|
||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Syllabus for Sociology 530w
The Sociology of Culture: An Introduction
Phone: (8-1971)
Term: Spring, 1997 (2:30-5:30pm, Thursdays)
Place: Princeton University,
Department of Sociology
Eligibility:
Enrollment
in this six-week "mini-seminar" is open to any graduate
student in Sociology, any other social-science department or the
Woodrow Wilson school. Graduate students in other departments
may apply to instructor for admission. Under special circumstances,
qualified undergraduate sociology majors will be admitted.
Purpose: The
seminar is intended to survey the field, exposing you to major
research traditions, themes, and areas of study. In so doing,
it provides an overview for the curious and a platform for those
who wish to do further work (research, comprehensives reading,
teaching, etc.) on culture, broadly defined.
Scope: Sociologists
use the word "culture" to mean many things, some cognitive
(ideas or schemata), some behavioral (e.g., rituals. speech),
and some physical (art works, sermons, the periodic table). We
shall attend to all kinds, as long as they have something to do
with meaning (whether divined from the structural relations among
cultural elements or inferred from utterances and writings of
people dead or living).
Discussion: The
sociology of culture is among the broadest, fastest-moving, and
most fuzzily-bounded of sociology's "subfields," encompassing
sociology of the arts (including sociologies of art, literature,
and music); sociologies of mass media and of popular culture;
sociologies of religion, of science, and of law; sociology of
language, cognitive sociology, sociology of knowledge, sociology
of ideas; and doubtless others I have forgotten. Although the
seminar's topic makes institutional sense, it is intellectually
odd in that "culture" is less a distinct area of social
life than an aspect of almost any phenomenon one might study.
This raises four temptations in syllabus-building, two of them
OK, and two of which I have resisted.
1. A bias towards institutional
studies: If one identifies the sociology of culture with the study
of distinct institutional areas (art, religion, science, law),
one has the great advantage of a bounded subject area, the study
of which can attend even-handedly to the full range of practices
and structures that constitute the institution in question. Arguably,
sociologists of culture have made particular headway in these
areas, which are represented on the syllabus but do not dominate
it.
2. A bias towards studies
with cultural "dependent variables." Studies may be
recognized as cultural in so far as they are concerned with explaining
cultural phenomena -- ideologies, attitudes, values, schemata,
or discourse, for example. There is lots of good work of this
kind, and it will be represented on the syllabus.
The third and fourth temptations
reflect not conventions of classifying subject matter, but an
irony associated with the fact that every phenomenon has a cultural
aspect. If an article attempting to explain something that is
not itself "culture" -- for example, a behavioral or
structural regularity or historical event -- appears to be about
"culture," the author is likely to have overestimated
the influence of culture and slighted other factors. In so far
as culture is integrated properly into the analysis, the work
may appear not to be "about culture" at all. This invites
the syllabus-maker to indulge:
3. A bias towards metatheory:
If in empirical work a preoccupation with culture may lead to
an analytic imbalance, in theoretical work it is perfectly legitimate
to ask how cultural aspects of phenomena can best be conceived
and studied. This is important work -- sociology's theoretical
and methodological treatment of culture is far less advanced than
its treatment of structural phenomena -- but only as a guide to,
not a substitute for, research. Rather than start with meta-theory,
we spend the first 5 weeks on empirical work, which prepares
us to consider programmatic claims in week 6.
4. A bias towards studies
that overemphasize the importance of the cultural aspect of their
subject. The sociology of culture suffers in so far as its practitioners
are tempted to cheer on cultural variables for their own sake.
(The situation has gotten worse as culture has become more fashionable:
when most authors ignored culture, a paper that merely acknowledged
culture's importance seemed to be "about" culture.
Now that everyone believes that culture matters, the threshold
is higher.) We will be vigilant in our efforts to detect any
tendency of the authors we read to place a thumb on the scales
when weighing the importance of culture.
Aside from all this, there
is so much interesting work spread out over such a vast substantive
terrain that selecting just enough for six weeks -- the perpetual
problem of mini-courses -- is even harder than usual. A syllabus
that organized weeks around really interesting substantive or
theoretical questions about which there is a tradition of good
work would run on for many semesters. (I've limited myself to
six assigned, and eight recommended, readings per week. For more,
see the supplementary reading list, awarded as a door prize to
all students attending the first meeting.)
Instead, the approach of this
seminar is to begin with relatively "micro" perspectives
on culture -- cognitive, interactionist, constructionist, etc.
-- and to move towards more "macro" perspectives over
the course of the first five weeks of the seminar, before ending
with a theoretical stock-taking in week 6. This approach has
the advantage of producing a fairly broad survey, for as one moves
from micro to macro the sorts of constructs people use to represent
culture tend to change, as do the kinds of things they study and
the means they use to study them.
The syllabus reflects a bias
towards empirical articles. I focus on articles because they
are shorter than books, and therefore we can read more of them.
(Some books I'd like to assign are listed under "recommended
readings.") I focus on the empirical because the point
of the sociology of culture is to explain things -- about either
culture or other phenomena that cannot be understood without reference
to culture. (Note that this does NOT entail a rejection of
interpretation,
as sociological explanations of culture very often require interpretation
as a necessary step.) I define "explanation" broadly,
but exclude opining without evidence. Other biases: against duplicating
other graduate courses (mine on culture and cognition, Professor
Lamont's version of this one); and (though I've tried to fight
it), towards literatures (e.g., on the arts rather than science,
micro or meso rather than macro issues)) with which I am more
familiar.
A. Students are expected to do the reading thoroughly before the class meeting for which it is assigned, and to participate actively in class meetings. Emphasis is on mastering, responding critically and creatively to, and integrating the seminar's material. Be able to answer the following questions about each assigned reading:
1. What research question is the author is trying to answer?
2. What is the author's definition of "culture" (or the aspect of culture on which she or he focusses)? How does the author operationalize the cultural element and how tight is the fit between operationalization and definition?
3. What is the nature of the author's evidence and how does she or he bring that to bear on the research questions?
4. How satisfactorily does the author link the evidence to the conclusions?
5. What does the paper accomplish? What have you learned from it?
B. You are required to complete a memorandum of approximately 500-1000 words on the week's readings BEFORE four of the six class meetings. (No credit will be given for memoranda handed in late, as part of the point is to prepare you to participate actively in seminar discussion.) Please view memoranda as writing and thinking exercises, not as finished products. Use them to engage each week's materials, respond with questions, criticisms and new ideas that they suggest, and put into words impressions that seem worth developing. Use at least two of your memoranda to discuss how, if at all, the week's readings inform your own research agenda -- e.g., by suggesting ways of posing questions, or new approaches to operationalization or research design.) Memos also provide a means by which I can give you ongoing individualized feedback.
No term paper or research
project is required, nor is there a final examination.
Readings:
Two copies in seminar box in mailroom, at least one week before
seminar.
OUTLINE AND READINGS
Thursday, Feb. 6\Week 1: The Micro-Sociology of Culture
Berger and Luckman's ideas
about constructionism are so fundamental to the sociology of culture
that we begin with a selection from their classic book. My paper
reviews a lot of empirical results from cognitive and social psychology
and argues that they bear significantly on sociological concerns
about culture. The remaining four papers are straightforward
empirical studies coming out of different theoretical traditions
- Eliasoph from Goffman's dramaturgical approach; Erickson from
anthropologically informed ethnomethodology; Fine and Hochschild
from symbolic interactionism.
Berger P.L., Luckman T. 1966.
The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Pp. 28-92.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. Culture
and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 24.
Eliasoph, Nina. 1990. "Political
Culture and the Presentation of a Political Self." Theory
and Society 19: 465-90.
Erickson, Fred. 1975.
"Gatekeeping
in the Melting Pot." Harvard Educ.Rev. 45: 44-70.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1979. "Small
Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League
Baseball Teams." American Sociological Review 44:
733-45.
Hochschild, Arlie. 1979. "Emotion
Work, Feeling Rules and Social Structure." American Journal
of Sociology 85:551-75.
Recommended:
D'Andrade R. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press
Fine, Gary A. and Sherryl Kleinman. 1979. "Rethinking Subculture: An Interactionist Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 85:1-20.
Gamson WA. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Garfinkel H. 1987 [1967]. Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. In his Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 35-75. Oxford: Polity Press
Gumperz, John J. 1982. "Conversational Code Switching." Pp. 38-99 in Discourse Strategies. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, Talcott and Edward A. Shils. 1951. "Values, Motives and Systems of Action." Pp. 47-275 in Toward a General Theory of Action, edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schuman, Howard and Lawrence Bobo. 1988. "Survey-Based Experiments on White Racial Attitudes Towards Residential Integration." American Journal of Sociology 94: 273-99.
Zerubavel E. 1997. Social
Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge:
Harvard Univ. Press
Thursday, Feb. 13\Week 2: Culture in Organizations, Communities and Networks
Here we move to the meso level,
with research on culture in networks and organizations. Bernstein's
seminal paper integrates Durkheim and Marx to embed language use
and cognition in the social relations of the family. DiMaggio
and Mohr use Bourdieu's theory (itself influenced by Bernstein)
but reinterpret it in a network framework and test it with survey
data. Erickson, critical of Bourdieu, reports fascinating findings
about social differentiation and culture use in an occupational
community. Schooler summarizes results of a research program
that Kohn started almost 40 years ago, which analyzes the influence
of environmental structure (in home, school and workplace) on
cognition (with cultural implications). Hofstede et al. and Morrill
provide splendid examples of use of quantitative comparative and
ethnographic methods, respectively, to study culture in formal
organizations.
Bernstein, B. 1975. Social
class, language and socialization. In Class, Codes and Control:
Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language, 2nd ed.,
pp. 170-189. New York: Schocken Books.
DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr.
1985. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection.
American Journal of Sociology 90, 1231Ä61.
Erickson, Bonnie. 1996. Culture,
class, and connections. Am. J. Sociol. 102: 217-51.
Hofstede, Geert, Bran Neuijen,
Denise Ohayv, and Geert Sanders. 1990. Measuring Organizational
Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases."
Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 286-316.
Morrill, Calvin. 1991. "Conflict
Management, Honor and Organizational Change." American
Journal of Sociology 97: 585-621.
Schooler, Carmi. 1987.
"Psychological
Effects of Complex Environments During the Life Span: A Review
and Theory." Pp. 24-49 in Cognitive Functioning and Social
Structure Over the Life Course, edited by Carmi Schooler and
K. Warner Schaie. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Recommended:
Dobbin F. 1994. Cultural models of organization: the social construction of rational organizing principles. In The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, ed. D Crane, pp. 117-42. Cambridge:Blackwell.
Douglas M. 1966. Purity and Danger.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hagan, John. 1991. "Density and Drift: The Risks and Rewards of Youth." American Sociological Review 56: 567-82.
Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
Martin J. 1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Swidler, Ann. 1979. Organization Without Authority: Dilemmas of Social Control in Free Schools. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1972. "Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity," American Journal of Sociology 77: 660-79.
Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning
to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. N.Y.:
Columbia Univ. Press.
Thursday, Feb. 20\ Week 3: The Institutional Production of Culture
This week's readings (and
week 5's) were the most painful to pare down, and final choices
bordered on arbitrary. Start with Bourdieu, who sets out the
critical metaphor of field, some version of which is necessary
to unify analysis of different cultural spheres, and some useful
ways to think about it. Then move to the arts, where the Bielbys
demonstrate how hard data and field work can reveal the institutional
logic of a production system and Griswold demonstrates how creative
research design can yield replicable findings about cultural change.
The remaining papers deal with cuisine, science, and religion,
respectively. Fantasia investigates a surprising case of cultural
change and cultural contact. Gieryn's classic paper describes
how scientists construct boundaries that preserve their autonomy
and prestige. Iannaccone's intriguing rational-choice approach
to religion probes the utility of market metaphors.
Bielby, William T. and Denise
D. Bielby. 1994. "`All Hits Are Flukes': Institutionalized
Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program
Development," American Sociological Review 59: 1287-1313.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. "The
Field of Cultural Production." Pp. 29-73 in The Field
of Cultural Production. N.Y.: Columbia Univ. Press.
Fantasia, Rick. 1995. "Fast
Food in France." Theory and Society 24: 201-43.
Griswold, Wendy. 1981. "American
Character and the American Novel," American Journal of
Sociology 86: 740-65.
Gieryn, Thomas F. "Boundary-Work
and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests
in Professional Ideologies of Scientists." American Sociological
Review 48 (1983): 781-95.
Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1991.
"The Consequences of Religious Market Structure." Rationality
and Society 3: 156-77..
Recommended:
Crane, Diana. 1987. The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World, 1940-85. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio P. 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston. Media, Culture and Soc.4:33-50, 303-21
Fleck L. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Gitlin, Todd. 1978. "Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm." Theory and Society 6: 205-54.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1978. The Sociology of Science. N.Y.: Free Press.
Peterson, Richard A. and David Berger. 1975. "Cycles in Symbol Production: The Case of Popular Music," American Sociological Review 40: 158-73.
Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The
Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World
War II. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Thursday, Feb. 27\Week 4: Cultural Consumption and Reception
Again, we start with Bourdieu,
this time Distinction, a richer, more interpretive, less
economistic work that those that preceded it: We read his chapters
on cultural choice among the upper middle and working classes.
Again, the readings strive for diversity in method and institutional
realm. Bryson and Peterson/Kern both look at survey data on patterns
of musical taste -- the latter at how many things people like
and the former about what they dislike -- to make inferences about
social organization. Shively's paper also deals with intergroup
differences in response to the popular arts (John Wayne films)
but uses focus group and interviewing methods to explore their
reception. Stromberg also relies on interviews and ethnography
to study the interpretation of religious ideas within a Swedish
community. Sadly, there has been little comparable work in science;
so we turn for inspiration to Robert Darnton's wonderful description
of popular beliefs about science at the dawn of the industrial
revolution.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984.
Distinction:
A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.Translated by Richard
Nice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Chapters
5 ("The Sense of Distinction," pp. 260-317) and 7 ("The
Choice of the Necessary," pp. 372-96).
Bryson, Bethany. 1996. "Anything
But Heavy Metal: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes."
American Sociological Review 61:884-99.
Darnton, Robert. 1970. Mesmerism
and the End of the Enlightenment in France. Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Press.
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger
M. Kern. 1996. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore."
American Sociological Review 61: 900-907.
Shively J. 1992. "Cowboys
and indians: perceptions of western films among American Indians
and Anglos." Am. Sociol. Rev. 57:725-34.
Stromberg, Peter. 1981.
"Consensus
and Variation in the Interpretation of Religious Symbolism: A
Swedish Example." American Ethnologist 8: 544-59.
Recommended:
Ammerman, Nancy T. 1987. Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Finke, Roger, Avery M. Guest, and Rodney Stark. 1996. "Mobilizing Local Religious Markets: Religious Pluralism in the Empire State, 1855 to 1865." American Sociological Review 61: 203-218.
Griswold W. 1987. The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. Am. J. of Sociol. 92:1077-1117
Halle, David. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Levine, Lawrence W. 1984. 'William Shakespeare and the American People: A Study in Cultural Transformation." American Historical Review 89: 34-66.
Press, Andrea L. 1994. The Sociology of Cultural Perception: Notes Towards an Emerging Paradigm. Pp. 221-45 in Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Diana Crane. London: Basil Blackwell.
Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature. Durham: University of North Carolina Press.
Wilensky, Harold L., 1964.
Mass society and mass culture: Interdependence or Independence.
American Sociological Review 29, 173-97.
Thursday, March 6\Week 5: The Macro-Sociology of Culture
So many types of research
fall under this rubric that many wonderful papers ended up on
the cutting room floor. I expanded the "recommended"
list to reflect the fact that we really needed two weeks to even
scratch the surface of such work. The readings deemphasize the
kinds of ambitious comparative or historical studies that require
books, not papers, to report, and fail to represent work that
uses formal modelling or survey data to generate insights about
culture at the level of national societies or beyond. The first
four readings use data of different kinds to draw inferences about
large-scale culture and cultural change: Binder employs content
analysis of media messages; Frank, a student of John Meyer, uses
many forms of data to explore culture in the world system; Lieberson
and Bell employ data on children's first names and Mohr codes
directories of charity organizations, subjecting the data to structural
analysis. Skocpol takes a more conventional comparative historical
view in her analysis of the role of culture in the Iranian revolution
(a deviant case from the standpoint of her earlier theory), and
Snow et al.'s paper is a fine example of an active area in cultural
analyis, the social-movement field.
Binder, Amy. 1993. "Constructing
Racial Rhetoric: Media Depictions of Harm in Heavy Metal and Rap
Music," American Sociological Review 58: 753-67.
Frank, David John. 1995. "The
Individualist Polity and the Prevalence of Professionalized Psychology:
A Cross-National Study." American Sociological Review
60:360-77.
Lieberson, Stanley and Eleanor
O. Bell. 1992. "Children's First Names: An Empirical Study
of Social Taste." American Journal of Sociology 98:
511-54.
Mohr John W. 1994. Soldiers,
mothers, tramps and others: Discourse roles in the 1907 Charity
Directory. Poetics 22:327-58.
Skocpol, Theda. 1982. "Rentier
State and Shi'a Islam in the Iranian Revolution." Theory
and Society 11: 265-83.
Snow, David A., E.B. Rochford
Jr., S. Warden and R.D. Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes,
Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological
Review 51: 464-81.
Recommended:
Beisel, Nicola. 1990. "Class, Culture, and Campaigns Against Vice in Three American Cities,1872-1892." American Sociological Review 55): 44-62.
.Buchmann, Marlis. 1989. The Script of Life in Modern Society: Entry into Adulthood in a Changing World. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans and Bethany Bryson. 1996. Have Americans' Attitudes Become More Polarized? American Journal of Sociology 102:690-755.
.Dobbin, Frank. 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age. N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Douglas, Mary. 1978. Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.
Elias, Norbert. (1938) 1978. The Civilizing Process, Vol. 1: The History of Manners. N.Y.: Urizen Press.
Friedland, Roger and Richard Hecht. 1996. To Rule Jerusalem. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Gouldner, Alvin W., 1976. The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Hannerz, U. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning.New York: Columbia University Press.
Ikegami, Eiko. 1995. The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Jackman, Mary R., and M.J. Muha. 1984. "Education and Intergroup Attitudes: Moral Enlightenment, Superficial Democratic Commitment, or Ideological Refinement?" American Sociological Review 49: 751-69.
Kaufer, David S. and Kathleen M. Carley. 1993. Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change, ed. David Kaufer and Kathleen Carley. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lamont, Michèle, 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Mannheim, Karl. [1928] 1952. "The Problem of Generations." Pp. 276-321 in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. D. Kecskemeti. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Schwartz B. 1991. Social change and collective memory: the democratization of George Washington. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:221-36.
Strang, David and John Meyer. 1993. "Institutional Conditions for Diffusion." Theory and Society 22: 487-512.
Thomas, George M. 1989. Revivalism and Cultural Change: Christianity, Nation Building and the Market in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1995. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. N.Y.: Scribners.
Wuthnow R. 1989. Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment and European Socialism. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Zelizer, Viviana. 1985.
Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children.
N.Y.: Basic Books.
Thursday, March 13\Week 6: Taking Stock -- Programs and Prescriptions
After examining a wide range
of research on culture in its various guises, we should be prepared
to come to some generalizations about what ideas and methods bear
fruit (for which purposes) and which do not; and therefore to
evaluate programmatic statements. This week's reading range
widely in focus and perspective. Alexander and Smith call for
a multidimensional neo-Durkheimian perspective on culture, while
Emirbayer see, in the integration of cultural and network approaches,
a solution to the problem of agency. Friedland and Alford develop
the idea of institutional logics, proposing to place culture at
the center of the study of political sociology and social change.
Hannerz develops ideas about how to study culture in a world
in which it is more likely to be found in and carried by transnational
networks than closed communities. Schudson derives lessons from
media studies on how and why symbols influence social action.
Swidler's classic paper argues that it is more fruitful to think
of culture as a set of recipes for action than as coherent sets
of values or norms, and her paper with Jepperson draw implications
for empirical research.
Alexander, Jeffrey and Peter
Smith. 1993. "The Discourse of Civil Society: A New Proposal
for Cultural Studies." Theory and Society 22: 151-207.
Emirbayer M, Goodwin J. 1994.
Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. Am. J.
Sociol. 99:1411-54.
Friedland R, Alford R. 1991.
Bringing society back in: symbols, practices, and institutional
contradictions. Pp. 223-62 In The New Institutionalism in
Organizational
Analysis, ed. WW Powell, P DiMaggio. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press
Hannerz, Ulf. 1989. "Culture
Between Center and Periphery: Toward a Macroanthropology."
Ethnos 54: 200-16.
Jepperson R, Swidler A. 1994.
What properties of culture should we measure? Poetics 22:359-71.
Schudson M. 1989. How culture
works: perspectives from media studies on the efficacy of symbols.
Theory and Society 18: 153-80
Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture
in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological
Review 51: 273-86.
Recommended:
Archer, Margaret S. 1985. "The Myth of Cultural Unity." British Journal of Sociology 36: 333-53.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Griswold, Wendy. 1987. "A Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Culture." Sociological Methodology 17: 1-35.
Schneider, Mark. 1993. Culture and Enchantment. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Sperber, Dan. 1985. "Anthropology and Psychology: Towards an Epidemiology of Representations." Man 20: 73-89.
Warner, R. Stephen. 1993. "Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 98: 1044-93.
White, Harrison C. 1992. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Wuthnow R. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press