The last few months have seen a huge level of attention on inequality in the arts and media industries. Much of the discussions have been focused on a new term, the ‘nepo baby’. This describes a very old phenomenon, whereby the children of those successful in an artistic or media profession are also successful themselves. The controversy has been driven by a combination of comments seeking to own or to downplay family influence on success; or analysis of why the phenomenon of the nepo baby has now come to prominence.
Writing in Vice, the journalist Elle Hunt offers a comprehensive analysis linking the rise of ‘nepo baby’ discussions to the very real inequalities we see in key professions in film, television, and the performing arts. It cites analysis that Mark Taylor, Orian Brook and I developed in Culture is bad for you, and refined in a paper published with Andrew Miles in the journal Sociology.
In Culture is bad for you we tried to stress two things. First is the reality of inequality in cultural jobs. This reality is that cultural jobs are both highly socially exclusive, even compared with other high-status occupations, and not at all representative of the rest of the British population.
This reality is that cultural jobs are both highly socially exclusive, even compared with other high-status occupations, and not at all representative of the rest of the British population.
Second, we demonstrate this problem of inequality in culture has been with us for a long time. For example, we used census data to understand the history of social class in the cultural workforce. In the early 1980s, someone from a middle-class background was around four times as likely to make it into the cultural sector as someone from a working-class background. Those odds had not changed by 2011. Analysis of more recent Office for National Statistics data shows similar levels of stability in the class composition of cultural jobs since 2014.
Underneath the statistics are the lived experiences of creatives facing indifference and discrimination. These show how women, people of colour, people with caring responsibilities, women, and those from working class backgrounds have to navigate a system set up to limit both their career success and their creative expression. While our book focuses on these groups, we know other groups, for example disabled people, face similar barriers and struggles for stable careers.
These experiences contrast with those from middle-class backgrounds. Making it in the cultural sector is difficult for everyone, and everyone faces labour market issues such as low pay and precarious contracts. Yet even seemingly shared issues, such as working for low or no pay, are experienced differently by those from middle class origins. Indeed, the fact that everyone seems to face issues associated with pay can lead to a false sense of shared experience, allowing those with the highest levels of cultural, social, and economic resources to claim they have struggled in the same way as those without wealth and connections.
Making it in the cultural sector is difficult for everyone, and everyone faces labour market issues such as low pay and precarious contracts.
In the conclusion to Culture is bad for you we set out the dilemma for those seeking to challenge and change inequalities in the cultural sector. These broad discussions have been matched by recent policy-focused interventions, for example from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity. In their Creative Majority report they focused on what policy makers and organisations can do to make the arts more equitable, inclusive, and diverse.
At the same time, both these policy focused interventions and Culture is bad for you recognise that one reason inequalities have existed in culture for so long is that the groups who benefit from them adapt and resist change. What works to address inequalities will inevitably have a shelf life, often of only a few years. In this context one crucial question becomes what sort of strategies do those ‘at the top’ of creative industries use to stay there, and indeed how do they bring the next generation of social, cultural, and economic elites in after them? This, and associated questions looking at elite dominance of creative occupations, is where our research is going next.
Dave O’Brien is a Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries at University of Sheffield.
Together with Orian Brook and Mark Taylor he is a co-author of Culture is bad for you: Inequality in the creative and cultural industries.