The Morphology of Cultural Consumption Repertoires

  • Vincenzo Cicchelli
  • Sylvie Octobre
Part of the Consumption and Public Life book series (CUCO)


Aesthetico-cultural cosmopolitanism takes many different forms of openness to other cultures and in no way signifies a total lack of interest in national products. Cosmopolitan openness is largely governed by the mise en genre process—a concept we propose in this chapter—rather than the overall intensity of youth cultural consumption. It entails the categorization of cultural products according to their national origins and their attributed aesthetic characteristics, a process that sometimes operates based on clichés and stereotypes. Mise en genre is at the heart of appropriation by young people in the context of the contemporary proliferation of cultural goods. Those who consume the greatest amount of cultural products are not necessarily the most open to other cultures. As a result, we are forced to separate consumption patterns from the intentions behind these acts of consumption: it is possible to consume many foreign products without ever thinking about different cultures and countries, just as it is possible to consume few foreign products, but in a specific cultural sector that strongly encourages curiosity about foreign countries and cultures. It is, in fact, intention that defines the cosmopolitan outlook.


  1. Crane, Diana. 2014. Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry: Cultural Policies, National Film Industries and Transnational Film. International Journal of Cultural Policy 20 (4): 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Curran, James, and Myung-Jin Park. 2000. Beyond Globalization Theory. In De-Westernizing Media Studies, ed. James Curran and Myung-Jin Park, 3–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Donnat, Olivier. 1999. Les pratiques culturelles des Français, enquête 1998. Paris: La Documentation française.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2009. Les pratiques culturelles des Français à l’ère numérique. Paris: Éditions La Découverte and Ministry of Culture and Communication.Google Scholar
  5. Donnat, Olivier, and Florence Levy. 2007. Approche générationnelle des pratiques culturelles et médiatiques. Culture prospective 3: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gao, Zhihong. 2009. Serving a Stir-Fry of Market, Culture and Politics—On Globalization and Film Policy in Greater China. Policy Studies 30 (4): 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldstein-Gidoni, Ofra. 2005. The Production and Consumption of ‘Japanese Culture’ in the Global Cultural Market. Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jost, François. 2011. De quoi les séries américaines sont-elles le symptôme? Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  9. Moïsi, Dominique. 2016. La géopolitique des séries ou le triomphe de la peur. Paris: Stock.Google Scholar
  10. Octobre, Sylvie. 2013. La lecture à l’ère du numérique. Études, May, 607–618.Google Scholar
  11. Octobre, Sylvie, et al. 2010. L’enfance des loisirs, trajectoires communes et parcours individuels de la fin de l’enfance à la grande adolescence. Paris: Ministry of Culture and Communication.Google Scholar
  12. Pang, Laikwan. 2005. Copying Kill Bill. Social Text Summer 23 (2): 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peterson, Richard A. 1992. Understanding Audience Segmentation, from Elite to Omnivore and Univore. Poetics 21: 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peterson, Richard A., and Robert Kern. 1996. Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore. American Sociological Review 61 (5): 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomson, Pauline. 2016. La Pop Culture Peut-Elle Remplacer les livres d’histoires? Slate 01/03/2016.
  16. Tomlinson, John. 2007. The Culture of Speed. The Coming of Immediacy. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Cicchelli
    • 1
  • Sylvie Octobre
    • 1
  1. 1.GEMASSCNRS/University of Paris-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations