Indeed, it’s for assortive mating, which is a phenomenon of many if not all societies (even if the US press has only discovered it over the last decade). But t

Indeed, it’s for assortive mating, which is a phenomenon of many if not all societies (even if the US press has only discovered it over the last decade). But then such systems are to preserve class status and power. These cultural practices then serve multiple functions: one is to provide a common culture that makes such marriages work, another is to use values-based definitions which makes them both more flexible and yet more clear. One point overlooked by this excellent article is the structure of the shift to highbrow culture. Before ~1900 the activities were not only expensive (e.g. the Season, the hunt) but were rooted in lowbrow culture as much as today (an aristo could reasonably participate in farm festivals, help with a cow with a breach calf, etc without loss of status). The Bloomsbury shift to “highbrow” reflected the post WWI (relative) impoverishment of the elites: it didn’t require the extravagant expense of balls and states, yet still required (less) expensive education and leisure time. It could also be paid for by the state (as discussed in the article by the BBC, but also museums and such), something the elites had the right access to effectuate, transferring the funds from a broader tax base to their own benefit.