, Childress C, et al. (2021) The social positions of taste between and within
music genres: From omnivore to snob. European Journal of Cultural Studies 24(3): 717–740.
Navaro-Yashin Y (2002) Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
O’Brien D and Ianni L (2023) New forms of distinction: How contemporary cultural elites under-
stand ‘good’ taste. Sociological Review 71(1): 201–220.
Özcan GB and Turunç H (2011) Economic liberalization and class dynamics in Turkey: New busi-
ness groups and Islamic mobilization. Insight Turkey 13(3): 63–86.
Özçetin B, Arslan UT, Arun Ö, Tol UU (2018) Television viewing tendencies of conservatives:
Identity, popular taste and boundaries. Unpublished Report, Project No: 114K384. Ankara:
TÜBİTAK.
Pala İ (2012) Muhafazakar sanat manifestosu. In: Gündoğdu S (ed.) Çağdaş Türkiye’de
Muhafazakar Sanat Sorunu. Istanbul: Granada, 49–52.
Paulson EL (2018) A habitus divided? The effects of social mobility on the habitus and consump-
tion. European Journal of Marketing 52(5/6): 1060–1083.
Peterson RA and Kern RM (1996) Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American
Sociological Review 61(5): 900–907.
Prieur A and Savage M (2013) Emerging forms of cultural capital. European Societies 15(2):
246–267.
Prieur A, Rosenlund L and Skjott-Larsen J (2008) Cultural capital today: A case study from
Denmark. Poetics 36(1): 45–71.
Rankin B, Ergin M and Gökşen F (2014) A cultural map of Turkey. Cultural Sociology 8(2):
159–179.
Roose H, Van Eijck K and Lievens J (2012) Culture of distinction or culture of openness? Using a
social space approach to analyze the social structuring of lifestyles. Poetics 40(6): 491–513.
Saktanber AN (2002) ‘We pray like you have fun’: New Islamic youth in Turkey between intel-
lectualism and popular culture. In: Kandiyoti D and Saktanber A (eds) Fragments of Culture:
The Everyday of Modern Turkey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 254–276.
Saldana J (2011) Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sandıkçı Ö and Ger G (2007) Constructing and representing the Islamic consumer in Turkey.
Fashion Theory 11(2–3): 189–210.
Sandıkçı Ö and Ger G (2010) Veiling in style: How does a stigmatized practice become fashion-
able? Journal of Consumer Research 37(1): 15–36.
Savage M and Gayo M (2011) Unravelling the omnivore: A field analysis of contemporary musi-
cal taste in the United Kingdom. Poetics 39(5): 337–357.
Karademir and Yaren 23
Savage M, Hanquinet L, Cunningham N, et al. (2018) Emerging cultural capital in the city:
Profiling London and Brussels. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 42(1):
138–149.
Savage M, Wright D and Gayo-Cal M (2010) Cosmopolitan nationalism and the cultural reach of
the white British. Nations and Nationalism 16(4): 598–615.
Sivonen S and Heikkilä R (2024) Exploring the limits and boundaries between cultural practices
and political values in contemporary Finland. European Journal of Cultural and Political
Sociology 11(1): 101–123.
Tampubolon G (2010) Social stratification and cultures hierarchy among the omnivores: Evidence
from the Arts Council England surveys. Sociological Review 58(1): 1–25.
Vassenden A and Jonvik M (2023) Live and let live? Morality in symbolic boundaries across dif-
ferent cultural areas. Current Sociology 71(3): 450–469.
White J (1999) Islamic chic. In: Keyder C (ed.) Istanbul: Between the Global and the Local.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 77–91.
Wohl H (2015) Community sense: The cohesive power of aesthetic judgment. Sociological Theory
33(4): 299–326.
Yalvaç NS and Karademir Hazır I (2021) Do omnivores perform class distinction? A qualitative
inspection of culinary tastes, boundaries and cultural tolerance. Sociology 55(3): 469–486.
Yaren Ö and Karademir Hazır I (2020) Critics, politics and cultural legitimation: An exploratory
analysis of the Turkish film field. European Journal of Cultural Studies 23(4): 611–629.
Yavuz MH (2003) Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yıldırım E (2018) Kültür Savaşlarından Kültürel İktidara, Türkiye’nin Yeni Kültürü. Istanbul:
Pınar Yayınları.
Author biographies
Irmak Karademir is Assistant Professor in Sociology at the School of Sociology and Social Policy,
University of Nottingham. Her research interests lie in the areas of sociology of consumption,
sociology of arts and culture, class inequalities and research methods.
Özgür Yaren is a film scholar and lecturer in the Faculty of Communication Arts at Chulalongkorn
University. His research focuses on film theory, film history, aesthetics, and cultural studies.
24 Cultural Sociology 00(0)
Appendix 1. List of Interviewees.
ID Age Gender Occupation
R01 27 Female Teacher (religious culture)
R02 45 Male Academic-civil servant (department head)
R03 28 Female Communications specialist
R04 34 Male Social media promotion; editor
R05 30 Male Cartographer/MA student
R06 52 Female Not in paid work
R07 27 Male Graphic designer
R08 30 Male English teacher
R09 22 Female Student
R10 25 Female Dentist
R11 26 Female Landscape architect
R12 26 Female TV industry
R13 29 Male Editor
R14 29 Female Assistant director; TV industry
R15 25 Female Not in paid work
R16 23 Male University student
R17 29 Female Museum design and media sector
R18 24 Female University student
R19 20 Male University student
R20 36 Female Teacher
R21 33 Female Social media content creator
R23 21 Male University student
R24 27 Male University student
R25 21 Female University student
R26 43 Male Literature; geography teacher
R27 40 Male Cinema; reporter, editor, director
R28 47 Male Author
R29 39 Male Columnist
R30 62 Male Cinema; critic
R31 50 Male Translator, publisher
R32 44 Male Publisher
R33 45 Male Journalist, editor
R34 42 Female Cinema; writer, critic
R35 37 Female Theatre; theatre trainer
R36 38 Female Media sector; editor
