Peterson and Kern 1996 first coined the term in their studies of audience segmentation in the United States ( Peterson 1992 , Peterson and Kern 1996 ). These studies stand in close dialogue with discussions in Gans 1975 on mass culture and the relationship between the elite and the masses in the cultural sphere. However, the thesis later received the attention of researchers, in works such as Bennett, et al. 2009 ; Bennett, et al. 1999 ; and Lamont and Fournier 1992 , who have been highly engaged (critically or noncritically) with Bourdieu’s work and this significantly changed the trajectory of the debate. Bourdieu 1984 uses the terms capital, field , and habitus to show the correspondence between cultural and economic hierarchy. For Bourdieu, taste, or cultural appreciation patterns, which are also the concern of the omnivore thesis, are important avenues to show the reproduction of privilege and the arbitrariness of “high culture” definitions. The omnivore thesis can be considered a critique of Bourdieu’s thesis of cultural hierarchy, since it points to a shift in cultivated fractions’ appreciation from cultural exclusiveness toward tolerance. To place specific case studies on omnivorousness into a larger context, including issues of tolerance, class, distinction, privilege, fields, and capitals, one needs to go back to these theoretical and empirical reference texts.