Primary and secondary cultural practices

Daily cultural practices (internal) are underestimated compared to external cultural offerings, yet the latter are secondary in people’s lives. Professionals must acknowledge this reality.

Two Levels of Cultural Practices

I refer to primary cultural practices as the daily cultural habits embedded in people’s routines: listening to music on a portable device, turning on the radio in the morning, watching a Netflix series in bed, scrolling through TikTok to unwind, etc. These are deeply rooted, widespread practices that, in my view, are not taken seriously enough in our reflection on the cultural offerings provided by cultural institutions.

We could even adjust the terminology and speak of internal cultural practices and external cultural practices. This might evoke the bedroom culture concept proposed by Simon Frith (1978), later taken up by Sonia Livingstone (2002), François de Singly (2006), and then Hervé Glevarec (2010). However, these sociological studies do not consider the bedroom as a space for cultural dissemination that competes with external spaces like movie theaters, theaters, or even television. Dominique Pasquier’s work is based on studies of social media usage predating the rise of Netflix and TikTok. To my knowledge, there is no sociological study yet on the “update” of bedroom culture. What happens in the realm of internal cultural practices—whether in the bedroom, during commutes, in classrooms, or even in cafés with friends—has not yet been studied rigorously, as it is overshadowed by the simplistic view of screen time as a youth issue and not at all recognized as a widespread adult practice (though it is). I invite sociologists to delve into this topic with qualitative research.

Working Toward Complementarity

My point here is not to pit the two types of cultural practices (internal and external) against each other, but rather to weave connections between them, while keeping in mind that our cultural offerings are secondary in people’s lives. To compensate for this—something we’re well aware of, since we too watch series on our phones—we assign a highly symbolic weight to external cultural practices: we claim that what we offer is of excellent quality, that it will be remembered and appreciated at a much higher level precisely because it exists outside the everyday. These are representations meant to reassure us, to self-legitimize us as cultural professionals, and to convince ourselves of the superior value of what we do.

Yet, this is absolutely not the case. Our offerings are secondary in people’s cultural practices and in their lives. I believe it’s important to be aware of this, to be clear-eyed about it, so that we—as professionals in the cultural, social, and educational fields—can question ourselves about our openness to others. We assume our offerings are better, but in reality, we know very little about people’s primary, daily cultural practices.

Respecting Cultural Rights

Here’s an example: the vast majority of cultural, social, and educational professionals I work with have no engagement with TikTok and know nothing about the modes of cultural practice on this platform, the types of content shared there, or the creativity young people display in that space. They all believe TikTok is just one-minute dance videos. Yet, in 2025, these same professionals hold significant decision-making power.

What I want to highlight here is not that cultural professionals should spend their days on TikTok, but simply that it’s essential not to be in denial about the primary cultural practices of the people we address. Because, inevitably, our secondary cultural offerings are dialectically framed, for citizens, in relation to their primary cultural practices. Our proposals are contextualized, compared, evaluated, and perceived based on these primary practices, which remain largely unknown to us.

So how can we formulate relevant proposals? I’m speaking here within the realm of subsidized culture—that is, culture funded by citizens themselves through taxes. Private cultural offerings can do as they please: people choose to buy or not, but they haven’t prepaid for what’s offered to them. However, once they have prepaid for something, we have duties toward them: to respect their cultural identities, and thus their cultural rights—meaning we must first take an interest in them before developing the cultural offerings we will provide. This is our role, our duty. It is our responsibility.