Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx

Sociology Compass 9/1 (2015): 78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
Race, Gender, Hollywood: Representation in Cultural
Production and Digital Media’s Potential for Change
Maryann Erigha*
Temple University
Abstract
Since its inception, the Hollywood industry has played an
instrumental role in the mass dissemination of
popular culture, both within the United States and globally. Yet,
White men have almost exclusively
created the narratives and myths that comprise Hollywood
cultural production, while narratives by
women and racial/ethnic minorities are fewer and less
prominent. This article gives an overview of
current research on racial and gender inequality in
representation in the production of Hollywood film
and television in the United States, with a focus on the
contemporary era. Research on Hollywood
cultural production points to a problematic trend of
disadvantages in opportunities and outcomes facing
women and racial/ethnic minorities, leading to the prevalence of
stereotypes and a lack of diversity
on-screen. However, transformations in technology that alter the
production and dissemination of media
present the possibility of decreasing inequality for women and
racial/ethnic minorities.
For nearly a century, Hollywood studios have played an
instrumental role in the mass

dissemination of popular culture, both within the United States
and globally—for better or
worse. On the one hand, American cinema has left an indelible
footprint of narratives, images,
and myths about American and global culture. On the other, the
orchestrators of this historical
and wide-reaching trail of American popular cultural artifacts
have been almost exclusively
White men, while the narratives from women and racial/ethnic
minorities have occupied far
less space in the cultural canon. For decades, scholars, workers
in creative industries, as well as
civil rights organizations have pressured decision-makers in
Hollywood film and television
industries to open their doors to embrace greater diversity in
participation of racial/ethnic
minorities and women in the cultural production process. A
growing number of studies—like
those from The Writers Guild of America; The Directors Guild
of America; and studies on
screenwriters, actors, and directors written by scholars like
Bielby and Bielby (1996) and
Guerrero (1993)—revealed dismal statistics on the dearth of
diversity behind-the-scenes in
Hollywood.
Unfortunately, recent research confirms that not much has
changed 20 years after those
landmark studies. Women and racial/ethnic minorities remain
underrepresented in Hollywood,
far below their proportion of the US population. How does this
lack of proportional
representation contribute to how societal culture is created?
More specifically, how does the
dearth of women and racial/ethnic minorities in behind-the-
scenes positions in Hollywood

translate into stereotypical and limited creative visions on
screen? And finally, what might
changes in technology, including the changing nature of the
television medium and the
proliferation of digital media, mean for future diversity of
Hollywood cultural production?
This article gives an overview of current research on racial and
gender inequality in
representation in the production of Hollywood film and
television in the United States, with
a focus on the contemporary era. Unsurprisingly, research on
Hollywood cultural production
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
points to a problematic trend of disadvantages in opportunities
and outcomes facing women and
racial/ethnic minorities, leading to the prevalence of stereotypes
and a lack of diversity
on-screen. However, changes in technology and in the
production and dissemination of media
present the possibility of decreasing inequality for women and
racial/ethnic minorities.
Sociologists and media scholars can learn a great deal about
what the future holds for underrep-
resented groups in Hollywood by investigating what changes the
production of mainstream
culture will have to undergo in order to maintain dominance in
the face of rising competition
from new online methods of production, distribution, and
exhibition.
Three types of representation in cultural production

Production of culture scholars analyze the manufacturing,
organization, and distribution of
cultural products, as well as the organizations, occupations, and
characteristics of the industries
that produce cultural goods for mass audience consumption (Du
Gay et al. 1997; Grindstaff
2008; Negus 1997; Peterson and Anand 2004). The making of
the images and narratives that
form the backbone of societal culture is crystallized through the
values, attitudes, and opinions
of people working in culture industries (Grindstaff 2008).
Because cultural products are
inextricably linked to meanings derived from the people
working in culture industries, at stake
in the production of popular culture is the ability for various
social groups to develop and
disseminate their own meaning systems. Therefore,
understanding the demographic character-
istics, employment conditions, and experiences of diverse
groups of cultural laborers will give us
greater insight into the system in which societal culture is
produced and why stereotypical and
limited creative visions might emerge from it (Caldwell 2008;
Hesmondhalgh and Baker 2011).
Of great concern to marginalized groups is the precise quantity
that constitutes adequate
representation in media. Numerical representation describes a
social group’s presence or absence
on-screen or behind-the-scenes, usually referring to the
proportion of a particular occupation
that the group occupies. Several studies described Hollywood as
a predominantly White and
male sphere, with women and racial/ethnic minorities being
highly underrepresented with

proportions well below their share of the US population (Bielby
and Bielby 2002; Erigha
2014; Lauzen 2008; Lauzen 2009a; Lauzen 2009b; Lauzen 2012;
Smith and Choueiti 2011a;
Smith and Choueiti 2011b; Smith et al. 2014).
In addition to numerical representation, quality of
representation also matters. Quality of repre-
sentation includes the kinds of roles that groups occupy on-
screen and behind-the-scenes. In
front of the camera, actors favor multi-dimensional, multi-
faceted roles over stereotypical,
one-dimensional parts (Shohat and Stam 1997). Behind-the-
camera directors and producers
prefer to work in a range of genres rather than be typecasted, or
relegated to niches, ultimately
making long-term viability vulnerable due to genre popularity
cycles (Bielby and Bielby 2002;
Yuen 2010). Cultural producers also have varying leverage in
terms of their behind-the-scenes
conditions of employment. For instance, although directors and
producers desire production
circumstances that allow for maximum creativity, industry
decision-makers may only circum-
scribe them to limited scales of production or provide them with
sparingly few resources for
the execution of a project. Nonetheless, the quality of
representation that characterizes the par-
ticipation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in Hollywood
largely dictates the parameters
for what kinds of culture they can and cannot produce.
Another measure of representation, centrality of representation,
assesses how central groups are to
an industry’s core institutions. Research on centrality of
representation investigates whether

racial/ethnic minorities and women are located in institutions
that are in the core or periphery
of cultural production. Prior research has demonstrated that
women and racial/ethnic minorities
employed in Hollywood face difficulty accessing the core of the
industry and more often find
Representation in Hollywood Cultural Production 79
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/1 (2015):
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
work with marginal companies, such as in the Bielby and Bielby
(1999) study, which showed
that women and racial/ethnic minorities were less likely than
White men to belong to core
talent agencies. However, the benefits of belonging to core
talent agencies—better reputation,
resources, authentication, legitimacy, employment, and
income—make career success and
advancement substantially more likely with membership in core
talent agencies compared to
membership in non-core talent agencies.
In film, major studios offer cultural producers advantages that
smaller studios cannot afford.
With regard to the exhibition of films in theaters, major studios
have branch offices in critical
regional markets, allowing them to maintain extensive and
continuous contact with theater
chains across the country, whereas independent distributors are
less strategically networked with
exhibitors and generally have greater difficulty marketing,
publicizing, and gaining large

theatrical releases for their films (Marcks 2008; Scott 2004).
Consequently, directors working
primarily with independent studios experience disadvantages in
theatrical releases for their films
compared to directors primarily working with major studios
(Erigha 2014). Given the benefits
of belonging to core organizations, having limited access to
core organizations demonstrates yet
another level of inequality that presents disadvantages in career
opportunities for women and
racial/ethnic minorities in the cultural labor market.
Integrating key points about representation through these three
interrelated concepts—
numerical representation, quality of representation, and
centrality of representation—allows
us to understand the totality of marginalization facing women
and racial/ethnic minorities in
Hollywood, whereas focusing solely on one while ignoring
others provides an incomplete por-
trait of the layers of inequality facing marginalized groups in
culture industries. Therefore, the
most thorough studies on cultural representation should take
their simultaneous effects into
account. These three types of representation come to bear on
prominent positions in the
production of popular film and television. Above-the-line
positions, such as writers, directors,
producers, and creators, each play instrumental, yet different,
roles in the production of
mainstream culture. “Writers are crucial to film and television
because without a script there
is no product” (Bielby 2013: 140). Producers oversee all aspects
of making of films and
television programs. The director is the key role facilitating the
making of the video product,

as well as guiding actors, camera placement, technical crew,
and other elements of production.
On television shows, the creator is the key figure who
successfully sells the television show’s
concept and has an integral voice in production choices (Hunt et
al. 2014, p. 12). In different
ways, each position influences on-screen outcomes, shaping
who is cast, what traits and
behaviors characters exhibit, and how central characters are in
narratives. Racial/ethnic
minorities’ and women’s representation in film and television is
at the heart of their quest to gain
a platform in popular culture.
Racial/ethnic minorities in Hollywood
Numerical representation
Comprehensive data on employment in Hollywood production
illustrate that racial/ethnic mi-
norities are vastly underrepresented in acting, writing,
directing, and creating for Hollywood
film and television. Few television directors are from
racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.
The Hunt et al. (2014) Hollywood Diversity Report, which
analyzes 1061 television
shows airing during the 2011–12 season on 6 broadcast and 62
cable networks, showed that
minorities directed only 2 percent of broadcast comedies and
dramas and 7 percent of cable
comedies and dramas. Meanwhile, on most television shows—
73 percent of broadcast comedies
80 Representation in Hollywood Cultural Production

78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
and dramas and 71 percent of cable comedies and dramas—
minorities directed 10 percent or less
of episodes (Hunt et al. 2014, p. 15).
Film directors were similarly underrepresented in Hollywood.
For instance, in 2008, only 6
of the 100 top-grossing films were directed by Black directors—
translating into roughly
5 percent Black directors (Smith and Choueiti 2011a). In 2013,
6.5 percent of top-grossing
Hollywood films had Black directors (Smith et al. 2014). The
trend of few Black directors
extended over the first decade of the 21st century with Black
filmmakers directing only
7 percent of all theatrically released Hollywood films between
2000 and 2011 (Erigha 2014).
It is true that critically acclaimed films also matter; in fact, they
can carry as much, if not more
cultural influence, than top-grossing films. However, racial
minority film directors have been
largely ignored at major Academy Awards ceremonies. Thus far,
the only Black-directed feature
to win a directing or producing award was Steve McQueen’s 12
Years A Slave (2013), which
won a Best Picture Academy Award. To date, no Black director
has won a Best Director Acad-
emy Award for a feature film. Asian-born American film
director Ang Lee, however, broke a
long-time barrier for racial/ethnic minorities in Hollywood
when he won Best Director for Life
of Pi (2012). While sociologists have focused on racial minority

directors’ advancement among
top-grossing films and in the largest Hollywood studios, more
work on which minority-
directed films receive critical acclaim will ultimately question
what we think we know about
which films, directors, and actors gain visibility in critics’
circles and why they achieve this
recognition.
In acting for film and television, a Screen Actor’s Guild report
showed that while White
actors dominated positions, occupying 75 percent of all roles,
African Americans occupied
14 percent, Latinos 5 percent, and Asian Americans less than 3
percent of roles (Screen Actors
Guild 2000). Examining the race/ethnicity of speaking
characters for the top-grossing films
of 2013, these numbers remained largely unchanged. Only Asian
Americans increased their
presence with 4.4 percent of speaking roles from less than 3
percent. Latinos, however, were
most underrepresented, comprising over 16 percent of the 2010
population in the United States
but slightly less than 5 percent of speaking characters (Smith et
al. 2014). More than half of
theatrical films had casts that were 10 percent or less minority
(Hunt et al. 2014).
The racial/ethnic disparity in acting becomes even more
substantial when examining
placement in lead roles. Of the top 172 non-foreign feature
films released to theaters in 2011,
racial/ethnic minorities only accounted for 10.5 percent of lead
roles, although they accounted
for 36.3 percent of the US population in 2010 (Hunt et al.
2014). Minority actors were a dismal

5 percent of lead acting roles in broadcast comedies and dramas,
on shows like Scandal (ABC)
and Nikita (CW), and 15 percent of lead roles in cable comedies
and dramas, on shows like
Single Ladies (VH1) and Tyler Perry’s For Better or Worse
(TBS) (Hunt et al. 2014, p. 8–9). In
reality television, minorities comprised of 15 percent of
broadcast reality television leads, on
shows like America’s Next Top Model (CW), and 13 percent of
reality television leads on cable
networks on shows like Basketball Wives LA (VH1) and Tia &
Tamera (Style) (Hunt et al. 2014,
p. 10). Racial/ethnic minorities’ subordination in supporting
roles compared to leading
roles provides them with less on-screen visibility than their
White counterparts, despite their
increasing proportion of the general population.
The writing occupation shows similar patterns of White
overrepresentation and minority
underrepresentation. Over the past decades, White Americans
accounted for nearly 80 percent
of feature film writers and 70 percent of television writers
(Hunt 2002). Together, Latino, Asian
American, and Native American writers comprised less than 2
percent of working television
writers between 1999 and 2000 (Bielby and Bielby 2002, p. 25).
In recent years, this disparity
has increased significantly. According to the 2011 Hollywood
Writer’s Report, between
2005 and 2009, minorities comprised of just 9–10 percent of
television writers and 5–6 percent

78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
of screenwriters (Motion Picture Association of America 2011).
For the 2011–2012 season,
most broadcast television writing staffs (62.5 percent) and cable
television writing staffs
(69 percent) were comprised of 10 percent or less minority,
while only 10 percent of writers
across all broadcast comedies and dramas and 7 percent of
writers across all cable comedies
and dramas were from racial/ethnic minority groups (Hunt et al.
2014, p. 13–14).
Television creators can possibly impact diversity in the racial
composition of the cast and
writing staff, but here too, racial minorities face severe
underrepresentation. However,
African American Shonda Rhimes was the only creator from a
racial/ethnic minority group
whose television shows aired on a major broadcast network
during the 2011–2012 season (Hunt
et al. 2014). Her shows, Grey’s Anatomy, Private Practice, and
Scandal, which aired on ABC,
constituted 3.1 percent of broadcast comedies and dramas
during the 2011–2012 season (Hunt
et al. 2014, p. 12). In contrast to broadcast television, 7 percent
of cable comedies and dramas
were created by racial/ethnic minorities, including shows like
Let’s Stay Together (BET). All in
all, minorities remained largely underrepresented across behind-
the-scenes occupations in
Hollywood with the vast majority of television shows and films
excluding members of
racial/ethnic minority groups from behind-the-scenes

participation.
Quality and centrality of representation
Across all media occupations, racial minorities were typically
associated with ethnic genres and
performances of race and ethnicity (Hunt et al. 2014; Yuen
2004; Yuen 2010). Nancy Wang
Yuen’s ethnographic studies on race and film actors revealed
ways in which actors were cast
in racialized roles. In popular films, African Americans were
typed to play roles that exhibited
ghetto behavior or linked to ties with inner city communities
(Yuen 2010). Asian and Asian
American actors were racialized in roles as martial arts gurus,
superhuman characters, or victims
(Yuen 2004, p. 254). Actors with Asian backgrounds were
generally typed as foreign and asked
to speak in Chinese accents, since casting directors failed to
distinguish between foreign-born
Asians and Asian Americans, nor account for variation in
Asians’ ethnic backgrounds and
cultures (Yuen 2004, p. 255).
Similar to the stereotyping actors faced, directors and writers
were also typecasted into ethnic
genres. In Hollywood feature films, Black filmmakers were
overrepresented in directing
music-themed movies, arguably the most entertainment and
performance-oriented film genre
(Erigha 2014). Likewise, minority film and television writers
had few opportunities for work
outside of minority-themed genres (Bielby and Bielby 2002).
Between 1999 and 2000,
90 percent of minority television writers worked on programs
that featured predominantly

African American characters (Bielby and Bielby 2002, p. 25).
Even today, minority writers
remain concentrated on ethnic niche shows (Hunt et al. 2014, p.
15).
In addition to being limited to narrow roles and genres for
cultural production, racial/ethnic
minorities also had less presence than White Americans in core
institutions in Hollywood film
and television industries. In television, minority-themed
programs aired on networks like UPN,
WB, and Fox, while racial/ethnic minorities faced near
exclusion from traditional networks like
ABC, CBS, and NBC (Bielby and Bielby 2002, p. 25). In the
film industry, racial/ethnic
minorities were vastly underrepresented in major studios
compared to non-core studios (Erigha
2014). In fact, in 2009, over 93 percent of Hollywood studio
directors from the 6 largest film
companies were White and male (Cieply 2009).
Underrepresentation at major studios is associ-
ated with fewer resources for film production, distribution, and
exhibition (Scott 2004).
Consequently, compared to White directors, African American
directors in Hollywood
had films with smaller production budgets and theatrical
releases, due in part to their
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
underrepresentation at major studios, which boast the highest

average budgets, theatrical re-
leases, and box office grosses (Erigha 2014).
Moreover, talent agencies that assemble writing, producing,
acting, and directing teams for
projects served as gatekeepers in television and film production
labor markets, limiting
racial/ethnic minorities’ access to jobs with major studios (Hunt
et al. 2014, p. 22). According
to Hunt et al. (2014), three core talent agencies were
responsible for the majority of actors’,
writers’, and directors’ employment on Hollywood film
projects. These three talent agencies
claimed 70 percent of directors, 65 percent of writers, and 72
percent of lead actors on the
172 top-grossing domestic films of 2011; yet, only 9.2 percent
of actors, 6.3 percent of writers,
and 7.3 percent of racial/ethnic minority directors were
represented by these talent agencies,
while the majority found representation from talent agencies
outside of the core talent agencies
(Hunt et al. 2014, p. 22). Likewise, the same three talent
agencies dominated broadcast comedy
and television production, representing 74 percent of creators
and 56 percent of lead actors. At
core talent agencies, however, only 1.4 percent of creators were
racial minorities, while outside
of core talent agencies, 23.5 percent of creators were from
racial minority groups (Hunt et al.
2014, p. 23). In cable television, dominant talent agencies
represented 70.5 percent of all
creators and 46 percent of all show leads. However, only 6.1
percent of creators and 13 percent
of actors represented by dominant talent agencies were racial
minorities.
Underrepresentation in core institutions in film and television

prevents racial minority
directors, writers, actors, and creators from full participation in
Hollywood cultural production
and also limits the scope of their careers in Hollywood. Further
investigations by sociologists and
media scholars should reach beyond numerical data to
understand how inequality manifests
itself in the everyday work lives of cultural producers. Perhaps
in addition to industry studies,
qualitative inquiries that shed light on how the process of racial
underrepresentation unfolds
through casting, hiring, and production decisions are necessary.
Women in Hollywood
Numerical representation
Although women accounted for more than half of the 2010 US
population, there remains a
substantial amount of gender inequality in Hollywood film and
television production. Women
were particularly underrepresented in technical behind-the-
scenes positions (Lauzen 2009b;
Lauzen 2012). From 1998 to 2011, women worked between 16
and 18 percent of
behind-the-scenes roles on top-grossing films (Lauzen 2012). Of
the top 100 worldwide
grossing films in 2007, women comprised 13 percent of behind-
the-scenes roles; however,
while all films employed at least one man in technical behind-
the-scenes roles, 29 percent of
films had no women in technical behind-the-scenes roles
(Lauzen 2008).
In film directing, the percentage of female Hollywood directors
in any given year has yet to

reach 10 percent. Overall, the percentage of female directors of
the top 250 films declined over
time from 9 percent in 1998 to 5 percent in 2011 (Lauzen 2012).
Of the 200 top-grossing
fictional films in 2010, 8 percent of directors were women (9
out of 112 total directors) (Smith
and Choueiti 2011b, p. 2), while only 7 percent of Hollywood
films theatrically released
between 2000 and 2011 had female directors (Erigha 2014).
Women’s imprint on film directing
appears to be declining over time. In 2011, women directed just
4 percent of the top 172 films
(Hunt et al. 2014). Of the top 250 grossing films in 2011,
women were 5 percent of directors
(Lauzen 2012).
In television, women directed 10 percent or less of episodes for
53 percent of broadcast
comedies and dramas and 65 percent of cable comedies and
dramas for the 2011–2012 season
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
(Hunt et al. 2014). Women directed the majority of episodes on
broadcast comedies and dramas
for only three shows, Are You There Chelsea? (NBC), How I
Met Your Mother (CBS), and The
Firm (NBC), and the majority of episodes for only 2 percent of
cable comedies and dramas,
including Austin and Ally (Disney) and Single Ladies (VH1)

(Hunt et al. 2014, p. 16). Moreover,
only 26.5 percent of creators of broadcast comedies and dramas
were women, on shows like
30 Rock (NBC) and Gossip Girl (CW). In cable comedies and
dramas, fewer women were
creators, 21.5 percent, on shows like The Big C (Showtime) and
The Game (BET) (Hunt
et al. 2014, p. 13).
Gender inequality persisted in writing occupations, although
women had greater representa-
tion in writing than in directing. Overall, cable writing staffs
were less gender diverse than
broadcast writing staffs. Female writers comprised 33 percent of
all writers on broadcast
comedies and dramas and 27 percent of all cable television
comedy and drama writers (Hunt
et al. 2014, p. 15). Half of writing staffs for broadcast comedies
and dramas had greater than
30 percent female representation, while 12.5 percent had 10
percent female representation or
less (Hunt et al. 2014, p. 14–15). In contrast, more than 26
percent of cable comedy and drama
writing staffs had 10 percent female writers or less. In film,
women comprised of 14 percent of
screenwriters of top-grossing films in 2008, 2011, and 2013
(Hunt et al. 2014; Lauzen 2012;
Smith and Choueiti 2011b). Female screenwriters of feature
films also experienced a cumulative
disadvantage as gender disparities between male and female
writers tended to increase over their
careers (Bielby 2009; Motion Picture Association of America
2011).
Inequality also existed for actresses, although women found
more visibility on-screen

compared to their presence in behind-the-scenes positions. In
acting, women accounted for
26 percent of lead roles in theatrical films (Hunt et al. 2014, p.
6). Despite being underrepre-
sented in films, on broadcast comedies and dramas, women
accounted for a proportionate share
of lead actors, 51.5 percent, although in cable television, they
fell short of their representative
proportion of the US population with only 37 percent of lead
roles (Hunt et al. 2014, p. 9).
In behind-the-scenes roles, more women were employed on
reality television programs
(28 percent) compared to television dramas (25 percent) and
comedies (22 percent) (Lauzen
2011). However, women were underrepresented as reality
television leads: only 24.5 percent
for broadcast reality leads, on shows like Fox’s The Wendy
Williams Show and ABCs
Live! With Kelly, and 31 percent of cable reality leads, on
shows like E!’s Keeping Up With
the Kardashians and Bravo’s The Real Housewives of Atlanta
(Hunt et al. 2014). Compared to
racial/ethnic minorities, women had greater presence behind-
the-scenes of Hollywood
cultural production, though they still faced underrepresentation
in virtually every occupation.
Quality of representation
Like racial/ethnic minorities, women experienced constraints on
the kinds of work
they performed in Hollywood. For instance, women found
presence in few film genres,
typecasted into some genres and out of others, while men found
presence across all
genres (Erigha 2014; Lauzen 2012). On Hollywood studio films

between 2000 and 2011,
female directors were underrepresented in action and sci-fi
genres and found the greatest
representation in the romance genre, aligning with problematic
stereotypes of women
being overly emotional (Erigha 2014). In the top 250 films of
2011, female directors were most
likely to work in documentary, drama, and comedy genres and
least likely to work in action,
horror, and animated genres (Lauzen 2012). In television,
network executives found it
financially risky to hire women who wrote “against type” or
wrote for male characters (Bielby
2009: 245).
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
Several studies highlighted women’s concentrations in areas of
work that were less lucrative
and profitable relative to men’s areas of work (Erigha 2014;
Lauzen 2008; Lauzen 2009a).
Women were particularly concentrated in film genres with
smaller average budgets like
comedy, drama, romance, and music, compared to genres with
larger average budgets: action,
horror/thriller, and sci-fi (Erigha 2014). At film festivals,
women had greater presence in the
documentary film genre than working on narrative feature films.
Narrative films have a greater
likelihood of wide theatrical releases than do documentary
films, which are usually limited to

exhibition in small art house theaters. Accordingly, women were
28 percent of directors on
documentaries and 15 percent of directors on narrative films
(Lauzen 2009a). Although
documentaries were half of feature-length films at festivals,
two-thirds of women directed
documentaries at festivals, while a minority of women, 32
percent, directed narrative films at
festivals. Women were also more likely to work in behind-the-
scenes roles on documentary
films (29 percent of all behind-the-scenes workers) than on
narrative films (18 percent) at
festivals (Lauzen 2009a). Women’s underrepresentation in
financially lucrative genres places
restrictions on the scope of their work in Hollywood.
In acting Lauzen (2008) found that on average, films with
female protagonists or women in
prominent roles of an ensemble cast had significantly smaller
budgets than did films featuring
male protagonists ($45m compared to $78m). Compared to films
with male characters in fea-
ture roles, films with female characters in feature roles also
opened on slightly fewer screens
(2670 compared to 2832); stayed in theaters for slightly fewer
weeks (12weeks compared
to 14weeks); and had significantly smaller average domestic
box office grosses ($55m compared
to $101m), foreign box office grosses ($57m compared to
$115m), and opening weekend
grosses in domestic markets ($18m compared to $32m).
However, when conditions like
production budgets were equal between genders, box office
grosses for men and women were
similar, suggesting that regardless of the gender of the
protagonist, films with larger budgets tend

to generate larger grosses. Thus, when cultural laborers have
similar quality of representation,
outcomes are more equal. Notions of inequality in cultural
representations can be more
effectively challenged when scholars point to such instances
that undermine the logics of social
disadvantage and show that women and racial minorities would
be equally successful as White
men if given a fair shot.
The link to stereotypes and limited on-screen diversity
Because production and consumption are inextricably linked,
persistent inequality regarding
who creates culture is directly related to the content available
for audience consumption
(Du Gay et al. 1997; Molotoch 2003). Tuchman’s (1978)
foundational work on the production
of visual images of gender initially prompted scholars to take
on questions of who produces
images, forging the missing link between on-screen
representations and the adequacy of
representation behind-the-scenes (also see Bielby 2013). Her
work elucidated two primary
ideas: (i) compared to men, women appeared less frequently in
the media, and (ii) the few visible
depictions of women portrayed controlling images. Still today,
disproportionate representation
of racial/ethnic minorities and women translates to the creation
of a societal culture with
stereotypical images and limited creative visions on screen.
Stereotypes portray groups in controlling ways, labeling some
groups and their perspectives as
socially normative and others as deviant, troubled, and
problematic. In large part, the media is a

central locale where contentious battles over racial and gender
representations take place (Smith
2013; Thakore 2014). With the underrepresentation of women
and racial/ethnic minorities in
Hollywood, White men exercise a cultural imperialism and
hegemony with unilateral control
over media images. In turn, these biased images can influence
social behavior towards members
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
of marginalized groups, impacting public perceptions of
racial/ethnic minorities, women, and
of race and gender relations (Glenn and Cunningham 2009).
Through participation in the film
industry, members of underrepresented groups can impact media
images and cultural products
by contesting and counteracting stereotypes, while dismantling
the White male hegemony of
American civic myth and culture. Without adequate
representation in media, groups lose
power to manufacture and disseminate ideologies and shape
consciousness through the
perpetuation of their own meaning systems (Collins 2009).
Underrepresentation of women and racial/ethnic minorities can
lead to the perpetuation of
racist or sexist stereotypes and myths about marginalized
groups on-screen due to bias or lack of
experience with that group. For instance, because of racial
residential segregation, most White

Americans live in majority-White communities (Charles 2003).
For the production of culture,
this means that White Americans in behind-the-scenes roles
largely create images based on their
imagined perspectives of racial/ethnic communities rather than
grounded upon lived-experiences
(Yuen 2010). Still other White Americans may have had contact
with racial/ethnic minorities
only in particular interactions governed by structured power
relations of domination and subor-
dination. However, in the absence of regular, equal relations
between groups, stereotypes prevail.
Therefore, another way media scholars and sociologists can
challenge their understandings of
cultural representations is through research and inquiry on
cultural decision-makers and pro-
ducers. In what sorts of environments were they socialized?
What beliefs about society inform
their cultural production? Without knowing additional
information about cultural producers,
what feminist scholars call “positionality” (Collins 2009), we
are at a loss for understanding pre-
cisely how their social locations might inform their cultural
products.
Underrepresentation of women and racial/ethnic minorities in
behind-the-scenes positions
in Hollywood also leads to little on-screen diversity. In their
study of the 100 top-grossing
Hollywood films in 2008, Smith and Choueiti (2011b) found
that the employment of women
and racial/ethnic minorities behind-the-scenes positively
impacted their quality of on-screen
images, while an absence of women and racial/ethnic minorities
corresponded with fewer and

less empowered characters. In a similar study, Black film
directors provided a greater number
of roles for Black characters and for female characters (also
Smith et al. 2014). In addition, the
presence of women in behind-the-scenes positions of control (as
producers, executive
producers, and directors) was correlated with more major
female characters and female
characters who were more multi-dimensional, appeared on
screen longer, spoke more often,
interrupted others more, and had the last word more frequently
(Lauzen and Dozier 1999;
Smith and Choueiti 2011b). Without question, racial and gender
diversity behind-the-scenes
impacts the on-screen cultural product, while creative visions
on-screen are significantly
inhibited in the absence of diversity in behind-the-scenes
positions.
However, a lack of diversity behind-the-scenes of Hollywood
cultural productions contrib-
utes to a vicious cycle of unemployment that makes it
increasingly difficult for women and
racial/ethnic minorities to break the chain of
underrepresentation and misrepresentation. Racial
and gender integration behind-the-scenes is a necessary step to
desegregate workplaces and
occupations in Hollywood. For instance, workplaces with more
racial/ethnic minorities or
women in authoritative, behind-the-scenes positions of
influence exhibit higher levels of
gender and racial integration: more women and racial/ethnic
minorities in other cast and crew
positions (Reid 2005; Smith and Choueiti 2011b). On top-
grossing Hollywood films, movies
with a female producer, writer, and/or director were associated

with a greater number of female
actors compared to films with only male producers, writers, and
directors (Smith and Choueiti
2011b). Likewise, African Americans in larger and more
powerful roles on major studio produc-
tions demand inclusion for others, such as facilitating African
Americans’ integration into
predominantly White trade and technical unions (Reid 2005).
However, lacking adequate
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
representation and employment, racial/ethnic minorities and
women cannot effectively create
work opportunities for other underrepresented minorities in
behind-the-scenes positions. Hence,
the lack of diversity enables a cycle of unemployment, leading
to misrepresentation, which pro-
hibits members of underrepresented groups from manufacturing
their own on-screen representa-
tions in mainstream popular culture.
Changing technology, digital media: is a more diverse
Hollywood on the horizon?
Despite their considerable share of the US population, women
and racial/ethnic minorities do
not find adequate representation in Hollywood cultural
production. Proportionally, they are
vastly underrepresented in behind-the-scenes positions. They
are also marginalized in terms

of quality of representation with limited scopes of work:
projects in few genres and on small
scales of production, distribution, and exhibition. In addition,
women and racial/ethnic minor-
ities face underrepresentation in studios and on networks that
are most central to the film and
television industry. This research points to the importance of
studies on industry decision-
making processes, especially on unmasking the process of
hiring workers in above-the-line
positions in cultural industries. Such research will contribute to
understanding the process by
which racial and gender disadvantage in cultural representation
is perpetuated. Moreover, a
sustained understanding of the representation and experiences
of double minorities—people
who are women and racial/ethnic minorities—is lacking. For
example, Black female directors
comprised less than 1 percent of Hollywood directors between
2000 and 2011 (Erigha 2014;
Smith et al. 2014), but beyond this statistic, we know
surprisingly little about the experiences
of women of color who work in media and culture industries.
Understanding inequality posed
by intersectional identities will enable scholars and media
practitioners to more effectively
advocate for the inclusion of a more diverse group of cultural
producers.
Though much research has illustrated the degree to which
women and racial/ethnic minor-
ities are stereotyped on-screen and marginalized behind-the-
scenes in Hollywood film and
television, the path from inequality to parity is less understood.
For women and racial/ethnic
minorities, the laborious road to inclusion in Hollywood has

seemingly come to a standstill.
However, new changes in technology and the ubiquity of digital
media could potentially
disrupt patterns of inequality in Hollywood. For example, Snow
(2001) discussed the promise
that digital technology holds for greater diversity of sources of
cultural production. Likewise,
Guins (2008) found that artistic practices in the digital domain
offered more diversity online
than traditional media studios provided. Although his study
focused on hip hop music, media
scholars could further investigate the racial and gender diversity
of online cultural production
in film and television. Furthermore, Jenkins (2006) discussed
the convergence of film,
television, and the Internet having positive results for digital
media grassroots production that
enables a democratization of media industries with everyday
people contributing to producing
culture.
Evolving programming models also enable a wider range of
content from a diverse array of
cultural producers. A fundamental shift in televisual form
enables content to be viewed at any
time across multiple forms—mobile phones, computers, game
consoles, PDAs, and online
video platforms like Hulu, YouTube, and Netflix—and marketed
to an individual or particular
community rather than to a broad audience (Bennett and Strange
2011). These distribution
channels allow avenues for women and racial/ethnic minorities
to create and disseminate media
to audiences. Knowledge about Hollywood’s reaction to shifts
in cultural production, state-
ments or changes that studio executives make in response to

diversity of digital cultural
production, would contribute to understanding the impact of
new technologies on industry
decision-makers’ positions on racial and gender inclusion in
media industries.
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
Changing racial/ethnic demographics in the US population also
presents captive audiences
for multicultural digital content. Evidence suggests that
millennials, regardless of race, are more
likely than members of previous generations to watch and even
seek out media by or about peo-
ple from racial/ethnic groups different from their own (Beltran
2005). In the Hollywood Diver-
sity Report, Hunt et al. (2014) suggested that Hollywood’s
bottom line would change as the US
population becomes increasingly diverse—as groups that are
now racial/ethnic minorities be-
come the majority. As more people drift to the Internet and
alternate models of distribution
for media content, Hollywood decision-makers might be
compelled to incorporate a more di-
verse group of cultural creators in order to maintain dominance
in the face of greater competi-
tion for audience attention. Whether the mainstream will open
its doors to the inclusion of
racial/ethnic minorities and women, if only to employ co-
optation strategies and drain their
products of any oppositional material, emerging studies point to

a need to articulate how and
why digital media might compel change in diversity in
Hollywood.
Short Biography
Maryann Erigha is currently an Adjunct Professor in the
Department of Film and Media Arts at
Temple University. Her work on race and contemporary media
has appeared in The Du Bois
Review: Social Science Research on Race, The Black Scholar,
and in multiple anthologies. She holds
a PhD in Sociology from the University of Pennsylvania.
Note
* Correspondence address: Maryann Erigha, Temple University,
Department of Film and Media Arts, Annenberg Hall
Room 120, 2020 N. 13th St., Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA. E-
mail: [email protected]
References
Beltran, Mary. 2005. ‘The New Hollywood Racelessness: Only
the Fast, Furious, (And Multiracial) Will Survive.’ Cinema
Journal 44(2): 50–67.
Bennett, James and Niki Strange (eds) 2011. Television as
Digital Media. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bielby, Denise E. 2009. ‘Gender Inequality in Culture
Industries: Women and Men Writers in Film and Television.’
Sociologie du Travail 51: 237–252.
Bielby, Denise D. 2013. ‘Gender Inequality in Culture
Industries.’ Chapter 12 in The Routledge Companion to Gender
and
Media, edited by Cynthia Carter, Linda Steiner and Lisa

McLaughlin. New York: Routledge.
Bielby, Denise D. and William T. Bielby. 1996. ‘Women and
Men in Film: Gender Inequality Among Writers in a Culture
Industry.’ Gender and Society 10(3): 248–270.
Bielby, William and Denise Bielby. 1999. ‘Organizational
Mediation of Project-Based Labor Markets: Talent Agencies and
the Careers of Screenwriters.’ American Sociological Review
64: 64–85.
Bielby, Denise D. and William T. Bielby. 2002. ‘Hollywood
Dreams, Harsh Realities: Writing for Film and Television.’
Contexts 1(4): 21–27.
Caldwell, John. 2008. Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity
and Critical Practice in Film and Television. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Charles, Camille Z. 2003. ‘The Dynamics of Racial Residential
Segregation.’ Annual Review of Sociology 29: 167–207.
Cieply, Michael. 2009. See Any Similarities in These Directors?
New York Times, August 22. Retrieved on October 10, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/business/23steal.html
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2009. Black Feminist Thought:
Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment,
3rd Edition.
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Du Gay, P., S. Hall, L. James, H. Mackay and K. Negus. 1997.
Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman.
London:
Sage/The Open University.
Erigha, Maryann. 2014. Unequal Hollywood: African
Americans, Women, and Representation in a Media Industry.

PhD
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/business/23steal.html
Glenn, Cerise L. and Landra J. Cunningham. 2009. ‘The Power
of Black Magic: The Magical Negro and White Salvation in
Film.’ Journal of Black Studies 40(2): 135–152.
Grindstaff, Laura. 2008. ‘Culture and Popular Culture: A Case
for Sociology.’ Annals of the American Academy of Political
and
Social Science 619: 206–222.
Guerrero, Ed. 1993. Framing Blackness: The African American
Image in Film. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Guins, Raiford. 2008. ‘Hip-Hop 2.0.’ Pp. 63–80 in Learning
Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media, edited by Anna
Everett. Boston: MIT Press.
Hesmondhalgh, David and Sarah Baker. 2011. Creative Labour:
Media Work in Three Culture Industries. New York: Routledge.
Hunt, Darnell. 2002. Prime Time in Black and White: Making
Sense of the 2001 Fall Season. The CAAS Research Report,
vol. 1, no. 1 (Los Angeles: UCLA Center for African American
Studies).
Hunt, Darnell, Ana-Christina Ramon and Zachary Price. 2014.
2014 Hollywood Diversity Report: Making Sense of the
Disconnect. Los Angeles, CA: Ralph J. Bunche Center for
African American Studies at UCLA.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and
New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
Lauzen, Martha M. 2008. Women @ the Box Office: A Study of
the Top 100 Worldwide Grossing Films. San Diego, CA: Center
for the Study of Women in Television and Film.
Lauzen, Martha M. 2009a. Independent Women: Behind-the-
Scenes Representation on Festival Films. San Diego, CA:
Center for
the Study of Women in Television and Film.
Lauzen, Martha M. 2009b. The Celluloid Ceiling II: Production
Design, Production Management, Sound Design, Key Grips, and
Gaffers. San Diego, CA: Center for the Study of Women in
Television and Film.
Lauzen, Martha M. 2011. Boxed In: Employment of Behind-the-
Scenes and On-Screen Women in the 2010–11 Prime-time
Television
Season. San Diego, CA: Center for the Study of Women in
Television and Film.
Lauzen, Martha M. 2012. The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-
Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2011.
San Diego, CA: Center for the Study of Women in Television
and Film.
Lauzen, Martha M. and D. M. Dozier. 1999. ‘Making a
Difference in Prime Time: Women on Screen and Behind the
Scenes in the 1995–96 Television Season.’ Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43: 1–19.
Marcks, Greg. 2008. ‘The Rise of the Studio Independents.’
Film Quarterly 61(4): 8–9.
Molotoch, Harvey. 2003. Where Stuff Comes From. New York:

Routledge.
Motion Picture Association of America. 2011. Recession and
Regression: The 2011 Hollywood Writers Report. Los Angeles,
CA:
MPAA.
Negus, Keith. 1997. ‘The Production of Culture.’ pp. 67–104 in
Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, edited by
Paul du Gay. London: Sage.
Peterson, Richard A. and N. Anand. 2004. ‘The Production of
Culture Perspective.’ Annual Review of Sociology 30: 311–334.
Reid, Mark. 2005. Black Lenses, Black Voices: African
American Film Now. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Scott, Allen J. 2004. ‘Hollywood and the World: the Geography
of Motion-Picture Distribution and Marketing.’ Review of
International Political Economy 11(1): 33–61.
Screen Actors Guild. 2000. Screen Actors Guild Employment
Statistics Reveal Increases in Total Theatrical Roles and
Increases for All Minorities in 2000.
http://www.sag.org/diversity/castingdata.html.
Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. 1997. Unthinking Eurocentrism.
New York: Routledge.
Smith, Jason. 2013. ‘Between Colorblind and Colorconscious:
Contemporary Hollywood Films and Struggles Over Racial
Representation.’ Journal of Black Studies 44(8): 779–797.
Smith, Stacy L. and Marc Choueiti. 2011a. “Black Characters in
Popular Film: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content
Held in the Hand of the Black Director?” Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism, Los Angeles, CA.
Smith, Stacy L. and Marc Choueiti. 2011b. Gender in Cinematic
Content? A Look at Females On Screen and Behind-the-Camera
in

Top Grossing 2008 Films. Los Angeles, CA: Annenberg School
for Communication and Journalism.
Smith, Stacy, Marc Choueiti and Katherine Pieper. 2014.
Race/Ethnicity in 600 Popular Films: Examining On Screen
Portrayals and Behind the Camera Diversity. Media, Diversity,
& Social Change Initiative. Los Angeles, CA.
Snow, Nancy. 2001. ‘Social Implications of Media
Globalization’. Chapter 2, Pp. 17–28 in Media, Sex, Violence,
and Drugs in
the Global Village, edited by Yahya R. Kamalipour and Kuldip
R. Rampal. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Thakore, Bhoomi. 2014. Must-See TV: South Asian
Characterizations in American Popular Media. Sociology
Compass 8(2):
149–156.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. ‘The Symbolic Annihilation of Women
by the Mass Media.’ Pp. 3–38 in Hearth and Home: Images of
Women in the Mass Media, edited by G. Tuchman, A. K.
Daniels and J. Benet. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yuen, Nancy Wang. 2004. ‘Performing Race, Negotiating
Identity: Asian American Professional Actors in Hollywood.’
Pp. 251–267 in Asian American Youth Culture, Identity, and
Ethnicity, edited by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou. New York:
Routledge.
Yuen, Nancy Wang. 2010. ‘Playing ‘Ghetto’: Black Actors,
Stereotypes, and Authenticity.’ Chapter 9, Pp. 232–242 in Black
Los Angeles: American Dreams and Racial Realities, edited by
Darnell Hunt and Ana-Christina Ramon. New York: New
York University Press.

78–89, 10.1111/soc4.12237
http://www.sag.org/diversity/castingdata.html
Copyright of Sociology Compass is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
Curating Inequality: The Link between Cultural
Reproduction and Race in the Visual Arts*
Andria Blackwood, Department of Geography, Kent State
University
David Purcell, Department of Sociology, Kent State University
Although the U.S. population is becoming more racially and
ethnically diverse,
research indicates that minority participation in the arts
continues to decline. This article
addresses the racial disparity of public art museum attendance
by examining the role of
the art museum curator and the process by which concepts of
race are reproduced within
the space of the public art museum. Utilizing Bourdieu’s
theories of cultural reproduc-
tion, social space, and symbolic power as a preliminary

framework of inquiry, we exam-
ine the concept of whiteness as privileged social construct.
Through face-to-face in-
depth interviews with museum curators, we investigate the
means by which the domi-
nant cultural narrative of whiteness is maintained through the
preferences, decisions, and
social interactions of curators. We draw upon critical white
studies, a part of critical race
theory, to underline the manner in which whiteness presents
itself as a position of domi-
nance. Our findings show that whiteness is maintained through
the process of exclusion
by presenting the white cultural narrative as both ordinary and
invisible.
Introduction
While the United States is becoming more racially and
ethnically diverse
(Passel and Cohn 2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2010), minority
participation in
the arts is progressively declining (American Alliance of
Museums [AAM]
2010; National Endowment for the Arts 2009a). The importance
of civic
institutions such as public art museums cannot be understated.
National
Endowment of the Arts (NEA) research reveals a profound link
between
museum attendance and a variety of community involvement,
including volun-
teerism, sports participation, collaborative art-making, and
family attendance
of out-of-school performances (NEA 2009b). Museums have
been shown to

forge bridges between social groups and also foster greater
understanding of
cultures and beliefs (Thea 2009). Moreover, the environment of
civic institu-
tions such as museums has the ability to cultivate dialogue,
engaging as civic
agents to promote general public discourse on such issues as the
changing
concepts of race, ethnicity, politics, and culture (AAM 2010;
Putnam 2001;
Tepper 2011). Thus, it is important to examine the relationship
between race
and the reproduction of culture within the public sphere of the
museum in
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 84, No. 2, May 2014, 238–263
© 2014 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor
Society
DOI: 10.1111/soin.12030
order to better facilitate active, positive, and productive
engagement between
disparate groups.
The majority of research on patronage of the arts focuses on the
demo-
graphics, preferences, and habits of museum visitors, and the
social, cultural,
and generational changes that have taken place within American
society and
their effects on art museum attendance (AAM 2010; NEA
2009a). However,
there appears to be a gap in the literature as to the role curators
may play in

influencing the demographics of museum participation. Thus,
we focus on the
role of the public art museum curator in regard to issues of
racial and cultural
reproduction. We ask: how can the role of curator influence
public participation
in regard to both white and minority populations?
Curators are the institutionally acknowledged experts within the
field of
art and are involved in a variety of professional capacities
(Ramirez 1996).
The Code of Ethics for Curators (American Alliance of
Museums 2009a)
describes the many professional duties of a curator, including
conducting origi-
nal research; developing new scholarship that contributes to the
advancement
of the body of knowledge within their field(s) of expertise;
developing and
organizing exhibitions; assuming responsibility for the overall
care and devel-
opment of the collection; representing their institution in the
media, at public
gatherings, and at professional conferences and seminars;
remaining current in
all state, national, and international laws as they pertain to the
objects in the
museum collection; advocating for and participating in the
formulation of insti-
tutional policies and procedures for the care of the collection
that are based on
accepted standards and best practices; and making
recommendations for
acquiring and deaccessioning pieces within a museum’s
collection (AAM

2009b).
Along with this considerable list of responsibilities, curators are
now also
required to be educational conduits between museum collections
and the public
by developing and participating in educational workshops,
symposia, lectures,
and art classes. Moreover, since the mid-1990s, curators’
professional capacity
has been broadened to include the role of cultural broker: a
controversial role
that is viewed by a variety of art professionals either as helping
to destroy the
restrictive hierarchies inherent in the canon of Western art, or
as aiding in the
production and support of reductive constructs that frame,
package, and market
the collective identities of marginalized groups to elite buyers’
tastes and inter-
ests (Ramirez 1996: 23–24). Curators are considered to be the
“gatekeepers” of
museums as they choose which objects to exhibit, which artists
to showcase,
how art and artist are presented, and how the public will
interact with the art
displayed within the frame of a museum’s physical and
ideological space
(Alexander 1996: 10). Thus, curators wield a great deal of
power in influencing
both the production and presentation of culture embedded
within art.
CULTURAL REPRODUCTION AND RACE IN THE VISUAL
ARTS 239

This research therefore examines issues of cultural
reproduction, power,
and race through the lens of the art museum curator, and
investigating how the
professional capacity of these cultural gatekeepers may
influence the level of
minority attendance within public art museums. Based on in-
depth, face-to-face
interviews with public art museum curators, we investigate how
race is viewed
and constructed within the field of art. Our findings suggest that
cultural repro-
duction surrounding the art museum promotes a narrative of
whiteness through
the preferences, decisions, and social interactions of the
curatorial staff, board
of directors, and donors. Additionally, financial constraints
within public art
museums limit the abilities of curators to address issues of
diversity in purchas-
ing works and presenting exhibits by artists of color as well as
interacting with
the surrounding community. We conclude by discussing
outstanding questions,
this study’s limitations, and future directions for research on the
link between
cultural reproduction, race, and the arts.
Social Space, Privilege, and Culture
Historically, the ideology of public art museums has been
divided into two
distinct arenas: either to acquire, preserve, and display art, or to
educate the pub-

lic on the value of art and the process of art appreciation
(Duncan 1995; Zolberg
1981). Curators play a pivotal role in either approach, as their
choices simulta-
neously create and reflect the dominant cultural narrative
interpreted through the
curators’ training, beliefs, and experiences (Robins 2005). A
museum’s exhibi-
tions and permanent displays communicate this particular
narrative based upon
the selective interpretation and presentation of art by its
curatorial staff (Ruiten-
berg 2011). The racial history of much of this dominant cultural
narrative is
decidedly Western and white and yet, portrayed as neutral and
normative
(Berger 2005; McIntosh 2001; Zolberg 1984). Thus, the choices
of the curatorial
staff illustrate their power to reproduce the dominant cultural
narrative of
whiteness and white privilege, which in turn becomes the social
reality and is
therefore construed by the public to be both normal and
legitimate.
Bourdieu’s (1989) theory of social space and symbolic power
offers a pre-
liminary framework to examine the collective social experience
within the pub-
lic art museum. Bourdieu maintains that social position is
defined by one’s
location within social space, a space which is made up of
economic, social,
cultural, and symbolic resources. Differing access to these
resources creates
variation in social relationships with individuals and groups

“defined by their
relative positions within that space” (Bourdieu 1985: 723–724).
Thus, through
social interaction, social space can be a place of conflict or of
collective unity
(and be both, simultaneously). These social places house the
internal and exter-
nal symbolism that mark their inhabitants as insiders or
outsiders (Dangschat
2009).
240 ANDRIA BLACKWOOD AND DAVID PURCELL
Bonilla-Silva (1996) extends this examination of social space
and sym-
bolic power by connecting social space and symbolic power
with race. Bonilla-
Silva’s concept of “racialized social systems” maintains that
these economic,
political, social, and ideological realms of society are also
influenced by the
placement of individuals into racial categories. Within
racialized social systems,
the categorization of individuals involves a hierarchy whereby
the dominantly
placed race often has greater access to a variety of resources as
well as the
power to designate physical and social boundaries between
itself and other
racially marginalized groups (Bonilla-Silva 1996).
These resources include the cultural images and symbols which
represent
what Bourdieu (1989) labels as the “schemata of classification,”

a symbolic
language that creates and reflects the social reality. Those who
control the sche-
mata of classification control the social space and in turn, the
social positions
within it. Thus, social space can be used as a means of
exclusion by the domi-
nant ingroup—individuals and groups that control the economic,
social, cul-
tural, and symbolic resources—and through the use of symbolic
power,
“impose the vision of legitimate divisions” (Bourdieu 1989: 21)
within the
social space of the public art museum. These boundaries include
a racial iden-
tity, which may be expressed in terms of discrimination and bias
against the ra-
cialized outgroup (Bonilla-Silva 1996; Brewer 1999).
A cumulative body of research examining whiteness in politics
(Avila and
Rose 2009; Holyfield, Moltz, and Bradley 2009), education
(Picower 2009;
Preston 2007), and professional sports (Newman 2007;
Staurowsky 2007) sup-
ports the notion of the construction and utilization of racialized
privilege in var-
ious institutions. Cultural capital, defined as the
“institutionalized, high-status
cultural signals used for social and cultural exclusion,” presents
an avenue for
exploring whiteness and white privilege within public art
institutions, as white-
ness becomes part of the visual code used for social and cultural
exclusion (La-
mont and Lareau 1988: 156). Culture is powerful, for it contains

the ideas,
beliefs, and traditions of a group or society while
simultaneously offering the
means for collective communication, interaction, and cohesion
(Swartz 1997).
Art museums transmit culture linking individuals and
solidifying group mem-
bership by communicating these ideas, beliefs, and traditions
via visual codes
(Bourdieu and Darbel 1991; Swartz 1997). Hence, meaning
accorded to visual
art objects and the social interactions surrounding them can
reflect the privi-
leged social construct of whiteness and add legitimacy to the
racialized social
hierarchy within society.
White privilege and cultural reproduction in the arts are
connected by the
interaction between art object, museum, and patron. White
privilege presents a
series of rewards, including “the probability that imagery will
support the white
experience, the ability to purchase imagery that reflects
whiteness, and the
ARTS 241
ability to remain unaware of other languages and customs of
persons of color
without feeling guilt or ignorance” (McIntosh 2001). Cultural
capital as a pow-
erful tool of social and cultural exclusion has the ability to

frame the cultural
experience of the art museum as a racial experience of white
privilege. Hence,
public art museums contain the power to control the
categorization as well as
legitimize the method of classification within the realm of ideas
known as cul-
ture (Alexander 1996).
Moreover, within the art museum, the power to present racially
marginal-
ized groups as “the other” is often expressed in terms of its
visual relationship
to the white dominant group (Desai 2000). Exhibits are
frequently packaged as
properties and exploited by the theme of “the other” to appeal to
the broadest
possible audience (Noriega 1999; Zolberg 1981). Artworks from
countries such
as China and Japan are often displayed using iconic definitions
of Western art
standards and interpretations (Desai 2000). These standards are
set by art
museum professionals—the curators, directors, and board
members—who have
the power to impose a certain cultural value and status within
the field of art
(Acord 2010). Whiteness thus becomes the unnamed norm as
non-whites are
presented as separate, and “othered” in contrast to the standard
of whiteness.
“Othering” is defined as the reductive representation of an
entire group
into dichotomies of “us versus them,” or “primitive versus
civilized,” to be

used a marker of identity within a social hierarchy predicated
upon power and
status (Said 1979). Examples of “othering” in art are discussed
in Berger’s
(2005) critique of works of the mid-1800s American genre
painter William Sid-
ney Mount. Berger’s research reveals the embedded racial
identities of Mount’s
white and non-white subjects which enable audiences to invoke
a decidedly
European American view of “a series of binaries” (industrious
and lazy, awake
and asleep, white and black) giving whiteness tangible visible
traits. This ra-
cialized view within art and its subsequent reductive stereotypes
is also exam-
ined in the research of sociologist Stuart Hall (1997) through
his discussion of
the reification of the “cultural other.” Stating that black artists’
works have
become “the multi in multicultural,” Hall (1997: 274) maintains
that this reifica-
tion mutes the individual voices of black artists within the
culturally dominant
structure of the art museum or gallery. This research expands
upon the con-
cepts of social space, symbolic power, race, and exclusion in
order to examine
how whiteness is embodied within the field of art through the
social interac-
tions and cultural resources associated with public art museums.
Methods
Employing an inductive grounded theory approach (Corbin and
Strauss

1990), we gathered and analyzed data from the actual
experiences of curators
engaging in their profession within the field of the public art
museum. Data
were gathered by the first author through face-to-face
interviews at nine
museums open to the general public in a Midwestern state in
summer 2011.
Utilizing U.S. census data (2010), we chose ten museum sites in
nine different
rural, suburban, and urban areas in order to account for
differences in
population density, regional employment opportunities,
interests, and cultural
offerings. We further divided our sample by choosing five sites
that 2010 U.S.
census data indicated were weighted heavily toward a black
population and five
sites that were heavily weighted toward a white population. We
use this
method of site selection to account for possible differences in
exhibition offer-
ings and attendance demographics. Curators were recruited
personally by mail
after a review of museum Web sites. All but one museum
responded, for a total
of nine museums in nine different metropolitan locations: four
museums in
predominantly white regions and five in predominantly black
regions. Eleven
public art museum curators and five public art museum directors

were
interviewed. All directors interviewed were acting in a
curatorial capacity due
to budget cuts and the elimination of curatorial staff.1 The
demographics of
interview participants categorized by race, gender, and degree
earned are
described in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographics of Survey Participants
Participant type Number
Total number 16
Females 11
Males 5
Master’s degree
Total 6
Female 6
Male 0
Doctoral degree
Total 10
Female 5
Male 5
Title of curator 11
Title of director 5
Race—white 16
ARTS 243

Interviews were semi-structured yet flexible to allow for the
discussion of
topics deemed relevant by the participants. Our questions
focused on the duties
and practices of actively employed museum curators as well as
their conceptu-
alizations of art, quality, culture, community, race and
ethnicity, and their insti-
tutions of employment. The interviews, which lasted between
one and three
and one-half hours in length, were conducted at the
participants’ places of
employment, digitally recorded (with two exceptions),2 and
transcribed verba-
tim. We manually coded all interview data and field notes and
initially focused
on keywords such as “white,” “culture,” “European,” “history,”
“fundraising,”
and “money.” Each sentence was coded—often with multiple
codes—to make
certain of complete theoretical understanding and treatment.
These codes,
including all variations, were later grouped into substantive
categories which
were then checked for exclusivity. As interviews progressed,
subsequent inter-
view questions were added to focus on specific categories until
saturation (no
new knowledge of an idea or concept) was reached. Our
categories included
cultural reproduction as the means by which societal values and
beliefs are rep-
licated within the art museum; museum bureaucracy and how
this bureaucracy
affects cultural reproduction; and the interaction between race

and art, and how
race is defined and presented through curatorial behavior and
attitudes. Reflec-
tive memos were written to aid in the understanding of the
relationships
between categories. Further analysis revealed theoretical links
between catego-
ries concerning curators and the connection between cultural
reproduction,
social space, and race in the field of art. Categories were
ordered into a logical
whole, pointing to an explanatory theory.
Findings
Whiteness: The Role of Curators and Patrons
Curators have the ability to project a particular social reality
and to push
social and intellectual boundaries by presenting these cultural
images and sym-
bols through various forms of media (Paul 2005) as well as to
ask thought-pro-
voking questions by exhibiting controversial works of art (Cuno
et al. 1997).
The curator’s crafting of an exhibit has the ability to project the
politics, ideol-
ogy, and values of the time (Staniszewski 1998). Throughout
our study, cura-
tors reflected on their choices and the collections under their
care while
discussing their role in reproducing and normalizing the
dominant cultural nar-
rative. To investigate the power curators have in crafting the
cultural narrative
our initial questions concerned cultural reproduction, we asked

the following.
What cultural messages do you feel the art itself imparts to the
viewer? What
responsibility and/or influence do you feel you have, if any, in
crafting these
messages? What constraints, if any, do you encounter?
Nine curators readily acknowledged their role in defining
culture, while
seven seemed to underplay or discount their role in the process.
Discussing the
artworks under her care, Gwen, a curator of contemporary art,
explains the
shaping of historical context and the connection between art,
social class, and
status:
GWEN: So a museum is a place of understanding: seeing the
real thing and
not the reproduction, actually being in contact, in the flesh with
the
work and learning about history. So there is only one history
this
museum tends to say. It could be a little more articulate (here).
FA (First Author): What history is that?
GWEN: It’s the history of the rich people who bought these
pieces and now
we (curators at the museum) understand that it’s not any more
just
about that but…I think that everyone in any point in time (here)

thought that they were doing their best…doing the best for
everyone.
A historical perspective can point to the manner in which much
of muse-
ums’ permanent collections denote an underlying narrative
linking issues of
race, status, and social class (Thompson 2008). Walter, a
curator of European
painting and sculpture, expressed similar views, connecting the
permanent col-
lection under his care with race and a history of whiteness:
I might like to think these things (issues of culture and history)
are sort of broadly under-
stood; not at all. So there’s a kind of remoteness. Yeah, I mean
it’s also…you know it IS
European so in a sense it’s not (understood) and it’s OLD so it’s
not (understood)… it’s nei-
ther contemporary…which in itself has a whole set of
problematic…and it’s you know, about
a very particular set of cultures which are, you know…white.
Whiteness also extended to the artists as well as the art
collectors.
Throughout our interviews, whiteness of art and artists was
presented as the
unquestioned norm, with white art and artists deemed generic
without race or
ethnicity. Nine curators readily acknowledged the whiteness of
art. However,
three curators proclaimed that the field of art, and specifically
the curatorial
profession, had moved beyond this limiting vision of race and
ethnicity. Geof-
frey, a museum director with over 30 years of curating

experience, recognized
the whiteness of art as well as issues of gender embedded within
the field of
art:
There’s been an unspoken norm—it’s not even unspoken. I
mean Guerilla Girls (an anony-
mous group of feminists who fought sexism within the visual
arts) made their point not all
that long ago…like only 8% of the artists at MOMA on the
walls were women. And that’s
changed, but it’s not 50%, so yeah, that was very vocally
attacked and…laid bare for what it
was…the art was mostly white males.
ARTS 245
Curators frequently referenced only white male artists in their
comments,
and notably, no curator referenced any artist of color in
describing significant
art or beloved American artists. For example, Lucy, a curator of
prints and
drawings, referenced Winslow Homer and Edward Hopper in her
discussion of
prominent American artists, while renowned African American
artists such as
Robert S. Duncanson, Jacob Lawrence, Edmonia Lewis, and
Romare Bearden
were noticeably absent. Whiteness was also part of the
underlying standard of
cultural excellence in Edward’s discussion of prominent artists
in American art

and American history:
We chose to emphasize an historical perspective; Velasquez to
Warhol. Warhol is considered
to be the master of post-modernism. Rauschenberg, Johns (all
white male artists)…all these
artists give us a unique perspective of history. This is all part of
American art and American
history.
Museum patrons also influence the selection of predominantly
white artists
and white art. Curators discussed visitors’ lack of art knowledge
and how this
unawareness constrains the choices of exhibits, limiting the
cultural narrative.
Curatorial selections of exhibits are often made based on the
amount of recog-
nition an artist or art movement seems to have with the public.
Lena, a
museum director with over 20 years of curating experience,
lamented the lim-
ited repertoire of proven exhibits and the dubiousness of
success in curating
lesser known or even unfamiliar works of art:
It’s hard to figure what people like in exhibitions. You know
people like Impressionism and
Egypt. Past that you never know. Part of the problem is the
average person—the only people
they’ve heard of are Picasso and Renoir…and they love Egypt.
So maybe Michelangelo will
fill a room. So if you go away from those ten names, let’s say.
You just don’t know.
Patrons’ lack of knowledge and limited familiarity of artists

(Newsom and
Silver 1978) encourage a cycle of whiteness in the presentation
and exhibition
of art (Berger 2005). Thus, the dominant cultural narrative is
recycled, further
supporting the value and meanings connected to whiteness.
These values and
meanings permeate throughout our culture creating an
overarching narrative
which is fostered and projected by the museum curator, viewed
as the arbiter
of the standards by which art and artists are judged (Bourdieu
1993; Brody
2003). This narrative often contains an element of ingroup and
outgroup status
for art and artist (Brody 2003). Curators shape these distinct
groups through
the presentation and interpretation of art within exhibitions
(Robins 2005).
These distinct groups can include a racial component in which
the dominant
cultural narrative of whiteness is put forward and seen as
neutral and normative
(Banks 2010; McIntosh 2001).
Art viewers seek out familiar elements when examining art in
order to pro-
vide individual meaning, which in turn invokes “memories,
associations, and
emotions” (Smith 2006). The experience of white privilege
allows for whites to

interact with images that represent their race and life experience
on a frequent
basis (McIntosh 2001). The unacknowledged norm of whiteness
becomes a
standard by which all other forms of art are judged (Rosenthal
2004). Several
curators reflected on interactions with visitors that made this
outgroup status
clear. Jessica, a director acting as curator of a small municipal
museum,
described one encounter illustrating the standard of whiteness
and the exclu-
sionary experience that can take place within a public art
museum:
I brought…they were a group of primarily African American
students into the gallery and I
essentially said… “How do you feel? These are all white
people.” And they were pretty…
some were more honest than others. And they said, “Well, you
know black people were
slaves. They didn’t have money. They couldn’t pay for a
painting.” They also recognized that
or…what else did they say… some of them…one did say, “Well,
you”—you know, meaning
the museum—“didn’t think black people were important, so you
don’t have any paintings of
black people.” So yes, it was like, “It’s like this all over.” It
was kind of like an acknowl-
edged dismissal and probably chalked up as kind of a
shortcoming on our part.
White privilege can also appear in art museums through the
order of pre-
sentation. Geoffrey discusses the arrangement of art by culture
and the subtle

symbolism behind this presentation:
In a museum like this, right now today, because we have
Oceanic art and African art and
Asian art—it would be very difficult to say with OUR collection
right now that the majority
were white males because we’re so multicultural on the walls.
In the European and American
galleries though…what’s interesting is that they’re the two
galleries that are upstairs and they
take the entire first floor (laughing). You literally go down to
the basement sort of, physically
to see the other cultures, which is a little weird. It’s not
foregrounded like the American and
European art. Like you walk in…And there it is.
Gwen also addresses the power of exclusion in choosing works
of art.
When directly asked about issues of race and exclusion, she
points to several
issues of inequality inherent within the collection under her
care. She goes on
to discuss matters of choice, recognition, and constraints in
acknowledging
artists, presenting art, and purchasing artworks:
I want to show you these two pieces over here. We only have
two pieces hanging here that
are by African Americans. You could never tell they were done
by African Americans. This
(African American) artist and this (white) artist are
contemporaries. They were good friends
and often worked together, but THIS artist (white) is the one
that is renowned. Why is that? I
don’t know. This (African American artwork) is an important
piece. It paved the way for all

these artists (gestures to a section of all white artists) over here
in this part of the gallery
space. He was a huge influence, a pivotal force. Is it his best
work? I don’t know, but I had
to work for hours to convince the director to let us have it and it
was a donation! Very few
people have heard of him; the public. No one knows. I told the
accessions committee that we
needed to be more diverse, that only about 3.5% of the art was
done by non-white males.
They asked me why that mattered.
ARTS 247
The phrase, “you could never tell they were done by African
Americans,”
was echoed by another curator, demonstrating the “centrality of
whiteness”
(Tierney 2006) in norming the art experience. Art, as a
representation of cul-
ture, is therefore a “positional truth” connected to issues of
history, power, and
authority (Abu-Lughod 1991). This positional truth has shifted
throughout
history, excluding the participation of not only people of color,
but women
(Guerilla Girls 1998), gays (Katz 2008), and youth (Mason and
McCarthy
2006) as well. Jessica’s African American students
demonstrated an acknowl-
edgement as well as an acceptance of this exclusionary
experience and also the
feelings of powerlessness to change it. Both Jessica and Gwen

admitted to
issues of inequality and also the need for art museums to
address these issues.
Jessica spoke of broadening the collection to better reflect the
diversity of our
society. Gwen talked of the necessity to press for recognition
and inclusion of
artists of color.
All curators spoke of the need for some kind of change,
including broad-
ening their reach, expanding their collections, and calling for
more diversity
within their profession. Institutions such as the Museum of
Contemporary Afri-
can Diasporan Arts (MoCADA) (2011) also recognize and
promote the need
for curatorial diversity and a moving away from the Western
standard of art in
order to make the experiences and identities of minorities and
minority artists
more visible. Gant’s (2011) preliminary research of art
museums within New
York State—one of the most racially and ethnically diverse
states in the coun-
try (American Community Survey 2010)—indicates that the
racial minority
presence of museum staff is highly underrepresented.
Additionally, African
Diaspora curators, as well as those on the continent itself,
continue to wrestle
with the Western colonial way of viewing other cultures
demonstrating the
breadth and width of whiteness within the field of art
(Chikukwa 2011). Gwen
referenced a past experience at another institution outside the

region in which
she curated:
I’ve come to understand that the reason why art galleries do not
see a lot of African Ameri-
cans is that there isn’t a lot of African American curators. I
don’t know why that is… but I
mean it is clearly an aspect of American society and it’s an
impermeability that is still
there… but I had an African American colleague when I was at
(another institution) and you
know… she made the difference between night and day. One
day all of a sudden our audi-
ence changed and that’s because she was there. Absolutely. Of
course, you as a curator have
to make an effort to be welcoming and to be… to work on this
and everyone around you has
to do it. But, little by little it happened. It was unbelievable.
These struggles with issues of authentic representation illustrate
the persist-
ing marginalization of other cultures and identities within the
field of art as a
whole, as well as the inherent power of cultural production.
Bureaucracy, Money, and Whiteness
Curators often spoke of the constraints that prohibited them
from affecting
these changes. Many of these constraints center on the power
dynamics and
money associated with the internal workings of the art museum.

The debate over
money, power, and art is well documented and centers on whose
voice carries
more weight: the curator, the “stakeholders,” or the public
(Cuno et al. 1997).
Structural elements within the field of art and within the art
museum itself also
influence the cultural narrative. This portion of the interviews
revolved around
this initial question: In what ways do the board and your
sponsors (financial
backers of a specific exhibit) enhance or inhibit your
choices/actions?
Curators raised several issues involving museum bureaucracy. A
key factor
of the museum bureaucracy is the power and prominence of the
board and its
affiliates, which helped shape the selective interpretation and
presentation of
art. The influence of whiteness is reflected in the museum’s
board members,
donors, and patrons. The museum’s continual need for funding
enables the
board to influence the museum’s choices of art and art exhibits,
and thus repro-
duce the dominant cultural narrative of whiteness.
According to all curators interviewed, all of the museums that
are exam-
ined in this study are similarly administered. Public art
museums are organized
and managed by a board of trustees whose primary role is
fiduciary. Board
membership is voluntary and members are nominated and
elected by existing

members of the board. The director is employed by the board
and oversees the
collections, research, exhibits, and “public face” of the
museum. The director
hires curators to manage each particular department, such as
contemporary art
or renaissance painting and sculpture. Curators consult the
director in regard to
new acquisitions and the selection of possible exhibits. All
fiduciary issues of
acquisition and selection are brought before the board after
being vetted by the
director. New art purchases and the leasing of outside themed
exhibits must be
approved by the director and then the board. The board has final
say in all mat-
ters of purchasing and leasing.
Historically, money has influenced the arts through patronage
and/or pur-
chase (Banks 2010; Thompson 2008; Zolberg 1984). Board
members are
among the key “stakeholders” in a museum. Their main focus is
the manage-
ment of money, which involves acquiring donors, attracting
audiences, and
maintaining legitimacy (Alexander 1996). Members of the board
tend to be
white and have a certain level of education, wealth, power, and
prestige; as
such, the social space they inhabited represents whiteness and
an elevated
amount of economic and cultural capital.
When asked about the diversity of the museum boards, curators
responded

with a variety of answers that revealed the normative view of
whiteness by
ARTS 249
associating diversity with gender, age, or occupation—race was
absent in all
but one of curators’ responses. For example, Jessica responded
by first
discussing gender:
FA: So how diverse is the board?
JESSICA: The board is, I would say…fairly representative of
the
community; probably hovering in the 60–70% sort of range.
There’s some work to do.
FA: What do you mean by 60% to 70%?
JESSICA: Gender and age. OK (slightly defensively)…the
missing 35–40%
is that we don’t have as much racial diversity as we should. We
also probably need some socioeconomic diversity but that’s
very
difficult for nonprofits…for whom…nonprofits that rely on
their
board as essentially fundraising instigators.
Jason responded to the question of diversity through
occupational prestige,
while Harriet, director and curator of a small rural museum,
replied by discuss-

ing age:
JASON: It’s the way that boards work and they select people
from various
aspects of the community, I mean it includes SOME diversity…I
mean there’s a MINISTER…I mean they try to be inclusive but
most of them have a financial responsibility.
HARRIET: It’s not as much (of a closed circle) as it used to be.
We’ve been trying
to break out of that as much as we can…and go to younger
people.
The necessity of external funding and maintaining social
networks that can
tap new financial connections dominated much of the curator’s
comments. The
non-profit status enables public art museums to receive grants.
However, it was
agreed by all curators interviewed that grants are no longer
enough to support
a museum. It was apparent throughout the course of all
interviews that the
search for financial support and the overall lack of financial
resources influence
board choices and membership. Issues of racial and ethnic
diversity are over-
shadowed by the need to acquire a steady stream of funding.
Lena described
board members as, “friends of people who are already on the
board…they’re
generally from big corporations in town, banks, philanthropists,
people who
have art collections.” Cameron gave a similar description,
saying that board
members tend to be “economically well-placed…they’re

successful business
men and women from the community or sometimes they come
from old
money. Many of them are art collectors in their own right.”
Many curators are uncomfortable talking about diversity.
Geoffrey further
explains the tension between a museum’s desire for a diverse
board that reflects
the community population and the need for financial resources:
We have a diverse board and we have African Americans on the
board. We don’t consciously
say, “Oh, do we have someone from the Asian community,
someone form the Indian commu-
nity?” I mean it would be great if you know we had
various…every type of ethnicity and reli-
gion or whatever—we don’t—but we definitely try and get
people from…certainly
geographically from around the region; different areas, different
backgrounds, different jobs.
We hope the way things are that the board members bring their
connections with them. I mean
that is DEFINITELY part of it. Can they help fundraise
and…We’re always looking for people
that can inspire giving and can help with the fundraising; so
that’s a big plus if they bring that.
The continual quest for financial resources aids in the
reproduction of
whiteness among board members. Attached to whiteness is a
shared cultural

narrative of history and identity (Frankenberg 1993), creating a
high degree of
social and cultural isolation (Bonilla-Silva, Goar, and Embrick
2006). The
board’s whiteness becomes “racialized” through the norming of
matters such as
personal preference, emotion, and esthetics (Bonilla-Silva
2003). Throughout
our interviews, it became clear that the racialization found
within the board-
room creates definite esthetic as well as social constraints.
Many of the constraints placed upon art museums and art
curators are
fiduciary in origin. The recession of 2008 created a financial
setback—often
significant—for all art museums in our study. All curators
indicated that
decreased financial support from corporate sponsors, private
donors, and gov-
ernment-funded grants has forced many museums to cut back
their programs.
In turn, shortage of funds has eliminated staff, stifled
community outreach, and
curtailed curators’ choices of exhibits. This lack of financial
support has helped
to create a whiteness of place by compelling the museum and its
staff to adhere
to more conservative policies that align with a proven base of
support. The
museum community is predominantly older, whiter, and better
educated (NEA
2009a). Policies aimed at maintaining these established
audiences are therefore
chosen by default to support the visual symbols of racial
exclusion predomi-

nantly white-approved art and white artists—which distinguish
the dominant
group. Although many curators stated that they continue to offer
a variety of
exhibits and programs, they also confessed that financial
setbacks have severely
curtailed these offerings, thereby reducing their impact.
Geoffrey discusses the
impact of reduced funding on the nature of exhibits and the
pressure curators’
face to produce exhibits of quality as well as exhibits that are
profitable:
GEOFFREY: Can you keep doing shows on Rockwell ad
nausea? When
you have a bad turn out for a particular show, it so impacts
the board. The board looks at your numbers and asks, “Well,
ARTS 251
what happened here?” Well, you know nobody knew who the
artist was. “Well, who do people know?” Well, they know
Rockwell and they know Monet and they know Warhol (all
white males)…it’s like the same five shows over and over.
FA: So it does become almost circular in the sense that it’s the
same
artists…
GEOFFREY: Absolutely, over and over again.
Policies aimed at attracting this established audience are also
reflected in

the expanded duties of curators, who are now required to
actively pursue
donors. Curators acknowledged that these donors are largely
linked to board
members by personal affiliation. The curators’ pursuit of donors
reproduces the
whiteness of structure by mirroring the whiteness, wealth, and
power of its
board. Cameron illustrates this link between whiteness, money,
and art in
describing his expanded duties as curator:
Curators today are expected to be many more things. We’re
involved in development…we’re
expected to convey a group of donors through the galleries if it
benefits the institution.
Museum donors are treated with deference in order to insure
their financial
support and to establish a long-term relationship that continues
from one gener-
ation to the next (Alexander 1996). Donors wield a certain
amount of leverage
in the choice of art and art exhibits. Art and status are linked by
money and
the prestige that art symbolizes (Thompson 2008). Culture is
therefore repro-
duced through the taste and values of the donors connected to
the museum as
well as its board (Alexander 1996). Since financial support
supersedes all other
needs, the choices and voices of the art museum curator are
constrained and
compelled to reflect the taste and values of those connected to
power and
money. Consequently, the exclusionary cycle of whiteness is

reproduced, a
never-ending circle of donor, board, director, curator, and art
object based upon
the underlying whiteness privilege and power. Power and
culture merge as the
defining characteristics of culture are dictated by the dominant
group.
The Interaction between Race, Place, and Art
Art museums project a predominantly white image (Berger
2005; McIn-
tosh 2001) creating a place of whiteness, which in turn fosters a
social barrier
of racial exclusion (Fredericks 2011; Gilmore 2002; Shaw and
Sullivan 2011).
The lead question in this portion of the interview was: In what
way do you feel
any group, such as a specific racial or ethnic group, might feel
either included
or excluded in the museum experience and/or the art on display
within it?
Twelve curators spontaneously noted the perception of
whiteness of place
when discussing museum patronage and recognized that
reaching beyond the
demographic of whiteness requires an acknowledgement that art
and art-making
is a varied practice. Lucy talked about the whiteness of place
and linked the art
and the social experience in her explanation:

I think, unfortunately, there’s a perception that there isn’t
anything there for me, kind of thing
among some people (in reference to African Americans). That
the artists who show here have
nothing to do with me and my life, which I think if they came,
they would see that wasn’t
true. I think it’s also museums tend to be very social
experiences. I mean some people come
alone, but most people come in pairs or small groups and it can
just be a factor of, “It’s not
something my close-knit group of people does together.”
Alice and her colleague Lydia described their efforts in
attempting to fos-
ter a place of racial and cultural inclusion for an African
American audience:
LYDIA: We met with an African American women’s group
about exhibitions.
ALICE: We were trying to talk to them about an exhibition that
we were
planning. We were going to have African American artists in it,
but
they weren’t even particularly interested in that. They only
wanted to
know about exhibitions that were ABOUT African Americans or
African American art, because this exhibition wasn’t
specifically
about African American art; it just happened to have a number
of
African American artists in it.
LYDIA: They had very specific ideas about the types of art they
were familiar

with and the types of art they wanted to see. But they made it
very clear
that those weren’t going to be like gateway exhibitions or
exhibitions
that would get them in the door initially so they would come
back and
consider other exhibitions. So we were really dismayed at first,
I think,
because of that. Because in OUR mind…OK so if we had a
show, like
a quilt shown of African American quilts that would get them in
the
door then hopefully, that would be a way that you would get
people in
here initially…would get them comfortable.
ALICE: We were trying to talk to them about cultural identity
and the
complexity of cultural identity and they weren’t interested. And
we
thought surely—maybe this was, well obviously, that was pretty
na€ıve on our part.
Alice and Lydia highlight the complexity of cultural
reproduction and the
intricacies of creating an authentic experience within the space
of an art
museum. Urban researchers maintain that culture is a powerful
means of exclu-
sion through the production and domination of geographical
space (Shaw and
Sullivan 2011; Zukin 1995). Many curators attempt to alter this
perception of
white space within the art museum through targeted exhibits,
hoping to connect

ARTS 253
with other communities. However, there is often a racial and/or
cultural
disconnect between the curatorial staff and the public it is
trying to reach
(Cuno et al. 1997). Wendy described curating two exhibits that
effectively
reached the African American community in her town. Her
description also
showcases the astute observation of one of the African
American artists:
Well, we try to reach out to the African American community.
We have had two shows (two
African American artists). Both of these shows were very
popular with the African American
community. After the one artist had his opening, he told me it
was the first time he had a sea
of black faces at an opening. He said most of his openings are
white.
However, the attempt by Geoffrey’s museum to reach the
African Ameri-
can community had limited success:
I went to the radio stations in black communities, black radio
stations. And one of the things
that just sort of blew me away personally—for example, I was
talking with a radio show host,
and his station is about I would say less than a minute drive
from here…and he asked me
where the museum was. I mean, because he really didn’t know.

Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx

Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx

Similar to Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx (18)

More from rosemariebrayshaw

More from rosemariebrayshaw (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sociology Compass 91 (2015) 78–89, 10.1111soc4.12237Rac.docx