aceUVi

identified components of cultural value (eg, aesthetic, spiritual, symbolic values),
Throsby ‘subsequently treats those values as given, as inputs in an economic
valuation process’. Klamer prefers to the think of valuation as a dynamic process.
Instead of assuming that values are fixed and only need to be measured, he
‘considers the discursive context wherein values of cultural goods evolve’. Klamer
laments that neoclassical economics focuses exclusively on the moment of
exchange, so that ‘all valuations and evaluations, all deliberating, negotiating and
conversing, all dealings are at that moment congealed in a single value: price’.
Instead, he maintains that one must understand this process, which he calls ‘valorisation’,
in order to render a full account of the value of cultural goods.
This view provides strong support for those who emphasise the need for qualitative
and narrative assessments of cultural value to accompany quantitative data in
making the case for the value of arts and culture (eg, O’Brien 2010, 9). Following
Klamer’s rationale, even if it were possible to accurately capture the full value of
culture in a single number, to do so would be missing the point. Understanding
why people value cultural goods is just as important as understanding (and is
indeed an important factor in determining) how much they value that good.
Like Throsby, Klamer uses the term ‘cultural capital’; however, he uses it with an
entirely different meaning. For Klamer, cultural capital refers to people’s ‘inbred,
acquired and developed ability to experience the sublime or sacred character of
a good, to see its beauty, or to recognise its place in cultural history’. In short, it
is the capacity to experience cultural value. This use of the term ‘cultural capital’
is closer to that advanced by Pierre Bourdieu in the field of Sociology than to the
economic meaning described by Throsby, and might be considered a component
of what Alan Brown calls ‘readiness-to-receive’ (see below). Crucially, cultural
capital accumulates in people and is increased through their consumption of
cultural goods in Klamer’s interpretation, whereas it is stored in cultural objects
in Throsby’s view. Throsby actually agrees that the ability to appreciate arts and
culture develops through repeated exposure over time; however, he describes this
phenomenon in terms of ‘cultural competence’ and ‘rational addiction’, rather
than as ‘cultural capital’ (Throsby 2011, 115).
For Klamer, cultural capital is what ‘lends us the ability to realise a meaningful
life over and beyond its economic and social dimensions’. As an example, he
cites Australian aboriginals, who may enjoy rich cultural lives on account of their
rituals and practices (ie their stock of cultural capital), even if they have little
formal education or income. The fact that cultural capital accumulates on the side
of the consumers in Klamer’s view explains why for him, ‘cultural policy needs to
be, at least partially, focused on education’ and stimulating public discourse about
Framing the Conversation 40
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences